No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
In 1808 the Portuguese Crown ended centuries of imperial practice by opening Brazilian ports to the direct trade of friendly nations. This new royal policy caused considerable consternation among conservative Portuguese merchants and manufacturers who feared that a flood of foreign imports would drain precious metals out of the empire, and that economically stronger foreign merchants would monopolize Brazilian trade, thus ruining manufacturing in Brazil. Many Brazilian landowners, on the other hand, supported freer trade because they believed it would stimulate production and export of agricultural commodities. Ironically, one Brazilian product that did suffer dramatic decline resulting from the introduction of foreign competition was not a manufactured good, but an agricultural one, wheat.
1 da Costa, Emilia Viotti, “The Politicai Emancipation of Brazil,” in From Colony to Nation: Essays on the Independence of Brazil, Russell-Wood, A.J.R. ed., (Baltimore, 1975), p. 56.Google Scholar
2 Ibid., pp. 43–88.
3 For a more detailed discussion of the evolution of royal trade policy and the presence of the royal court in Brazil see Viotti da Costa, pp. 50–54, and Dias, Maria Odila Silva, “The Establishment of the Royal Court in Brazil,” pp. 106–107, also in Russell-Wood, A.J.R. ed., From Colony to Nation.Google Scholar
4 For a thorough discussion of the frontier problem see Alden, Dauril, Royal Government in Colonial Brazil, (Berkeley, 1968), pp. 59–141.Google Scholar
5 Rudiger, Sebalt, Colonização e Propriedade de Terras no Rio Grande do Sul, (Pôrto Alegre, 1965), p. 28.Google Scholar The concern of royal officials about the creation of very large fazendas never disappeared. In 1803 the Governor of Rio Grande, Paulo José da Silva Gama complained bitterly to the viceroy that the concentration of land ownership had a harmful effect on the captaincy’s commerce. Paulo José da Silva Gama to the Viscount Anadia, Pôrto Alegre, July 25, 1803, Arquivo Histórico de Rio Grande do Sul (hereafter AHRGS), Correspondencia do Governador do Rio do Sul com o Vice Rei e o Corte: 1802–1812, codice 4, folias llv–13v. See also Silva Gama to Luís de Vasconcellos, Pôrto Alegre, October 6, 1805, Ibid., vol. 73v.
6 Arquivo dos Açores, XI, p. 528. See also Brown, Gregory G. “The Evolution of Small Property Agriculture in Southern Brazil: 1747–1824”, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1978, pp. 96–111.Google Scholar Though small when compared to Brazilian sesmarias, the 640 acre parcels given to the island families were quite large when one considers that in 1765 farms in Chester County, Pennsylvania, later to produce wheat in competition with Rio Grande, averaged 135 acres in size. Bidwell, Percy and Galconer, John D., Agricultural History of the Northern United States: 1620–1860, (New York, 1941), p. 116.Google Scholar For a good description of royal economic policy in Rio Grande before 1808 see Bauss, Rudy, “Rio Grande do Sul in the Portuguese Empire: The Formative Years, 1777–1808,” the Americas, 39:4 (April 1983), 519–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Prado, Caio Jr., The Colonial Background of Modern Brazil, (Berkeley, 1967), pp. 182–189.Google Scholar For example, see the exchange of official correspondence between the Viceroy of Brazil, the Conde de Galveas, José da Silva Pais and various other royal bureaucrats on the serious food shortage that developed in the colony during 1735. Arquivo Nacional, Rio de Janeiro (hereafter ANRJ), codice 84, volume 5, folios 185–313.
8 For example, in 1760 the agents of the Pombaline monopoly company established to control trade with Pernambuco and Paraiba wrote to their superiors in Lisbon noting that high prices and poor quality had depressed the market for Portuguese flour in Recife. They reported that despite an even higher price, flour from northern Europe sold better because of its better quality. de Cunha Saraiva, José Mendes, Companhia Geral de Pernambuco e Paraiba, (Lisbon, 1941), p. 31.Google Scholar
9 Amarai, Luís, História da Agricultura Brasileira, (São Paulo, 1940), 1, pp. 298,Google Scholar 305–313.
10 Martinho de Mello e Castro, Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, to the Marquis of Lavradio, Viceroy of Brazil, July, 1771, ANRJ, cod. 67, vol. 4, fol. 239.
11 Martinho de Mello e Castro to Luís de Vasconcellos e Souza, Viceroy of Brazil, Lisbon, October 12, 1787 ANRJ, cod. 67, vol. 15, fol. 54., discusses a project to export wheat from Rio Grande do Sul to Lisbon. See also the Marquis de Lavradio’s report filed on the termination of his tour of duty as Viceroy of Brazil (1779). He speculated about the possibility of expanding Rio Grande’s production to supply Portugal and thus reduce dependence on imported European grain. ANRJ, cod. 71, fol. 43. At least one Brazilian author suggests that in fact wheat from Rio Grande was exported to Lisbon, citing, but not documenting shipments of some 340,000 alqueires there in 1816. See Macedo, Francisco Riopardense, Pôrto Alegre: Origem e Crescimento, (Pôrto Alegre, 1968), 78.Google Scholar
12 For example the Viceroy of Brazil, Luís de Vasconcellos informed the Royal Treasury Council that: “Money for the flour they supplied to our troops is owed to nearly all the farmers (in Rio Grande)…”ANRJ,cod. 104, vol. 2, fol. 130. See also the report filed by the governor of Rio Grande, Sebastião Xavier Viega de Cabrai e Camara, discussing the Royal Treasury’s debt for foodstuffs requisitioned between 1775 and 1781. Ibid., vol. 3, fol. 48.
