Chapter XV
“That King, although no one denies, his heart was of abnormal size,
Yet he'd have acted otherwise, if he had been acuter.”
-------------------------------
By 1889, Emperor Pedro II of Brazil had cemented a place for himself and his country on the the world stage that no other leader in South America could claim. Although he had personally become tired of statecraft by this point, the Imperial family retained immense popularity, even after the controversy associated with the emancipation law signed by Princess Isabel.
“Theodore Roosevelt, President Ned Harriman’s Secretary of War, often said that there were two rebellions that he could never quite work out the motive for. The first was the French Revolution which overthrew the July Monarchy of King Louis-Philippe. The second was the aborted coup d'etat against the Brazilian Imperial family in 1889. Brazil - the only empire in the new world aside from the two short-lived Mexican puppets - was an improbable enough regime, but Roosevelt’s incongruity certainly warrants close study. When news of the attempted deposition of Pedro II reached Europe, the reaction was broadly one of bafflement. Under the liberal rule of the Braganzas, Brazil had enjoyed fifty years of almost unbroken peace and prosperity. For moderates of all colours, the Brazilian Empire seemed to represent the long-heralded wedding of hereditary monarchy with widespread personal and economic freedoms. The attempted banishment of the genteel and well-liked old monarch,
“the grandson of Marcus Aurelius” as he was whimsically christened by Victor Hugo, shocked the liberal intelligentsia of Europe, with the Brazilian military establishment being widely demonised as ungrateful and selfish rogues, seemingly determined to send the country down the same route of colourless colonels and rule-by-decree that was perceived to dominate the rest of Latin America during this period.
The common view of the Crisis of 1889 has almost exclusively focused on the dispassionate position afforded by the army towards the imperial government, with a resentment building towards a typically South American attempt by a small minority of officers to seize power against the popular perceptions of civil governance. In actuality, anger towards Pedro and his family was far more widespread than either their supporters, either domestic or international, have been prepared to admit. Indeed, that a few rebellious regiments stationed in Rio de Janeiro were able to come so close to toppling the imperial rule shows that the alleged resoluteness of the Empire at this time was demonstrably false. The foundations of the Empire of Brazil were at their weakest at the end of Pedro II’s long reign. Had they not been, then neither the republican coup, nor Empress Isabel’s Constitutional Convention of 1892 would have taken place. In 1889, the Empire had lost a great deal of legitimacy, which is best shown by contrasting it with the old monarchies of Europe. To be successful, a monarch requires pomp, ceremony and an aristocracy centred around social position, if not political power. Under Pedro, the Brazilian Empire failed on all three. The peerage was almost entirely honorific, with none of the familial ties that gave strength to the Lords of the United Kingdom or Germany. The massed ranks of Counts and Barons had been created ten-a-penny, often for little more than charitable work or philanthropy, or simply by decree of a Prime Minister who wanted to reward sycophancy. In 1883, the nobility was composed of one duke, five counts, thirty-nine viscounts and two hundred and sixty-eight barons. Titles were based on geographical titles and little else, creating a host of people who saw little difference between constitutional monarchy and the promise of liberal republicanism. Equally, the imperial court had almost none of the trappings of power that his counterparts in Europe observed. Whilst ostentatious gilt and gold did little to show the consolidation of revolutionary fervour amongst the proletarian of Russia and Hungary, the Emperor dour austerity served to alienate him from the social elite. This lack of interest in the perception of the imperial court is perhaps best summed up by Pedro’s own admission that
“if I were not emperor, I should like to be a school teacher. I know of nothing nobler than to mould the mind of youth, preparing them to be the men of the future." Whilst humble, by the late-eighties, support for the Brazilian monarchy was already fading amongst the constituency most likely to back it.
