|
T |
he early portion of the nineteenth
century saw modernization and urbanization movements alter societies around the
world, but the country of Brazil seemed to be trapped in time. Much of the modernist theory had led to
views that industrialization and free labor capitalist economies were necessary
to compete in the world. In other
countries, those who already retained prominent positions in the global society
thrust these beliefs on society.
During this time, the elimination of slavery emerged as a significant
topic to the modernist platform and was indeed pursued as a top priority by
those prominent countries. Great
Britain, the frontrunner for the abolition of slavery, flexed its muscles to
other countries in an effort obtain freedom for slaves around the world. The emancipation of slaves proved to be
a problem for Brazil, who had largely rejected modernist notions about slavery
and still relied on its slave labor as the means for much of its
production. However, with constant
pressure from Great Britain and the changing world around them, Brazil was
about to experience a break from their traditional ways.
When Pedro II assumed power as a
constitutional monarch on July 23, 1840, he could have hardly imagined the
drastic changes that Brazil would undergo in the next half-century. Although efforts to abolish the slave
trade had finally begun to achieve success, slavery as an institution was still
very strong and showed no signs of weakening. In fact, Brazil had been the largest importer of slaves in
the Americas and fully intended to retain that status. In 1850, the African slave trade was
decisively ended and Brazilians were forced to recognize that their primary
source of laborers would no longer support them. After this, goals to eliminate slavery were touted as a main
priority by the government but were seldom brought up as such. When a critical argument or proposal
about slavery reached the forefront of discussion, the emperor was seldom there
to voice his approval or dissent.
Additionally, abolitionists were few and far between and their attempts
at promoting liberation of slaves were often in vain.
The intense conflict with Paraguay
in 1865 only further delayed the slavery topic until finally in 1871 
PedroÕs daughter signed the Rio
Branco Law, or Lei do Ventre Livre (Law of the Free Womb), that freed the children of slave
mothers. While this law initiated
a gradual abolition of slaves as opposed to an immediate one, it nevertheless
hastened the demise of slavery.
Changing conditions inside and outside the country bred more problems
for the institution of slavery, and the abolitionist movement soon gained more
strength. Several years later,
pressure became so great that the daughter of Pedro II acted as regent while he
was in Europe and signed the Lei çurea, or Golden Law. This law abolished slavery immediately
on May 13, 1888, and ushered in a new era of Brazilian economics and
politics. True to form, the
emperor was not even present to sign the law that would eventually play a role
in the downfall of the monarchy. A
year and a half after slavery was abolished, the emperor and his family were
removed and a republic was established.1
The abolition of slavery in Brazil
was a complex process that was influenced by many factors. Though it may seem simple and concise
on the surface, there exists much debate over why abolition occurred and what
its effects were on Brazilian society.
This being said, why did slavery persisted so long in Brazil and what
exactly caused its downfall? To
what extent, also, did abolition aid the downfall of the monarchy in Brazil and
was this downfall inevitable?
Historians credit various factors for the demise of slavery, but these
factors worked together simultaneously to end the institution. There is no single explanation for
abolition, but rather multiple explanations that all have validity and play off
one another. Outside influences
from around the world, economic and demographic changes, governmental policies
and influence, abolitionists, and slavery as an institution itself all combined
to create an environment that enabled emancipation of the slaves. Furthermore, while the monarchy in
Brazil would likely have been
overthrown with or without abolition, abolition sped up that process. Abolition had serious consequences and
directly affected the establishment of a republic, but this establishment was
more of a Òfinal strawÓ that resulted from years of problems. The Golden Law of 1888 represented this
ÒstrawÓ as slavery ended and the monarchy was inevitably overthrown.
In several regions of the world
including Latin America, many countries had eliminated slavery in the first
half of the nineteenth century.
The advance of modernist ideals, economic liberalism, and the moral and
physical pressure from countries like Great Britain had successfully diminished
the institution.2 A few exceptions to this trend still existed, and Brazil was
among these nations. Slavery in
Brazil during this same time period was still very strong and showed no signs
of slowing. Indeed, Brazil had
been the largest importer of slaves in both North and South America for some
time and desired to keep their slave market alive. It is estimated that over four and a half million slaves
were imported into Brazil as it became the very last Christian nation in the
world to rid itself of slavery.
This figure is around ten times higher than the number of Africans that
were shipped to North America, and higher than the combined number of slaves
that went to all of the Caribbean and North America.3 Because Brazilian slavery contrasted so
greatly with the rest of the world at this time, it is important to understand
the exact reasons for this and why the institution persisted for so long.
During the nineteenth century, the
condition of slavery and the ability to eliminate it in any country largely
depended upon the economic structure of that country. Those countries with diversified economies and other means
of labor besides slaves had an easier time abolishing slavery than countries
that focused primarily on agriculture with no alternative labor force. The latter was precisely the economic
condition in Brazil. Brazil was
rich in minerals and could produce many agricultural products for export. Coffee, sugar, cotton, and tobacco were
all major exports, but among these, coffee was king. The tremendous growth of coffee further entrenched slavery
as plantations were built to profit from BrazilÕs virtual monopoly in the industry. However, despite coffeeÕs dominance in
Brazil, slavery would have remained strong even without it. In the 1870s, every single municipality
of the 643 in Brazil contained slaves.4 In fact, several provinces were home to
more slaves than free persons.
Slaves were involved in so many aspects of society that they were not
easily replaced. Though other
Brazilians worked as well, slaves represented the core of the labor force. A mining engineer once noted that
slaves had been the ÒÔ tiller of the soil, the maker of sugar and brandy, the
pack animal, the breaker and pulverizer of stones, the cook, the footman,
groom, shoemaker, tailor, courier and carrier.ÕÓ5 They did everything, and it was often
noted that the economy would fall apart if they were set free.
Another reason for the persistence
of slavery was that ownership was not restricted to the upper class. People of all levels and social status
owned slaves, and in some cases even slaves owned other slaves. Free Brazilians, not wanting to work themselves,
bought slaves to work for them and to support their families.6
Often, a slave was the sole source
of income for a free person.
