Sawczak, 1

Susan Sawczak

The Brazilian Revolution of 1930 in Relation to the Chilean Revolution

In October 1930 in Brazil, a military coup was staged after a fraudulent election, and
Gtulio Vargas was placed in power. He would remain in power for another fifteen years,
implementing numerous reforms in large part with the goal to minimize the social disparities
between the elite and the rural workers as well as to diminish the immense power that one state
had over the national economy and politics. Much like the Chilean revolution, the Brazilian
revolution was relatively bloodless and nonviolent, though they were both driven by very
different motives and ideologies.
The largest nation in all of South American and a Portuguese colony, Brazil is different
from many other Latin American nations from the start. However, it had very poor natural
resources and little to offer the Portuguese motherland in terms of gold, spices, diamonds, or
slaves, and was thus largely ignored and left to fare for itself, leaving it vulnerable to other
colonial powers like the Spanish, who ruled it from 1560 to 1640 after taking over Portugal's
monarchy.1 In 1807, Napoleon invaded Portugal, driving the prince Dom Pedro I into Brazil
where he established a monarchy. As a result, Brazil became accustomed to this new form of
government very peacefully, in contrast to many other Latin American countries at the time that
violently struggled with Spain in an attempt to achieve independence.2 Instead the prince himself
1 Jordan M. Young, The Brazilian Revolution of 1930 and the Aftermath (New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1967), 4-5; Gary Prevost and Harry E. Vanden, Politics of
Latin America: The Power Game, Fourth Edition (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press,
2012), 398.
2 Irving Louis Horowitz, Revolution in Brazil: Politics and Society in a Developing Nation
(New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1964), 87-88; Young, 7.

Sawczak, 2
declared Brazil an independent nation in 1822 and broke apart from Portugal, once again, very
peacefully. By the 1850s, a new middle class was emerging, driven by new commercial
enterprises, and the economy was moving away from traditional crops like sugar, tobacco, and
cotton, and becoming more and more centered around a single crop: coffee.3 In 1870, a new
Republican party began to emerge, one that demanded the abolition of slavery, less involvement
of the Catholic church in politics, and a more fair economic structure; by 1889, this party had
brought about a military coup that destroyed the monarchy and instituted the "Old Republic."4
The revolution of 1889 and the ensuing creation of the Old Republic established a military
involvement in politics that would last for many years afterwards. In fact, some scholars, like
Jordan Young in his book The Brazilian Revolution of 1930 and the Aftermath, believe that this
military involvement is what allowed the revolution of 1930 to occur and what helped Vargas
remain in power for as long as he did. This new form of government had its base in a strong
military class that was allied with a very small group of wealthy landowners. 5 Despite this
seemingly solid grip on authority, there was a significant problem in the form of regionalism.
Large differences in race, culture, and even climate made it almost impossible to unite such a
large nation, particularly one with such poor infrastructure as well.6 In fact, two states almost
completely controlled the economy of the whole nation, So Paulo and Minas Gerais. The two
dominated the entire country of Brazil, from politics to economics. They even alternately offered
presidential candidates, ones who were guaranteed to win because of the states' combined power
in the face of the other weaker regions, a political system coined "caf com leite," or "coffee
with milk," a name based on the fact that So Paulo was an industrious producer of coffee and
3 Horowitz, 202, 234; Young, 13.
4 Horowitz, 206; Young, 14-15, 17.
5 Young, 18.
6 Young, 19.

Sawczak, 3
Minas Gerais was a prolific dairy producer.7 At this time, Brazil was more dependent on coffee
than ever, producing 70% of the coffee in the world market, 70% of which was produced by So
Paulo alone, demonstrating its great influence.8 Regional opposition to this hold on power was
led by the third most powerful state of Rio Grande do Sul, the population and politicians of
which resented being pushed out of national politics.
Tensions began to rise to a breaking point after minor rebellions during the election of 1910 and
the economic post-war recession of 1919 began to take their toll. In 1922, it all came to a head
when young military officers in Rio de Janeiro attempted a rebellion. While they could not gain
enough support from the people and eventually failed, their rebellion still proved that the existing
political structure was weakening, and the relationship between the military and the federal
government was tense. In 1924, several other rebellions broke out, centered mainly in So Paulo
and Rio Grande do Sul and led in part by General Isidoro and Captain Lus Carlos Prestes.9 The
army officers involved once again could not garner the support of their superiors or the people,
and the uprising failed, but the time was slowly ripening for revolution. The goals of the
insurrection caused murmurings of agreement among the people: secret ballots, the confiscation
of corrupt money, and in particular, the belief that the single purpose of the government should
be the betterment of the people's situation.10 Several of the rebel groups, significantly the Prestes
Column, retreated into the backlands of Brazil where they waged guerrilla warfare on the
government for three years, beginning in 1925. Prestes and his men --- all of whom advocated
land reform, improved economic conditions for the lower classes, and amnesty for all

