If a little-known legislative
bill had succeeded in Brazil during
the 1830s Brazilian
and Americans might be sharing
politicians and the products of each nation would go to the other
free from any tax. The bill also required both nations to
mutually defend themselves against foreign aggression.
Brazilian senators Antônio
Carlos Magalhães and José Genoíno debating with each
other on Capitol Hill, Trent Lott and Dick Gephardt locked in combat in Brasília.
Orange juice from Brazil and America being sold at the same price in Florida’s
supermarkets. President Bush excluding Brazilian steel from high import tariffs.
American high school students learning about the Brazilian soldiers who fought
alongside the Yankees to preserve the Union.
Fantasy you say? Not if
a little-known legislative bill had succeeded during the 1830s, during what
may well have been the most fluid period of Brazil’s turbulent political history.
In 1831 Brazil’s young
charismatic emperor, Dom Pedro I, abdicated his throne. The writing had been
on the wall for some time. The son of the Portuguese king, Dom João
VI, Dom Pedro had nailed his colours to the cause of Brazilian independence
nine years earlier. But his reign hadn’t been happy and he had been regularly
upsetting public opinion.
To win international recognition
for the new country he had agreed to pay Portugal £2 million and accepted
an unfavourable trade agreement with the most powerful country at the time,
Britain. His war against Argentina over the east bank of the Plata had ended
in disaster with the creation of a new country rate. Meanwhile, he was behaving
autocratically, limiting the power of the exchange in Uruguay and was contributing
to spiralling foreign debt and the collapse of the elected General Assembly
and appointing ministers with little regard for popular feeling.
By 1830 Dom Pedro was
in a bad way. But it was about to get worse. His subjects now had access to
a large print media: they read with interest the news that French king Charles
X had been thrown out of power.
In March 1831 Pedro I
produced his first cabinet, made up of Brazilian-born ministers. But a month
later he had replaced them all with an unpopular government made up of Portuguese-born
Brazilians. Public opinion snapped: he was forced to abdicate, sailing away
and leaving behind his five-year old son, Pedro, who wouldn’t be eligible
to take the throne until 1843when he turned 18.
But the departing emperor
wasn’t leaving without something to go to; five years earlier his father had
died and his brother Dom Miguel had sought the throne for himself. Pedro I
was determined to not let that happen: he wanted his daughter, Maria, crowed
queen of Portugal.
But the Brazil Pedro I
left behind was in an uncertain state. It had survived less than ten years
of independence and although Brazilians were finally in charge of their own
affairs, it was economically weak. It wasn’t at all clear it could survive
as an independent nation.
At the time of Pedro’s
abdication there were two main political tendencies in the country: the liberals
and the conservatives. While the conservatives were generally in favour of
centralisation and a strong monarchy, their thunder had been stolen by Pedro’s
abrupt departure. Filling the political vacuum for the first time were the
liberals with their general programme of decentralisation and limitations
on monarchical power.
The liberals moved quickly
to establish a Regency, which would oversee both affairs of state and the
care and upbringing of the young emperor-elect. Three regents were to be selected
by the country’s elected representatives, but unlike Pedro they weren’t to
be the masters of the assembly. Without the power to dismiss the General Assembly,
they became its creatures.
were being exacerbating political differences within the provinces. After
the highly centralised rule of Pedro I the tensions between liberals and conservative
were played out across the country as factions competed for regional dominance
and control. The imperial authorities at the capital in Rio de Janeiro found
their work cut out trying to halt the instability caused by these rebellions
in Pernambuco, Alagoas, Pará, Bahia, Maranhão and Rio Grande
In May 1833 some troubling
news was imparted by the Government to the Chamber of Deputies. Evidence was
shown which suggested the former Pedro I was planning a comeback to Brazil.
In keeping with the greater powers allocated to the legislative assembly,
Ministers tried to persuade deputies to put forward a bill which would banish
Pedro I from being allowed to return. A year later their fears became even
larger when Pedro defeated his brother, Miguel, and guaranteed the Portuguese
throne for his daughter, now Dona Maria II.
