Everything Has Become Southern:
The Confederado Colony in Santarém, Brazil
By:  Sara Philippe
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6fec/441f62e4a4cab8e04b2c1a311aa1dfa2e035.pdf
Go to above link to see original Thesis including footnotes
The negotiations that Hastings, like other ex-Confederates made with the Brazilian and other governments following the Civil War, therefore did not emerge only as a consequence of the Confederacy’s defeat. One of Maury’s ideas that preceded the Civil War involved transferring enslaved people from the US to Brazil. In the 1850s, Maury anticipated the abolition of slavery and was concerned about how fellow southerners would respond to this drastic change in their lives. He could not conceive of a world in which southerners would willingly give up their enslaved property without receiving compensation, so he envisioned that Brazilians would pay US citizens for their human property, thus satisfying their interests in the perpetuation and growth of slavery in their country. His plan, therefore, would ensure the continued survival of slavery in the hemisphere, no matter what legal actions the US would take to end its perpetuation within its borders. Maury’s objective was not to promote slavery’s reduction or abolition in the US, but rather its perpetuation, choosing Brazil as the appropriate “safety valve” for US slaves. He viewed the Amazon as “empty,” a perfect coincidence for his slaveholding compatriots. Maury would have been aware of the 1850 Brazilian law that banned the slave trade, so his recommendation that the US transfer slaves to Brazil suggests a belief that such a move would not represent a violation of law. In 1831, the Brazilian government had legally freed all slaves that arrived from outside of Brazil and enacted penalties against slave smugglers. The law was not enforced, however, as the interests of the Brazilian elite lay in the preservation of slavery. In fact, a significant black-market slave trade began, with an average of 30,000 to 40,000 slaves being smuggled into the country every year between 1840 and 1850.65 This bespeaks of a worldview in which national borders were fluid, especially when it came to the question of slavery. The Amazon, according to Maury, was slave territory, and therefore, a transferal of US slaves there would be a transferal of slaves from one slave territory to another. The question of Brazilian sovereignty over Amazonian territory did not factor into his project.

Maury was not alone in this. Slaveholding US citizens had long shown a deep concern regarding the fate of slavery in Brazil. Matthew Karp writes that “the most pronounced characteristic of proslavery foreign policy was neither a ravenous quest for fresh slave territory nor a desperate search for possible new slave states. Over and above these desires stood the need to protect systems of slave property across the hemisphere.”66 That is, US slaveholders felt secure in the future of slavery as an economic system as long as they saw evidence that it was thriving elsewhere. Brazil was one of the chief places they turned for evidence of this. Maury’s plan, therefore, echoes Secretary of State Abel Upshur’s statement in 1843 regarding the British attempt to abolish slavery “throughout the American continent.”67 Speaking of Brazil, he wrote that “what ever affects [slavery] in a neighboring country, necessarily affects it incidentally among us.”68 This meant not only that a threat to end slavery in Brazil was a threat to its continuity in the US. It also signified that the continued Brazilian reliance on slavery implied the survival of a larger hemispheric system of slavery. The US had neither to colonize Brazilian territory nor to violate Brazilian law in order to perpetuate US slavery there. Brazil, when convenient, was an extension of the US. Though Maury’s plan never received enough support to have been viable, the migration of his ex-Confederate compatriots was a profound reflection of the reallife implications of such a vision.

Horne articulates a connection between the fact that “those who had been so pro-Brazilian slavery were equally anti-U.S. after the Civil War.” 69 This does not imply that those who were pro-Brazilian slavery had always been anti-US, but rather that as circumstances shifted, so too did the allegiances of those who believed they  had the most to gain and lose from changes in official policy positions regarding slavery. The development of the Confederate States was not a reflection of the visceral hatred of southerners against the United States, but rather a response to what they saw as an unacceptable attack on the institution on which their entire economic system was based.70 The same logic, then, can be applied to the actions of Maury, Hastings, and other promoters of emigration, and the thousands of emigrants themselves, who saw in Brazil an opportunity to continue to profit from the same system they, their families, friends, and ancestors, had relied upon since long before the very founding of the United States.

Maury’s designs on Brazil as a “safety valve” for US slavery were not exclusive to him. One similarly-minded US citizen was prominent South Carolinian James Gadsden (1788-1858). Gadsden was a colonel in the US Army who served under General and later President Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 and from 1816 to 1821 at the US southern border, fighting in Spanish Florida in battles with Native Americans and maroons. After leaving army service, Gadsden became a planter in Florida, and was appointed to a commission to help in the expulsion of the Seminole Peoples from Florida and southern Georgia along what would become known as the “Trail of Tears.” He went on to become the president of the South Carolina Railroad company, where he promoted the construction of a transcontinental railroad through the southern US. In response to the admission of California to the Union as a state where slavery would not be permitted, Gadsden became an advocate for South Carolina’s secession from the US eleven years before this state would become the first state to do so.

In 1852, he developed a plan he shared with the Brazilian government to establish a company that would send slaves from the US to Brazil.71 The plan could not be realized, however because of the 1831 Brazilian law regarding slavery, though Gadsden, like Maury, never demonstrated any recognition of it. Gadsden went on to negotiate the Gadsden Treaty as a US diplomat to Mexico. The treaty defined the US-Mexico border and resulted in another major undertaking under Gadsden’s name – the Gadsden Purchase – in which the US acquired much of present-day New Mexico and Arizona from the Mexico in 1854.

