WI: Dom Pedro II Not Overthrown And The Effects Of A More Stable Brazil

It's crazy to assume that a POD so far back would have inevitably led to the formation of the United Nations.
It's only what, twenty-five years from his overthrow to the start of the Great War? Whilst Brazil would probably do better I'm not sure how much it would affect the outside world or the powder-keg that was Europe, can't really see it doing much to change the run-up to it or how it's likely to play out. Anyway I was mainly using it as an example of how Brazil was considered to be offered a fairly high-ranking position in our timeline with the idea that a better off one would be thought even more of.
 
In my opinion Pedro II seemed to suffer from what many monarch's suffered from: Lacking a son. For many monarchs it makes them more reckless but with Pedro he went the opposite way, becoming apathetic to the entire Imperial System. So make him care even a little about, if not his family then about his people, and he could stop the coup. And I really don't get why he didn't in the first place. He had no son yes, but from Isabel he had three grandsons. If he really cared he could have tried to bypass his daughter and name Dom Pedro his heir. Or contented himself with the knowledge that the succession was secure. Personally I think he was kind of a dick in that regard. If he has stopped caring he should have abdicated. Not abandoned Brazil for both himself and his family.

You are quite correct here. The problem was not solely the lack of sons. If Pedro dislike the idea of women on throne, men to sit on it were not lacking. He had Isabel's three sons and Leopoldina's two sons who lived in Brazil. What most people ignore was that Pedro II was a republican. He, along with everyone else, never imagined that the Brazilian republic would be so chaotic. He thought that everything would continue the same. Only he would be out of the government, but the parliament, the stability, the political parties would remain the same. They didn't. He was naive it's true, but so was everyone else.
 
Ow, you are all forgetting one important detail: Pedro II was republican.

If he really wanted to save the monarchy he could have done so. He could have convinced his daughter to renounce her position in favor of her son if the problem was really just about having a woman on the throne.

But it wasn't.

He wanted the Republic. And almost everyone who likes him and the Empire of Brazil and wished it had continued (either because you are a monarchist or because you merely consider it cool to have an Empire like Brazil around) ignore that.

So, yeah. He was a dick. Or maybe not, if you are a republican...
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. If he wanted a republic, all he had to do was give up his power, like what Juan Carlos I would do 85 years later.
 
Ow, you are all forgetting one important detail: Pedro II was republican.

If he really wanted to save the monarchy he could have done so. He could have convinced his daughter to renounce her position in favor of her son if the problem was really just about having a woman on the throne.

But it wasn't.

He wanted the Republic. And almost everyone who likes him and the Empire of Brazil and wished it had continued (either because you are a monarchist or because you merely consider it cool to have an Empire like Brazil around) ignore that.

So, yeah. He was a dick. Or maybe not, if you are a republican...

That's hideously incorrect. Pedro was not a republican in any sense (except maybe that he supported an institutionalized constitution) but was a constitutional monarch. There's a massive difference.

Pedro's experiences with republics were all with his immediate neighbors who ranged from semi-stable autocratic republics to claudilios of the week dictatorships with the trappings of republicanism. This was something Pedro tried very hard to avoid.

Of all the things that caused Pedro to abdicate any sympathy for republicanism was pretty low on the list.

Mostly he:

a) Did not believe the nation would rally around a female ruler (shaped by the fact that the government had issues while she was ruling in his stead while he traveled abroad)

b) Was convinced that since his sons had died the Imperial institution was 'not meant to be' (he had a weird fascination with this believing that God did not intend his rule to outlast him if he didn't have any sons)

c) Probably above all he was tired. He had been ruling the empire since his age of majority in years of hard work and long hours in a fairly thankless task while watching his sons die. The man was overworked and depressed, he simply didn't want to run the empire any more. Frankly he became apathetic to the whole institution.

You are quite correct here. The problem was not solely the lack of sons. If Pedro dislike the idea of women on throne, men to sit on it were not lacking. He had Isabel's three sons and Leopoldina's two sons who lived in Brazil. What most people ignore was that Pedro II was a republican.

Where is your proof for this? He may have been sexist but I can find no mention of him being a republican.