When Pedro left for Europe in the spring of 1887 to receive medical treatment, Isabel became acting-Head of State when the division between progressives and conservatives over the slavery issue were at their height. When Isabel signed the Act of Emancipation - or
A Lei Áurea (Golden Law) - on 13th March 1888, it prompted massive celebrations amongst all but a small minority of the population, placing the dynasty at the zenith of public support. Even the most experienced of Isabella's advisors tended towards a highly cavalier attitude towards Emancipation. In a letter to the conservative Senator, Baron Cotegipe, the former Liberal Prime Minister, Manuel de Sousa Dantas, simply replied;
"If it were better only to wear the crown a few hours and enjoy the immense happiness of being a fellow worker with a whole people in such a law as this, than to wear the same crown year upon year on the condition of keeping up the accursed institution of slavery. No, there is no danger. From my experience and on my political responsibility I declare from my seat in this house that today we have a new country, that this law is a new constitution."
However, support from planters was not forthcoming, with a number joining the republican cause. Portentously for the monarchy, these movements were at their strongest in the most populated urban provinces of Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Minas Geraes. As 1889 approached, a number of rallies were held by the republican movement, who demanded an end to reparations as well as the opening of discussions into a new constitutional deal. Shortly before the end of her regency, Isabel had held a summit with the Church leadership, with whom the imperial administration had developed increasingly bitter relations with thanks to a combination of land reform and a insipid position towards Masonry that satisfied neither liberal nor clergy, republican sentiments within the Brazilian Church grew exponentially during the fraught years of the eighteen-seventies, with neither Pius IX nor Leo XIII being especially concerned with the survival of the monarchy.
Republicanism - either by establishment change or by romantic attachment to the United States and France – was therefore a powerful movement by 1889. Although the Republican Party’s three gains in the 1885 election were soon undone at subsequent elections (although it should be pointed out that their relatively weak representation was often due to the Liberal and Conservative parties combining forces against them) they remained the party best placed to articulate popular disapproval regarding the abolition of slavery. Political action was emphasised by a dramatic growth in the number of anti-monarchist newspapers and periodicals. One of the most powerful of these propagandists was a young idealist named Silva Jardim, a man better immortalised by his death rather than his actions, falling into Vesuvius whilst in exile in 1891. Jardim nevertheless dominated the republican movement in 1888 and 1889, touring almost every province of the Empire and hosting rallies against the abolitionists and the Princess Imperial. Isabel herself had narrowly avoided a massive loss of public support in the autumn of 1888 when she refused to support a petition opposing the removal of some legal disabilities of the German Protestants in the south of the Empire. Nevertheless, the heir to the throne was still regularly accused of being too close to the Catholic Church.
With republicanism clearly established throughout Brazil, it is clear that something went wrong on the 15th November, 1889 to deal such a blow to the anti-imperial forces. Whilst the Empire had avoided the succession of military coups that had dominated the rest of South America, historians of the period have continually, and erroneously, given a perception that the army was persecuted, military discipline actually declined during the decade of peace following the end of the Paraguayan War. When the Viscount of Ouro Preto’s liberal ministry was appointed in June 1889, he instantly made efforts to preserve the monarchy in the face of an increasingly malcontent military. Although he was keen to deal with some of the more conventional demands of the armed forces, not least regarding pay and conditions, his refusal to appoint General Deodoro da Fonseca – the officer with the most obvious and populist republican sentiments – as Military Governor of Rio, must be seen as vital in ensuring the stability of the imperial rule. In any event, da Fonseca was not available for the cabal of senior officers who met to discuss action against Ouro Pretro’s Ministry on 9th November. Although the government was pitifully unaware of the events leading to the coup attempt on 15th, in which the Prime Minister took at face value the views that
"At this hour your Excellency must have observed that plotting is taking place in certain quarters. Attach no importance to it. Trust the loyalty of the military leaders who are on the alert. I thank you once more for the favours you have deigned to bestow upon me” which was sent to him by the coup’s ringleader and adjutant-general of the army. The attempted seizure of power failed, although the plotters managed to capture both the Ministry of War and the General Post Office before loyalist reinforcements were able to put down the rebellion shortly after seven in the evening. Visibly shaken, Ouro Preto tendered his resignation the following day.”
