< 4.2 Slavery – 4.4 Positivism >
Abolition and Republicanism
By the 1880s, although slaveholders insisted their industry could not survive without forced labor, slavery was clearly on its way out. Since the end of the slave trade in 1850, the slave population had declined, and a series of moderate steps limiting slavery ? the 1871 Law of the Free Womb, which declared all slaves born thereafter to be free when they came of age; the 1885 Sexagenarian Law, which freed all slaves over 60 years old ? laid the groundwork for total abolition.
Part of the delay in declaring the total abolition of slavery came from within the royal family. By the 1870s, Pedro II had only one surviving child ? the princess Isabel, who had difficulty gaining legitimacy not only because of her gender, but because she was married to a foreigner, a French nobleman. Isabel served as regent twice during her father’s reign, making steps to abolish slavery both times. However, in order to push through the “Golden Law” completely abolishing slavery, she had to appoint a completely new cabinet, the men in power when she began her second regency being unwilling to engage in any discussion of policy with a woman.
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
The ‘Lei Aurea’
The Lei Aurea (Golden Law) of 1888 had only two articles:
Article 1: From this date, slavery is declared abolished in Brazil.
Article 2: All dispositions to the contrary are revoked.
The new cabinet appointed by Princess Isabel passed the new bill in seven days, carrying it through on a wave of popular support. For three days following her signing of the bill, work was suspended and people of all classes celebrated. A visitor from the United States, observing the celebration, remarked, “I am going to send these flowers to my country to show how a law is passed in Brazil, which caused the shedding of so much blood in the United States.”
An open mass on May 17, 1888 commemorated the abolition of slavery. Isabel and her husband are under a canopy to the left. This celebration can be seen as the height of the monarchy’s popularity, less than a year before its dissolution. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Explaining her decision several months later, Isabel emphasized the humanist principles justifying slavery’s abolition and tackled the question of compensating former slave owners for their loss.
December 1888
How did the abolitionist viewpoint gain ground so quickly in me? The concept, already innate within me, was intrinsically humanitarian, moral, generous, great, and supported by the Church. Slavery was essentially an imposition. The owners had profited too long from this imposition. What if they had paid wages from the start?! It is true that if they had, they would have had resources they could have disposed of, and thus done some would not have collapsed so helplessly. However, the evil was done, and it could not help but be eradicated. Besides, they ought to have made preparations or rather they never did prepare. Their slaves fled, and there was no means of preventing that. (What surprises me is that they did not flee much sooner.) The country was in agitation. Should I not have taken all this into account, and should I not have confronted with a clear conscience the alienated, whether small in number or rather the many that in fact there were? And the question of compensation? Despite never having stated my opinion on this idea prior to the proposal for it being made, I could not grant it as being either advisable or just. A number of scruples stood in my way, despite my pushing them away. First, the country could have compensated only in an illusory fashion, since it would have to be provided by taxes that would have fallen on those who had no connection with the question. The emancipation fund, financed by taxes, the only one applicable for this purpose, would have been less than sufficient. And whom would it aid? Those who had not voluntarily freed their slaves. It would be only to pay off overdue debts with no benefit to agriculture, and it would be better spent on projects that would serve the general good of farming, which would be most just. Besides this, as I have already noted, the idea of the injustice of slavery and the excessive time that the owners had exploited their slaves could not fail to influence my spirit (Barman 183).
Despite the public air of celebration around the abolition of slavery, it caused an uproar among the upper classes. The bourgeois elite was already by and large republican, viewing the monarchy as repressive, anachronistic, and unjust. These two groups, despite ideological differences, found common ground in their dissatisfaction with their rulers. The vast urban and rural lower classes benefited minimally if at all from abolition, as the labor shortage caused by the end of slavery was filled increasingly by European immigrants and not by the unemployed within the country. Finally, the former slaves themselves found their lives changing little ? freed without pay, land, education, or job opportunities, many found themselves working as sharecroppers, tied by debt to the land they had been forced to work before.
The End of the Empire
In August 1888, Pedro II returned to power following a period of grave illness. The Count d’Eu, Princess Isabel’s husband, remarked in a letter to his father:
The avidity and the enthusiasm of the public for the Emperor have been very great, more even more marked, it appears to me, than on previous arrivals. But it is a totally personal homage; because, as I think I have already written, the republican creed has made since his departure last year enormous advances that impress everybody; and, notwithstanding the economic prosperity during the present year, never, for the past 40 years, has the situation of the Brazilian monarchy appeared more shaky than today (Barman, 185).
Pedro II’s declining health, the dislike of Brazilian nationalists for Isabel’s husband, and the wealthy landowners’ disgust with abolition accelerated the end of the empire. The press joined in, criticizing Pedro II for refusing to respond to critiques.
The King, our Lord, and master, sleeps the sleep of indifference. The newspapers which daily report the misdeeds of those in power seem to have a narcotic effect on His Majesty. (Revista Ilustrada, February 5, 1887).
Finally, the entrance of the military into the equation proved decisive. On November 19, 1889, a bloodless coup deposed the emperor and declared Deodoro da Fonseca, a prestigious general, president of the republic. While originally only in power provisionally until an election could be held, Fonseca retained power after military pressure on Congress assured his longer-term presidency.
Further Reading
- Roderick Barman’s Princess Isabel of Brazil discusses the role of the princess in the abolition of slavery and her position as regent and heir to the throne.
- Leslie Bethell’s The Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade analyzes the events leading up to abolition and the interests of various nations, especially the United Kingdom, in negotiating an end to the slave trade.
Sources
- Barman, Roderick. Princess Isabel of Brazil: Gender and Power in the Nineteenth Century. Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources Inc., 2002.
- Marx, Anthony. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of the United States, South Africa, and Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
< 4.2 Slavery – 4.4 Positivism >
