Northeast secedes from Brazil

[mianfei]

During the 2000s, I read Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis, which said that Northeastern Brazil’s development was seriously affected during the nineteenth century by a coffee-dominated exchange rate that priced large portions of its sugar and cotton out of the world market. Whilst whether that process (not necessarily this individual case) is ipso facto bad can be debated, when I recently read the source in the 1997 book How Latin America fell behind : essays on the economic histories of Brazil and Mexico, 1800-1914 (written by Nathaniel Leff) I found that — like the Southern United States — the Northeast attempted to secede from Brazil.

Reading Leff made me think: how would history be changed if the Northeast had seceded from Brazil?

Would, as Leff suggests, the region have been better able to develop independent of Rio de Janeiro (or Brasilia)?

Also, why did the Northeast not succeed in seceding from Brazil and what would have had to change for a successful secession?

 

[Mildtryth]

During the 2000s, I read Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis, which said that Northeastern Brazil’s development was seriously affected during the nineteenth century by a coffee-dominated exchange rate that priced large portions of its sugar and cotton out of the world market. Whilst whether that process (not necessarily this individual case) is ipso facto bad can be debated, when I recently read the source in the 1997 book How Latin America fell behind : essays on the economic histories of Brazil and Mexico, 1800-1914 (written by Nathaniel Leff) I found that — like the Southern United States — the Northeast attempted to secede from Brazil.

Reading Leff made me think: how would history be changed if the Northeast had seceded from Brazil?

Would, as Leff suggests, the region have been better able to develop independent of Rio de Janeiro (or Brasilia)?

Also, why did the Northeast not succeed in seceding from Brazil and what would have had to change for a successful secession?

There two different events - first there was the Pernambucan revolt in 1817, and the Equador Confederation in 1824. Those were revolts largely sparked by the court's centralizing policies. The rebels of 1817 got some support in Paraíba and Ceará, but found themselves isolated and defeated in very short order, and while the Equadorians tried to invite the other northern provinces (Grão-Pará, Maranhão and Piauí included as well) to join but that time, they got very little support outside of Pernambuco. And even then, a good chunk of the Pernambucans themselves weren't with it.

Now I wonder how would the Lusophone atlases cope with two different countries in different ends of the continent calling themselves "Equador"...

 

[holycookie]

Reading Leff made me think: how would history be changed if the Northeast had seceded from Brazil?

in what period? 2000s, 20th century, 19th century?

Would, as Leff suggests, the region have been better able to develop independent of Rio de Janeiro (or Brasilia)?

Maybe, and that's a big maybe. The region is the poorest in the country, needing money from the more economically developed regions to function (since the discovery of gold basically). It is the region of the oligarchs with the oldest kleptocratic families residing, it is the bastion of this cancer. For that simple reason, the answer is no. Now assuming that the region manages to deal with these oligarchies (which is difficult because they are well entrenched). Honestly, I tend to think it will be worse than the OTL. It will be a weak nation economically speaking with a neighbor who wants their territories back. It´s going to have to spend a lot on weaponry to stay competitive.

Also, why did the Northeast not succeed in seceding from Brazil and what would have had to change for a successful secession?

You have to change the world to be honest. The fall in the northeast is due to the discovery of gold in the southeast and the creation of other sugar producing markets, which reduced the rate of profit. With the discovery of gold, the region ceased to be the most populous and lost importance. In the long run, the southeast remained the economic center and the south became the military center due to the wars in the Plata basin. The northeast kind of existed, with a corrupt and incompetent elite sucking up everything that was produced in the region and with the most productive people heading towards the southeast to try their luck.