-From
“Brazil: A History through Five Centuries” by Aaron DeWitt, Prendergast Publishing 1999
“Disputes over the Newfoundland fisheries had intensified during Cleveland’s Presidency, with protracted delays emerging from Lord Salisbury’s assumption of the Premiership in 1885. A commission was established in March 1888, let by Secretary of State Bayard, William Puttnam of Maine and Samual Cox, the former Minister to the Ottoman Empire. The British delegates were the Colonial Secretary, Edward Stanhope, the Canadian Finance Minister, George Foster and the Ambassador to the United States, Sir Edward Malet. Beset by delays, the Commission took almost a year to report back, by which time John Sherman had already become President-elect. Nevertheless, the Bayard-Stanhope Treaty was submitted to Congress in February 1888, with Article XV granting the Canadians duty-free fish sales, in return for American boats being allowed to change crews within the Maritime Provinces’ inshore waters. However, neither delegation could agree on a grace period that would permit licence holders to cross into Newfoundland waters. Predictably, the Republican Senate voted down the arrangements by 32-25. Although American fishermen would continue to buy the new licences, a formal settlement would not be reached for nearly two decades.”
-From
“American History from Grant to Munsey” by William Keble, Merlin 2004
“In the summer of 1889, Sherman was afforded the opportunity to re-draft the map of the United States. The Dakota Territory, fuelled by the railroad boom of the 1870s, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills and the end of the Sioux Wars, had tripled in population in the space of little over a decade. This, coupled with the region’s reputation as a Republican stronghold, made the prospect of statehood attractive to both Sherman and the Republican majority in the Senate. Shortly after his inauguration, the President had met with Alexander McKenzie, the Northern Pacific's political agent in northern Dakota and Sheriff of Burleigh County, to even discuss the possibility of splitting the territory, following McKenzie’s successful attempt to move the territorial capital from Yankton to Bismarck. This action had served to increase resentment between the mining community in the Black Hills and ranchers in the north, reinforcing lasting sentiment in the south that statehood could only come with the splitting of the territory.
However, McKenzie’s position as head of Dakota politics made him skeptical of the idea dividing his empire in two. Equally, whilst he, Sherman and the Senate all supported the possibility of admitting two reliably Republican states into the Union. In 1880, the appointment of Nehemiah Ordway, considered by many Dakotans as being the most corrupt and devious of all the Washington-appointed officials, only served to increase the calls for representative government for the region even after the 1887 legislative session in Bismarck was unable to resolve the partition question.. In the face of such overwhelming public opinion, opposing statehood was no longer a viable option by the Democratic minorities in Congress, with John Carlisle moving towards a view of
“statehood as soon as possible,” to limit the possibility of doubling the number of new Republican Senators. This represented an about-turn for the Party, who had steadfastly opposed the idea throughout the 1880s. In mid-February, shortly before Sherman’s inauguration, William Springer of Illinois, the Chair of the House Committee on Territories, proposed admitting Dakota as a single state along with New Mexico, Montana and Washington, thereby balancing the partisan gains from statehood. Sherman - unwilling to pick a fight with Congress so early in his term - begrudgingly agreed to a compromise where Dakota would be admitted as a single state, with the other three joining over the next few years. Secretly, he also began discussions with Governor Cyrus Luce of Michigan regarding the growing calls for the secession of the state’s Upper Peninsula.”
-From
“An Icicle in the White House: The Presidency of John Sherman” by Hanna Fedorchuk, Temple 1978
“Gris and Lieven held the text of the Reinsurance Treaty under lock and key throughout their terms as Foreign Minister, although it rapidly became an open secret in both Saint Petersburg and Berlin. This resulted in major consequences for Alexander III, who was drawn between his own distrust for Bismarck and his disapproval for French republicanism. Whilst his continued support for Germanophiles in the Foreign Ministry gave implicit support for Lieven’s actions, it did little to limit the calls for an Alliance with France that had started to arise within the Pan-Slavic circles within the Imperial Court. As devout man - who saw the Orthodox Church as representing an integral part of the Russian state - Alexander was sceptical of the atheist and bourgeois nature of the French political system. The Emperor was predisposed to not side with either camp, but with the growing controversy over the covert arrangements with Berlin, he was forced to engage directly with the Slavophiles.