While Gadsden himself was the owner of 235 slaves, ambitions to settle enslaved people in the Amazon, however, were not exclusive to southerners or slaveholders.72 Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) had a long-standing interest in promoting US black settlement abroad as a solution to the problem of slavery. It was not until he became president, however, that he was able to put these plans into action. The abolition of slavery became imminent with the start of the Civil War. As individuals like Hastings developed their own expansionist plans for the Confederacy, in the throes of the Civil War, Lincoln and others were crafting their own colonization plans. These plans had been in the developing stages since before the start of the war in 1861 and the publication of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Lincoln administration, however, was not the first to actively consider black colonization. The idea had, indeed, held an important place in US politics for much of the nineteenth century. It was discussed for the first time in the US House of Representatives in 1816 at a meeting in which prominent politician and planter from Kentucky, Henry Clay, defended his support of colonization by declaring that it would purge the country “of a useless and pernicious, if not a dangerous portion of its population,” referring to free black people.73 He also suggested that wherever they settled, presumably somewhere on the African continent, free blacks would spread “the arts of civilized life, and the possible redemption from ignorance and barbarism of a benighted portion of the globe.”74 Colonization, in this case, would be beneficial not only to the US by removal of an unwanted group, but would also serve to better the foreign society they would be joining.

Given their exposure to US civilization, free US blacks would be superior than the locals at the site of the imagined colony. Clay does not specify what this means to him, and many other promoters of colonization would make similar arguments without articulating specifics about what functions black colonies would serve, beyond removal from the US. In his book The Price of Liberty: African Americans and the Making of Liberia, Claude Clegg writes that “the paradoxical language of Clay and other colonizationists regarding free African Americans would, for decades to come, incorporate a tortured logic geared more toward effecting their ends than to proving the intellectual cogency of their position.”75 Rather than serving to diminish their movement, however, Clegg shows how the vagueness of colonization propositions actually made possible their persistent ubiquity in US politics. Colonization had a wide appeal that transcended regional and political boundaries, and it suited the interests of groups with diverging ideologies. That is, the movement was simultaneously pro-slavery and abolitionist. Constant in all this, however, was, as Clegg puts it, a fundamental belief in “irremediable difference, indeed dysfunction” brought about by the presence of free black Americans.76 In order for colonization to be understood as a necessary solution to a problem that was impossible to ignore, the black and white races had to be categorized “as absolutely distinct and dissimilar in nature, interests, and aspirations, and consequently unsuited to coexist as equals.”77

It was under the influence of this ideology that in 1861, Lincoln began publicly advocating for colonization outside the borders of the United States. He presented this option as a viable mechanism for winning the support of the border slave states of Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and later West Virginia. Lincoln hoped that slaveowners in these states would agree to relinquish ownership of their slaves and resettle them in colonization programs abroad “in a climate congenial to them” in exchange for monetary compensation.78 In March 1861, a month before the first shots of the war would be fired, Elisha Crosby became US Minister to Guatemala, where he would work with the Guatemalan president to design a colonization site there. 79 Another member of Lincoln’s cabinet proposed colonizing parts of southern Mexico that were in need of laborers, while another proposed a colony in the Chiriquí province in Panama where a US company hoped to buy land and profit from its coal.80

Members of Lincoln’s administration began preparing in earnest for the abolition of slavery across the United States after the publication of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. While plans for colonization only took off following this new policy, Lincoln had long been an advocate for black emigration and colonization, favoring the creation of the state of Liberia. Historian Robert May has argued that Lincoln “wanted pockets of Latin America preserved for U.S. free black laborers.”81 That spring, as a part of Lincoln’s colonization program, 453 US blacks left from Virginia to the Haitian island of Île-à-Vache.82 US businessman Bernard Kock obtained a ten-year lease on Île-à-Vache from the Haitian government. The deal stipulated that the black emigrants would become Haitian citizens upon arrival on the island and would work cutting timber, a percentage of which Kock would give to Haitian authorities.83 Lincoln eventually approved a smaller-scale version of Kock’s original plan. The plan proved to be a failure, in part due to the lack of communication and full agreement of Haitian authorities, and about 400 of the emigrants were transported back to the US in February 1864.84

Lincoln’s Secretary of State James Seward was a fierce advocate of US interventionism abroad. May describes Seward’s approach to foreign policy as opposite from Lincoln’s in many ways. According to May, while Lincoln never explicitly mentioned the Monroe Doctrine and his political values existed in contrast with those of his predecessors who strongly favored proslavery expansionism, Seward encouraged a much more interventionist line.85 When it came to potential courses of action following the end of slavery, however, Seward did not believe as strongly as Lincoln in the necessity of resettling freed slaves on foreign soil. Black colonization, however, was essential to Lincoln’s vision for the course of the war, and Seward, among others, was responsible for directing various individuals under his supervision to conceive of new options for the transfer of freed slaves. Possible countries included British Honduras, Haiti, Liberia, Panama, Nicaragua, British Guinea, and Costa Rica. The plan that won the most traction with Lincoln was that which was crafted by his Secretary of the Interior Caleb Smith. If Lincoln did not express his hopes for colonization as a product of his belief in Manifest Destiny, Smith did, arguing that if his proposal for a colony in Chiriquí were to come to fruition, the black colonists would establish an “influence” there that would “most probably secure to us the absolute control of the country.”86 Smith does not establish how the US government would formulate the political or economic relationship between the black colonists and the US. Instead, Smith merely implies that the US government could wield its desire to reduce the black population in the US in order to strengthen a US hold on foreign territories, where he hoped they might potentially establish sovereignty, though he never clarified how black colonization would enable this.

