Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:28:05.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Britain and the Brazilian Naval Revolt of 1893–4*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Joseph Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historical writing in English on the diplomatic aspects of the Brazilian naval revolt of 1893–4 tends to be based on United States sources and, consequently, an American interpretation runs through most writing on the subject. This interpretation regards the revolt as an attempt to restore the monarchy by the insurgents with secret support from the European Powers, especially Britain, who were jealous of the increasing American political and economic influence in the newly established Republic of Brazil.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , November 1970 , pp. 175 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Hill, Lawrence F., Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Brazil (Durham, 1932), pp. 265–81Google Scholar; LaFeber, Walter, ‘United States Depression Diplomacy and the Brazilian Revolution, 1893–1894’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 40 (02 1960), pp. 107–18Google Scholar; LaFeber, , The New Empire (Ithaca, 1963), pp. 210–18Google Scholar; also Foster, John W., A Century of American Diplomacy (New York, 1901), p. 466Google Scholar; Gresham, Matilda, Life of Walter Q. Gresham (2 vols., Chicago, 1919), II 777–81Google Scholar; Montgomery Schuyler on Gresham in Bemis, Samuel F. (ed.), American Secretaries of State and their Diplomacy, vols. 7, 8 (New York, 1958), 8 252–4Google Scholar; Grenville, J. A. S. and Young, George B., Politics, Strategy, and American Diplomacy (New Haven and London, 1966), pp. 117–8Google Scholar. For accounts emphasizing problems of international law, see Moore, John B., A Digest of International Law (8 vols., Washington D.C., 1906), II 1113–20Google Scholar; Martin, Charles E., The Policy of the United States as Regards Intervention (New York, 1921), pp. 118–23Google Scholar. More balanced accounts are Timm, Charles A., ‘The Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Brazil during the Naval Revolt of 1893’, Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly, 5 (09 1924), pp. 119–38Google Scholar; Martin, Percy A. in Wilgus, A. Curtis (ed.), Argentina, Brazil and Chile since Independence (Washington D.C., 1935), pp. 213–34Google Scholar; McCloskey, Michael B., ‘The United States and the Brazilian Naval Revolt, 1893–1894’, Americas, 2 (1946), pp. 296–321Google Scholar. See also Graham, Richard, Britain and the Onset of Modernisation in Brazil 1850–1914 (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 306–11.Google Scholar

2 Congressional Record, 53rd Congress, 3rd Session, 2 03 1895, p. 3109.Google Scholar

3 Foster, John W., Century of American Diplomacy, p. 466Google Scholar. Benham informed the insurgent Admiral, Saldanha da Gama, that he would intervene by force if necessary to protect American merchant shipping in the harbour. By successfully escorting an American merchant ship to the docks, an incident in which some shots were fired, Benham broke Da Gama's attempt to enforce a blockade of the harbour.

4 See Moore, , Digest of International LawGoogle Scholar; Martin, , Policy as Regards Intervention.Google Scholar

5 Gresham, Matilda, Life of Gresham, 2, 777–81.Google Scholar

6 Hill, , United States and Brazil, p. 280.Google Scholar

7 LaFeber, , New Empire, p. 210.Google Scholar

8 Grenville, and Young, , American Diplomacy, pp. 117–8.Google Scholar

9 Mendonça, Salvador de, A Situação International do Brasil (Paris, 1913), pp. 208–10Google Scholar. See also Costa, Sergio Corrêa da, A Diplomacia do Marechal. Intervenção Estrangeira na Revolta da Armada (Rio, 1945), pp. 193–204.Google Scholar

10 See Nabuco, Joaquim, A Intervenção Estrangeira durante a Revolta de 1893 (São Paulo and Rio, 1939), p. 15Google Scholar. Nabuco considered that, by restricting De Mello's freedom to bombard Rio, the policy of the foreign naval commanders was of ‘immense advantage’ to the Floriano Peixoto government. Ibid., p. 48. See also Costa, Corrêa da, op. cit., pp. 71, 196, 204–5Google Scholar. Corrêa da Costa argues that the London bankers hoped to profit from a restoration of the monarchy. On the British press he writes, ‘A imprensa inglesa, de modo geral, era simpática aos revolucionários’, op. cit., p. 236Google Scholar. Though Benham's action was of great significance, some Brazilian writers see the character of Floriano Peixoto as the decisive factor: ‘… E Floriano—homem de Estado—abatendo, implacavel e calmo, a rebeldia, a insurreição, a revolta e a cumplicidade estrangeira, a guerra civil no Rio Grande’. Lobo, Ayrton, Floriano (Rio, 1939), p. 17.Google Scholar