This is demonstrated in the wars of independence, while the south surrendered in the war of separatism, the region achieved all the conceptions demanded by the revolutionaries and its troops were absorbed by the army (maintaining its appropriate rank). In addition, we have certain groups/states that were loyal to the crown in the Northeas, such as Bahia, which managed to keep the rest behaved. The state of bahia was not really considered northeast. When the state really fell into real decline it was added to the northeast region but before that it was seen more as part of the southeast. In addition we have the apathy of the local population. Revolts were usually carried out by elites who abused the local population and thus had little local support. With the population being kind of apathetic to the idea of independence. The government sent the army to execute the rebel elite, put some local loyal noble in conjunction with a federal government supervisor (who was usually competent which improved how the region was managed). It was relatively easy to deal with these revolts. All these factors make independence difficult.

If we take the revolts in the most chaotic period. The uprisings of the Regency Period we have:

Cabanagem, in the Province of Grão-Pará (1835 – 1840);
The main causes of the revolt were Political and territorial disputes, motivated by the elites of Grão-Pará, the provincial elites wanted to make political and administrative decisions in the province, neglect of the regency government towards the inhabitants of Grão-Pará,the cabanos, for their part, wanted better living and working conditions. The Elites took advantage of popular dissatisfaction to revolt the populations against the regency government. Cabanagem left a carnage of more than thirty thousand dead, almost 30 to 40% of the population of the province.

Farrapos War (or Farroupilha Revolution), in the Province of Rio Grande do Sul (1835 – 1845);
The revolt was mobilized by the large landowners of Rio Grande do Sul, dissatisfied with the high taxes levied by the imperial government on their products. Therefore, they found that separation and the republic would be a way to obtain commercial and political freedom. Enslaved blacks were also recruited to fight, under the promise of freedom, in case of victory in the war against the empire. The Farrapos War was promoted by the ruling class from Rio Grande do Sul. Consisting of ranchers who were the owners of large rural properties, cattle and enslaved blacks. Outraged by the high territorial taxes, in addition to high taxes on beef jerky, leather and tallow exports. Estanceiros protested, as beef jerky from Rio Grande do Sul had to pay 25% taxes while Uruguayan jerky only paid 4% to be sold in Rio de Janeiro. The revolution was favored by the militarized character of society in Rio Grande do Sul, organized in the midst of struggles such as the dispute for Colonia do Sacramento, in the 18th century.
In 1845, the rebels accepted the peace proposal offered by the government. The Poncho Verde Treaty established the incorporation of farroupilha officers into the imperial army, liberation of slaves who had fought alongside the farroupilhas, return of lands that had been taken from the rebels, reduction of taxes in that province and strengthening of the Provincial Assembly.

Revolt of the Malês, Province of Bahia (1835);
The Malês Revolt, represented a quick rebellion organized by slaves of Islamic origin ( especially from the Hausa and Nagô ethnic groups), who mainly sought religious freedom, however it was repressed by imperial troops. the Malês, warrior men, daring and educated, had as main objectives to free the slaves of Islamic origin, exterminate the Catholic religion and establish an Islamic republic. They were killed and islam was forbidden.

Sabinada, in the Province of Bahia (1837 – 1838);
The reason for the revolt was the dissatisfaction with the province's lack of political and administrative autonomy, since in the eyes of the rebels, the regency government was illegitimate. As well the mandatory recruitment imposed on Bahians due to the Farrapos War. The intention of the rebels was only to constitute a Republic of Bahia until D. Pedro II reached the age of majority. Therefore, their dissatisfaction was strictly directed at the regency government and it was not a war for independence. The state was loyal to the crown. The uprising had the support of the urban middle classes, mainly military officers, civil servants, liberal professionals, merchants, artisans and a portion of the poorest layers of the population. With the help of the army and local militias the government forces regained the rebellious regions. Therefore, even internally, part of the troops refused to rebel and attacked the rebels.

Balaiada, in the Province of Maranhão (1838 – 1841).
The revolt emerged as a social uprising for better living conditions and had the participation of cowboys, slaves and other disadvantaged people. It was defeated without major complications.

As you can see, revolts normally did not have the mass to win against the central government, and those who did actually wanted certain privileges or rights.

 

[Rickdukulous Rex]

It'd be poorer than Brazil, not sure if the Amazon would be better off in a smaller country or worse off.