It was another strong believer in Manifest Destiny, Lincoln’s appointee to Minister to Brazil James Watson Webb (1802-1884), who would propose a colonization program in Brazil to Secretary Seward. Echoing William H. Edwards, the former US Consul to Buenos Aires in 1847, Webb argued that due to climate similarities between the Amazon and the US South, the Amazon would be the perfect location for black resettlement and labor.87 Webb proposed the creation of a “joint stock colonization company” that would facilitate the arrival of 50,000 black colonists in the Amazon, thus cheaply blessing the US with the “riddance of curse” – its freed slave population – and providing Brazil with valuable laborers who would win the equality granted by Brazilian citizenship.88

In his proposal, Webb portrayed Brazil as being in urgent need of a solution to “the labor question,” given that slavery there was on the decline.89 When Brazil officially abolished the slave trade in 1850, the elites that governed Brazil began planning new ways to acquire labor. One of the consequences of the quest for new sources of labor, which elites agreed should emanate from European immigration, was the Land Law of 1850. The law made it so that individuals could acquire public lands through purchase rather than through grants or squatting. One of the principal objectives of this law was the promotion of European colonization. In order to facilitate it, the law stipulated that the funds from taxes on property registration and public lands sales be used exclusively to finance land-surveying and the immigration of “free colonists.”90 Supporters of the Land Law were desperate to subsidize the acquisition of free labor in the face of the end of the slave trade.91 Opponents of the law were more concerned with the question of colonization than of labor. Instead, some proposed that the government provide land grants to immigrants.92 Tavares Bastos, the same politician who had worked tirelessly to open the Amazon to international commerce and navigation, believed that Amazonia, out of all of Brazil’s regions, was the most in need of receiving immigrants.93

The decline of slavery, in Webb’s telling, is left disconnected from the abolition of the slave trade. Instead, Webb attributes it to the superiority of Brazilian slaves in contrast to the “ignorant and docile” slaves supplied to the US and West Indies.94 Their superior nature made slavery intolerable to them, Webb explained, leading to an ongoing “organized conspiracy to prevent the increase of slavery by the mothers committing infanticide.”95 In reality, the end of the slave trade caused the slave population to decrease because of the high slave mortality rate in Brazil.96

Webb did point out an important aspect of slavery in Brazil which was the prevalence of slave resistance, especially in the form of quilombos, autonomous or semi-autonomous maroon communities. Quilombos were present throughout the country, including in the Amazonian region that Webb hoped to populate with slaves. The decline of slavery, for Webb was a “great evil” to which the solution was US black colonization, of equal benefit to all parties involved – the freedmen, “the philanthropist, the capitalist, and the governments of the United States and Brazil.”97 Aware of the Brazilian pursuit of new sources of labor, Webb represented his personal ambition to rid his country of part of its black population as a service to Brazil. Because of the growth of coffee production in Brazil, coffee growers in the southern provinces of Brazil were importing slaves from the norther provinces. Given the severe threat of the loss of slaves in northern Brazil and of “negro insurrection,” Webb believed that the Brazilian government had every incentive to desire the US government’s offer of “experienced and practical, negro labor.”98 The only means by which Brazil’s “wild lands, now utterly valueless to her” could at last become valuable was if the country placed “upon them the proper laborer for their cultivation.”99

While Webb was not concerned with using freed slaves as cultivators for the purposes of the US government, he suggested the Amazon as a perfect location for black colonization because of his adherence to racist beliefs. In accordance with the popular racial ideology of the time, Webb believed that black people possessed certain racial traits, opposite from those of whites that made them particularly suitable to certain climates, and therefore, to certain places on the globe – that is, the tropics.100 He was joined by many other prominent US citizenss, like those mentioned previously, across the political spectrum, who shared almost identical beliefs about race. Webb’s racist attitudes influenced him to desire to remove black people from the US and his solution to their undesired presence in the country was equally grounded in racism. Like Lincoln and Maury, Webb never held slaves and expressed interest in bringing about the end of the slave trade and the institution of slavery itself. Yet, his anti-slavery views, like those of Lincoln and Maury, did not emanate from a belief in racial equality. Lincoln, Webb, and the other men with which they surrounded themselves in the Union government, were the natural enemies of the staunch Confederate Matthew Maury, who devoted his life throughout the Civil War to playing his part to sabotage the Union war effort. Yet the racial logics of these men did not significantly diverge, and by extension, neither did their beliefs about possible solutions to the problems of slavery and its abolition.

It is here where the ideologies and policy proposals of Maury and Webb intersect. Maury was considered a scientific authority across the US for his role in the study of oceanography, meteorology, and geology, among other disciplines. Many consider Maury, the first head of the US Naval Observatory, as well as one of the founders of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to be the father of modern oceanography. While Maury lauded the richness of the Amazon, he did not believe that the land provided suitable living conditions for white people. Black people, inherently destined for servitude under the white race, possessed a genetic makeup that made them the perfect instruments of the white race in the cultivation of this land, a sentiment with which Webb agreed. These views were founded in the authoritative science of the time, and the reception of such science was not a function of the North-South or Union-Confederacy divide. Both Maury and those involved in the black colonization debate in the Union during the Civil War subscribed to scientific beliefs about the relationship between climate and race, accepting as true that “the black race” was better suited to life in the tropics due to the hot climate.101 Lincoln and his administration are treated as heroes in the popular US imagination, but they shared racist ideologies with those who are more universally accepted as racist figures. This sort of ideology was anything but marginal; rather, it influenced the ambitions and decisions of those in the highest positions of power.