Slavery was so ingrained in Brazil that slaves were not distinguished by
race, but rather by their mother's status. Children born to slave mothers were slaves themselves
without regard for skin color or ethnicity. In addition, the ownership of slaves was also a capital
investment that brought increased status and recognition for the master. ÒThe slave is not only an agent of
labor and of production. One must
be ignorant of the human heart to think so. The slave is an object of luxury, a means of satisfying
certain vanities and certain vices of the nature of man. Just as landed property has certain
attractions, so also the slave offers to the master a certain pleasure of
command and authority, which exists in the human heart, we know not whether for
good or evil.Ó 7
It has also been commented that
the inability to find or transition to free labor played a role in the
persistence of slavery. It is true
that Brazil struggled to obtain a significant number of immigrants to subsidize
its slave population. This is
because slave economies depress wages and create societies in which little
prosperity for workers gives no incentive for immigrant labor. It has also been
pointed out that the lack of immigration was both a result and a cause of the
persistence of slavery. Whatever
the case, there were plenty of native Brazilians available for free labor, but
they did not want to work alongside slaves or perform duties that were
traditionally done by slave labor.
This unwillingness to work can also be interpreted as both a result and
a cause for slaveryÕs continued dominance.8
Last of all, slavery was maintained for such a length of time because
of the traditional attitudes of the Brazilian people. At this time most Brazilians had not accepted the views of
the rest of the world and were concerned primarily with protecting their customs
and institutions that had been in place since the colonial era. As a result of the largely traditional
society, most of the country was still pro-slavery and few abolitionists could
be found until the 1880s. Even the
government did its part to preserve slavery by not enforcing slave regulations
that had been implemented.
Among historians, the role of various factors in determining the
downfall of slavery is hardly an agreed upon topic. Since the Golden Law in 1888, scholars have sought
explanation for why slavery went away in Brazil. Answers emerged that gave credit to abolitionists, economic
and demographic changes, government actions, and more. Historians such as George Reid Andrews
acknowledge inherent tensions between slavery and religion and slavery and the
liberal principles of BrazilÕs constitution as contributing to slaveryÕs
downfall.9
Andrews, along with other historians like Richard Graham, also gives a
large amount of credit to the actions of the slaves themselves in contributing
to abolition.10 On the other hand, Zephyr Frank seems
to believe that larger forces such as economic and social changes within Brazil
played the most significant role in eliminating slavery. After examining these and other cases
by several historians, one can only conclude that abolition occurred in Brazil
as a result of the combination of these cases. Though some factors may be slightly more important than
others (the influence of modernism in particular because it pervades all
aspects of society in Brazil), it is insufficient to say that one factor deserves
the majority of the credit.
Because slavery was deeply ingrained in Brazilian society, it took
decades and the simultaneous development of several influences to finally put
an end to the institution. The
factors that affected abolition were strongly interconnected and played off of
one another to weaken slaveryÕs grip on Brazilian society. For example, let us
look at the argument that the actions of the slaves themselves were the most
significant cause of abolition.
Toward the end of slavery in Brazil, slaves began fleeing their
plantations in droves. As a
result, slave owners lost investments and many started to free slaves just so
they would not leave the plantations.
This mass exodus of slaves was important, but to only cite it leaves out
many other factors. It neglects
the influence of the abolitionists who persuaded slaves to leave and who
sheltered them when they did run away.
It downplays the government and the military who did little to intervene
and stop this exodus. And on a
larger scale, it downplays the influence of modern liberal ideas and movements
within Brazil that turned many Brazilians toward abolitionism. Runaway slaves played a critical role
in abolition, but they would not have been able to run away without these other
things. Behind an immediate cause,
there are usually larger influences.
Thus, the abolition of slavery in Brazil was the result of the combination
of these multiple influences.
When thinking about abolition, it is important to look beyond the
surface effect of some actions to examine the larger influences. An example of this can be seen in the
argument that government laws and actions dealing with abolition were largely
formalities in Brazil. While this
may be true, it must be noted that these laws still had a significant effect
because they isolated planters and abolitionists from the Crown, highlighted
the inefficiencies of the government, and motivated abolitionists to increase
pressure on the government. As
gradual laws and reforms angered abolitionists, they became increasingly
radical in their strategies for the emancipation of slaves.
Though slavery was ingrained in every part of Brazilian society, it
began to crumble slowly during the second half of the nineteenth century. Many factors contributed to the
problems that slavery experienced and ultimately helped lead to final
abolition. Among these, the role
of outside influences was extremely important. Although not a specific country or entity, the outside ideas
and values of the world factored significantly in slaveryÕs future. The growing liberal sentiment around
the world placed constant pressure on Brazil as it struggled to retain its
traditional ways. Modernization
and liberal ideals had instilled new thoughts and new ways of perceiving the
world. Many countries now believed
that slavery was evil and that its acceptance was a sign of being
Òbackward.Ó The progress of these
notions led most countries of the world to eliminate slavery in the early
1800s. The pressure from these new
values was very real to Brazil because they were surrounded by other Latin
American nations who had already abolished slavery. The government of Brazil was extremely aware of the global trends
with respect to slavery, and they wanted to do something about it, but slavery
was too much a part of their economy and society to risk any negative
consequences. However, as pressure
continued to mount over the decades, the government was forced to respond
decisively.
Aside from the ideological influences of liberalism, the pressure of
Great Britain was the single most important factor from outside Brazil. Great Britain was among the first
countries to abolish slavery and embark on a mission to get other countries
around the world to do the same.