 

[holycookie]

the Northeast

Now, the northeast being economically weaker than the south and southeast does not mean that the region will automatically be poor. There are ways to make the region have a more graceful fall (the fall is inevitable due to the change of focus with the discovery of gold). The northeast having more form of cash crops (More tobacco, cotton, tropical fruits and coffee production, although coffee will be more produced in the southeast) and Livestock (cows and mostly goats/short haired sheep) is a good way to have a more diverse economy and resistant to market price changes. Greater naval production can also be another economic vector. The ports of Salvador and Recife facilitated the transportation of goods between Brazil, Europe, and other colonies in the Americas. They also served as points of entry for African slaves who were brought to Brazil to work on plantations. Shipbuilding activities took place in Salvador and produced both military and commercial vessels.

 

[mianfei]

in what period? 2000s, 20th century, 19th century?

Nineteenth century — that is clear from the context, although Leff was not exactly clear in his book as to when this happened

The northeast having more form of cash crops (More tobacco, cotton, tropical fruits and coffee production, although coffee will be more produced in the southeast) and livestock (cows and mostly goats/short haired sheep) is a good way to have a more diverse economy and resistant to market price changes. Greater naval production can also be another economic vector. The ports of Salvador and Recife facilitated the transportation of goods between Brazil, Europe, and other colonies in the Americas. They also served as points of entry for African slaves who were brought to Brazil to work on plantations. Shipbuilding activities took place in Salvador and produced both military and commercial vessels.

The basis for Leff’s argument that it might have been better if the Northeast had seceded from Brazil is exactly that it would have had an economy more resistant to price changes, because its gold inflows/outflows or exchange rate would not be dominated by (southeastern) coffee. The maritime value is another issue that Leff actually does not discuss, but is still quite interesting.

What has been discussed here, even by Davis, but less so by Leff, is the corruption of the northeastern elite. That would likely intensified if the Northeast became an independent country separate from the rest of Brazil, for the simple reason that they would be removed from even potential higher-level control. If corruption did become worse in an independent Northeast, the region might have become one of the poorest in the Western Hemisphere.

One further question is whether an independent Northeast would have had more trouble abolishing slavery than Brazil did? If it was more dependent upon slavery it would logically have been more difficult, although because there was not the extreme intolerance of free blacks found in the United States, it would never have been so difficult as in an independent Southern Confederacy.

 

[Mildtryth]

Nineteenth century — that is clear from the context, although Leff was not exactly clear in his book as to when this happened

The basis for Leff’s argument that it might have been better if the Northeast had seceded from Brazil is exactly that it would have had an economy more resistant to price changes, because its gold inflows/outflows or exchange rate would not be dominated by (southeastern) coffee. The maritime value is another issue that Leff actually does not discuss, but is still quite interesting.

What has been discussed here, even by Davis, but less so by Leff, is the corruption of the northeastern elite. That would likely intensified if the Northeast became an independent country separate from the rest of Brazil, for the simple reason that they would be removed from even potential higher-level control. If corruption did become worse in an independent Northeast, the region might have become one of the poorest in the Western Hemisphere.

One further question is whether an independent Northeast would have had more trouble abolishing slavery than Brazil did? If it was more dependent upon slavery it would logically have been more difficult, although because there was not the extreme intolerance of free blacks found in the United States, it would never have been so difficult as in an independent Southern Confederacy.

Historically, some of the northern provinces (Amazonas and Ceará) actually abolished slavery earlier than the rest of the country, but that was because of the economical decline of the Northeast combined with the coffee boom, which meant that from the 1870s onwards, the southeasterners were buying their slaves at a hell of a pace. a independent Equador/Pernambuco might have less incentive to sell at the rate it did OTL, but they might still sell a fair few of them anyway.

 

[funnyhat]

Now I wonder how would the Lusophone atlases cope with two different countries in different ends of the continent calling themselves "Equador"...

One or both would use the capital, like Guinea-Bissau.