It also fit into a larger way of thinking about the Amazon that prevailed in European and US thought and science. Susanna Hecht explains how scientists and collectors in the European and Anglophone tradition developed a narrative about Amazonia that positioned it as a purely “natural” place rather than one that was shaped by human effort.102 These travelers depicted Amazonian locals in their writings as “gracious hosts, earnest bearers, slaves, helpers, or rowers and watermen” who they did not view as active agents in interacting with and altering the landscape.103 Hecht writes that the colonial imperative of scientific expeditions continued after the colonial era, or rather that “scientific institutions had replaced the coffers of kings.”104 While many of the most prominent scientists to travel through the Amazon “were not formally staking claims,” “they were providing information…to a larger imperial apparatus.”105 The scientists were joined by “adventure tourists” who reproduced the knowledge of the day regarding race, climate, and the tropics.106

Assertions about race in the tropics are ubiquitous in discussions about black colonization in the Union. Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin (1815-1897), a Lincoln devotee, pointed to the Haitian Revolution as a case of “the laws of climate” overtaking “the white man.”107 One of colonization’s most vocal advocates, Frank Blair, in fact, used Maury’s findings about the Amazon to bolster his arguments. Blair was a US Representative from Missouri who remained loyal to the Union and joined the Union Army in 1862. He opposed slavery and proposed colonization in Central or South America as the right course of action after emancipation. In a speech delivered to the House of Representatives in 1858, Blair cited Maury’s paper the “Valley of the Amazon,” which spoke of “the white man’s” inability to alter the wilderness there, to support his call for black people to be settled in the tropics.108 He then cites an article from the New York newspaper Courier and Enquirer, edited by James Webb as further evidence. The article argues that black people should be transferred to the tropical regions of the continent, as, according to “the same law of nature which has given the blacks exclusive possession of corresponding latitudes in Africa,” they would replace white people.109 White people were essentially unfit to inhabit the land, according to the article’s writer, as proven by the fact that they had never succeeded in supplanting “the Indians of the tropics.”110 The extensive reach of these beliefs shows the deep roots that US views about Brazil and the Amazon had in US politics. Brazil and the Amazon consistently appeared in US discourse as part of a broader discourse about slavery, abolition, and expansionism.

The Plow, the Rifle, and Religion

Maury believed that Brazil and the Amazon could become extensions of a US empire. He was part of a post-Civil War movement that ought to expand outside of the physical borders of the US. Maury’s ideas, however, had their origins in the antebellum era. They were consistent with pre-Civil War notions about empire and the elements that constituted it. An understanding of the Amazon as empty wilderness played a key role in the formulation of colonization projects in the region. Maury, and others like him, relied on a long tradition of writing about the Amazon, particularly dominant in the nineteenth century, to come to their conclusions. Maury’s writings present just one example of how one man proposed to shape the Amazonian landscape based on these widespread and entrenched notions.

The Amazon, both as an empty wilderness, and as a potential part of a larger sphere of US influence, made it an ideal tool to use in the resolution of the “question of slavery” in the US. Maury presented the transferal of US slaves to the Amazon as a way in which the burdens of slavery in the US could be alleviated. In doing so, he also revealed his vision of a borderless South.

Maury attempted, however, to show that his colonial ideas were not efforts to expand the practice of slavery. He viewed himself as merely ensuring the normal functioning of a system that was already in place. “I am not seeking to make slave territory out of free, or to introduce slavery where there is none. Brazil is as much of a slave country as Virginia, and the valley of the Amazon is Brazilian,” he declared.111 Therefore, to send US slaves to Brazil would be no different than the internal transfer and trade of enslaved people that happened with full legality within US borders. Though Maury labelled slavery a “curse,” he did not dare to envision the abolition of slavery. He argued in 1855 that in his state of Virginia, if slavery were to be announced illegal, Virginians would leave the state or sell their slaves further into the South.112 Maury took this claim to an even more extreme conclusion. He foresaw a war as inevitable if US slavery were threatened, and he believed that slaveholders, “in order to prevent this war of races and its horrors,” would “in self-defence [sic], be compelled to conquer parts of Mexico and Central America, and make slave territory of that which is now free.”113 In his mind, then, it was better to send black laborers to regions south of the US border with the agreement of foreign governments, than for US citizens to invade foreign territory and institute slavery where it was unwanted.

As “we must deal with mankind as they are, and not as we would have them,” the natural response to this predicament was to look to a far-away place like the Amazon that, according to him, demanded black labor.114 The inhabitants of the Amazon, Maury claimed, would always depend on slave labor, and the Amazon forest itself could only be properly subdued through black labor.115 According to him, “Brazil is a slave country, and all the travelers who go there, I am told, say that the black man, and he alone, is capable of subduing the forests there.”116 If this was true, then the only question left to ask was whether enslaved labor would be purchased directly from Africa or from within the Americas. If from within the Americas, then not only would the number of slaves in the world not increase, but it would also “be relieving our own country of the slaves, it would be hastening the time of our deliverance, and it would be putting off indefinitely the horrors of that war of races which, without an escape, is surely to come upon us.”117