11 No. 150, Thompson, to Gresham, , 1 02 1894Google Scholar. National Archives, Washington D.C. R[ecord] G[roup] 59. Diplomatie Despatches, Brazil, vol. 56.

12 LaFeber, , op. cit., p. 214.Google Scholar

13 See Platt, D. C. M., Finance, Trade, and Politics in British Foreign Policy 1815–1914 (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar; Hoffman, Ross J. S., Great Britain and the German Trade Rivalry 1875–1914 (New York, 1964).Google Scholar

14 Laughlin, James L. and Willis, Henry P., Reciprocity (New York, 1903), p. 208.Google Scholar

15 See Hoffman, , op. cit.Google Scholar; Graham, , Britain and Modernization in BrazilGoogle Scholar, chap. 12; Hill, , Brazil and United States, pp. 268–9Google Scholar; and note the opinion of Manchester: ‘Until 1914 the United States was never a serious contender for economic preeminence in Brazilian markets, shipping, or investments’. Manchester, Alan K., British Preeminence in Brazil, Its Rise and Decline (Chapel Hill, 1933), p. 332Google Scholar. Among British despatches see for example, No. 17, Haggard, to Rosebery, , 25 04 1886Google Scholar, Public Record Office, London, F[oreign] O[ffice] 13/621.

16 Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 11 03 1894, F.O. 13/728.Google Scholar

17 Memorandum by Bertie, , dated 2 02 1894, F.O. 13/733.Google Scholar

18 No. 122, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 18 09 1893, F.O. 13/705.Google Scholar

19 No. 32, Wyndham, to Salisbury, , 14 03 1892, F.O. 13/689.Google Scholar

20 Bello, José Maria, A History of Modern Brazil, 1889–1964, translated by Taylor, James L. (Stanford, 1966), p. 120.Google Scholar

21 Ibid.

22 For this action Wanderwolk was elected President of the Naval Club. See McCloskey, , ‘Brazilian Naval Revolt’, pp. 296–7.Google Scholar

23 Calógeras, João Pandía, A History of Brazil, translated by Martin, Percy A. (Chapel Hill, 1939), p. 290.Google Scholar

24 No. 446, Conger, to Gresham, , 26 05 1893, RG 59, Vol. 54.Google Scholar

25 See Presidential Message to the Brazilian National Congress enclosed in No. 140, Wyndham, to Kimberley, , 14 05, 1894, F.O. 13/725.Google Scholar

26 See Wilgus, A. Curtis (ed.), Argentina, Brazil and Chile, p. 229.Google Scholar

27 The Rio News, 24 10 1893, enclosed in F.O. 13/706.Google Scholar

28 No. 57, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 12 06 1893, F.O. 13/704.Google Scholar

29 No. 77, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 11 07 1893Google Scholar, ibid.

30 No. 88, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 22 07 1893Google Scholar, ibld.

31 Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 26 07 1893, F.O. 13/704.Google Scholar

32 Opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, No. 8, F.O. 420/142.

33 Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 10 09 1893, F.O. 13/704Google Scholar. Note similar attitude of the American minister in Thompson, to Gresham, , Telegram, 7 09 1893, RG 59, vol. 54.Google Scholar

34 No. 15, Rosebery, to Wyndham, , 29 09 1893, F.O. 13/708.Google Scholar

35 Gresham, to Thompson, , 1 11 1893, RG 59, vol. 17.Google Scholar

36 LaFeber, , New Empire, pp. 212–13.Google Scholar

37 Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 10 09 1893, F.O. 13/705.Google Scholar

38 No. 143, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 9 10 1893Google Scholar, ibid.

39 No. 28, Townes, to Quincy, , 7 10 1893Google Scholar, RG 59, Consular Despatches, de Janeiro, Rio, vol. 29.Google Scholar

40 See No. 122, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 18 09 1893, F.O. 13/705Google Scholar. McCloskey, , ‘Brazilian Naval Revolt’, pp. 305–8Google Scholar, makes this point forcefully.