7 Horowitz, 90; Provost, 399.

8 Young, 21.
9 Neill Macaulay, The Prestes Column: Revolution in Brazil (New York: Franklin Watts, Inc.,
1974), 46-50.
10 Young, 26-27.

Sawczak, 4
revolutionaries of 1922 and 1924 --- became extremely popular among the masses; Prestes even
gained the nickname Cavaleiro da Esperana, or the Knight of Hope. In fact, by the end of 1926,
the government had spent over $100 million dollars in attempts to put the guerrillas down.11 A
trademark of Prestes and Isidoro's work, however, is near bloodlessness --- "the march of the
Prestes Column was undertaken for inspirational purposes. The operation was not military --- not
designed to seize or hold terrain or to destroy the enemy or his will to fight by combat."12
In 1926, Washington Lus was elected president and attempted to fix the ever-weakening
economy of Brazil, but the people were growing ever more dissatisfied. By 1929, Lus' policy of
import substitution was failing, particularly in the face of the collapse of the world market.
Coffee prices were falling at record rates, international trade had come to a virtual standstill, and
the lives of the masses were worse than ever.13 So Paulo, in particular, was hit hard by the
depression and faced bankruptcy. In addition, Lus decided to no longer buy up the surplus coffee
in the international market, weakening So Paulo's dominance over the government as well as
the Paulistas' support of the government.14 The dwindling coffee economy, combined with the
resentment harbored by the people towards the government for not reigning in the effects of the
depression, created the perfect environment for upheaval when the election of 1930 appeared on
the horizon.
The election was a little unorthodox from the start, as Lus, from So Paulo himself, departed
from the alternating pattern of presidents from So Paulo and Minas Gerais and supported a
fellow Paulista, Julio Prestes, as candidate instead, rather than the previously agreed upon

11)Macaulay, 159; Young, 27-28.

12 Macaulay, 235-236.
13 Prevost, 406.
14 Young, 74.

Sawczak, 5
candidate from Minas Gerais.15 Angered at what seemed a betrayal, Minas Gerais decided to
support the candidate from Rio Grande do Sul, Governor Gtulio Vargas. His main supporters
came to be known as the Liberal Alliance, a faction that consisted of Minas Gerais, Rio Grande
do Sul, and Paraba. Their program was in actuality very similar to Prestes' and consisted of the
following points: reorganization of the justice and education departments, aid to the agricultural
sectors of Brazil, modernization of military equipment, an overhaul of the army promotions
system, and the development of other industries and sectors of the economy. However, Vargas,
unlike Prestes, wanted to grant amnesty to the revolutionaries of 1922 and 1924.16 Two of the key
elements to his campaign as well were his attempts to befriend the coffee magnates, who were
suffering financially from the economic policies of Lus, and his tendency to make the worker
important. He emphasized his desire to implement labor reforms and make life better for the
lower classes.17 Despite his strong base in the working classes and among the coffee magnates
though, Vargas lost the election to Prestes on October 1, 1930 in what many believe to have been
a fraudulent election.
This was not the end, however. The army was dissatisfied, especially after being offered a
program of Vargas's scope that included increased wages, an improved promotion system, and
better equipment. Numerous attempts were made to organize a simultaneous uprising in several
states, but they all fell through for various reasons. It was not until the assassination of Joo
Pessa, a revolutionary as well as Vargas' vice-presidential running-mate, that the states and
politicians united and were given a reason to fight; even Vargas himself became involved.18 On
October 3, revolutionaries in Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, and Paraba simultaneously took
15 Young, 31.
16 Horowitz, 249; Young, 46.
17 Horowitz, 77, 91, 249; Young, 80.
18 Young, 58.