 

[holycookie]

Nineteenth century — that is clear from the context, although Leff was not exactly clear in his book as to when this happened

in my opinion they collapse after a few decades of independence and are absorbed by brazil with much less privileges and representation in the government. If they are conquered the situation will be worse in the short term with the elite being killed, but in the long term it will be good because without this parasitic elite they have a better chance of developing (if someone does not replace the position of this elite). In the long term, in this case, the region will be more developed than in the OTL, but still behind those in the south and southeast (the disparity would not be so striking).

The basis for Leff’s argument that it might have been better if the Northeast had seceded from Brazil is exactly that it would have had an economy more resistant to price changes, because its gold inflows/outflows or exchange rate would not be dominated by (southeastern) coffee.

To a certain extent this is correct they will be less impacted by this, but when the region has droughts or economic crises they would be alone making the situation worse. For example during A Grande Seca, or the drought in Northeast Brazil of 1877–1879, between 400,000 and 500,000 people died. that it would not be possible ITTL making the number of dead be much higher. In addition to the fact that the ITTL region will not receive help from the federal government to deal with the problem. Frankly, if the region gains independence, the new country will likely collapse during this drought, with Brazil invading and reabsorbing the region (probably being seen as saviors for bringing food and other products to the region).

The maritime value is another issue that Leff actually does not discuss, but is still quite interesting.

Yes, Brazil will probably try to gain control of the maritime region, which it will probably achieve. Because most military ports are in the southeast or the south (to be more specific in Rio de Janeiro)

If corruption did become worse in an independent Northeast, the region might have become one of the poorest in the Western Hemisphere.

Because of this, I tend to think that in the long run, Brazil will reconquer the region. The most reactionary elite will not do the part of the country by allowing reforms that have not passed or that have partially passed, which will improve Brazil as a whole. This more reformist Brazil, when reconquering the region, would probably force these reforms in the region (which would greatly benefit the local population).

One further question is whether an independent Northeast would have had more trouble abolishing slavery than Brazil did? If it was more dependent upon slavery it would logically have been more difficult, although because there was not the extreme intolerance of free blacks found in the United States, it would never have been so difficult as in an independent Southern Confederacy.

Slavery was already in decline in Brazil when it was abolished in the OTL, with the slave population being somewhere around 15% of the population. What can happen in the northeast and basically the elite basically change the name and continue to enjoy this work. Brazil was last because it imported the most Africans - 46% of all who were coercively brought to the Americas, that created a dynamic where slave ownership was very important. Many people had slaves. In the USA the wealthy people who owned the slaves. In Brazil everyone had slaves, the only people who didn't were the impossibly poor. Nothing is more common in Brazil than former slaves having their own slaves, it was much more widespread than in Jamaica or the southern United States. So many people, not just the farmers, thought that the country would go to ruin if it stopped bringing in Africans,this included much of the black elite.

Because unlike the USA, blacks could rise in the ranks as it happened throughout the history of Brazil. In the war to expel the Dutch from Brazil (called the War of Divine Light, or the less interesting name of the Pernambucan Insurrection) one of the four main leaders was literally a black son of parents who were former slaves. He was a middle-ranked military man and when the king ordered the Brazilians to stop fighting the Dutch (because Portugal and Holland were discussing the end of the war), Henrique (the black military man) literally said that the king should shove the order up his ass in a polite way. After they won the war the king had to give this man a title of the order of Christ. This would never happen in the USA in the 17th century.

 

[holycookie]

It'd be poorer than Brazil, not sure if the Amazon would be better off in a smaller country or worse off.

That is another thing, would the amazon be in control of this new country or it would continued to be part of brazil?

 

[Mildtryth]

That is another thing, would the amazon be in control of this new country or it would continued to be part of brazil?

And there is also a third option: it remaining part of Portugal.

 

[holycookie]

And there is also a third option: it remaining part of Portugal.