While Maury wished to avoid the coming bloodshed that the battle to continue slavery would incite, he also argued for the perpetuation of white supremacy in the same place he hoped to deposit black slaves. If slavery might be reaching its end point, the system that enabled it was not. Maury wrote: “For more than three hundred years the white man has been established in that Amazonian basin, and for more than three hundred years it has remained a howling wilderness.”118 This statement, which reveals a belief that Brazilians of European descent who lived in the Amazon were indeed white, also suggests a hierarchy within his conception of those who were white. Brazilian whites had failed thus far to cultivate the Amazon. This did not imply that no white man was matched to the task. He did not believe that the entire white race should be excluded from the opportunity to colonize the Amazon. What the region needed, in fact, was specifically a white US presence. According to him, “in the valley of the Amazon, the plow is unknown and the American rifle and axe, the great implements of settlement and civilization, are curiosities.”119 Here, Maury mimics O’Sullivan in his listing of two crucial elements of successful US occupation of the western territories – the plow and the rifle. What Maury saw when he turned his gaze towards the Amazon was a landscape that had many of the same characteristics that previous foreign observers had noted. He also saw a land that was virtually empty, just as other lands conquered by the US had previously been viewed. Maury’s in his belief was specifically in the supremacy of US white settlers – the Amazon’s only and last chance for progress and cultivation after the failures of indigenous and European peoples. Hecht demonstrates how Maury’s racist beliefs complemented commonplace nineteenth century myths about the Amazon as bountiful but empty. English naturalist Henry Walter Bates, a prominent traveler to and writer about the Amazon, claimed that “everything in Amazonia remains to be done.”120 According to Hecht, “the tropes of emptiness, primitivity, and incapacity” combined with a new set of logics – economic, political, racial, and religious – to create what she terms the nineteenth century “Amazon Scramble.”121

Maury’s belief in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race was shared by many during this era. This ideology became dominant in connection with ideas of Manifest Destiny during the Mexican War. By 1850, according to Reginald Horsman, US Anglo-Saxons had come to be view themselves as “a separate, innately superior people who were destined to bring good government, commercial prosperity, and Christianity to the American continents and to the world.”122 US citizens were choosing a narrative of their own history that would justify and glorify their current objectives of global conquest. Horsman writes: “From their own successful past as Puritan colonists, Revolutionary patriots, conquerors of a wilderness, and creators of an immense material prosperity, the Americans had evidence plain before them that they were a chosen people.”123

One of the benefits Maury expected this chosen people might find in South America was gold. According to him, the Andean gold that could potentially be discovered might rival the quantity present in California. Therefore, one consequence of US conquest of the Amazon was the possession of this gold, which could flow directly to the Atlantic. This claim speaks to the permanence of the myth of El Dorado, which held there was a golden city in the Amazon and other areas. This myth dates back to Columbus’ claim that more gold and items of value could be found south of the equator than elsewhere, a belief that would go on to influence European and US thought.124 The southern journal that published much of Maury’s writings about the region disseminated the idea of the Amazon as “a gold and diamond country.”125

According to Maury, the status quo precluded the possibility of profiting from this gold, as it was to be found in “Indian country,” the inhabitants of which lacked the “energy and enterprise” to do the work necessary for it.126 The Andes, however, were not the focus of Maury’s vision; the Amazon Valley was. There too, the local inhabitants had failed to properly benefit from its resources. After three hundred years of unsuccessful European and indigenous attempts at “contending with the forests,” “no impression” had been made.127 Other than this myth, there would be no reason for Maury to believe that there were large gold deposits in the Amazon. The solution to the seeming immutability of the Amazon, though, was clear and singular: “If ever the vegetation there is subdued and brought under; if ever the soil be reclaimed from the forest the reptile and the wild beast, and subjected to the hoe, it must be done by the African, with the American axe in his hand.”128

The benefits, too, of a US presence in the Amazon, would be extended to the US in general, and not just to the southern slaveholder. The enormous wealth this project would bring about was so evidently appealing to Maury he believed it would not “fail to find favor with every true hearted American, whether he come from the North, or the South, the East or the West.”129 This was the case because his project would connect the US directly to a whole other section of the globe: “Settlement there, will transfer the productions of India and place them in Amazonia at our feet; so that the ships of all nations that may flock there to buy and carry them away, will have to pass by our gates.”130 Rather than privileging the southern US so as to disadvantage other regions, his plan would unify the nation; the only factor that privileged the South in this scheme was its greater geographical proximity to South America.

In Maury’s worldview, “the South” was not limited to the southern US. Johnson, in fact, argues that what was now viewed as “the South” emerged entirely of the secession of a certain conglomeration of states from the Union, rather than the pre-Civil War reality. Instead, Johnson proposes that it might be more helpful to ask “where Southerners (and slaveholders in particular) thought they were going and how they thought they could pull it off in the first place” in the years before the war.131 According to Johnson, in the 1850s, “many of those who would later become Confederates were busily imagining and promoting a vision of a pro-slavery future – of pro-slavery time and space.”132 This harkens back to the notion of border fluidity to which Maury seemed to subscribe.

Maury’s writing betrays a vision of a pro-slavery space that was expansive and that he only vaguely defined. In an 1845 paper entitled “The Commercial Prospects of the South” and presented to the Virginia Commercial Convention, Maury first proclaimed “Let the South look to the South! Behold the valley of the Amazon!”133 He repeated the same entreaty in his 1852 paper published in DeBow’s Review in 1852, imploring twice that “the South not forget to look to the South.”134 Rather than articulate a relationship between different sovereign nations, Maury implies that two slaveholding regions, separated by national and geographical boundaries, are in fact, parts of an expansive, unified system. The southern US and the Amazon were one and the same.