41 Picking, to Herbert, , 23 12 1893Google Scholar, cited in LaFeber, , ‘Depression Diplomacy’, pp. 110–11.Google Scholar

42 Thompson, to Gresham, , 17 12 1893; RG 59, vol. 55.Google Scholar

43 Thompson, to Gresham, , 13 12 1893, RG 59, vol. 55.Google Scholar

44 Gresham, to Thompson, , 9 01 1894, RG 59, vol. 18.Google Scholar

45 Lang to the Admiralty, 17 12 1893, F.O. 13/733Google Scholar. On leave in England, Lang explained his position to the Foreign Office in a letter dated 9 March 1894: ‘… that it was impossible to grant protection against the crossfire of the government and insurgent forces when vessels were in the gamboa, without preventing by force the insurgents from firing upon that portion of the shore. This would have entailed the patrolling of the harbour by armed boats, and would most probably have led to a collision between H.M. naval forces and those of the insurgents. With regard to this matter all the Foreign Senior naval officers were in accord. Protection against seizure was given at all times, and against molestation when lighters did not enter the zone of fire above-mentioned.’ See F.O. 13/734.

46 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, 19, 18 12 1893, p. 1609.Google Scholar

47 F.O. draft to Clyde Ship-owners Association, 13 01 1894, F.O. 13/733.Google Scholar

48 F.O. to Humphrey Sturt, M.P., 01 20, 1894, F.O. 13/733.Google Scholar

49 No. 260. Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 12 20, 1893. F.O. 13/706.Google Scholar

50 London and Brazilian Bank to Lang, 11 14, 1893Google Scholar; Lang to London and Brazilian Bank, 11 14, 1893. F.O. 13/717.Google Scholar

51 F.O. minute on Lang to London and Brazilian Bank, 14 11 1893, F.O. 13/717.Google Scholar

52 No. 265, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 24 12 1893, F.O. 13/706.Google Scholar

53 Bertie to the Admiralty, 21 02 1894, F.O. 13/733Google Scholar. Captain Ripon had replaced Lang as the Senior British Naval Officer.

54 Gresham, to Thompson, , 10 01 1894, RG 59, vol. 18Google Scholar. See LaFeber, , New Empire, pp. 214–16.Google Scholar

55 See Moore, , Digest of International LawGoogle Scholar; Martin, , Policy as Regards Intervention.Google Scholar

56 Sanderson, to Herschel, , 3 02 1894, F.O. 13/733.Google Scholar

57 Compare: ‘Thus far the insurgents do not appear to have put on foot and maintained a political organization which would justify the United States in recognizing them as belligerents and recognition would be a gratuitous demonstration of moral support to the rebellion and an unfriendly act towards Brazil.’ Gresham, to Thompson, , 25 11 1893; RG 59, vol. 18.Google Scholar

58 See No. 48, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 5 02 1894, F.O. 13/724Google Scholar. Thompson appears to have been unaware of this attempt at mediation; see No. 13, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 29 01 1894Google Scholar, F.O. 13/728; McCloskey, , ‘Brazilian Naval Revolt’, p. 311.Google Scholar

59 Gresham, to Thompson, , 30 01 1894, RG 59, vol. 18.Google Scholar

60 McCloskey, , op. cit., p. 317.Google Scholar

61 Graham, , Britain and Modernization in Brazil, p. 311.Google Scholar

62 Thompson, to Gresham, , 22 10 1893; 24 10 1893Google Scholar; Gresham, to Thompson, , 25 10 1893, RG 59, vols. 55, 18.Google Scholar

63 No. 189, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 2 11 1893Google Scholar; No. 190, 2 Nov. 1893, F.O. 13/706.