Their focus soon fell to Brazil since it was one of the largest
importers of African slaves and one of the last remaining slave
strongholds. In fact, between 1845
and 1850 the importation of slaves had reached the highest number in Brazilian
history, averaging 55,000 a year.11 After Brazil agreed to end its slave
trade, Britain constantly interfered in Brazilian politics and trade to ensure
that it kept its promise. British
ships roamed Brazilian waters and intercepted ships suspected of transporting
slaves. In 1852, after the importation of slaves had seemingly ended, British
officials became aware that a slave shipment was received and they decided to
extend supervision for several more years.12 
Ten years after the last shipment
of slaves was known to have been received by Brazil, British officials were
still reluctant to move all forces out of BrazilÕs region because they felt
like doing so would cause a resurgence of the slave trade.13
They were convinced that slavery was so ingrained in Brazil as to make
it near impossible for the Brazilians to eliminate it on their own. Needless to say, tensions between
Brazil and Great Britain during this time period were high, and Brazil became
increasingly agitated that Britain would not repeal the Aberdeen Act of
1845. This act, written by the
British Foreign Minister Lord Aberdeen, gave the British navy the right to
search any Brazilian ship at sea.
It was designed to help with the abolishment of slavery in Brazil and
promote BritainÕs influence throughout the world, but it angered Brazilians who
felt that it was a violation of their freedom and integrity.14
Whatever the case, the act remained until Brazil was willing to sign a
new and effective anti-slave trade treaty. The influence of Great Britain on Brazil during this time
period is impossible to dismiss.
Though Brazil might have ended the slave trade on its own, that time
would have come later rather than sooner.
In the end, physical pressure from the British navy intimidated and
coerced Brazil into eliminating the slave trade for good.
Another country with influence on BrazilÕs anti-slavery measures was
the United States of America. The
United States played a very different role from that of Great Britain, serving
as an example instead of imposing physical force to obtain its goals. During the 1850s, Brazil looked to the
United States for justification of its own slave practices. When the rest of the world pressured
Brazil, it could look north to the traditional slave society of the southern United
States. If a country based on
freedom of all people and basic inalienable rights possessed slavery, then
Brazil could do the same. In a
sense, the United States gave Brazil legitimacy. All this would change in 1865 when the American Civil War
ended and slavery was eliminated from the landscape of the United States. Brazil could no longer defend its
institution by claiming that the liberal and civic-minded nation of the United
States was a slave nation. In
short, the abolition of slavery in the United States increased pressure upon
Brazil to eliminate its slavery.
Although it may seem contradictory, the institution of slavery itself
was an important factor that contributed to abolition. Slavery permeated all facets of
Brazilian society throughout its tenure, so it therefore had a tremendous
effect on the nation as a whole.
As Joaquim Nabuco highlighted, its consequences were most easily seen in
two separate sectors: territory and politics.
With respect to the effects of slavery on Brazilian land, the chief
consequence was the lack of interior progress. Because of slavery, land was divided into large properties
that became isolated from the outside world. Within these estates, nothing was exchanged with outsiders
except that which was needed to continue running the property. Rule was centered under one main figure
who relied upon overseers to carry out his wishes. These overseers were people who had been elevated above
slavery or were still slaves themselves.
Therefore, all elements of control were internal. This system that developed under
slavery led to virtually no progress of cities. The only regions in the country with any amount of
considerable commerce were the capitals.15
In addition to the non-development of cities, slavery contributed to a
Òcoffee monocultureÓ as leading abolitionist Joaquim Nabuco called it.16
Coffee was the leading export of
Brazil and plantations in the southern area of the country focused primarily on
its growth. Slaves were important
in coffee because nobody else would perform the hard labor necessary to produce
the crop. Whatever the case,
coffee was so dominant in the decades before abolition that Nabuco feared its
demise would cause tremendous degradation in the South. He had seen what could happen when a
region focused too much on one crop.
The northern part of the country had been a leading exporter of sugar in
the earlier years of the empire and became very feeble after its glory days had
past. Nabuco warned that the same
thing would happen in the South as international competition increase.17
Other historians disagreed with NabucoÕs assertions and thought that
Brazil was not as feeble as he presented.
Increases in Brazilian cotton production during the American Civil War
and Brazilian sugar production during CubaÕs fight for independence led to a
slight resurgence which served to diversify the economy for a short while. It can be argued that this production
in other agrarian sectors helped stabilize the Brazilian economy. Even if this is true, it cannot be
dismissed that cotton production was still enough of the national income to
severely hurt the country. Though
coffee never fell to the limits Nabuco predicted, his fears still reflected a
concern of the period and lent legitimacy to the argument for abolition.
One last effect of slavery on BrazilÕs territory was the decadence and
deterioration of the land. Slavery
is very deceiving because it creates an image of prosperity and progress. Capital cities were full of progress,
but the rural areas differed greatly from the cities and created a vast
development gap. The plantation
owners did not seek to establish permanent homes with any comforts, and all
money earned on the plantation was spent in the city. The soil was overused to extract as much profit as possible
before leaving, and the people who worked in the countryside had to live in
horrible conditions. A quote from
NabucoÕs book O abolicionismo best describes the conditions created by slavery. ÒIn every sense slavery was and is an
obstacle to the material development of the local communities. It exploited the land without concern
for local needs, without recognizing its obligations to the people beyond its
borders. It burned, it planted, it
abandonedÉ. It did not build
schools or churchesÉ It did not encourage industry, did not increase the
monetary value of the land, did not make improvements, did not nurse the wealth
of the land, did not employ machines, did not contribute in any way whatsoever
to the progress of the surrounding region.Ó18
Alongside the effects of slavery on BrazilÕs land, the social and
political results of slavery also played a role in abolition. As a result of slavery, the development
of many classes of society was slowed.
Farmers who owned no land were one of these classes. These farmers had no assistance
whatsoever and were taught that labor was to be done only by those who were
slaves. They had nowhere to sell
any of their products and were at the mercy of whoever owned the land they
farmed on. There was no hope for
advancing to a better life and so they were forced to live and raise their
children in poverty.19
Other groups affected by slavery include workers, industrialists, and
merchants. These groups were not
compatible with slavery because slavery depressed wages and lacked any of the
dignity that was usually associated with artisans. In a slave economy, it was difficult to find employers who
were willing to pay workers any sufficient amount of money to work for them.
They could simply go out and invest in a slave and not have
to pay him or her any wages at all.
