So, I was reviewing my sources about late Brazilian Empire-early Republic and I found something interesting: those army officers that couped the moanrchy weren’t acting based on self-interest.
In fact, there was a certain philosophical background to where they were coming from, mostly, they based their new republican ideas on Comte’s positivism, however, it doesn’t mean they actually achieved said republican ideas).
But there’s one movement that’s arguably more liberal (by 19th century standards) than many things the monarchy did: state secularism. The Emperor was, after all, a Catholic ruler, and the Church as an institution was a strong supporter of the monarchy until the late 1880s. One measure done in the early Deodoro da Fonseca presidency was to make marriage licenses, as well as birth and death certificates matters of the state, and generally pushing religion out of the spheres of government. I thought that was pretty interesting tidbit.
Eh, I suppose. What I don’t like is how these neo-monarchist groups keep using his image to argue that a progressive, liberal monarch is the rule, rather than the exception.
Yep. Voting laws are a good example of this: you had to be a man, couldn’t be homeless or illiterate, had to be at least twenty years of age, and it wasn’t secret, which heavily restricted who could participate in the democratic process.
Besides, the First Republic was more of a patchwork of army officers, regional coffee producers and lawyers that worked together mostly due to mutual interest than the need to form a popular government, therefore, it’s no wonder it quickly turns into a very decentrelized scheme, where the federal government protects the interests of local elites and doesn’t interfere in their doings in exchange for political support and taxes.