Maury’s arguments show that he was dedicated to a vision that was deeply rooted in the US tradition of expansionism. He was committed to ideals that were not confined to the borders of the nation. Walter Johnson argues that for Maury, “space was not defined by politics, and it was neither national nor regional; the economy produced space, rather than being bounded by it.”135 That is, at the moment at which the Amazon began to figure centrally in Maury’s imagination, many US southerners were conceiving of ways to respond to the heavy reliance of their economy on exports. Maury understood the slavery-reliant economy of the southern US to be under threat, and in response, he was resolved to extend US slavery into a greater South beyond US national borders. The Amazon river, in fact, was an “appendage” of the Mississippi, and by connecting the two, the “American Mediterranean” (the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean) would become the center of a new empire.136 This new empire would also be connected to Asia, as Maury hoped that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would be joined via the Isthmus of Panama.137

When Maury compared the Mississippi Valley to the Amazon Valley, he participated in a long US tradition of invoking the Mississippi Valley as the central target of expansionism. Before US leaders like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson began envisioning and enacting the expansion of the US empire into the Mississippi Valley, it was the French who dreamed of its annexation. Napoleon thought of the region as a provider of food for the enslaved people employed in sugar cultivation in the French colony of St. Domingue.138 Before its fall as a result of the Haitian Revolution, St. Domingue had been one of the world’s most lucrative colonies, and after its fall, the Mississippi Valley lost much of its value to Napoleon.139 The Valley then became of principal interest to one of the chief architects of the early United States – Thomas Jefferson. In Jefferson’s view, by expanding the domain of the US into the Valley, the fledgling nation could create an “empire for liberty.”140 This liberty was the liberty of white male farmers whose livelihoods would depend on slave labor. In this way, the story of interest in expansion into the Mississippi Valley was inextricable from the expansion of the institution of slavery. Emphasis on the natural rights of US Anglo-Saxons would provide the perfect alibi for the institution’s expansion into new lands.

Belief in the racial superiority of Anglo-Saxons, however, did by no means develop exclusively in the US. As Maury and so many others were articulating a global role for the US that was justified by the racial superiority of the US citizen.

Brazil was advocating for European immigration based on similar racial premises. As Brazil prepared for the abolition of slavery, it searched for a new labor force that would supplant the enslaved one. The determination on the part of those like Maury to mold Brazil and the Amazon on the basis of their racial ideology, then, coincided with the desires of elite Brazilians who had the power to act on such beliefs.141 Viotti Da Costa writes that the Brazilian Empire prided itself on its adherence to liberalism, which served as a “utopia for the elites,” but as “empty rhetoric” for the large majority of the population.142 Instead of seeking radical change, those in power blamed the empire’s problems on Brazilian “backwardness.”143 For the most part, she argues, the colonial structure, dependent on slave labor and the patronage system, persisted following independence.144 The dependence on slave labor, as well as the attitude towards land it produced, fundamentally connected the US and Brazil. In the backlands of colonial Brazil, “anyone who was able to fight the Indians and survive in the wilderness could secure a piece of land.”145 Like in the US, land ownership, attainable through domination of indigenous people, was central to conceptions of the Brazilian citizen. The power of Brazilian elites also resembled that of US southern planters, though slaveholding Brazilians controlled the entire country, in contrast with the regional confines of slavery’s direct practice in the US. In the 1850s after abolishing the slave trade, “Brazil’s ruling planters worked consciously to duplicate the thriving US model: a slave society that could reproduce itself through better slave management, the internal slave trade, and a close slaveholding grip on the power of the central government.”146 “No two countries in the world have greater mutual interests than this beautiful Empire and our own Republic,” proclaimed Robert G. Scott, the Virginian serving as U.S. consul in Rio de Janeiro. The reason was simple: “[t]hey are the two greatest and only powers on the globe with negro slavery recognized and governed by law.”147

In Maury’s argument for the changing of Brazil’s laws concerning foreign access to the Amazon, he refers to the context of US expansion westward in order to prove his point about the absurdity of the limitations of these laws. “Suppose the United States had established military posts in California to prevent the people there from going there and digging for gold, what would have been the condition of that State now in comparison to what it is? It would have been as the interior of Brazil is now.”148 What he saw as the Brazilian government’s refusal to promote commerce amounted to a crime given that Brazil was “the finest country in the world.”149 Brazilian law as it stood was insignificant to Maury in that he viewed it as an obstacle to overcome in the pursuit of his dream.

Though this dream was specifically a US one, its implications extended far beyond the nation’s boundaries. Nícia Villela Luz claims that Maury saw himself as a pioneer in the model of Christopher Columbus. He, too, would introduce the world to a new territory rich in resources, but in need of being domesticated and civilized.150 Maury articulated the fated conquest of the Amazon as part and parcel of a longer arc of history. As he saw it, the US was still animated by the “spirit which moved men in the days of knight-errantry, which drove them in the time of the crusades, and which at a later period, carried them across the seas and conducted them to the New World in search of adventure and geographical discovery.”151 If this very same spirit was “permitted upon the wings of free navigation to enter the grand river basins of South America,” it would “cause the wilderness there to blossom.”152 Brazil owed it not just to the US to allow US steamships up the Amazon but also to “the good of commerce, science, and the world.”153 The US had a destiny, in which the Amazon figured importantly, and it was the obligation of all involved to take the necessary steps to fulfill it. Maury consistently articulated his vision of the Amazon as something greater than simply an economic project. Not only did commerce demand the free navigation of the Amazon, but so did the “necessities of Christendom.”154