13 Brown, . Smalt Property Agriculture, pp. 184–185.Google Scholar
14 While royal officials often complained of the lack of funds to pay for requisitioned provisions in their official correspondence between 1775 and 1787, a search of similar records after 1787 contains no mention of this problem.
15 Chaves, Gonçalves, “Memorias Economo-Políticas Sobre a Administração Pública do Brasil,” Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico do Rio Grande do Sul, anno II (1922), 160.Google Scholar George Wells, the agent for Jesse Tyson and Sons, ȧ large Baltimore merchant milling firm, reported in 1822 that the Rio Grande wheat harvest of that year was a serious failure. George Wells to Tyson and Company, April 13, 1822. Maryland Historical Society (hereafter MHS), manuscript group 2371, box 1.
16 Knight, Peter, Brazilian Agricultural Technology and Trade: A Study of Five Commodities, (New York, 1971), pp. 102–104.Google Scholar See also da Mata, F.S., “A Dependable Agroclimatological Water Balance,” Agricultural Meteorology, 19:3 (June 1978), 209–211,Google Scholar and Azzi, Girolamo, Le Climat du Ble Dans le Monde (Rome, 1930), p. 970.Google Scholar
17 Hilaire, August St., Viagem a Capitania do Rio Grande do Sul, (São Paulo, 1976) p. 96.Google Scholar
18 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, Capitalismo e Escravidão no Brasil Meridional, (São Paulo, 1962), p. 49 Google Scholar note.
19 Henry Hill to James Madison, February 7, 1808, National Archives of the United States, United States Consul-Salvador, correspondence, vol. 1 (1808–1812), microfilm T-432. The following discussion of Hill’s analysis of the Brazilian market is based on this initial report.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Hill to Madison, November 1808, Ibid.
23 Fornati, Harry, Bread Upon the Waters, (Nashville, 1973), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar See also Galpin, W. Greeman, “The American Grain Trade to the Spanish Peninsula, 1810–1814,” American Historical Review, 28 (October 1922), 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Cole, Arthur H., Wholesale Commodity Prices in the United States, 1700–1861, (Cambridge, 1938)CrossRefGoogle Scholar for flour prices in Philadelphia. See also the weekly listings in the Baltimore Price Currant between 1815 and 1819.
25 Cole, Wholesale Commodity Prices.
26 This can be determined on the basis of 1$000 reis equals US$1.25, reported by Consul Hill. See Hill to Madison, November, 1808, National Archives microfilm T-432.
27 New American State Papers—Commerce and Navigation, VII, p. 307.
28 Determined on the basis of twenty-four percent of 4S200 reis or 5S400 reis which were the assessed values of one barrel of flour set by the customs house for the purpose of determining duties in Rio de Janeiro and Salvador respectively. See Hill to Madison, September 20, 1808, National Archives Microfilm T-432.
29 Hill to Madison, September 20, 1809, National Archives microfilm T-432.
30 It has proven impossible to find specific data on United States grain exports to Brazil. Only partial figures representing Philadelphia’s contribution could be collected. Most of the customs house records for Baltimore were lost in a fire early in this century. The Treasury Department only began publishing export data by country and commodity in 1821. These data are available in the New American State Papers—Commerce and Navigation series.
31 Hill to Madison, November 1808, National Archives Microfilm T-432. The difference in quality between flour milled from Rio Grande wheat, and American flour, especially that coming from Baltimore, was primarily a function of moisture content. American farmers grew their wheat in a relatively drier climate. American millers used technology that further reduced the moisture content of the flour they produced. As a result American flour kept much longer in tropical climates than did the domestic Brazilian product. Rio Grande had a damper climate and Brazilian milling was much less efficient. As a result the flour it produced spoiled very quickly. See Sharrer, G. Terry, “Flour Milling in the Growth of Baltimore, 1750–1830,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 71:3 (Fall 1976), 323.Google Scholar
32 New American State Papers—Commerce and Navigation, VII, 369.
33 Ibid., VII, p. 84.
34 Breckenridge, Henry, Voyage to South American Performed by Order of the American Government in the Years 1817 and 1818 in the Frigate Congress, (London, 1820), 1, p. 118.Google Scholar See also a discussion of the activity of the commission in Hilton’s, Stanley, “The United States and Brazilian Independence” in Russell-Wood, , From Colony to Nation, pp. 109–129.Google Scholar
35 Ibid., p. 120.
36 Ibid., p. 129.
37 Paul Beck Jr. to Samuel Woodhouse, Philadelphia, October 17, 1820, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Stauffer Collection. I want to thank Professor Steven Rosswurm of Lake Forest College for bringing this letter to my attention.
