hmm... But I would think that unless the *Uruguayans are pacified and Brazilianized fast, their sheer nature as "Hispanics under Brazilian control" would suffice to feed the irredentist spirit in *Argentina for years...
WI:Brazilian victory in Cisplatine War?
- Thread starter GeneralInTheShell
- Start date
wolf_brother
Banned
The Brazilian aim was to keep Uruguay as a province. The Argentine aim was to annex it. Brazil clearly lost the war on land, but the Argentines couldn't defeat our Navy, so finnaly Britain mediated the conflict and determined that Uruguay should be independent. It wasn't a Brazilian victory, it was a British one.
The Brazilian aim was to check the spread of republicanism along their southern border. In this they were incredibly successful. The war was an undeniable victory for Brazilian foreign and internal policy.
Actually, the imperial foreign policy was to guarantee the free navigation of the rivers of the La Plata Basin in order to reach the western and godforsaken province of Mato Grosso. Cisplatine was essential for this and the Brazilian interventions in 1850, 1854 and 1864 were to keep the status quo.
Right, and it is what caused the Argentine entry to the war in the first place. However, after a defeat and a naval blockade, Argentina is unlikely to go to war again unless it can defeat the Brazilian Navy, which requires building an expensive fleet, while at the same time, facing at the very least, internal unrest, if not open civil war.
And, even if a victory in a second war is achieved, that means opening a second seafaring province which would compete with Buenos Aires and a business elite which will compete with the Buenos Aires' elite.
But, then again, a second war down the line might be possible. And there is the issue if the Brazilians can hold the Cisplatine Province anyway.
Gonzaga is right about Brazilian finances. The thing is, Argentine finances were bad as well. I don't think either country can press the land war further.
Sure, it was so successful that we gained a Republic in what was considered to be a province of the Empire. Oh, and only 8 years after the end of the war we had rebells in Rio Grande do Sul (and rebells who actually commanded Brazilian troops against the Argentines in the Cisplatine) declaring other republic, basically due to problems originated in that war. It was really a good victory!
Brazil's first aim in that war was to keep the Cisplatine as a province, and Pedro I personally considered it Brazilian territory. Also, Brazil lost all the important land battles in the conflict. I can't see how can it be considered a Brazilian victory.
wolf_brother
Banned
You keep labeling Uruguay as a Brazilian province, but Brazil had only conquered it from Argentina a few years prior to the Cisplatine War and prior to the war it was basically under military occupation. This isn't Minas Gerais or Bahia, Uruguay was hardly a core Brazilian territory.
It doesn't matter is it wasn't core Brazilian territory. The Emperor and the government saw it as a territory that belonged legally to Brazil since 1821 (when the Congress of Montevideo voted for incorporation into the Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves), and it was their duty to keep it. They didn't care about what the Uruguayans thought of it, or even what the Brazilian themselves thought of it. But the defeat in the war was considered a huge blow against Pedro I, and it helped to undermine his authority.
Butterflies
While the Cisplatine War would seem a local squabble, its consequences would impact in rather unpredictable ways the life of one Giuseppe Garibaldi, that was later to play a large role as military leader in Italian Unification.
He would form his early military knowledge mostly in the Farrapos rebellion and later in the Uruguayan Civil war.
Interesting stuff down the line here.
While the Cisplatine War would seem a local squabble, its consequences would impact in rather unpredictable ways the life of one Giuseppe Garibaldi, that was later to play a large role as military leader in Italian Unification.
He would form his early military knowledge mostly in the Farrapos rebellion and later in the Uruguayan Civil war.
Interesting stuff down the line here.
Thank you for this DValdron, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments and statement. Joho
wolf_brother
Banned
Uruguay was never going to be a 'normal' Brazilian province. Beyond the obvious differences of Spanish v. Portuguese, the Uruguayans had been apart of Argentina since the 16th century. Hell, it was Uruguayans who first organized the Liga Federal, whose direct successor was the United Provinces. Uruguay was never going to be able to directly annexed into Brazil, and the military occupation of the territory was extremely costly, both financially and in the human cost. Letting Uruguay go as an independent buffer state under Brazilian influence, with free navigation of the Plate, as well as the hefty war indemnity Argentina had to pay to Brazil, was the best solution possible for Brazil. It was a huge Brazilian victory in the long run.
