|
As such, the defence of
Brazilian sovereignty was structurally entangled with the
defence of the slavery system. At a purely diplomatic level,
from 1863
Great Britain had abandoned its efforts
aimed at the direct termination of slavery in
Brazil. Now, however,
Great Britain's
attention seems to have turned to undermining the foundations
of the Brazilian slave system by means of liberal propaganda
and free immigration. [13] It was around this issue that
Scully's altercations with Brazilian elites would centre,
subsequent to the Christie Affair. They appear to have been
the most profound reasons for the events of July 1868 and the
failure of British colonisation schemes in Brazil.
A Sabotaged Project: The Irish in Santa Catarina (1867-1869)
In 1866 some advances were made in some of the directions proposed by
Scully. The creation in
Rio de Janeiro
of the International Emigration Society, in February of that
year, had the direct participation of the Irish journalist,
despite all the criticisms he made of the profile of that
entity. [14] The Third of August Cabinet, inaugurated
that year, showed a disposition towards implementing some type
of effective mass immigration programme, reflecting the
growing perception that the war effort was bound to intensify
the country's labour shortage. Later on, Councillor Zacarias
determined, in November 1866, that the slaves owned by the
State ('slaves of the Nation') be emancipated for
military service, prompting the acquisition of slaves from
private owners for same purpose (Costa 1996: 244-248).
However, the
clearest proof that the slavery question was the object of
primary consideration in
Brazil
at that time is afforded by the Imperial Speech ('Fala do
Trono') that opened the first session of the Thirteenth
Legislature of the General Legislative Assembly on 22 May
1867. Addressing the issue, Dom Pedro II gave the legislators
the following message:
The Servile element in the Empire cannot but merit
opportunately your consideration, providing in such a manner,
that, respecting actual property and without a severe blow to
our chief industry - Agriculture - the grand interests which
belong to emancipation may be attended to.
Next, the
Emperor hinted that 'to promote colonization ought to be the
object of your particular solicitude' (Brazil. Federal Senate
1988-1: 264). [15]
It is of significance that the
23 May 1867 issue of The
Anglo-Brazilian Times featured a very enthusiastic
commentary by Scully:
Should
Europe pour in here her
superabundant population, where employment could be given to
20,000,000 of them, then the Government of Brazil can
emancipate the slaves without ruining the production of the
country and with some prospect of providing for the future of
the freedmen.
This was
preceded by a curious occurrence when, a few months earlier,
Scully had apparently been sent to jail. Following the
outbreak of a fire in the office of his newspaper, in February
1867, the Irishman had had a heated discussion with Chief of
Police Olegario Herculano Aquino de Castro, during the course
of investigations on the matter and the policeman arrested
him. The Emperor himself seems to have interceded and the
Chief of Police was exonerated. His substitute, however,
issued an order of imprisonment against Scully, who complained
about this with the Emperor's son-in-law, and heir to the
throne, Luís Filipe Maria Fernando Gastão de Orleans, Count
d'Eu (1842-1922). The order apparently was not executed. [16]
Meanwhile,
since 1866, the immigration of North American Confederates had
been on the increase. Having decided to leave the United
States after the Union's military victory in the 1861-1865
Civil War, the Southerners encountered in The
Anglo-Brazilian Times' editor a fervent collaborator and
publicist. An example of this can be seen in the editorial of
23 June 1866, when Scully praised the then Minister of
Agriculture, Antonio Francisco de Paula Souza (1843-1917), a
freemason. Scully noted that:
Brazil needed
only to be known to be appreciated as a field of emigration,
and, fortunately [...] the dissatisfaction in the Southern
States of North America caused Brazil to be visited by various
small parties of Americans deputized by various companies of
expatriating Southerners to seek homes wherever best for them.
The estimates vary greatly, but, according to Frank Goldman, around 2,000
Confederates settled in
Brazil, out
of approximately 10,000 people who left Dixie after the war
(Goldman 1972: 10).