It was into this climate
of suspicion that the little heard-of 1834 legislative bill proposing the
federation of Brazil and the United States appeared. But it never got very
far. Indeed no mention of the bill is made in the United States’ diplomatic
correspondence with Brazil during this time. Nor does the proposed legislation
appear to have been included in studies regarding Pan-Americanism.
What material is available
on the subject tends to deal with the Pan-American ideals of Spanish America,
whose governments all rejected the Brazilian monarchical model in favour of
republican values which they shared with the French and American revolutions.
The absence of any apparent
analysis of this 1834 federative bill seems to indicate it was put forward
as little more than a symbolic gestureperhaps by an over-enthusiastic
liberal keen to express his displeasure at a restored monarchy under Pedro
So far the only book to
which I have traced a reference to the bill is Karl Loewenstein’s Brazil
under Vargas, published in 1943. In it, the then professor of political
science and jurisprudence cited another work, P.A. Martin’s Federalism in
Brazil, for the detail of the bill:
‘Art. 1 Brazil and the
United States will be federated for the purpose of mutually defending themselves
against foreign pretensions and will aid each other in the development of
the internal wealth of both nations.
Art. 3. Each one of
the nations shall be represented in the national assembly of the other.
Art. 4. The products
of each nation shall be received in the other in the same manner as its
own, free from all imposts.’
The bill, even if it had
been passed in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, would never have achieved
legal status without reciprocal passage by Congress and Presidential acceptance
in Washington as well.
But even if the bill has
remained a footnote in history, during that year of fear and suspicion another
much more important piece of legislation was passed. Called the Additional
Act, the bill was a constitutional amendment which improved government efficiency
by reducing the number of regents from three to one and enhanced the liberals’
decentralisation ethos, by passing many powers to the provinces.
The other piece of legislation
which Ministers tried to press for, a law of banishment for Pedro I was never
put forward. There wasn’t any need: having secured Portugal for Maria, he
died that same year. But despite an end to the foreign threat posed to the
country by Pedro’s death, Brazil’s political turbulence continued. The rebellious
provinces maintained their challenge to central authority while the Regency
continued to suffer from a weakness of authority and prestige.
The 14-year-old Emperor
A few years later, the
liberals’ influence began to ebb and the tide began to turn. The conservatives
increasingly gained control of the political debate in Brazil; one of their
numbers, Pedro de Araujo Lima, replaced the liberal Diogo Antonio Feijó,
as regent in 1837. Three years later, in 1840, the Interpretative Law was
passed which curtailed the federal experiment by centralising power.
In the same year a movement
was organised to declare the son of Pedro I of age and capable of taking up
the reigns of government. Many Brazilians, on both the conservative and liberal
sides of the fence, were by now concerned the unity of the country couldn’t
last much longer without a unifying force: the 14-year-old Pedro seemed to
offer that hope. On July 23, he appeared before the General Assembly where
he took his oath of office and promised to uphold the constitution.
With the coronation of
Dom Pedro II, Brazil’s period of political instability finally came to an
end. The disorder and crisis of the preceding nine years were forgotten and
a centralised state with the emperor at its heart was re-established. The
1840s were to see a change in Brazilian politics: the rebellious provinces
would be brought to heel and the country was made secure from any foreign
Brazil’s ‘Second Empire’
under Dom Pedro II not only brought to an end the country’s colonial past
but also the volatile nature of politics during the 1830s when liberals and
conservatives experimented with different ideas about what Brazil’s destiny
could be. Not for another fifty years, until 1889 when Pedro II was finally
forced by a military coup, would the nature of Brazil’s political institutions
again be open to such fluidity.
Guy Burton was born
in Brazil and now lives in London where he is currently a prospective Liberal
Democrat candidate for the London Assembly in elections in June 2004. As
a postgraduate student he researched contemporary Brazilian politics, the
results of which were published in Gianpaolo Baiocchi’s Radicals in Power
(Zed, 2003). He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.