This system of investment was cheaper than paying for workers, so
slavery ultimately prevented the growth of the working class. Also, employers in a slave society who
are used to commanding slaves did not typically treat free workers with any
sort of dignity. The employers
were used to brutally commanding slaves and their attitudes naturally shifted
from one work force to another.20
The development of industry was also impeded by slavery in Brazil, and
this is certainly one of the reasons why slavery began to decline. As Nabuco noted, ÒIt (slavery) destroys
initiative, inventiveness, and personal ambition; and it eradicates each of the
factors required for industrial development, the growth of capital, abundant
workers, technological training, and confidence in the future.Ó21
As mentioned earlier, internal trade and progress were diminished to
insignificant levels, and the commerce that did exist was solely devoted to
serving slavery. All of this focus
on slavery led to the accumulation of tremendous debt in Brazil. During the years 1853-1857, debt
acquired through slave trafficking should have been reduced, but it actually
increased as the province of Rio de Janeiro amassed $39 million of debt.22
All profits raised by plantations were invested in more slaves, and a
sudden rush to depopulate these slaves could have resulted in a
catastrophe. Although no such
panic occurred, plantations continued to need assistance and appealed to the
government constantly to give them loans, increase taxes on the rest of the
population, exempt them from taxes, and give them low interest rates and good
rates on railroad shipping. With
respect to low interest rates, plantations certainly did not get much help as
interest rates were recorded at seven percent in some provinces and as high as
72 percent in others.23 The annual profit in agriculture was
usually about 10 percent, so this clearly meant that most plantations were
bankrupt. This information
emphatically denounces the idea that the aristocratic landowning class was
prosperous.
Among the previously listed social
and political results of slavery, it is important to note that slavery became
such a part of Brazilian society that some considered it treason to speak
against slavery. Complaints
against the monarchy and the Catholic Church were tolerated, even though these
were established institutions in Brazil, but to denounce slavery meant one was
an enemy of the country.24 Slavery also greatly affected many
aspects of BrazilÕs political culture.
Because of it, there was no national patriotism, but rather a patriotism
based on race or class. An
excellent example of this can be seen in the Paraguayan War where slave owners
would not free slaves to serve for the country but would free them in order to
gain imperial titles.25 Slavery also had a tremendous effect on
the development of education and the expression of public opinion and new
ideas. Nabuco spoke of these
issues, saying that, while he was unsure of what exactly caused poor education
and lack of expression in Brazil, it appeared clear to him that they were
related to the institution of slavery.
Slavery, he said, benefited from large-scale ignorance, and the poor
condition of national education helped it in this sense. The lack of expression was also a
result of slavery according to Nabuco.
By public opinion he meant national conscience, and he believed that
slavery destroyed the rallying point through which people moved to make social
changes.
All of the above-mentioned effects of slavery with regard to both the
land and politics illustrate how slavery itself played a role in
abolition. Because of the
increasingly bad conditions of the rural countryside, the lack of internal
development, and the lack of economic diversity and growth, slavery was headed
for a certain downfall. The
impediment of certain classes in Brazil, the accumulation of tremendous debt,
and the lack of education and a national conscience further spurred on this
downfall as Brazilian citizens grew increasingly agitated at the pervasiveness
of slavery and its consequences.
The combination of effects on territory and society/politics created an
environment ripe for abolition.
After the elimination of the slave trade in Brazil, it was understood
that it was just a matter of time before Brazil would run out of slaves. In contrast to the United States of
America, Brazil had a slave population that decreased every year. A strong disproportion in slave
demography existed as there were significantly more males than females, and
slaves endured intense physical punishment, horrible living conditions, little
medical care or clothing, and were confronted with new epidemics and diseases.26
All these combined to ensure a rapidly depleting slave population. There were approximately 1,582,000
slaves located in Brazil in 1798.
From 1800-1850 about 1,600,000 slaves were imported. If the slave population had been
maintained on its own, the number of slaves in 1871 should have been somewhere
around three million. As it was,
however, only 1,540,829 slaves were registered.27 This differs considerably from the
population growth of slaves in the United States where their number increased
from 700,000 to four million between the years 1790 and 1860.28
The decreasing slave population in Brazil presented problems for many
plantation owners throughout the country.
As a result of the labor shortage, the demographics of the country began
to change.
In response to the decreasing numbers of slaves to work on
plantations, an internal slave trade developed that brought slaves to the
regions of Brazil where they were most beneficial and needed. This meant that a significant number of
slaves were taken from the less profitable northern regions and transported to
the coffee regions of the South.
The internal slave trade retained many of the same characteristics of
the slave trade from Africa as families were broken up and healthy, strong,
young men were sold first. During
the ten and a half years between January of 1852 and July of 1862, 34,668
slaves were imported into Rio de Janeiro.29 During the month of April in 1852, 345
slaves were reportedly shipped to Rio de Janeiro, 245 of these coming from
northern Brazil.30
This labor shortage and the consequential forced migration of slaves
to satisfy southern coffee demands had serious consequences on the economy and
the slave institution. Probably
the most notable direct effect was a tremendous increase in slave prices. As slaves decreased in population, the
ones that existed became more valuable to farmers and plantation owners. Prices more than doubled in many
provinces and even slaves who were formerly undesirable were bought.31
This increase in slave prices made slave owning and large-scale
agriculture less profitable and decreased their desirability in the eyes of
many.
In addition to the economic consequences of the labor shortage, the
inter-provincial slave trade that resulted from decreasing slave numbers
created political tensions that undermined the stability of the slave
institution. As slaves were
transported to the southern regions to work on coffee plantations, northern
planters were left with no good workers to farm their land. Agricultural dominance and prosperity
had long since shifted from northern Brazil to southern Brazil, but now
northern planters were left in an even more diminished state. Coffee production in Brazil accounted
for half of the worldÕs coffee in 1868, whereas the sugar/cotton plantations of
the northern provinces represented about one-third of the value of coffee in a
single year.32 Northern planters began to resent the
movement of slaves from their region to the South and imposed high taxes on
southern buyers. They also tried
to get legislation passed to prohibit the internal slave trade, but these
attempts were unsuccessful.