He, along with everyone else, never imagined that the Brazilian republic would be so chaotic. He thought that everything would continue the same. Only he would be out of the government, but the parliament, the stability, the political parties would remain the same. They didn't. He was naive it's true, but so was everyone else.

Few people even realized a coup was going on, it came as a shock (which provoked riots and mutinies) when the republic was instituted. Pedro just frankly didn't care saying he had worked too hard and considered it to be his retirement. He had no stake in the monarchy anymore and he probably expected that the government he left in place would be able to deal with the problem.

Sadly, the republicans had radically different and disastrous ideas.
 
To answer the general question of an emerging Brazil:

Brazil would be on the fast track to be the dominant power in Central America (largest population and industrial base) though it would need reform, and just as importantly a stable government.

The biggest advantage that an intact Empire offers is that of a stable government actively able to meet the challenges that face the state and one which can challenge the strength of the land holders who had opposed the abolition of slavery.

Stable currency, land reform, agricultural reform, industrial reform, all possible with an empire which can fend off European encroachment in their affairs (and their neighbors too in a way). This is all a net positive.

I'm fairly certain it would hit some hiccups in the 1890s-1910 as there were a boatload of reforms needed but Brazil could probably reach Great Power status by the 1930s-40s I think, as long as it got over what promised to be the tumultuous hiccups of the early 20th century.
 
The republic that the coup gave birth was so unsatable and corrupt that in no less tha 9 months of it´s birth the first president had already closed the congrees.The vice-president who should have called a new election,just tear uo the new republican constitution and being amarshall,used the army too be kept in office.The brazilian government try to say and teach in the schools that the proclamation of the republic was an act of progressiveness,of the new overcoming the old and that it was the will of the people.It was an ugly coup déteat that as many people already mentioned only brought plitical instability for the country and started a patter of army coups througout brazilian history.A constituninal monarchy would gave us more stability i am shure as it already was more stable.
 
Like almost every brazilian that studies history, i have a soft spot for Dom Pedro II, and i hate our Republica Velha.

However, it's kind of hard to see my country being a superpower or something in these lines. The problem, in the end, wasn't just the choice between a Monarchy and a "Republic" (I don't really consider that we had any really democratic government before 1945), the problem was (and is!) about corruption, about all those oligarchies that still rule in everything but in name a great portion of my country. However, it's likely that the republican Argentina x Brazilian Empire would make a interesting scenario, to say at least. A world power? Maybe yes, maybe not. Our problems wouldn't be solved in a few decades.

Pedro was going to die in a few years, the Paraguayan War and it's aftermath aged him a lot, i don't really think that Isabel would have been a really able ruler, and her husband, the Count of Eu, was hated. Maybe giving Isabel a different husband and making her really participate (she was the presumptive heir of the Empire, Pedro wasn't really going to marry again, he had his affairs but he wasn't his father) of the government after the Paraguayan War would have improved things.

Pedro, in the end, loved our country from the first day of his government until his last, but he didn't cared anymore about the Monarchy, he really wanted to resign. He could easily crushed the coup d'etat of Benjamin Constant and Deodoro, but he simply doesn't saw much of a point in doing this.

If Isabel really had a oportunity to help Pedro with the burdens of his government, maybe things would have been different, and almost certainly better than 40 years of "Republican government".

And Pedro had a lot of sympathies for republicanism, the man was really uncommon, but he wouldn't have liked the government that succeded him, not at all, he likely would have supported a "English monarchy", but in those times, it's was almost impossible to do such a thing. He was a tired old kind man, he just wished to die in peace, without all those burdens and political crises of his late-reign.
 
It's only what, twenty-five years from his overthrow to the start of the Great War? Whilst Brazil would probably do better I'm not sure how much it would affect the outside world or the powder-keg that was Europe, can't really see it doing much to change the run-up to it or how it's likely to play out. Anyway I was mainly using it as an example of how Brazil was considered to be offered a fairly high-ranking position in our timeline with the idea that a better off one would be thought even more of.

