WI Thousands of Southern slave owners move to Brazil after American Civil War?

Excellent point. I guess I have always wondered just how Pedro II, who was not really a "European" monarch, born and raised in Brazil, and well liked by the International Community, how he seems so willing to just accept the loss of his throne when there may have been support for him if he had chose to fight for it. (I don't know that history has given Brazil any more stability over the years since the overthrow of the monarchy.)
This is something I found so weird about him. He didn't even put up a fight against the coup, even though it seems he could have squashed it with little effort given his popularity and Brazil's economic upswing.
Both his sons dying seems to have rather affected him. And yes if he fought he would have won, hell just not coming out with "If it is so, it will be my retirement. I have worked too hard and I am tired. I will go rest then." chances are the government would have quickly dealt with it.

As for stability the period under Getulio Vargas is probably closest to it and it wasn't really stable as much good as it was in comparison to the rest.
 
Is it possible that we could get thousands of Confederate slave owners, soldiers, government officials to flee to Brazil after the American Civil War, where slavery was still practiced. Maybe they could even form a government in exile?

M8, this like, happened, they created the city of americana, so much that they still pratice their confederate culture and even have the annual confederate festival:

cemiterio-dos-americanos.jpg
 
Excellent point. I guess I have always wondered just how Pedro II, who was not really a "European" monarch, born and raised in Brazil, and well liked by the International Community, how he seems so willing to just accept the loss of his throne when there may have been support for him if he had chose to fight for it.

Two main points

1- He was a extreme pacifist, the main reason that took so long for brazil to defeat the paraguay is that he delayed for seven months the mobilization since he didn't wanted the army to grow in power, he also spent the next twenty years after the war trying to curbe the army influence, when the coup happened he simple resigned because he didn't wanted to spill blood

2- He was old and weak, his health was declining too fast since the paraguayan war, he even had spent two years in France for medical help, we could argue that if he had died before the coup, the coup would fail
 
True, the only "Western" nations still practicing slavery by the mid 19th century were the United States and the Brazilian Empire, but Brazil still had slavery into the 1880's. Perhaps Pedro II missed an opportunity to abolish it earlier than when he tried to? The delay, somehow may have cost him his throne. The presence of former Confederates may strengthen the resolve of Brazilian slave owners to continue the practice.

Actually several countries still allowed slavery in the middle of the century. It was legal in the Spanish colonies of Cuba (until 1886) and Puerto Rico (1873), in the Portuguese colonies (until 1869), and in the Dutch colonies of Suriname and Aruba/Bonaire/Curaçao (until 1863) as well.

I'd be curious to know about Confederate migration to Cuba, since that would be a much shorter trip than Brazil.
 
Last edited:
Actually several countries still allowed slavery in the middle of the century. It was legal in the Spanish colonies of Cuba (until 1886) and Puerto Rico (1873), in the Portuguese colonies (until 1869), and in the Dutch colonies of Suriname and Aruba/Bonaire/Curaçao (until 1863) as well.

And in many other places of Africa and Asia. (I know, not western, but... still world...)
 
2- He was old and weak, his health was declining too fast since the paraguayan war, he even had spent two years in France for medical help, we could argue that if he had died before the coup, the coup would fail
He wasn't very old; he was middle aged. But he was indeed very weak and with bad health.
 
Could he have abdicated in favor of his daughter? Would the army and or pro-Monarchist have followed her and or crushed the rebellion in her name?

One of the reasons the military coup happened was in fact because of the prospect of Princess Isabel assuming the throne. Her husband, the Count of Eu, was a very unpopular (and foreign), and she lost whatever support she might have by adopting an unconditional abolition of slavery (some might have supported a gradual abolition, I guess).

I suppose that if D. Pedro II abdicated in favor of Isabel, she would in turn, as soon as a political crisis arrived, abdicate in favor of her son, or at least put him in the forefront of the government to defuse instability.
 
One of the reasons the military coup happened was in fact because of the prospect of Princess Isabel assuming the throne. Her husband, the Count of Eu, was a very unpopular (and foreign), and she lost whatever support she might have by adopting an unconditional abolition of slavery (some might have supported a gradual abolition, I guess).


Unfairly disliked I must add....
 
One of the reasons the military coup happened was in fact because of the prospect of Princess Isabel assuming the throne. Her husband, the Count of Eu, was a very unpopular (and foreign), and she lost whatever support she might have by adopting an unconditional abolition of slavery (some might have supported a gradual abolition, I guess).

Unfairly disliked I must add....

No, you are misunderstanding

The unconditional abolition of slavery was the position of the imperial family since Portugal abolished slavery in 1791 (yes it continued in Brazil and in the colonies, but due the same reason as Brazil, the local elites wanted slavery). The abolition of slavery made her lose support from most of the elites, but the people was strongly supporting the monarchy, to the point that Deodoro told to the public and the press that he was going to make a military parade to prevent a popular reaction against the coup

If Pedro II died before and Isabel was in the throne and she decided to act, even if the oligarchs supported the army, they would lose as they had virtually no popular support, and the navy was supporting the empire too, as we could see from the first and the second revolts of the armada

I finish to the famous quote of Isabel: If I had a thousand thrones, a thousand thrones I would lose to end slavery
 
Last edited:
No, you are misunderstanding

She unconditional abolition of slavery was the position of the imperial family since Portugal abolished slavery in 1791 (yes it continued in Brazil and in the colonies, but due the same reason as Brazil, the local elites wanted slavery). The abolition of slavery made her lose support from most of the elites, but the people was strongly supporting the monarchy, to the point that Deodoro told to the public and the press that he was going to make a military parade to prevent a popular reaction against the coup

If Pedro II died before and Isabel was in the throne and she decided to act, even if the oligarchs supported the army, they would lose as they had virtually no popular support, and the navy was supporting the empire too, as we could see from the first and the second revolts of the armada

I finish to the famous quote of Isabel: If I had a thousand thrones, a thousand thrones I would lose to end slavery

Yes, the common people liked the imperial family and the freed slaves simply liked them enough to make the Black Guards militia. What I meant was that the prince and the princess were generally disliked by a good share of the press, they lacked the social skills of the superstar monarchies, they were a shy couple that never bothered to answer the provocations and critics in the press. The freemasons hated the princess with a special passion too. Obviously, if the population had a say, they would choose the emperor, that's why the referendum about the monarchy happened only hundred years after the coup...
 
I have a question. Would Brazil be considered a chauvinist nation? If so would that have ha any bearing in support or not for Princess Isabel? Or would the monarchists have bowed to legitimacy and supported her as the rightful heiress to the throne? After all, she had sons who would have succeeded her.
 
Top