However, the growing resentment of the South by the North represented
internal divisions that helped lead to abolition. As Northerners began to receive fewer benefits from slavery,
they had an easier time accepting ideas for the abolition of slavery. They were forced to use free labor to
perform the needed agricultural duties and found that this system actually
produced better results. It seemed
as though northern states got the bad end of the deal initially, but time
showed that it was actually the other way around. When abolition did finally occur, some southern planters
were left without a means of labor and suffered significant setbacks. Although the internal slave trade
delayed abolition for several years, it ultimately weakened the structure of
the slave institution and allowed a significant portion of the Brazilian nation
to experience life without slavery.
This experience aided the rise of abolition movements that would soon
play a crucial role in the elimination of slavery.
For several years after the African slave trade to Brazil ended in
1852, abolitionism was an almost non-existent movement. Indeed, it could hardly be
characterized as a movement at all since anti-slavery sentiments were not
widespread, and the few attempts at achieving reform were structured so as to
avoid a great deal of opposition.
Advocates of emancipation did not want to push for radical changes and
risk alienating themselves from all other support. The reforms they advocated were conservative because they
believed that gradual improvements were better than none. To some extent, it is possible that
these early abolitionists were still skeptical of a Brazilian society in which
no slavery would exist. However,
all this would soon change as an abolitionist movement appeared and played a
crucial role in the final decade before abolition.
Some historians and scholars, such as Robert Brent Toplin, consider a
distinct abolitionist movement in Brazil began on March 5, 1879. On this date, Jeronymo Sodre delivered
a fiery speech in which he claimed that emancipation was needed to bring
Òprosperity and tranquilityÓ to the nation.33 He argued that freeing the slaves was
the only way to bring modernization to Brazil. This speech was given as a response to planters who had been
pushing for legislation that would allow harsher punishments for slaves who had
committed crimes. It is ironic
that the speech that ignited the abolition movement was in response to
plantersÕ complaints. These
planters indirectly helped to start the movement that would end their labor
source. Whatever the case, SodreÕs
impassioned speech broke the silence of abolitionists and motivated them to
action. During the next year,
abolitionists began to meet, organize, articulate, and plan their
movement. This movement finally
became visible as people across varying backgrounds and occupations joined in
the fight against slavery. A
unified front against the institution was the one thing that amounted to a
significant problem for slaveowners.34 
Though ideas on how to achieve
abolition varied, each abolitionist knew that the main goal was complete and
immediate freedom for every slave within the country. As one of the leading abolitionists during this period,
Joaquim Nabuco described his views on the abolitionist mission. ÒThis work of ours— of
reparation, of shame, of repentance, however it may be termed, of the
emancipation of the existing slaves and their children—is only the
immediate task of abolitionism.
Apart from this, there is even greater work to be done, that of the
future: that of blotting out all the effects of a system which for three
centuries has been a school of demoralization and inertia, of servility and
irresponsibility for the master caste, which made of Brazil the Paraguay of
slavery.Ó35
As leaders in the struggle against slavery, it is important to note
where the members of the abolitionist movement came from and why they suddenly
desired to eliminate slavery.
Whereas a few decades earlier there were very few abolitionists, the
1880s saw a membership explosion in comparative terms. One group that became important in this
movement was the northern planters.
As mentioned earlier, these planters had lost many of their slaves as a
result of the internal slave trade.
They were forced to switch to free labor and found that it was actually
quite beneficial. Because slaves
were no longer of the utmost importance to them, their allegiance to
slaveholding interests waned in the years before abolition. In addition to these planters, many
urban dwellers during this period did not own slaves and therefore did not
identify with the goals of the slaveholding population. These citizens lacked the tie to
slavery that made it so difficult to give up. Aside from these two groups, the majority of abolitionists
appeared as changes in the Brazilian economy and society fostered new ways of looking
at the slave institution. Toward
the end of the nineteenth century, capitalism and its effects became
increasingly prominent in Brazil.
The enormous production and exportation of coffee led to the tremendous
growth of coastal cities and the new development of railroads enabled further
internal growth. As these cities
overflowed with new businesses, foreign investors and planters with excess
capital invested their money into forming other types of businesses that
serviced the growth. These
businesses included banks, insurance companies, and transportation companies.36
In addition to this, entrepreneurs wanted a piece of the action and
began to set up small manufacturing companies to produce items such as hats and
textiles. The industrial and urban
expansion that helped to form these groups also nurtured their belief in
ÒliberalÓ economics.37 This held that slavery was an evil
based upon economics theories of the time rather than moral convictions. This urban group supported free markets
and free labor and strongly believed that free labor was superior to slave
labor. The rise of this group in
the 1880s factored significantly into the rise of the abolitionist movement in
the same decade.
During this same time period Brazil developed infrastructures which
increased communication between itself and the United States and Europe. The expansion of railroads, steamships,
telegraph lines, and even publications paved the way for more Brazilians to
educate themselves and observe trends in the rest of the world.38
Brazilian cities in the late nineteenth century became not only areas of
rapid industrialization, but hotbeds for the exchange of ideas. When Brazilians examined other
countries such as the United States and those in Europe, they learned new ideas
which were then transferred to the examination of their own country. Because of its slave institution,
Brazil certainly failed this test, and Brazilian citizens spread this
dissatisfaction to their peers. In
short, the transportation and communication revolutions transformed the
landscape of Brazil, which in turn led to an increase in abolitionism.
In order to accompany all of its
new support, leading abolitionists formed many new clubs and newspapers that
further advanced the abolitionist agenda.
One of the first of these clubs was the Brazilian Anti-Slavery
Society. It elected Joaquim Nabuco
as its president and began publishing O Abolicionista, an anti-slavery journal. This organization was short lived, but
several others succeeded it and kept the movement alive. As an accompaniment to the clubs and
organizations, abolitionist newspapers spread thoughts, reforms, and
anti-slavery sentiment throughout the country. One of the most influential of these was the Gazeta da
Tarde in Rio de
Janeiro. Established in 1880 the paper was edited by Ferreira de Menezes until
his death soon after, when Jose do Patrocinio took control and used the paper
to unleash an anger built up through years of watching brutal slave beatings on
his own fatherÕs plantation.