We also see the prospect for a much better German proxy than Mexico with the survival of imperial Brazil.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about Brazil on this period. I undestand the idea that a monarch might act as a moderating force and so on. But, concerning concrete policies, how much did things changed after he was deposed? What economic polices were adopted by the faction that won? In what sense where they different from previous policies? Why were they bad for Brazil? Concerning stability, was republic Brazil unstable from 1890 to 1930?

I don't have the answer for this questions, but I think they could help us determinating how much would Brazil really had changed if the monarchy had survived.

The basis of the economy didn't change: Brazil continued to be an exporter of agrarian commodities, mainly coffee. The difference was that with the Republic the landowner elites from Western São Paulo now had gained political power over the old elites of the Paraiba Valley. But European immigration increased with the Republic. Regarding industrialization, it continued weak, but it grew at a faster pace (if it would have continued this way under the monarchy is debatable).

One great economical problem faced by the early Republic made was the so called Encilhamento (translated: saddling-up), a finnancial bubble originated by a liberalization and modernization of banking laws and stock market regulations. Its origins are in the last days of the monarchy, the Republic simply made them grow. However, the Republic allowed the bubble to become bigger. In fact, the government helped to worsen it, as they authorized the creation of 10 banks with the power of issue money, in order to increase the credit for the public. Before it, the Brazilian money was guaranteed by a gold standard. But now the banks could print money that was guaranteed by bonds of federal debt. Who nedeed credit to buy stock issues, or to open a company, could obtain it in these new banks.

These changes made the money supply in Brazil to grow 167% in two year (from 191,000 contos de réis in November 1889 to 511,000 contos de réis in November 1891. The result was increased inflation, that made the stantards of living decline in the period. The majority of the new banks went bankrupt, and as their credit was guaranteed by the government, the public debt increased drastically. The Treasury lost £ 2.5 million in this process.

Regarding stability, the early Republic was very unstable in the first years. But under Prudente de Morais it reached a good degree of stability, with political agreements that weren't seriously challenged until the 1920's.

Personally, I think the worst inheritance that the end of the monarchy brought to Brazil was the idea that the Army was some kind of "moral reserve of patriotism", and that as the civilian government was "corrupt by nature" the Armed Forces had a "moral right" to take power and change the government. Before 1889 Brazil never had anything similar to a military coup. Even the "Majority Coup" of 1840 was basically a parliamentary maneuvering combined with the threat of a popular revolt. The involvement of the Army wasn't significant, it always had been under the control of the civilian government. The proclamation of the Republic was our first genuine military coup, and the idea that the military force had the right to change the government then became part of their political ideology. All the attempted rebbellions in the 1920's, the coups of 1930, 1937, 1945, the crisis of 1955, and the coup of 1964, all them are political descendents of 1889.
 
The basis of the economy didn't change: Brazil continued to be an exporter of agrarian commodities, mainly coffee. The difference was that with the Republic the landowner elites from Western São Paulo now had gained political power over the old elites of the Paraiba Valley. But European immigration increased with the Republic. Regarding industrialization, it continued weak, but it grew at a faster pace (if it would have continued this way under the monarchy is debatable).

One great economical problem faced by the early Republic made was the so called Encilhamento (translated: saddling-up), a finnancial bubble originated by a liberalization and modernization of banking laws and stock market regulations. Its origins are in the last days of the monarchy, the Republic simply made them grow. However, the Republic allowed the bubble to become bigger. In fact, the government helped to worsen it, as they authorized the creation of 10 banks with the power of issue money, in order to increase the credit for the public. Before it, the Brazilian money was guaranteed by a gold standard. But now the banks could print money that was guaranteed by bonds of federal debt. Who nedeed credit to buy stock issues, or to open a company, could obtain it in these new banks.

These changes made the money supply in Brazil to grow 167% in two year (from 191,000 contos de réis in November 1889 to 511,000 contos de réis in November 1891. The result was increased inflation, that made the stantards of living decline in the period. The majority of the new banks went bankrupt, and as their credit was guaranteed by the government, the public debt increased drastically. The Treasury lost £ 2.5 million in this process.

Regarding stability, the early Republic was very unstable in the first years. But under Prudente de Morais it reached a good degree of stability, with political agreements that weren't seriously challenged until the 1920's.