64 Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 5 12 1893, F.O. 13/707.Google Scholar

65 Richardson, James D., Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 10 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1898), 9 435.Google Scholar

66 No. 273, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 12 28, 1893, F.O. 13/707.Google Scholar

67 LaFeber, , New Empire, p. 216.Google Scholar

68 No. 34, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 30 01 1894, F.O, 13/724Google Scholar; Rolleston to the Admiralty, 28 01 1894, F.O. 13/734.Google Scholar

69 No. 34, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 30 01 1894, F.O. 13/724.Google Scholar

70 No. 13, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 29 01 1894, F.O. 13/728.Google Scholar

71 F.O. to the Law Officers of the Crown, Draft, 30 01 1894, F.O. 13/733.Google Scholar

72 London Times, Thursday, 1 02 1894.Google Scholar

73 No. 48, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 5 02 1894, F.O. 13/724.Google Scholar

74 No. 16, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 31 01 1894, F.O. 13/728.Google Scholar

75 Wyndham, to Rosebery, , Cypher, 1 02 1894Google Scholar, ibid.

76 Ibid., see F.O. minute.

77 Rosebery, to Wyndham, , 2 02 1894, F.O. 13/728.Google Scholar

78 F.O. Memorandum, dated 2 02 1894Google Scholar; Sanderson, to Herschell, Lord, 3 02 1894Google Scholar; Herschell, to Sanderson, , 5 02 1894, F.O. 13/733.Google Scholar

79 No. 49, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 6 02 1894, F.O. 13/724.Google Scholar

80 No. 194, Rosebery, to Pauncefote, , 6 02 1894, F.O. 420/152.Google Scholar

81 Rosebery, to MacDonell, , to Monson, , and to Malet, , 9 02 1894, F.O. 420/152Google Scholar; Rosebery, to Wyndham, , 2 02 1894, F.O. 13/728.Google Scholar

82 See Haggard, to Sanderson, , Private, 17 05 1891, F.O. 13/684Google Scholar; No. 59, Adam, to Salisbury, , 15 05 1891, F.O. 13/676Google Scholar; No. 165, Wyndham, to Salisbury, , 28 11 1891, F.O. 13/677Google Scholar; No. 7, Wyndham, to Salisbury, , 23 01 1892, F.O. 13/689.Google Scholar

83 Wyndham, to Jervoise, , Private, 23 01 1890, F.O. 13/658Google Scholar; No. 165, Wyndham, to Salisbury, , 28 11 1891, F.O. 13/677.Google Scholar

84 London Times, 22, 23 09 1893.Google Scholar

85 Ibid., 17 Nov. 1893.

86 No. 20, Rosebery, to Wyndham, , 6 10 1893, F.O. 13/708.Google Scholar

87 No. 147, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 11 10 1893, F.O. 13/705.Google Scholar

88 Thompson, to Gresham, , 3 10 1893, RG 59, vol. 54.Google Scholar

89 Thompson, to Gresham, , 13 12 1893, RG 59, vol. 55Google Scholar; Thompson, to Gresham, , 12 01 1894, RG 59, vol. 56.Google Scholar

90 Thompson, to Gresham, , 1 02 1894, RG 59, vol. 56.Google Scholar

91 No. 33, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 6 10 1893, F.O. 13/708.Google Scholar

92 No. 211, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 19 11 1893, F.O. 13/706.Google Scholar

93 No. 267, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 25 12 1893, F.O. 13/706.Google Scholar

94 No. 18, Wyndham, to Rosebery, , 15 01 1894, F.O. 13/724.Google Scholar

95 Wyndham, to Sanderson, , Private, 25 11 1889, F.O. 13/658.Google Scholar

96 No. 126, Bayard, to Gresham, , 30 12 1893, RG 59, Diplomatic Despatches, Great Britain, vol. 176.Google Scholar

97 No. 194, Rosebery, to Pauncefote, , 7 02 1894, F.O. 420/152.Google Scholar

98 Gresham, to Bayard, , 21 01 1894, Gresham Papers, Library of Congress.Google Scholar

99 No. 180, Bayard, to Gresham, , 16 03 1894, RG 59. vol. 176.Google Scholar