Patrocinio used intense anti-slavery rhetoric and expanded the daily
circulation from 2,000 to 12,000.39 His paper quickly became the
predominant anti-slavery organ in Brazil.
Anti-slavery organizations, newspapers, and significant leaders all
acted to alter the course of Brazilian history. Despite a mixed bag of conservative and extreme approaches
in the early 1880s, the trend switched to radical tactics by 1885. Abolitionists began demanding more and
compromising less. They used their
influence to garner support, sway legislation, and pressure the imperial
government. Their increased
popularity and tactics eventually helped them achieve their ultimate goal.
Generally speaking, the government in Brazil did little to help the
abolition movement in the early years after the African slave trade had
ended. It was primarily concerned
with maintaining the conditions needed to promote agriculture and
commerce. This, of course, meant
that policy decisions were formed around what was thought to be best for the
production and exportation of BrazilÕs cash crop, coffee. Indeed, the government so desired that
the status quo remain that the issue of slavery was not even mentioned in the
General Assembly.40 When the topic was occasionally brought
up, the majority of politicians quickly shot it down. Most of these statesmen had their own interests in mind
during this time. They were
usually members of the planter class and had no desire to see their lives
altered by anti-slavery bills.41 In addition, the executive branch of
the government made decisions that prevented the acknowledgement of slavesÕ
rights. Under BrazilÕs slave trade
treaty with Britain, all slaves imported after November 7, 1831 were
technically free.42 Yet the government refused to change
the status of these slaves because their current status was considered more
beneficial and necessary to the success of the nation.
The emperor of Brazil, Pedro II, also did little to help the
abolitionist cause in the early years.
Despite proclaiming that he supported anti-slavery measures, he seldom
defended his position and frequently left the country whenever serious
discussions on slavery took place within the government. Wary of change, Pedro recognized that
he could not always oppose the wishes of the powerful planter class. To avoid opposition, he often supported
legislation that both condemned slavery and prolonged it at the same time. This effectively alienated him from
both sides of the slavery question.43
An excellent example of this was the passage of the Rio
Branco Law in 1871, which held that children born to slave mothers would be
free upon reaching the age of 21.
Pedro II supported this law and pushed for its passage, but then left
the country when it was being debated.
His daughter, Isabel, acted as regent on his behalf to sign the
bill. Despite condemning slavery
to an eventual end, this law also further delayed abolition. As historian Colin MacLachlan noted,
Òhe (Pedro) became associated negatively with both the delay and the end of
slaveryÓ.44 Though claiming to support anti-slavery
measures, his actions often derailed this objective.
Because abolition finally occurred, it is obvious that some shift in
government attitudes and legislation developed after the initial one-sided
defense of slavery by politicians.
There were multiple factors that enabled this shift. After the Paraguayan War ended, the
government was able to focus more on the issue of slavery. After all, in 1866, they had promised
the French Committee on the Abolition of Slavery that they would work toward
ending slave labor.45 The end of the war allowed the
government to at least make an attempt to fulfill that promise. Additionally, the 1870s and 1880s were
periods of rapid growth and change.
As mentioned earlier, increased urbanization, transportation, and communication
led to the acceptance of more liberal ideology by many Brazilian citizens. This shift precipitated a change in
pressure on the imperial government from the pro-slavery planter class to the
anti-slavery urban class. In 1871
the Rio Branco Law was passed and was seen as Òbetter than nothingÓ by the
abolitionists. This law came on
the heels of a government alteration by the emperor, who appointed a new prime
minister who was more open to the elimination of slavery than were most in his
conservative party. After this,
moderate, gradual reforms continued to dominate discussion and legislation, and
the growing number of abolitionists grew increasingly unsatisfied. The prolonging of slavery agitated
abolitionists who were becoming more radical every year. Despite their pressure, another gradual
emancipation law was passed in 1885. 
This law, known as the Saraiva-Cotegipe Law, said that all
slaves who were 60 would be freed in three years, and all others would be set
free upon reaching the age of 65.46 This law set aside money for an
emancipation fund that would allow the government to purchase the slavesÕ
freedom from their masters when the time came. Under this plan, it was expected that all slaves would be
freed in about 17 years.47 The debate leading up to the passage of
this law shows the intense pressure on the government from both sides of the
slavery divide. On one hand,
abolitionists represented by Jose do Patrocinio denounced the law because it
was a more liberal form of the Dantas Bill that had been rejected by the
Chamber of Deputies earlier in the year.48 Among their main complaints was the
fact that the Saraiva-Cotegipe Law eliminated the requirement that all slaves
be registered with their birthplace and parentage.49
This aspect of the Dantas Bill would have shown those individuals that
were illegally enslaved based on the 1831 treaty with Britain.50
On the other hand, many planters denounced the Dantas Bill because of
its vagueness. They emphasized the
idea that the government could free any slave without compensation if it was
allowed to free those reaching 60 years of age.51
They also mentioned that the government needed to decide
whether slaves were legal property or not. If they were, indemnification should be given to the owners
upon setting their slaves free.52 This debate between planters and
abolitionists illustrates the fact that neither group was willing to give
in. After the Saraiva-Cotegipe
Law, some abolitionists shifted their strategy to get more humane treatment for
slaves. They did this through a
focus on changing legislation and looking for loopholes.53
On the side, other abolitionists went underground and helped slaves
escape from their masters. These
extreme abolitionists continued to hound the government for radical
legislation. Finally, on May 13,
1888, they got their wish. While
Pedro II was in Europe again, Princess Isabel signed what came to be known as
the ÒGolden Law.Ó With this law,
slavery was abolished immediately and Brazil soon encountered dramatic changes.
In general, the consequences of abolition are about as contested as
the causes. Historians debate the
extent to which abolition affected the establishment of a republic, among other
things. In this debate, two
general stories emerge. There is
the story that abolition severely hurt the economy and planters who then allied
with the government to overthrow the monarchy. And then there is the story that the monarchy had always
been out of place in Brazil and was destined to fall even without
abolition. This latter story gives
a great deal of credit to the Republican Party in Brazil and highlights the
forces that undermined the monarchy before abolition occurred. The following paragraphs are a
description of the first story, and the subsequent section illustrates why this
story is not plausible.