This came as a boost to the fortunes of Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the Procurator of the Holy Synod and Alexander’s most trusted advisor. Whereas the Emperor simply held an interest in the Pan-Slav movement, to Pobedonostsev, it was a crusade, representing the best way of moving the Empire away from modernism and ensuring that it developed on purely Russian lines. The Slavophiles had also adopted resolutely anti-German views, with many formulating a view that the next great war would be directed, not against the Ottomans, but the Teutons. Lieven’s renewal of the Reinsurance Treaty was tolerated only for as long as it permitted industrialisation, but as the decade wore on, Pobedonostsev’s calls for an alliance with France began to resonate far more with the Emperor. Repin’s famous portrait is testament to this strategy, with the statesman painted behind a desk, wearing both the Star of the Order of Saint Andrew and the medal of an Officier de l'Instruction Publique. By 1889, Alexander III had resolved to veto any further extension of the Treaty. With the death of Kaiser Friedrich in April of that year, he took the opportunity to remove Lieven from the Foreign Ministry, although he remained as Chair of the Council, with a view to appointing an ethnic Russian to the position instead. However, early discussions with Prince Heinrich, regent to the young Kaiser, changed this.”
-From
“The Decline and Fall of the House of Romanov” by Elizabeth Dixon, Boreal 1998
“With the death of the Kaiser in early February, Prince Heinrich’s assumption of the regency came as little surprise. Although he considered sacking Bismarck, who he felt had avoided any culpability for the assassination of his brother, Heinrich’s allies within the Court persuaded him to ease the Chancellor out of office, rather than inflict the chaos of a sacking upon the country.
“The Chancellor is a despot” Philipp zu Eulenburg had written in 1881,
“but he has the right to be one, indeed, he must be one. If he were not a despot, if he were an ideal parliamentarian who allowed his course to be determined by the dumbest thing there is, by parliamentary majorities, then we wouldn’t even have a chancellor yet, and least of all a German Reich.” Heinrich shared these opinions, although he made no secret of the fact that the Chancellor would have to jump before being pushed.
The most pressing issue for the new head of government was settlement of the Eastern Question with regards to Russia. Bismarck’s Germanisation program in Old Prussia had resulted in considerable friction between the state and the Polish-speaking majority areas of the Reich, which in turn gave rise to ultra-nationalist sentiment in the Reichstag. The Chancellor’s Kulturkampf had created a number of problems with regards to religion, with the Protestant ‘state-priests’ that had been sent to replace sacked or incarcerated Polish clergy often being shunned or physically attacked by their congregations. One unfortunate minister, Father Moerke, even suffered the indignity of having his coffin thrown into a lake by the residents of his former parish. Whilst the problems inherent within the Reich’s rule of Poland paled in comparison to the pogroms and state-sanctioned massacres seen in the Russian held-parts of the former kingdom, neither Bismarck nor the new Regent saw any reason to further antagonise the eastern territories.
Heinrich’s arrival in Petersburg in July 1889 did much to signal a genuine
“New Course” in German foreign policy. At a stroke, it greatly reduced the risk of making the Reinsurance Treaty by demonstrating that a shift in Russo-German relations was developing anyway. This annoyed a number of Slavophiles in Alexander III’s court, least of all the influential newspaper owner Aleksey Suvorin, who had planned to leak the text of the agreement to his colleagues in Paris. The Tsar was also sceptical of disrupting market transactions with Germany, which accounted for over 26% of Russia’s trade, in favour of France, which was responsible for barely 5%. Although President de Freycinet had spoken to Bunge about his eagerness to to invest in the Imperial railway network, Alexander enjoyed far warmer relations with Heinrich than he had with Crown Prince Wilhelm, which was cemented by the state visit. Although Pobedonostsev continued to press for a break with Berlin, the Tsar remained obstinate, which was further demonstrated with the appointment of Roman Rosen as Foreign Minister, who in many respects represented continuity with Prince Lieven.
-From
“The Three Empires: Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Making of Europe” by Paul Davies, Brent 1960