Colônia Príncipe Dom Pedro also figured among the destinations of the
Confederates. Situated on the right bank of the Itajaí-Mirim
river in Santa Catarina and in proximity to another colony,
that of Itajaí (renamed Brusque), settled mostly by Germans.
Created by the Imperial Decree of
16 February
1866, Príncipe Dom Pedro colony began to be effectively
occupied by southern North American pioneers at the beginning
of the following year. Its first director was an American,
Barzillar Cottle. The amateur historian from Santa Catarina,
Aloisius Carlos Lauth, in his most valuable work about the 'Príncipe
Dom Pedro' indicates that, at the end of 1867, the number of
Confederates involved in the colonising project had reached
237, that is, 35.5% of the total. The number of Irish coming
from
New York
through the initiative of Quintino Bocaiuva was 129 (19.5%),
and that of English, 108 (16%). There were also, in smaller
numbers, French, Germans, Italians and others (Lauth 1987:
35). [17]
In 1866 Scully took the initiative of advertising
Brazil as a
prospective home for Irish emigrants. As well as writing a
book about all of the Brazilian provinces to serve as a guide
for immigrants (published for the first time in 1866 and again
in 1868), he twice published in the Anglo-Brazilian Times,
in October, a letter addressed to the Anglican Clergy in
Ireland, requesting the procurement of colonists to that end.
At the same time, in Brazil, the journalist continued to
intensify propaganda for Irish immigration:
The Irishman, perhaps justly accused of unthriftiness and
insubordination at home, for he is hopeless there and has the
tradition of a bitter oppression to make him feel
discontented, becomes active, industrious, and energetic when
abroad; intelligent he always is. He soon rids himself of his
peculiarities and prejudices, and assimilates himself so
rapidly with the progressive people around him that his
children no longer can be distinguished from the American of
centuries of descent (ABT 23 January 1867).
At the end of 1867, around 339 immigrants coming from
Wednesbury,
England, were ready to embark for Brazil (256 of them Irish)
(Marshall 2005: 56). Leaving England on 12 February
1868, and arriving at
Rio de Janeiro
on 22 April 1868, these immigrants were received in person by
Emperor Dom Pedro II. [18] They were subsequently embarked for Colônia Príncipe Dom Pedro, where Irish migrants were not well
respected because of the problems caused by compatriots of
theirs, from New York, who had settled there and were involved
in brawls and excessive drinking. Scully, noting the undue
interference by another immigration agent (Chevalier
Francisco de Almeida Portugal) in the undertaking, and
informed of the problems that awaited the new arrivals,
advised them not to go to the Itajaí-Mirim river valley (ABT
23 March 1868). [19] But it was too late.
When we turn our attention back to Scully's attacks against Caxias in
January 1868, we see that the chronology of events is quite
suggestive. It can be assumed the imminent embarkation of the
Wednesbury immigrants had lifted Scully's spirits, because of
his direct interest in the success of the undertaking.
Certainly, the apparent moroseness with which war operations
were being conducted in
Paraguay
during the period of the siege of Humaitá irritated him to the
extreme, because of the urgency he felt that the proposals put
forward by him since 1865 were successful. Therefore, the tone
of his diatribes against the Brazilian marshal were not in any
way gratuitous or extemporaneous. There was a great deal at
stake. The experience in the Itajaí-Mirim valley looked like
it constituted the first step towards the formation of a
demographic magnet, designed to attract more British
immigrants. [20] Therefore the fact that the necessary
resources for the promotion of immigration were being spent on
the war effort must have been quite exasperating. Actually,
after July 1868 and the deposition of Zacarias de Góes e
Vasconcelos, the new Conservative Minister of Agriculture
imposed severe 'budgetary cuts in the support of state
colonies, in part due to the mounting costs of the Paraguayan
War' (Marshall 2005: 78).