38 Paul Beck and his partner John Goddard were the Philadelphia merchants most active in the Brazil trade. Woodhouse and the Georgetown made one voyage for them in 1818 and another in 1819. Thereafter the partners used a variety of other ships and masters. The ships most frequently used were the Timandra commanded by William Yarnall and the Pennsylvania under various captains. In 1822 for example, each of these two ships made two voyages to Brazil, the Pennsylvania carrying 178 metric tons of flour to Rio de Janeiro each time, the Timandra just over eighty-nine metric tons to Pernambuco. United States National Archives, Record group 36, Foreign Outwardbound manifests—Philadelphia, 1789–1868.
39 George Wells to Tyson and Sons, Rio de Janeiro, April 13, 1822, MHS, manuscript group 2371, box 1.
40 Baltimore Price Current, April 8, 1822.
41 Wells to Tyson, Rio de Janeiro, April 13, 1822, MHS, 2371, box 1.
42 Baltimore Price Current, June 3, 1822.
43 Wells to Tyson & Sons, Rio de Janeiro, November 22, 1822, MHS 2371, box 1.
44 Bruchy, Stuart, Robert Oliver, Merchant of Baltimore : 1783–1819, (Baltimore, 1956), p. 103.Google Scholar
45 Sparks, J. “Baltimore,” North American Review, 20 (1825), 123.Google Scholar
46 Taylor, George Rogers, The Transportation Revolution: 1815–1860, (New York, 1951) 336.Google Scholar
47 J. Sparks, p. 132. See also Fornari, p. 23.
48 Taylor, , The Transportation Revolution, p. 336.Google Scholar
49 Gates, Paul, The Farmer’s Age: Agriculture 1815–1860, Economic History of the United States, vol. 3, (New York, 1960), p. 4.Google Scholar
50 Bidwell, Percy and Falconer, John D., History of Agriculture in the Northern United States: 1620–1860, (New York, 1941), p. 239.Google Scholar
51 Rogin, Leo, The Introduction of Farm Machinery in its Relation to Productivity of Labor in the Agriculture of the United States During the Nineteenth Century, (Berkeley, 1931 ), pp. 13–26.Google Scholar
52 Ibid., pp. 70–72.
53 Ibid., p. 130.
54 Silva Dias, pp. 98–99.
55 Paulo José da Silva Gama to the Conde de Vila Verde, Pôrto Alegre, March 2, 1806, AHRGS, Correspondencia do Governador do Rio Grande do Sul Com o Vicerey e o Corte, cod. 4, fol. 85v–86.
56 Governor Diogo de Souza to the Conde de Linhares, Pôrto Alegre, July 9, 1811, AHRGS, cod. 4, fol. 304v.
57 Ibid. See also the excellent discussion of the role of slave labor in the Rio Grande economy during this period in Cardoso, , Capitalismo e Escravidão, pp. 48–82.Google Scholar
58 St. Hilaire, p. 23.
59 Ibid., p. 82.
60 Ibid., p. 96.
61 ANRJ, cod. 67, vol. 4, fol. 239.
62 Martinho de Mello e Castro to Lavradio, July 1772, ANRJ, cod. 67, vol. 4, fol. 239. Dauril Alden cites sources that indicate the two men, José da Silva Lumiar and João Luís Bucellar, were sent to Rio Grande in 1774. The men may have responded to this undesired movement by showing little enthusiasm for their work. In 1780, the Governor of Rio Grande, Sebastião Xavier da Viega Cabrai e Camara, told Lavradio’s successor as viceroy, Luís de Vasconcellos e Souza that the two men could be sent home because they were of little use, no advantage having been gained from the mills they built in Rio Grande. Sebastião Xavier da Viega Cabrai e Camara to Luís de Vasconcellos e Souza, ANRJ cod. 104, vol. 2, fol. 233.
63 Macedo, Riopardense, Pôrlo Alegre, pp. 62–63.Google Scholar
64 Pelaez, Carlos Manuel, “The Establishment of Banking Institutions in a Backward Economy: Brazil, 1800–1851,” Business History Review, 49:4 (Winter 1975), 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See for example the comments on Brazilian commercial practices in Luccock, John, Notes on Rio de Janeiro and the Southern Provinces of Brazil, (London, 1820), p. 579.Google Scholar
65 Cardoso, pp. 66–67. Royal officials often commented on the negative impact Platine competition had on Rio Grande xarque exports. See Silva Gama to Luís de Vasconcellos, Pôrto Alegre, March 2, 1806, AHRGS, cod. 4, fol. 82–83.
66 Cardoso, p. 68.
67 Diogo de Souza to the Conde de Linhares, February 1811, AHRGS, cod. 4, fol. 277.
68 Antônio Villanon Portugal to the Conde de Figueira, September 12, 1818, AHRGS, Avisos do Govemo-1818, fol. 73.