Immediately following the abolition of slavery by the Golden Law, it
was unclear exactly how Brazil was going to respond. Fears of labor shortage and economic decline were widespread,
but the extent to which these fears were realized varied by region. For example, Sao Paulo suffered a short
setback and then went on to produce more coffee than any other region in the
country. Its population continued
to grow rapidly and it helped Brazil produce over half of the worldÕs coffee in
the 1890s.54 At the opposite end of the spectrum,
Rio de Janeiro experienced tremendous decline. It had already started to drop in coffee production during the
middle part of the 1880s, and abolition accelerated this fall.55
Other areas of the country not focused on coffee also suffered
setbacks. In the sugar producing
provinces most planters had not switched to modern equipment and technology and
could therefore not keep up with the production and sales of their
competitors. Indeed, the only ones
that survived the repercussions of abolition were those that had central sugar
factories or mills. An example of
this can be seen in the province of Pernambuco with its modern factories and
equipment for processing sugar.
Other areas of the country like Bahia fell behind and suffered more
after abolition because they lacked the modernization.56
Generally speaking, the extent to which any individual planter suffered
economic distress after abolition was due to how attached he was to
slavery. Those planters who
gradually shifted toward free labor were better off than those who still clung
to slavery in the very last minute.
Hard-core slaveholders initially plummeted as they lost the majority of
their manpower and capital investment.
Most were severely in debt and had no way to pay for free labor. As a result of this, planters gathered
soon after May 13 to organize their demands for indemnification. They wanted to be reimbursed for their
losses in slave property, and estimates in order to do so ranged from 70,000 to
600,000 contos.57 In order to repay the disgruntled
planters, many urban dwellers feared that they would be taxed heavily. The planters soon lost the battle as
the government voted in 1888 to not reimburse former slave owners for their
Òlost propertyÓ.58 However, the government did try to help
the planters by getting new banks set up to finance loans.59
In June of 1889 a new Prime Minister was appointed after Joao Alfredo
stepped down.60 The new Prime Minister received
multiple complaints from a variety of disgruntled Brazilian citizens. Many soon turned to ÒrepublicanismÓ in
hopes that changing the form of government would improve their conditions. Powerful planters that had previously
supported the emperor began leaving in droves to join the planter-republicans
in Sao Paulo.61 Urban residents also called for a
change when they began believing that BrazilÕs political system prevented the
country from achieving modernization.
Additionally, army officers soon joined the ranks as the republican core
grew stronger and stronger.
Despite a growing number of proposed reforms by the imperial government,
army officers overthrew the government on November 15, 1889.62
On this date a republic was established without any collapse or
revolution.
Shortly after the Golden Law of 1888, Brazil experienced some
tremendous changes. Chief among
these was the establishment of a republic. As the last section presented, many believe that this
republic resulted from disgruntled planters, who had lost much of their wealth
and sources of labor. This view,
however, is insufficient because it leaves out the important influence of the
Republican Party and republican ideals in Brazil. For many reasons that I hope to present, the overthrow of
the monarchy in Brazil and the consequential establishment of a republic was
not the result of angry planters, but of a variety of forces that doomed the
Crown from its inception. In
short, the overthrow of the monarchy was inevitable, though abolition sped up
its demise.
Abolition did not cause the fall of the monarchy for a number of
reasons. First of all, the wealth
in slaves had gone from seventeen percent in the late 1840s to less than one
percent in the 1880s.63 Additionally, the number of slaves
decreased significantly because of runaways. Indeed, it is even noted that the majority of slaveholders
had accepted the idea of free labor, and only a few representatives voted against
the Golden Law in 1888.64 So if both the wealth in slavery and
the number of slaves were small, it seems that abolition could not have had
such a tremendous effect on planters.
Some critics even contend that the Golden Law abolishing slavery was
more of a formality than anything.
If this were the case, nothing really would have changed after 1888.
Second of all, others point to the significant increase in Republican
Party membership after abolition as a sign that many joined the party to spite
the monarchy and not because they truly believed in republican ideals. This is misleading because a strong
republican core had existed and grown since 1870.65 Much of the military were dissatisfied
with the monarchy long before abolition, and many of its leaders believed that
establishing a republic was necessary.66 The provinces of Rio de Janeiro and Sao
Paulo also contained large numbers of republicans. Sao Paulo in particular was extremely dissatisfied with the
monarchy because of the provinceÕs lack of representation within the
government. It had even considered
secession but opted to encourage a new form of government instead.67
Hostility toward the monarchy and the desire for a republic had been
around well before the abolition of slavery. In fact, in 1887, even before slavery was abolished, the
Republican Party had started strategizing to overthrow the monarchy and
considered asking the military for help.68 It is also true that many had hoped for
a republic even before BrazilÕs independence in 1822. The revolutionary movements before and after independence
give credence to this point.69
In 1880, eight years before abolition occurred, some Brazilian
citizens associated a republican form of government with better efficiency and
a higher quality of life. An
excellent example of the desire for a republic comes from one particular
Brazilian citizen. Amilcar Armando Botelho de Magalhaes of Rio de Janeiro
commented in this year that a republican form of government would bring Ò
Ôgreater benefits to the proletariat in the form of general education,
technical specialization, and artistic and cultural development, together with
material support, sanitary living conditions, a scientifically regulated diet,
and a system of hospitals, maternity homes, and medical clinics.ÕÓ70
These changes were possible only through the industrialization of a
society whose government was no longer considered backwards.
It is also necessary to note that social and economic forces had weakened the monarchy in Brazil
even before abolition occurred. If
one force could be touted as the main cause for the fall of the monarchy, it is
probably the ideals of modernism.
Modernist thought entered Brazil from Europe and the United States. It permeated all aspects of society and
was the cause of growing discontent.
Even after slavery was abolished, many Brazilian citizens wanted the
overthrow of the monarchy because they believed its backwardness hindered the
development of their country.
Modernism also went hand-in-hand with industrialization and
urbanization. Urbanization soon
transformed the Brazilian landscape, creating an environment that facilitated
the spread of more modernist ideals.