During the interval between the fateful article in the Anglo-Brazilian
Times of 7 January 1868 (along with other articles) and
the removal of the Third of August Cabinet in July, the
recently-arrived Irish people that eventually settled in
Colônia Príncipe Dom Pedro had to face the adverse conditions
anticipated by Scully, even though some preparations for their
accommodation had been made. Among them was the appointment,
at the end of 1867, of an Irish Catholic Priest, Joseph
Lazenby, to be responsible for the spiritual life of the new
colonists. Lazenby had been attracted to the colony when he
heard of the presence of Irish settlers therein (Marshall
2005: 75), and he even managed to convert the American
director Barzillar Cottle to Catholicism (Lauth 1987: 42-46).
The undertaking was frustrated, though, by a combination of factors, that
affected all the settlers attracted to it since the foundation
of the colony in 1866. A confrontation with the German
colonists of the rival colony of Itajaí, on the left bank of
the Itajaí-Mirim, resulted in March in the removal of Cottle
and in the subsequent nomination of directors hostile to
Anglophone settlers. The precariousness of roadways impeded
the transport of the produce of the colonists, many of whom
alleged not to have received payments for services rendered
for the infrastructure of the colony. The lots of land, all of
which were assigned with a considerable delay, were situated
in locations subject to flooding and torrents, which indeed
later occurred. With the removal of Zacarias' cabinet, from
July 1868 the colonists found themselves divested of any
political support during the Conservative era inaugurated by
Itaboraí. When the Itajaí-Mirim river burst its banks and the
colony was flooded, any chances for success for the project
were obliterated (Marshall
2005: 78).
The Anglo-Brazilian Times, in its editions of June 1869, related
the arrival at
Rio de
Janeiro, in rags, of a group of Irish people who had left
Colônia Príncipe Dom Pedro. Equally, it gave notice that
members of the British community of that city had provided
help in purchasing return passages for the immigrants to
Britain and Ireland. On 19 June a list of donors was published
with their respective contributions, totalling £130, which
seems to have been employed in the maintenance of the
desperate immigrants. Gradually the colony was evacuated of
all English-speaking colonists, while the intervention of
British consular representatives in Rio and Santos prevented
an even worse outcome for the impoverished settlers, most of
whom were relocated in Brazil, Argentina and the United States
(Marshall 2005: 80-87). Many had lost relatives during the
venture. Finally, the lands where the first settlements failed
were subsequently occupied by Polish colonists, whose
descendants remained there and contributed to the formation of
the present-day city of Brusque, an important textile centre
in the state of Santa Catarina.
Conclusion
An attentive reading and interpretation of William Scully's editorials
and various articles published in his newspaper, The
Anglo-Brazilian Times, prior to 1868 suggest that there
was a redefinition of the guidelines according to which
British foreign policy towards Brazil between 1863 and 1870
was conducted. This seems to correspond to the predominance of
the Liberal (Whig) Party in British politics in the
mid-1860's.
On the other hand, such an interpretation complements Leslie Bethell and
Francisco Doratioto's assertion concerning the non-existence
of hard evidence, in primary sources, in support of the idea
that England convinced Brazil and her Triple Alliance partners
(Argentina and Uruguay) to undertake the eradication of a
supposed Paraguayan challenge to British commercial and
strategic hegemony in the South American region of La Plata.
Scully's political propaganda and the problems caused by it
seem to testify to the opposite: the War of the Triple
Alliance would have been detrimental to the execution of
Britain's anti-slavery policy regarding Brazil.
It is interesting to note that in the same
9 October
1866 issue of The Anglo-Brazilian Times that features a
letter addressed to the Clergy of Ireland, whereby the
recruitment of immigrants was requested, a short article was
also published, which decries the outbreak, and continuation,
of the war against Paraguay. In that article, having recalled
arguments brought forward by the followers of Thomas R.
Malthus (1766-1834) to justify the role of wars as inhibitors
of excessive population growth, Scully points out that the
same theory 'loses all the dreadful force of its argument when
applied to the scantily peopled region of the Americas.'