Sawczak, 6
over all government buildings and military headquarters in their states. The government, too
busy with the economic crisis, could do nothing to stop it. Most cities fell without a fight, and
many federal troops actually joined the rebels before the day was over. By October 24, a military
junta had captured the capital city of Rio de Janeiro, and by October 31, Vargas had taken over as
president.
Almost immediately Vargas began implementing labor reforms, including an eight hour work
day, increased wages, annual paid vacation time, maternity leave, improved working conditions,
and retirement and disability pensions.19 He diversified the economy, giving it a broader
industrial and agricultural base, and put a stop to the overwhelming political influence of So
Paulo and Minas Gerais. However, in reality, the first several years of his presidency are marked
by uncertainty and inaction; he had few definite programs or plans to implement. Vargas
attempted to strengthen the federal government by instituting Interventores in each state who
would essentially act as local governors. Some states, So Paulo among them, resented the
Interventores, and the Paulista elites, in particular, disliked the sudden loss of their political and
economic power. In 1932, an armed insurrection arose in So Paulo, demonstrating that not
everyone was happy with the outcome of the revolution. However, peace was achieved after just
a few months of fighting after Vargas promised to institute a new Constitution.20
The Constitution of 1934, written to assuage the Paulistas, limited the president to a four year
term and essentially made the legislative branch a tool of a powerful executive. Congress then
elected Vargas as president for the following term. However, when the next electoral season
came to pass in 1938, Vargas decided none of the candidates were acceptable. He feared that they
would undo all of the progress the revolution had made, so instead, he declared a national
19 Horowitz, 150; Young, 91.
20 Prevost, 400; Young, 86.

Sawczak, 7
emergency, suspended Congress, and declared himself head of O Estado Novo, or the New
State.21 After making significant inroads towards economic diversification, especially after the
fiscal boom in the aftermath of the Second World War, Vargas declared that free elections would
be held in 1945. There was an immediate reaction as numerous new political parties were
formed, including in particular the National Democratic Union and the Social Democratic
Party.22 However, several important members of his cabinet feared that Vargas would not allow
the elections to take place once again, and chief of staff Gos Monteiro organized a military coup
and forced Vargas to resign, which he did peacefully.
Vargas came to power again in 1950, this time elected by the populace on the ticket of the
Brazilian Labor Party.23 However, this time his four years as president were ineffective. His
administration was plagued by corruption, partisanship, economic difficulties, and an
argumentative Congress split between the three major parties. Additionally, he was under
constant attack by the uncensored press. In 1954, he was implicated in the assassination of
Carlos Lacerda, a newspaper publisher and governor of Rio de Janeiro, and the military
demanded his resignation once again.24 This time, however, rather than capitulating, Vargas
committed suicide. After his death, there was a brief time of democracy, characterized by largely
ineffective presidents and further economic difficulties. In 1964, a military junta took over that
would reign over Brazil until a new Republic would be established in 1985, a government that
still remains today. As a result of Vargas' reign, a whole generation missed out on their political
education and a very deep-seated pessimism was ingrained in the people's mentality towards the
government. However, Vargas also, and perhaps most importantly, made the working class a part
21 Horowitz, 294; Young, 89.
22 Horowitz, 91, 233; Young, 93.
23 Young, 101.
24 Young, 102.

Sawczak, 8
of politics. He made them vital to the functioning of the governmental machine. In addition, he
finally broke the hold on power that So Paulo held and unified the nation of Brazil more than
any other leader has in history. It is for this that he is remembered today.
When compared to the Chilean Revolution of 1970, one realizes how similar the two revolutions
are. Both were achieved through relatively nonviolent means and were led by a single,
charismatic leader. Even when the Brazilian rebels staged a coup against the government, most
cities capitulated without a fight, and very few people were killed overall. Chile's revolution,
similarly, was entirely political and nonviolent: Salvador Allende came to power in a legal and
fair election with little to no casualties. Additionally both nations were relatively stable during
the 19th century with decent economies and virtual peace, though they both relied a bit too
heavily on a single sector of the economy. In Brazil, it was coffee; in Chile, mining. Also, the
program of the Liberal Alliance in Brazil was remarkably similar to that of the Popular Front in
Chile. They both, for instance, wanted to enhance the people's freedom, promote cultural
nationalism, to improve the situation of the lower classes, and to implement labor reforms. In
addition, they both met the same end. Both Allende and Vargas committed suicide when a
military coup attempted to end their terms prematurely.
However, a difference lies in the states' consolidation. Brazil was very diverse and large,
while Chile is relatively small and cohesive. As a result, Chile was much easier to consolidate
into a single, organized entity. Chile also experienced much more US involvement, largely
because so many US companies were tied inextricably to the success of the Chilean economy,
whereas Brazil witnessed little interference except in the form of a very brief embargo on the
sale of weapons and ammunition in 1930. The CIA, for example, was highly involved in Chilean
elections and politics, often controlling the presidents before and after Allende. Brazil, on the