While Maury named Christendom as one of the larger motivating factors in the need to colonize and civilize Brazil, US Protestant missionaries had already been articulating the need for Christianization as a necessary tool in the promotion of civilization. Christianization, for them, implicated missionizing Catholics, as they did not view Catholicism as properly Christian. They considered Catholics as part of an inferior religion. Paul Naish argues that, during the 1850s, as the debate about slavery intensified in the US, pro-slavery southerners used anti-Catholic sentiment to bolster their arguments in favor of US slavery, as opposed to the slavery practiced in Latin American countries where Catholicism was the dominant religion.155 While Maury spoke of an expansive south that was limited by geopolitical borders, many southerners spoke disparagingly of slavery in places like Brazil and Cuba. Instead of articulating commonalities with other slave societies, southerners more often chose to distance themselves from Latin American countries. Religious difference was key in establishing this distance. Naish writes that southerners’ “enmity to Catholicism” was “reflexive and unselfconscious.”156 It was also racialized, as descendants of the Spanish and Portuguese colonists were considered to be tainted by the Muslim and Jewish blood of their ancestors.157 Maury, like other similarly-minded polticians, targeted the Amazon not for its use of slave labor, but for what he saw as the unfulfilled potential of the land. In focusing on the land itself, these southerners ignored the question of the usefulness of slave labor in Amazonia. As a promoter of emigration after the Civil War, Hastings would perpetuate this willful ignorance.

Protestant churches had chosen the heavily Catholic Brazil as a target for proselytization and sent agents there for such purposes. In fact, one of the chief sources of information about Brazil in the US was a book entitled Brazil and the Brazilians written by Daniel Kidder, a New Yorker, who upon graduating from Wesleyan University in 1836, entered the Methodist ministry and traveled throughout Brazil on a mission. The book was widely read, especially in the South. Several editions were published, including new ones in 1866, 1867, and 1868, when southerners were considering emigration. In the book, Kidder sets forth a narrative of Brazilian history that commends the empire for its relative progress given its Portuguese origins. He argues that Brazil stands out amongst other nations of the “Latin race,” which he denotes as inferior and therefore not worthy of comparison to those of the Anglo-Saxon race.158 Like Maury, he believed Brazilian backwardness to be at fault for the large swaths of yet un-surveyed and uncultivated land existent in the country.159 Also like Maury, Kidder believed that immigrants were necessary in order to make proper use of this land and for Brazil to achieve its great destiny.160 At the same time, Kidder echoed the belief that, in the Amazon, the tropical climate might prevent permanent white settlement, writing that “whether the Amazon region...can ever be thickly peopled by a more Northern race, remains to be seen. It is in one range of temperature…and is as yet an almost unbroken wilderness.”161

The first Methodist reverend to visit Brazil, two years before Kidder, was Tennessean Fountain Pitts. Writing from Rio de Janeiro in 1835, Pitts claimed that the city – this “thoroughfare of Papal delusion, and mart of slaves and coffee – was “the most unchristian place” he had ever encountered, while expressing hope that “the day of gospel light will soon dawn upon” it.162 Pitts would later go on to become a chaplain in the Confederate Army and his son, Josiah would follow Hastings to Santarém. Fountain Pitts’ church, following his trip to South America, resolved that proselytization was the duty of all, as “every genuine lover of freedom should aid in the advancement of a religion that has always been the precursor of civilization, literature, and the rights of man.”163 Maury, then, was not alone in articulating progress in Brazil and the demands of Christianity as mutually dependent.

Like Hastings, Maury’s ideas for a different future for the US, however, were not relegated to his imagination. As mentioned before, he manipulated his influence in the upper echelons of US government to bring to fruition a government-funded exploration of the Amazon in the hopes of convincing the Brazilian government of the advantages of opening the river to international navigation and commerce. His goal was also to reveal these benefits to the US public for which the Amazon was largely a far-off land of little consequence to the US.

In 1851, Maury’s brother-in-law Colonel William Herndon (1813-1857) set off on an expedition that would begin to concretize Maury’s plans. Herndon’s expedition was directed by the Secretary of the Navy under President Millard Filmore. Herndon’s report was submitted to the both houses of congress. The Secretary of the Navy ordered that twenty thousand additional copies of it be published.164 Before setting off, Maury made it clear to Herndon that this journey was to create “the first link in that chain which is to end in the establishment of the Amazonian Republic.”165 Repeating a favorite phrase of his, Maury entreated his brother-in-law to do the preliminary work required to establish the dominion of “a race that has energy and enterprise.”166

 

 

PICTURE

 

Upon their return to the United States, Herndon and Gibbon, each wrote their own accounts of their time on the Amazon. Herndon’s mission was described primarily as a scientific and commercial one, but he did not limit himself to observations of that nature, and neither did his second-in-command Lieutenant Lardner Gibbon in his separate account. Herndon’s book would become a national bestseller.167 In the final section of his report, Herndon concluded that there was a “bond” between Brazil and the US given they were both slaveholding nations.168 While acknowledging that the US had to respect Brazil’s wishes, Herndon invokes this “bond” to harshly criticize the country for refusing the US her “just rights” in limiting access to the Amazon.169 He then re-produces an address Maury had made to Congress in which he concluded that Brazil, in keeping the Amazon off-limits to foreign use, was acting in defiance of “divine law.”170 According to Maury and the jurisconsult he was citing, “Providence” had ordained that commerce between different nations was “essential to the moral well-being of the whole human race.”171