Industrialization spawned the transportation and communication
revolutions that further spread these ideals. These revolutions brought both economic liberalism and
increased urbanization and weakened the traditional groups that had supported
the monarchy. With less support,
the monarchy was destined to fall.
Additionally, modernist principles clearly influenced the development of
BrazilÕs republic. Despite the
transfer of many aspects of BrazilÕs monarchy to its republic, the new
government was based largely on that of the United States. That Brazil derived much of the
inspiration for its republic from America can be traced back to the influence
of the United States in other areas of Brazilian society. While still emperor, Pedro II visited
the United States and returned with ideas for technical progress.71
He met with inventors, doctors, scholars, and writers in an effort to
learn things that could be used in his country. According to Brazilian historian Gilberto Freyre, this visit
Òopened new perspectives in the cultural progress of Brazil, hitherto confined
largely to European modelsÓ.72 In large part, modernist influence from
the United States paved the way for a republican government in Brazil.
Last of all, evidence suggesting that a republic would have been
established regardless of abolition exists in the rule of Pedro II
himself. During this time,
divisions in representative parties and cabinet instability frustrated
Brazilian citizens. In his 49-year reign as emperor, Pedro saw thirty-nine different cabinets.73
Citizens increasingly wanted decentralization of the government to
achieve more reforms, and Pedro stood in their way. As historian Colin MacLachlan noted, it is unlikely that
Pedro even worried about losing his imperial title. ÒThe early death of two sons perhaps played a role in his
lack of effort to pass on the throne.
His eldest daughter, Isabel, as a woman could not play the patriarchal
political game, nor could she rely on a strong royal mystique to overwhelm the
elite of what in reality constituted a bourgeois kingdom. Moreover, Isabel did not enjoy
exercising her authority as regent during her fatherÕs absences, finding it an
almost unbearable burdenÓ.74 Based on this, the fall of the monarchy
almost seemed inevitable. If one
considers the growth of increasingly radical abolitionists alongside this
weakened monarchial state, it seems as if abolitionists would have overthrown
the government had they not achieved their goal. Therefore, it is likely that the monarchy would have been
overthrown and the republic established despite the governmentÕs decision on
abolition. Abolition merely sped
up the process by highlighting the inefficiency of the Crown, isolating slave
owners, and forcing passive abolitionists to be more active.
This study of Brazilian abolition and slavery would be incomplete
without some mention of how Brazilians viewed their own slave past. To understand these views, it is
particularly beneficial to read the work of Gilberto Freyre. One work in particular, The Masters
and the Slaves, seeks
to describe how Portuguese, Indians, and blacks have influenced BrazilÕs
national culture. He uses the
continuing metaphor of a big plantation house and a slave hut to illustrate how
Brazilian culture developed from the interaction between haves and have-nots. Many people may view Brazilian slavery
as impeding development because it existed for so long, destroyed land, and
prevented industrialization. These
ideas and others are presented in the earlier section on the role of slavery as
an institution. Joaquim Nabuco was
certainly a native Brazilian who viewed slavery in such a negative light, and
he is representative of other Brazilians who espoused similar opinions. Not all Brazilians, however, viewed
their slave past in such a pessimistic fashion. In fact, after several years had passed and Brazilians were
able to reflect on their history, many began to take sides with the ideas
presented by Gilberto Freyre.
While he does not say that slavery was good for his country, he does
suggest that it contributed to a distinctly unique culture within Brazil. He emphasizes the importance of sex a
great deal, and tries to show the willingness with which members of differing
races procreated with each other.
ÒThe truth is that the social conditions surrounding the development of
the child on the old sugar plantations of Brazil, as on the antebellum
plantations of Virginia and the Carolinas—where the young one is
constantly surrounded by the Negro or mulatto girl who is easily to be
had— are in themselves sufficient to explain the predilection mentioned. In Brazil, cases are known where white
men not only prefer Negro women but are incapable of enjoying themselves with
any other.Ó75 Here Freyre illustrates that, while
slaves were certainly considered property, many did not have problems forming
sexual relationships with them.
Many Brazilians were very open in their relationships and, as a result,
some slave women received elevated positions or the title of mistress to the
owner. As people of Portuguese
descent mixed with aborigines and African slaves, a unique society was formed
in which race was not an issue.
Freyre claims that Brazilian society, in part created by slavery, led to
an environment having little to no racial prejudice. This characteristic makes Brazilians exceptional throughout
the world.76
The abolition of slavery in Brazil and its consequences is indeed a
very complicated topic. Far from
the simple story that many textbooks present, the story of abolition in Brazil
is laced with many underlying influences.
Instead of one particular case yielding the best explanation, multiple
factors combined to affect slaveryÕs demise. Outside influences from around the world, economic and
demographic changes, governmental policies and influence, abolitionists, and
slavery as an institution itself all simultaneously worked together to alter
Brazilian society and prepare it for the emancipation of slaves. After final abolition, more controversy
arises as historians dispute the reasons for the fall of the monarchy. This dispute is far from one-sided, but
the best evidence seems to lie in the argument proposed by Emilia Viotti da
Costa in his book The Brazilian Empire.
Rather than the result of disgruntled planters demanding a change after
abolition, the fall of the monarchy and consequential establishment of a
republic were results of the republican movement, modernist forces, and the
CrownÕs insufficient actions. In
short, the fall of the monarchy was destined to happen even without abolition. Viotti da Costa emphasizes this
best. ÒThe most that can be said
is that abolition, by dealing the final blow to rural sectors that had
traditionally supported the Crown, precipitated its fall. Abolition was not the cause of the
republic; it would be more correct to say that abolition and the proclamation
of the republic were repercussions, at the institutional level, of changes in
the economic and social structure, and in peopleÕs perceptions.Ó77
Whatever the case, Brazilians have made the most of their slave
past. Following in the footsteps
of Gilberto Freyre, Brazilians can now argue that the horrible institution of
slavery that caused so many problems was actually a significant contributor in
creating BrazilÕs unique and exceptional culture.
QQQQQ