WI: Successful Riograndense Federalist Revolution (1893-95)

Most Brazilianophile AH members here will remember the Farroupilha War (1835-45) as an interesting PoD regarding the Rio Grande do Sul region, but i don't think as many will remember the more destructive Federalist Revolution (1893-95).
The shtick of this historical fact is that there were southern Brazilian rebels, known as maragatos, who wished for a decentralized regime to be installed in Brazil, in contrast with the centralist ideals of president Floriano Peixoto. The revolt broke out around the border with Uruguay. On the way to Rio de Janeiro, the rebels were joined by a navy admiral who rebelled against the central government (in another occurence known as the Navy Revolt), boosting their supply and fighting capabilities. The rebels aimed to reach and besiege the capital, Rio de Janeiro.
However, they ended up tangled in a siege in the city of Lapa, in my home state of Paraná, and their advance was delayed long enough for loyalist forces to arrive and defeat them. Some historians tend to consider that, had the rebels instead avoided Lapa and gone straight for Rio, they could have a bigger chance of succeeding.
So, i ask: what if the Federalist Revolution had succeeded, in at least carving out an independent federal state in southern Brazil? Could we see the country divided in two?
 
So, i ask: what if the Federalist Revolution had succeeded, in at least carving out an independent federal state in southern Brazil? Could we see the country divided in two?

Well, it is all or nothing, they win the war and the revolution or they lose and are crushed. Everything is possible, that is even the best opportunity to end the Republic after 1889 as the republican experience until that moment had been very traumatic with the dictatorship of Floriano and the "Encilhamento" Crisis, I can see Gaspar da Silveria Martins bringing the monarchy back.
 
The problem is, the maragatos didn't have the numbers or the guns necessary to depose the government. Even in their base in Rio Grande do Sul they weren't able to conquer a single important city. And every town they took they couldn't keep. The invasion of Paraná could be classified as a overrated raid. Their greatest victories weren't with the army, but with the rebel armada (Desterro, Itajaí, Paranaguá, all them ports captured by the navy). The only chance for the rebels was a coup in Rio de Janeiro, but as long as the only meaningful opposition to Floriano Peixoto was locked in the middle of the Guanabara Bay that wouldn't happen so easily. You need a greater internal conflict inside the Army to defeat the forces loyal to Floriano, but it would probably mean another general taking the government, and not the end of the Republic.
 
Well, it is all or nothing, they win the war and the revolution or they lose and are crushed. Everything is possible, that is even the best opportunity to end the Republic after 1889 as the republican experience until that moment had been very traumatic with the dictatorship of Floriano and the "Encilhamento" Crisis, I can see Gaspar da Silveria Martins bringing the monarchy back.

No, the restoration of the monarchy was impossible with the federalist revolution because the admiral invited the royal family to return to Brazil and support him but they refused.

Had the revolution succeded, we could have a different old republic with less power to the regional oligarchies, on a liberal scenario, or if the civic nationalist faction took over we could have a Vargas age 40 years before OTL, with Brazil pushing it's industrialization and supressing the oligarchies.
 
No, the restoration of the monarchy was impossible with the federalist revolution because the admiral invited the royal family to return to Brazil and support him but they refused.

That doesn't make it impossible, it doesn't even make it harder, Isabel was right to refuse to give her 14 years old son to the rebels, had they made another offer after securing Rio de Janeiro she could have accepted, Isabel wasn't the hard head that many people want to make her look like, if the revolutionaries had offered the crown to her son with her as regent until he completed twenty-one she would probably accept and the rebels would gain a big boost of legitimacy.

Had the revolution succeded, we could have a different old republic with less power to the regional oligarchies, on a liberal scenario, or if the civic nationalist faction took over we could have a Vargas age 40 years before OTL, with Brazil pushing it's industrialization and supressing the oligarchies.