Yes, the war undermined his authority. That's why after the war when his father, João VI of Portugal died, and Pedro became the Portuguese King, he abdicated the latter title because Brazil was by then the stronger position, both in terms of his legitimacy and power there, and as a nation itself compared to its former metropole.
If anything undermined Pedro's authority, it was his a) very open affair with Domitila de Castro, b) the fact that he couldn't pay his troops; which led directly to the Irish and German' Revolt, and c) his very liberal personal and political policies; which had caused the Confederate revolt in the north-west just a year before the Cisplatine War.
I agree that it was the best solution in the long run, but what I'm trying to say is that the war was a defeat because Brazilian first aim was to keep Cisplatine. It was only changed after Ituzaingó, that finally showed that it was impossible to achieve a result on the battlefield, as Pedro I wanted. And it certainly was considered at the time as a defeat, and the Emperor and his govenment were blamed for it. The POD asked for a Brazilian victory, so it demands that Cisplatine is kept as Brazilian territory.
John VI died in March 1826. At that time Brazil didn't even have sent armies to Uruguay.
The problem of the war is that it showed how unprepared was the Brazilian Army, and many officers started to blame the Emperor for it (and he could actually be personally blamed, as the increase of authoritarism during his rule meant that government was dependent on him). The defeat also was a tool used by the opposition to make his government even more unpopular, as the Emperor had emptied the public coffers and sent soldiers to die for a lost cause. It wasn't a direct cause of his abdication, but it helped to undermine his position.
I think you mean his Conservative policies, as the Confederation of Equador was a Liberal revolt (and the more Liberal their ideas became the more it costed the support from the landowners).
wolf_brother
Banned
What? I think we're disagreeing here because we have a fundamental different understanding of the historical facts.
Sources;
Roderick Barman's Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852,
Neill Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798–1834,
The [Argentine] National Convention's Sesquicentennial Tribute to the Major Historical Events of 1825.
- Brazilian troops first fought the Argentinians in late June 1825.
- The Confederation of the Equator was a secessionist revolt of wealthy land & slave owning aristocrats in northwest Brazil who rejected;
- the 1824 Constitution, which was, at the time, the most liberal in the world, and
- Pedro's signing of a treaty with Britain in return for the latter's mediation in resolving the War of Brazilian Independence, in which, among other things, Pedro agree to halt the Brazilian Slave Trade.
Sources;
Roderick Barman's Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852,
Neill Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798–1834,
The [Argentine] National Convention's Sesquicentennial Tribute to the Major Historical Events of 1825.
Agreed. I think the best bet for a victory that makes things better for D.Pedro I is a victory at Sarandi, not Passo do Rosário. Brazil lost control of the Uruguayan interior after the defeat at Sarandi. If the Uruguayan interior is under Brazilian control, the chances of suppressing the Uruguayans increase. Maybe the war ends in 1826-7, instead of 1828?
It was a liberal constitution in the terms of personal freedoms, but the Moderator Power allowed Pedro to rule as an absolute monarch of a very centralized state. This didn't please the North East, long neglected by the Brazilian government and with a history of uprisings.
wolf_brother
Banned
Perhaps liberal isn't the correct word to use here; progressive might be the most accurate term. Pedro's Brazil was very liberal, both personally and politically, but in the sense of an authoritarian liberalism akin to perhaps Louis-Napoléon's France.
They owned Uruguay before 1825. They didn't after 1828. Before it was Brazilian territory, they could do what they pleased. Afterwards it was an independent country where they might exert some influence, sure... but so could Argentina or Britain. And they had a government which defended their own interests. I don't see how you can call this an "undeniable victory". It might not be the worstcase scenario for Brazil, since at least it didn't end up in Argentine hands... But a victory???
I agree with Gonzaga here. I just wanted to add that, although Brazil/Portugal got the territory in 1821, Portuguese had been in a part of Uruguay for most of the years between 1680 and 1777: see Colonia del Sacramento
Anyway, I must say it wasn't considedered a victory in Argentina either, or, more precisely, the idea was that we won the war on the field but lost it on the peace treaty. That's how it was seen back then, and that's one of the reasons why Dorrego's government failed. This idea endured for a long time. My view is that the government wasn't in financial conditions to keep the war going, an the blockade was affecting the economy seriously. So it was a reasonable result for Argentina, given the situation the country was in, and the disparity of resources both country could have displayed in the long run, had the war went on.