Personally, I think the worst inheritance that the end of the monarchy brought to Brazil was the idea that the Army was some kind of "moral reserve of patriotism", and that as the civilian government was "corrupt by nature" the Armed Forces had a "moral right" to take power and change the government. Before 1889 Brazil never had anything similar to a military coup. Even the "Majority Coup" of 1840 was basically a parliamentary maneuvering combined with the threat of a popular revolt. The involvement of the Army wasn't significant, it always had been under the control of the civilian government. The proclamation of the Republic was our first genuine military coup, and the idea that the military force had the right to change the government then became part of their political ideology. All the attempted rebbellions in the 1920's, the coups of 1930, 1937, 1945, the crisis of 1955, and the coup of 1964, all them are political descendents of 1889.

Monarchies though are sometimes powerless to prevent coups. Look at Thailand, for example, in whch military governments depose civilian ones, but leave unmolested the monarchy.
 
Monarchies though are sometimes powerless to prevent coups. Look at Thailand, for example, in whch military governments depose civilian ones, but leave unmolested the monarchy.

I'm not stating that keeping the monarchy would avoid it. In fact, if Pedro II had just accepted to depose the government to appease the Army* then the monarchy would be useless as an institution. I'm just saying that it was the republican coup that started the tradition of the military meddling in the civilian government.

*That was what Deodoro wanted initially. At first, he only deposed the cabinet of Ouro Preto. It was the information that Pedro II would nominate his enemy Silveira Martins as prime-minister that convinced him to abolish the monarchy
 
I'm not stating that keeping the monarchy would avoid it. In fact, if Pedro II had just accepted to depose the government to appease the Army* then the monarchy would be useless as an institution. I'm just saying that it was the republican coup that started the tradition of the military meddling in the civilian government.

*That was what Deodoro wanted initially. At first, he only deposed the cabinet of Ouro Preto. It was the information that Pedro II would nominate his enemy Silveira Martins as prime-minister that convinced him to abolish the monarchy

Who else might the emperor have nominated?
 
Who else might the emperor have nominated?

Well, later in the same day he did nominate José Antônio Saraiva to replace Silveira Martins, as he was convinced that Martins would be a bad idea. However, Deodoro answered to Saraiva that "it was too late: the Republic is done, and the new government is already constituted". Deodoro explained that the ones who should be blamed were Ouro Preto and Gaston d'Orleans, "one for persecuting the military, and the other for accept it". It shows that even if the coup against Pedro II had not happened, the chances of Isabel becoming Empress were extremely unlikely.
 

Tamandaré

Banned
Like almost every brazilian that studies history, i have a soft spot for Dom Pedro II, and i hate our Republica Velha.

However, it's kind of hard to see my country being a superpower or something in these lines. The problem, in the end, wasn't just the choice between a Monarchy and a "Republic" (I don't really consider that we had any really democratic government before 1945), the problem was (and is!) about corruption, about all those oligarchies that still rule in everything but in name a great portion of my country. However, it's likely that the republican Argentina x Brazilian Empire would make a interesting scenario, to say at least. A world power? Maybe yes, maybe not. Our problems wouldn't be solved in a few decades.

The difference is that the Monarchy had ways to deal with the oligarchs, the republic essentially allowed them to run rampant, today you have Sarney (Maranhão, Amapá), Jader (Pará), the Maioranas (Pará), the Magalhães clan (Bahia), the eternal Caiados in Goiás (who will still be around, and probably be Kings of Goiás in post-nuclear 24th century Brazil lol), etc.

The Republic was the worse thing that ever happened to Brazil.
 
Well, later in the same day he did nominate José Antônio Saraiva to replace Silveira Martins, as he was convinced that Martins would be a bad idea. However, Deodoro answered to Saraiva that "it was too late: the Republic is done, and the new government is already constituted". Deodoro explained that the ones who should be blamed were Ouro Preto and Gaston d'Orleans, "one for persecuting the military, and the other for accept it". It shows that even if the coup against Pedro II had not happened, the chances of Isabel becoming Empress were extremely unlikely.

Could Deodoro himself have been appointed PM?
 
Top