Further on, he considers that 'here at least there should be no
shouldering of each other on the paths of life to necessitate
a war to clear the way.' As he listed every conflict situation
in the
Americas, Scully implies that
Brazil
was responsible for ongoing political problems in Uruguay, a
factor that led to the outbreak of the Paraguayan War: 'we see
a chronic condition of war in an adjoining state fanned by its
powerful neighbor.' And as for the War of the Triple Alliance
itself, he laments that Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina were
'wasting their substance in battling with the little but
aggressive State of Paraguay.' The article continues with a
vehement plea for a co-ordination of efforts by European world
powers and, possibly, the United States, in order to devise a
mediation scheme to bring to an end that armed conflict, since
'so many tens of thousands of their sons' had settled in South
America and established such 'intimate and extended [...]
mercantile relations' with them. Finally, Scully emphasises
the need for such a mediation given the prospect of the
conflict spreading to the whole of the southern continent
'through that unreasonable jealousy which the American
republics display towards the well organized and progressive
immense Empire of Brazil, whose peaceful internal condition
they feel a continuous slur upon their internecine factions.'
As The Anglo-Brazilian Times was the only English-speaking
newspaper in
Brazil at the time, the foregoing pacifist discourse does not
tally with the theory that maintains that the destruction of
Paraguay was of paramount importance to British interests. On
the contrary, if one accepts that Scully's newspaper was
semi-official, partly sponsored by the British Government, and
a vehicle for the conveyance of proposals that expressed the
wishes of British policy makers in regard to Brazil, the
pacifist spirit contained in the article acquires another
meaning. It could be, then, associated with efforts aimed at
boosting European emigration to Brazil as part of a larger
strategy designed to end slavery through massive immigration.
It is not mere coincidence that such an article should
accompany an open letter asking for the Clergy of Ireland's
collaboration in the achievement of that goal. A state of
regional conflagration could only jeopardise those plans, just
as appears to have happened.
This analysis thus suggests that the Irish immigrants who
were brought over from Wednesbury, England, to people the
Príncipe Dom Pedro colony in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil,
in 1867-1868, played the role of pawns in a lengthy and
cumbersome international chess match opposing Great Britain to
Brazil over the question of slavery - a form of labour
exploitation that the latter rid herself of as late as 1888.
Ireland, in turn, being a British colony at the time, did not
have an independent say on the whole matter, although that
country supplied the manpower with which British plans were to
be carried out.
As for
Brazil,
domestically, the 1868 Cabinet change, triggered by Scully's
editorials, had momentous consequences. The developments that
followed seem to constitute an assertion of the country's
sovereignty, and absolute stubbornness, as regards the task of
addressing the slavery question. Only in 1871 was a Law effectively approved that liberated newborn offspring of slave
women. On the other hand, it consecrated and reinforced the
Brazilian version of the North American Jacksonian 'spoils
system' in the relationship between the Legislature and the
Imperial administration. If one takes it that the Príncipe Dom
Pedro Colony was regarded as a type of foreign threat, the
wholesale substitution of administrative personnel that
followed the downfall of the Liberal-Progressive Cabinet
headed by Zacarias de Góes e Vasconcelos was of crucial
importance to the goal of securing the colony's failure.
Newly appointed Conservative
authorities, who replaced Liberal office holders, actually
refused to help the English-speaking colonists.
Therefore,
that pattern of politico-administrative procedures - and
related institutions - was consolidated in 1868, as a basis
for a lasting framework of social and political relationships.
Derrubadas are still a prominent feature of Brazilian
political life, with everything that they entail: nepotism,
patronage, favoritism, partisanship and, last but not least,
corruption. Upon every major political change in Brazil,
democratic or authoritarian and military-led, the parties and
newly sworn-in authorities replace, with party-members,
allies, friends and relatives, most occupants of federal
administrative entities' leaderships, at nearly all levels.
The same occurs in state and municipal spheres. There are a
few exceptions to the rule, like the Ministry of Foreign
Relations, which is rather immune to partisanship. It looks as
though, up to this day, those newly appointed to positions of
power in Brazilian politics at any given moment since 1868,
were always unwittingly celebrating a small, yet significant,
and unacknowledged, clandestine victory over British - and
Irish - interests: the dismantling of an English-speaking
settlement. |