It was against troops that were already in Uruguay. I said that by March we didn't have sent troops. Brazil didn't declare war against Argentina until December 1825, and Argentina only did the same against us in January 1st 1826. The Brazilian offensive on land only started in the second half of 1826. Before that the Brazilian forces in Uruguay were composed by the troops that were already there and militias formed by gaucho leaders, as Bento Gonçalves.
First, you need to understand that Pernambuco (or better, the merchant class of Recife and the cotton landowners that had commercial relations with Britain) was extremely against the concentration of power in Rio and defended more power to the provinces. They had rebelled before against the central government in 1817, and 1824 can be considered a rematch of that.
The conflict was a direct consequence of the dissolution of the Constitutional Assembly by Pedro I in 1823. When the news of the dissolution arrived to Recife in November the political unrest increased, and in December the government of the province (composed by sugarcane landwoners) fell, being replaced by a "junta" of merchants and owners of cotton plantations. Their leader was Paes de Andrade, a liberal merchant veteran of 1817, who lived in exile in the USA after that rebellion was supressed (he even named his three dauthers as Carolina, Filadélfia and Pensilvania).
The problem of Paes is that Pedro had named other guy to be the governor of Pernambuco (Francisco Paes Barreto, a sugarmill owner of the South of the province). The "junta" refused to replace Andrade by Barreto, and sent a letter to the Emperor asking to have the dissolution of the Constitutional Assembly cancelled and all the deputies called back to Rio, including those who were arrested and deported. Pedro I tried to reach an agreement by nominating other governor, but the man indicated refused to accept the position. Meanwhile, the government of Pernambuco spent the entire first half of 1824 preparing to war, even capturing ships of the imperial navy in the harbour of Recife.
So yes, it was a revolt of wealthy landwoners and slaveholders, but the main supporters were the merchants of Recife, who had commercial relations with Britain. When Paes de Andrade suggested that they could free the slaves to get more manpower to fight the Imperial Army then they lost the support of the landwoners, who started to collaborate with the Empire. And yes, they were against the Constitution of 1824, but not because it was too Liberal, but because they didn't want to recognise a constitution that was imposed by the Emperor (and that gave him "authoritarian power") instead of one created by the representatives of the provinces.
Sources:
Carvalho, Carlos Delgado de - História Diplomática do Brasil
Golin, Tau - A Fronteira
Gomes, Laurentino - 1822
Del Priore, Mary - Uma Breve História do Brasil
Interesting replies! I'd like to quickly add some of my opinions to discuss it later:
1 - Most of the revolts in Brazil by that time, like the other big countries in America, e.g. Argentina, Mexico, USA, were not about Conservatism or Liberalism (I think that would be better suited to discuss European situation), but Political Centralism against more Regional Liberty ("Federalsm"). Issues about political Conservatism or Liberalism woud only be collateral dammage, in my opinion.
2 - As someone said before, Uruguay was far from being an uncontested Spanish/Argentinean territory. Portuguese Colônia do Sacramento was founded in the early 17th century and it changed hands from Portugal to Spain countless times ever since. It was far from being a foreign land to the Brazilian/Portuguese.
3 - As for the ethnical/linguistic problem, I don't think that would be a big issue either. The farmers from Rio Grande do Sul would most probably migrate searching more fertile lands in a Texas-like moviment. I'm sure that the Spanish "Platino" culture would not be totally supplanted, but, as I see, Brazilian Cisplatina would "just" be another unhappy Brazilian province.
1 - Most of the revolts in Brazil by that time, like the other big countries in America, e.g. Argentina, Mexico, USA, were not about Conservatism or Liberalism (I think that would be better suited to discuss European situation), but Political Centralism against more Regional Liberty ("Federalsm"). Issues about political Conservatism or Liberalism woud only be collateral dammage, in my opinion.
2 - As someone said before, Uruguay was far from being an uncontested Spanish/Argentinean territory. Portuguese Colônia do Sacramento was founded in the early 17th century and it changed hands from Portugal to Spain countless times ever since. It was far from being a foreign land to the Brazilian/Portuguese.
3 - As for the ethnical/linguistic problem, I don't think that would be a big issue either. The farmers from Rio Grande do Sul would most probably migrate searching more fertile lands in a Texas-like moviment. I'm sure that the Spanish "Platino" culture would not be totally supplanted, but, as I see, Brazilian Cisplatina would "just" be another unhappy Brazilian province.