Braganza vs.

Maximilian: Two North American Monarchies in Comparison and Contrast Most of the time, monarchy has been seen through the eyes of the US revolutionary revulsion of royalty. However, this approach is short-sighted and ignores Two huge examples of the phenomena to the south of our borders at independent monarchical rule stand out in the history of the Americas: 1. The reign of the Braganza family in Brazil (1822-1829) 2. The reign of Maximilian of Austria over Mexico (1864-1867) In this paper, I will briefly compare and contrast these two experiments in American monarchy. I will then deal with the following questions and issues in the context of the topic of nationalism in both nations: 1. Why did the Mexican experiment end quickly while the Brazilian monarchy lasted for more than 75 years? 2. Why did both ultimately fail?

Comparison: On the surface, both countries appear to be largely identical. Their languages and cultures, Portuguese and Spanish are very similar and both come from countries with common borders on the Iberian Peninsula. Both countries have colonial histories that seem parallel and similar up until the time of the Napoleonic Wars. Following the Napoleonic victories, both countries mother lands suffered under the French emperors despotic rule. However, the reactions of the royal houses were very different, affecting the subsequent post-Napoleonic development of their colonies very differently.

The Napoleonic Wars sparked diverse movements throughout Latin America. French control did not follow to the new world. Ultimately, Portugal lost control of Brazil, and Spain was force to withdraw from all of its colonies in the New World save Cuba and Puerto Rico. The Portuguese withdrawal was gradual, some 75 years in the making while Spains quick and over completely between 1804 and 1824. (Kagan, 2004, 719) Eventually though, both governments lost and liberalism and monarchies together and suffered periods of military rule where creole elites developed a culture of off and on again junta rule that has persisted and has lasting effects to this very day. Braganza Brazil: As we opposed to Spanish Latin America, Brazilian independence came relatively peacefully. The Portuguese royal family, with thousands of government ministers and members of the royal court fled to Brazil in 1807. This court in exile completely transformed Rio De Janeiro into the new capitol of the Portuguese Empire. Prince regent John, unlike his Spanish counterparts in Latin America, addressed many of the local complaints against the monarchy. My 1815, he declared Brazil an independent kingdom. Now, Brazil was not just a colony, but a country that had grown up sufficiently that the mother country could now let it go. In reality, the change was long overdue. Brazil was far larger and more prosperous than its impoverished parent. In 1820, Portugal experienced a revolution. The leaders demanded Johns return, where he was proclaimed John VI in 1816. While he returned to Portugal, he left his son

Dom Pedro as regent in Brazil and counseled him to be sympathetic to the political aspirations of the people of Brazil. In September, 1822 Portuguese reactionaries were bent on turning back the clock to the good old days before the enlightenment and revolution. Dom Pedro embraced the cause of Brazilian independence against the reactionaries efforts to retake the country. By the end of 1822, he had become the emperor of an independent kingdom of Brazil, a form of government that it retained until 1889. The reaction of the Brazilian leaders was influenced by two factors. First, Brazils government leaders were appalled by the destruction unleashed in the old Spanish Empire by the wars of independence. Secondly, the elites in Brazil had every

intention of preserving slavery. Wars of independence elsewhere had generally led to slaverys abolition or its near abolition. The monarchists were conservatives who realized that they had to bend. Otherwise, they would break. The status quo held until 1889, when the empire fell following the abolition of slavery in 1888. The declaration of a republic was a conservative reaction to deal with issues of social dislocation and revolution (driven by famine) following the abolition of slavery. This developed into a military coup against Pablo IIs liberal reign, ending decades of liberal monarchical rule. While creole discontent was delayed and defused, even the Brazilian monarchy only put off the inevitable. As liberal as monarchy had become, the local white elites saw their interests verging away from the royals, just as it had decades earlier in the Spanish colonies (Kagan, 2004, 723). Maximilian Mexico:

Most of the Mexican peoples issues with reference to monarchy hearken back to the revolutionary struggle against Spain. Simply put, unlike the Brazilian experience, the Spanish court largely ignored the local creole elites (whites born in Latin America), discriminating against them in favor of the peninsulares (whites born in Spain). Needless to say, when the Spanish court was overthrown by Napoleon, they had no support in Spanish Latin America to run to amongst the free white population. Briefly, monarchy in Mexico had little support to begin with and subsequent events made them even more unpopular and prone to withdrawal into reactionary behavior (Kagan, 2004, 719) Any avid student of United States History will point out the overwhelming and largely unfortunate (for Mexico in particular) influence that the gringos from El Norte have had upon the unfortunate southern neighbor. The basic question was what was in the minds of Mexican conservatives when they brought in a monarch (especially an outsider) given their recent experiences with regard to US intervention in the form of the Mexican-American War? Did they just expect the US to sit on its hands and do nothing while France the precious Monroe Doctrine? While in retrospect, this may seem to be clear, we have to put ourselves back in the times of the participants on both sides of US-Mexican border. It is beyond the scope of this short survey to explore all of the nuances of the Mexican-US History. I will have to suffice with some broad brush strokes to summarize a lot of this in a small space. The Civil War left the US in a weakened position with regard to keeping foreign powers out of Mexico. Fighting for its very existence, the Union was struggling simply to keep European intervention out of the continental US itself, let alone anywhere south

of the US-Mexico border which the Union Army did not even have complete control over (Burner, 2000, 459-468). The Franco-Mexican War began in the wake of the repudiation of foreign debts owed to Britain, France, and Spain. Between 6 and 8 January 1862, British, French, and Spanish fleets blockaded Veracruz. The city of Campeche surrendered to a French fleet in February 1862. The British and Spanish withdrew in protest. Louis Napoleons army then engaged in a year long battle with the Mexican Army to conquer the country. His forces took Mexico City in June 1863. This body proclaimed a Catholic Empire in July 1863 and under Louis Napoleons influence, a crown was offered to Maximilian which he accepted from the ruling Mexican junta. When Maximilian disembarked from his ship in Mexico on 21 May 1864, the Union Army was still slogging its way through rugged terrain and ferocious combat on its way to take Richmond, the Confederate capitol. This combat seemingly would last indefinitely. While it was clear that the Union had the upper hand in the War and had

managed to keep out the intervention of European Powers, it was not clear yet that the Union would win an outright victory. For the South to win, all it had to do was not lose. It did not have to win an outright victory. The North did, and the Mexican Conservatives that invited Maximilian and his French sponsor Napoleon the Third wanted to use this uncertainty to their advantage. When the North did win, the Austrian born emperors days were numbered. In addition to US enmity, Maximilian had more issues in the figure of Benito Juarez. Having lost the Reform War of 1857-1860, the Conservatives brought in a monarch with French aid to bolster their faltering power. The Liberal forces

regrouped under Juarez and in the ensuing guerilla offensive and received generous US aid (Langer, 1945, 634). Maximilians troubles were just beginning. Once the Union Army had mopped up the last straggling resistance of all of the Southern forces, US Secretary of State Seward, in the words of the New York Times said that: .in the opinion of the United States the permanent establishment of a foreign and monarchical government in Mexico will be found neither easy nor desirable. The United States, consistently with their principles, can do no otherwise than leave the destinies of Mexico in the keeping of her own people, and recognize their sovereignty and independence in whatever form they themselves shall choose that this sovereignty and independence shall be manifested. Deployment of large sections of the 500,000 man Union Army along the Mexican border after the US Civil Wars end sent a clear message to Napoleon the Third: stay out or else. The French military presence and support to Maximilian faltered after this. In May 1866, Napoleon III announced the withdrawal of all French forces. By May 1867, Maximilian was captured. Juarezs government tried and executed the Austrian sovereign in July 1867 as a clear message to any foreign powers that the Mexican people would not tolerate any foreign imposed government. Regicide ended once and for all any possibility of monarchy in Mexico (Langer, 1945, 822). Conclusion: While the two examples of monarchical governments examined above developed differently and lasted different lengths of time, they both ended in the same manner. Creole elites eventually took over, overthrowing the monarchies in turn. All in all, the differences and similarities revolve around the only truly national institutions in Brazil and Mexico, the church and the army. Eventually, these two national institutions filled the power vacuum left by the lack of monarchy. Without

monarchical rule or stable rule by democratically elected governments, they represented the only bastions of stability that represented the countries as national and catholic entities.

References: Burner, David, Virginia Bernhard, Stanley I. Kutler. 2000. Firsthand America: A History of the United States. 6th ed. St. James, NY: Brandywine Press. The Bogus Empire: Maximilians Mexican Monarchy Crumbling. 1865 Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner. 2004. The Western Heritage, Volume 2 since 1648. 8th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Langer, William L. 1948. An Encyclopedia of World History. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.