Sawczak, 9
other hand, was left to its own devices for the most part, with few politicians who were "in the
pocket" of the United States. In Chile, as well, more people were involved in the electoral
process from the beginning, though many elections were fraudulent, because the literacy rate in
Chile was much higher than in Brazil. One of the most striking differences perhaps is in
ideology. Vargas never claimed to follow any particular ideology. He was not Marxist or Socialist
or Communist. Instead, he simply wanted what was best for the people. Allende, in comparison,
was a self-declared Socialist and spoke of a "Chilean road to socialism," hoping that his gradual
reforms would prove to all that socialism was the most beneficial form of government. One of
these reforms that was drastically different from any reforms undertaken in Brazil was his goal to
nationalize all monopolies and large businesses, the "commanding heights" of the economy.
Vargas' program was instead mainly focused on social reforms like labor laws and diversifying
the domestic economy; so while the programs were similar in certain aspects, there were
defining elements that set them apart. Additionally, they both had the support of the lower
classes. However, Vargas had their support and remained on pace with them; Allende, on the
other hand, fell behind and was overtaken by the revolution from below, causing him to take
these Socialist economic reforms too quickly for the middle and upper classes, a mistake that
would eventually bring about his downfall. In Chile, also, General Pinochet's coup led to a
military dictatorship for many years, while Brazil's "coup" led to democracy for a while.
My main source was Jordan Young's The Brazilian Revolution of 1930 and the Aftermath.
It had lots of information from before the revolution as well, including Brazil's colonial
background and the early years of the Old Republic, which were both very useful in
understanding completely all of the elements that led up to the revolution of 1930. However, it
was also published in 1976, so I did not get to see any of the far-reaching effects of the

Sawczak, 10
revolution or where Brazil stands today. As a result, I felt myself lacking after completing the
book. In addition, it was very short, a bare 118 pages, and so it covered a lot of material without
going very in depth in certain parts of the revolution. For example, I felt that the description of
Vargas' involvement in the military side of the revolution was lacking.
My next source was actually a textbook written by Harry Vanden and Gary Prevost called
Politics of Latin America: The Power Game. This book gave great context for Latin America as a
whole, but its chapter on Brazil specifically was obviously very short and very fast. Its list and
descriptions of the periods following Vargas' rule are what I found to be most useful, since the
description of the revolution itself was very brief and unsatisfying. In addition, the focus was not
on causes and effects of the revolution, but acted more as a list of events with little real analysis.
However, it was useful to see all of the Latin American countries side by side in this way,
particularly in reference to Chile, which came in handy in comparing the two countries.
The Prestes Column: Revolution in Brazil by Neill Macaulay was almost the opposite of
the previous two sources. This book was so specific, focusing entirely on Prestes and his men in
their march across Brazil during the three years of guerrilla warfare leading up to the revolution.
Much of the information was not useful for a snapshot of the whole revolution because it was so
very specific, sometimes describing battles or soldiers in depth. However, it was interesting to
have a description of the environment that the guerrillas lived in and how they interacted with the
lower classes on a day to day basis. It also helped me to understand the inner workings of the
military side of the revolution and the ideologies that guided many of the soldiers.
My final source was Revolution in Brazil: Politics and Society in a Developing Nation by
Irving Horowitz. This focused a lot on US involvement in Brazil and its policies, while the other
sources glossed over this almost completely. It was also very different in form. It was composed

Sawczak, 11
of many different essays by various scholars interspersed with some primary source material as
well. For instance, it included Gtulio Vargas' farewell letter written just before his suicide sideby-side with a scholarly analysis of the demographics of Brazil. This gave the material an
interesting dynamic and gave me access to ideas that I otherwise would not have thought to
consult. However, due to the form, the book skipped around a lot and lacked cohesiveness. Each
essay acted independently, and there was little linear development.
The revolution of 1930 in Brazil and the revolution of 1970 in Chile were similar in the
nonviolent means they implemented to take effect and in several of the social reforms they
sought to undertake. However, they differed in large part in their ideological guidelines and in
the way both leaders related to and interacted with the masses. The legacies of both revolutions,
though their respective leaders were both overthrown, live on in the history of the nations and in
the minds of the people.