Well that is closer to the impossible. They toppled a centralist government with the brand of federalism, I don't think that the most probable outcome would be to suppress the oligarchies but to the contrary to give more power and appease them, reform of the constitution adopting a parliamentarian system would be the farthest they would go in this republican scenario.
 
That doesn't make it impossible, it doesn't even make it harder, Isabel was right to refuse to give her 14 years old son to the rebels, had they made another offer after securing Rio de Janeiro she could have accepted, Isabel wasn't the hard head that many people want to make her look like, if the revolutionaries had offered the crown to her son with her as regent until he completed twenty-one she would probably accept and the rebels would gain a big boost of legitimacy.

They did exactly that after the 1964 and the royal family also refused, claimaing that "Coups and shootings are republican means to achieve power"

Well that is closer to the impossible. They toppled a centralist government with the brand of federalism, I don't think that the most probable outcome would be to suppress the oligarchies but to the contrary to give more power and appease them, reform of the constitution adopting a parliamentarian system would be the farthest they would go in this republican scenario.

To this point I don't know, Sorry...
 
They did exactly that after the 1964 and the royal family also refused, claimaing that "Coups and shootings are republican means to achieve power"

Well, it wasn't the revolution of 1964, it was the 1959 revolt of Aragarças, against Juscelino Kubitsheck [link to the pt.wikipedia] the revolt did not have any popular or political support and Brazil, as the World, was much different after the 64 years that separated those two revolts. In 1959 the country was shaken because of economic crisis and the cold war, but it was in the middle of one of its democratic [even if populist] periods, in 1895 the republican experiment had only brought dictatorship and authoritarianism, maybe the imperial family could have been more susceptible to seal a deal if the same proposition was made in 1964 or after a successful revolution in 1895.

Dom Bertrand talks about it here [in portuguese]
 
Well, it wasn't the revolution of 1964, it was the 1959 revolt of Aragarças, against Juscelino Kubitsheck [link to the pt.wikipedia] the revolt did not have any popular or political support and Brazil, as the World, was much different after the 64 years that separated those two revolts. In 1959 the country was shaken because of economic crisis and the cold war, but it was in the middle of one of its democratic [even if populist] periods, in 1895 the republican experiment had only brought dictatorship and authoritarianism, maybe the imperial family could have been more susceptible to seal a deal if the same proposition was made in 1964 or after a successful revolution in 1895.

Dom Bertrand talks about it here [in portuguese]

There is a lot of missinformation going on, so. And 1964 was a US sponsored military coup, not a revolution.
 
There is a lot of missinformation going on, so. And 1964 was a US sponsored military coup, not a revolution.
Many military regime nostalgics in my country claim that 1964 was a "revolution" because there was a pro-military demonstration happening in the streets at the moment of the coup, which, to me, is a flimsy excuse for considering it a "revolution". My grandfather uses it...
 
Many military regime nostalgics in my country claim that 1964 was a "revolution" because there was a pro-military demonstration happening in the streets at the moment of the coup, which, to me, is a flimsy excuse for considering it a "revolution". My grandfather uses it...

The demonstrations mobilized less people than the pro democracy speech of the reformas the base, plus the coup was supported the foreign and the brazilian media that twisted the narrative.

The result was this piece of junk:
 
Back to the main topic...
If the Federalist rebels are successful, who can they invite to become their monarch, if they decide for a constitutional monarchy? Was Princess Isabel willing to come back?
 
If the Federalist rebels are successful, who can they invite to become their monarch, if they decide for a constitutional monarchy? Was Princess Isabel willing to come back?

Yes, I would expect the revolutionaries to make a new constitution mixing the constitution of 1824 and 1891. Isabel would probably accept to be brought back to rule as empress or even as regent for her son.

not a revolution.

My father says that it was a revolution, my teacher* said that it was a coup d'etat, I say that I couldn't care less if the angels are male or female... :biggrin:

*[from my high school time, time flies so fast, now I am depressed]
 
Top