Opinion of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil

[Storebought]

This is less of a poll than a thread to discuss the politics and notable highlights of 19th century Brazil. In particular, I don't recall ever seeing a discussion about the Brazilian monarchy here.

Besides the wiki, a summary of the the reign of Pedro II can be found in the Library of Congress site.

It's interesting (to me at least) that the most reactionary governments of Latin America in the 19th century were headed by the most liberal-minded monarchs of the time, Maximilian I of Mexico and Pedro II. Of course, Maximilian I was executed for being a foreign-backed puppet, but Pedro II was deposed when he lost the support of the coffee barons -- Brazil's Slave Power -- even when the rest of the country had no objections to his rule.

[Storebought]

Oh, come on! Isn't anyone else struck by the whole notion of an emperor of Brazil?



Ok. I'll start:

You could then say that Pedro II illustrated the limitations of personal rule. Everyone agrees he was hardworking, immensely well-read and genuinely intellectually curious about the world, conscientious to a fault, etc. He was also friendly, easy-going, and, at the same time, inscrutable. He never wore his emotions on his sleeve like Victoria. But, for all this, as he grew older, he reconciled himself to the notion that the institution of monarchy in an American country was fundamentally ridiculous.

Pedro II governed a country that was more or less the property of plantation owners. The most noteworthy events of his reign all tied to them in a way:

1. the abolition of the slave trade in 1850 and decades of piecemeal attempts at emancipation only gave the owners opportunities to replace slave labor with bonded and contract labor.

2. the free trade pact with Britain, which benefited plantation owners and hindered the creation of an industrial economy

3. the Paraguayan War, fought with slave troops, secured the southern part of the country, but saddled the country with generations of debt and gave the Army prominence in Brazilian governance.

4. the creation of the railroad system. Most of the early railroads were built for easier access to the southeast highlands.

5. the start of mass immigration from Europe (and Asia, since Brazil didn't discriminate against Asian immigrants like US or Canada) especially to the southeast.

Taken together, the developments strengthened the hand of the planters and the Army within the Empire. It's no wonder that he always so pessimistic about its continuation even during his lifetime.

You can appreciate the stability of Brazil during his rule compared to the instability of peer countries like Mexico: no Santa Anna, no foreign interventions (beyond the British Navy sinking Brazilian ships in Brazilian waters), no Constitutional crises, no ongoing rebellions and secession movements like in Yucatan and Chiapas. You can just as well compare the durability of his reign to the instability of Pedro I or the "republican" governments that succeeded him. Pedro II governed in the interests of the planter class better than the planters could themselves.

[H. Ross Peron]

Did anyone just see "Opinion of Emperor P..." and think it was about Emperor Palpatine?

Anyways obvious FF for abolishing slavery.

[TNF]

Royalty are disgusting scum that must be wiped off the face of the planet (normal)

[Lumine]

FF.

[Sumner 1868]

Royalty are disgusting scum that must be wiped off the face of the planet (normal)

[Mr. Smith]

FF for creating a good and strong government that helps the people on the whole and for not being a huge puppet.

[SWE]

Royalty are disgusting scum that must be wiped off the face of the planet (normal)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

At times the hardcore republicanism of some people get tiring. Is monarchy an archaic and depraved way of being? Duh. By the standards of his time, however - especially compared to such charming adversaries as Francisco Lopez of Paraguay, who managed to end up killing 90% of the population - he was a relatively enlightened and morally good ruler, who recognised the failures of monarchy as a power structure.

[politicus]

At times the hardcore republicanism of some people get tiring. Is monarchy an archaic and depraved way of being? Duh. By the standards of his time, however - especially compared to such charming adversaries as Francisco Lopez of Paraguay, who managed to end up killing 90% of the adult male population - he was a relatively enlightened and morally good ruler, who recognised the failures of monarchy as a power structure.

ftfy

Even then 80% might be more accurate, since Indians were under reported.

(but yeah, Lopez was obviously a disaster)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It was more melodramatic the way I said it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Storebought's analysis is full of entirely legitimate criticisms but considering Brazil's early republican period in any way superior to a hypothetical continuation of Pedro's rule, if only for another few years with the monarchy abolished upon his death, is a comically naive and dogmatic interpretation of events. Sentiments like '[r]oyalty are disgusting scum that must be wiped off the face of the planet', applied as uncritically and automatically as the TNFs and oakvales among us apply them, entail a static concept of history that makes no allowance for the notion that past systems that would be intolerable now may have been acceptable or even good during the time periods in which they existed, a completely synchronic way of seeing the world that is impossible to reconcile with any ostensibly dialectical historiography. (Having an uncritically and automatically negative opinion of an individual because of the sins of a class to which he belongs, or vice-versa, is also more than a little dubious.) Tilt FF.

[Lief 🗽]

He has a pretty good unique improvement and unique ability if you want to go for a cultural victory, but always having your first settler spawn in a jungle environment can be rough on generating production early in the game.