To remain part of Portugal, the region would have had to defeat Brazil in the independence war. After that, the opportunity was gone. The region alone would never win a war against the northeast or the rest of Brazil. As demonstrated in Cabanagem with the region being destroyed by federal forces.

 

[Coluber]

when the king ordered the Brazilians to stop fighting the Dutch (because Portugal and Holland were discussing the end of the war), Henrique (the black military man) literally said that the king should shove the order up his ass in a polite way.

I wonder how true this story actually is. Brazilians seem to like to say that Portugal was willing to lose a chunk of Brazil. They also forget that the Portuguese had a war with Spain (you know, that country next to Portugal) as well.

 

[holycookie]

I wonder how true this story actually is.

Wich part?

Brazilians seem to like to say that Portugal was willing to lose a chunk of Brazil. They also forget that the Portuguese had a war with Spain (you know, that country next to Portugal) as well.

As a whole it makes sense, losing part of the colony in exchange for peace to focus on independence. Portugal is fighting for its survival and had lost its colonies in Asia. The metropolis will always be the priority in any empire.

 

[Coluber]

Wich part?

"when the king ordered the Brazilians to stop fighting the Dutch"
That feels either like an outright lie or a gross exageration of what was actually stated. Especially since Brazilians tend to be insistent on it to puff themselves up.

As a whole it makes sense, losing part of the colony in exchange for peace to focus on independence. Portugal is fighting for its survival and had lost its colonies in Asia. The metropolis will always be the priority in any empire.

Portuguese people can be very stubborn and thoughtless.
Besides, no such story was told about Angola.

 

[holycookie]

"when the king ordered the Brazilians to stop fighting the Dutch"
That feels either like an outright lie or a gross exageration of what was actually stated. Especially since Brazilians tend to be insistent on it to puff themselves up.

D. João IV, facing a violent war against Spain for independence, signs a ten-year truce between Portugal and the Netherlands and orders the Brazilian settlers not to attack the Dutch. He basically disallows the insurrection. So yes he told the Brazilians to stop fighting that's a fact. This denial seems to me to be away of hiding the fact that they basically abandoned the region to its fate. Something very shameful since the brazilians won.

Portuguese people can be very stubborn and very dumb.

Just like most countries that have survived to this day. Being stubborn is necessary to survive.

Besides, no such story was told about Angola.

Angola was not under Dutch control for 24 years.

 

[CalBear]

"when the king ordered the Brazilians to stop fighting the Dutch"
That feels either like an outright lie or a gross exageration of what was actually stated. Especially since Brazilians tend to be insistent on it to puff themselves up.


Portuguese people can be very stubborn and very dumb.
Besides, no such story was told about Angola.

Stubborn =/= dumb.

Stubborn is an acceptable descriptor.

Dumb is not.

Please keep this in mind.

 

[Coluber]

D. João IV, facing a violent war against Spain for independence, signs a ten-year truce between Portugal and the Netherlands and orders the Brazilian settlers not to attack the Dutch. He basically disallows the insurrection. So yes he told the Brazilians to stop fighting that's a fact. This denial seems to me to be away of hiding the fact that they basically abandoned the region to its fate. Something very shameful since the brazilians won.

Truces are a temporary pause - not a surrender nor recognition of conquest. I have no idea what the king was thinking (I have heard some say that John IV was being duplicitous towards the Dutch) but a truce does not mean that the king disallowed the insurrection - one could easily say that the insurrection was comitted by common rabble - don't mind the officers and fidalgos with royal appointed commissions, given their posts by the crown itself, they're not really there, look in the other direction now. Also, the Dutch violated the truce several times, so it was null and void.
And I could find no confirmed account on what Henrique Dias said to the king. So I am not certain if he literally said that the king should shove the order up his ass in a polite way. He may have never heard of the 'truce'.

 

[Coluber]

Stubborn =/= dumb.

Stubborn is an acceptable descriptor.

Dumb is not.

Please keep this in mind.

Understood. Already changed it. I'll be more careful next time.