For Herndon, if divine law mandated a US influence on the Amazon region, so too, did the inherent deficiencies of the people who inhabited it. While in Pará on the Amazon, Herndon commented on the idleness of the population there, writing that “men, in these countries, are not ambitious. They are not annoyed, as the more masculine people of colder climates are, to see their neighbors going ahead of them.”172 Brazilians in general, he said, were “perfectly contented” with the basic necessities of life due to the climate, the relaxing effect of which makes labor impossible. The solution to this problem, according to Herndon, was to make labor compulsory. The restitution of the slave trade was out of the question, since public opinion was against it, and so was coercive indigenous labor, given that indigenous people would “sooner die than do more than is necessary for the support of their being.”173 Given these restrictions, Herndon foresaw US settlement as the best option. The Brazilian government, as Maury so desperately hoped, would first have to modify its long-standing limitations on who could enter the Amazon, requiring them to “throw off a causeless jealousy, and a fear of our people.”174 Then, Southern planters who feared the coming disappearance of slavery at home in the US would “remove their slaves to that country, cultivate its lands, draw out its resources, and prodigiously augment the power and wealth of Brazil.”175

 

 

PICTURE

 

The opening of the Amazon, for Herndon, was about more than US access to greater commercial opportunities. By encouraging emigration as well, Brazil would gain access to the wealth the Amazon Valley, with its “unrivalled fertility,” had the potential to produce as long as it was cultivated by US citizens. 176 Brazil, he entreated, should “stretch out her hands to the world at large, and say, ‘Come and help us to subdue the wilderness; here are homes, and broad lands, and protection for all those who choose to come.”177 The result of such a revolution in policy would be the transformation of Rio de Janeiro, the then-capital of Brazil, into a mere village, compared to Pará, and of Santarém, the site of the future ex-Confederate colony, into the new St. Louis, Missouri.178 The US impact on the Amazon would be so great, he believed, that its fundamental character would shift from its primitive, inferior state into a center of modern civilization. “No longer would the forests that line its banks afford but a shelter for the serpent, the tiger, and the Indian; but furrowed by a thousand keels, and bearing upon its waters the mighty wealth that civilization and science would call from the depths of those dark forests, the Amazon would ‘rejoice as a strong man to run a race’” he wrote.179 The specific advancements Brazil would point to were “the blossoming wilderness, the well-cultivated farm, the busy city, the glancing steamboat.”180 Listening “to the hum of the voices of thousands of active and prosperous men,” Brazil could say, “‘thus much have we done for the advancement of civilization and the happiness of the human race.’”181

Conclusion

When Herndon published this report, entreating the US government to advocate for a change in Brazilian policy toward the Amazon, the kind of “Amazonian Republic” that Maury envisioned was still a dream. He did not know that his work would help fuel the establishment of a colony of US citizens motivated by similar impulses. Hastings would use Herndon and Maury’s language and information for his own propagandistic purposes. While Herndon’s report painted a vibrant picture of what a US presence in the Amazon could look like, this picture existed mostly in his imagination. What had been a fantasy for Herndon and Maury would turn into an imagined necessity for their ideological heir, Hastings. While Herndon’s book had entreated the US government for its support of the US government, by the time Hastings set his mind on the Amazon, he no longer required it. The Brazilian Empire’s interest in facilitating immigration would sync with the wishes of the US southerners who could not tolerate the consequences of the Civil War. With the backing of the Brazilian Emperor Dom Pedro II himself, Hastings would position himself to his southern US compatriots as the man who would prove that US citizens did indeed possess the “energy and enterprise” to alter the Amazon, and thus contribute to the grand civilizing project Herndon so eloquently described.

Santarem.jpg
Hastings.jpg
MAURY.jpg
The negotiations that Hastings, like other ex-Confederates made with the Brazilian and other governments following the Civil War, therefore did not emerge only as a consequence of the Confederacy’s defeat. One of Maury’s ideas that preceded the Civil War involved transferring enslaved people from the US to Brazil. In the 1850s, Maury anticipated the abolition of slavery and was concerned about how fellow southerners would respond to this drastic change in their lives. He could not conceive of a world in which southerners would willingly give up their enslaved property without receiving compensation, so he envisioned that Brazilians would pay US citizens for their human property, thus satisfying their interests in the perpetuation and growth of slavery in their country. His plan, therefore, would ensure the continued survival of slavery in the hemisphere, no matter what legal actions the US would take to end its perpetuation within its borders. Maury’s objective was not to promote slavery’s reduction or abolition in the US, but rather its perpetuation, choosing Brazil as the appropriate “safety valve” for US slaves. He viewed the Amazon as “empty,” a perfect coincidence for his slaveholding compatriots.64 Maury would have been aware of the 1850 Brazilian law that banned the slave trade, so his recommendation that the US transfer slaves to Brazil suggests a belief that such a move would not represent a violation of law. In 1831, the Brazilian government had legally freed all slaves that arrived from outside of Brazil and enacted penalties against slave smugglers. The law was not enforced, however, as the interests of the Brazilian elite lay in the preservation of slavery. In fact, a significant black-market slave trade began, with an average of 30,000 to 40,000 slaves being smuggled into the country every year between 1840 and 1850.65 This bespeaks of a worldview in which national borders were fluid, especially when it came to the question of slavery. The Amazon, according to Maury, was slave territory, and therefore, a transferal of US slaves there would be a transferal of slaves from one slave territory to another. The question of Brazilian sovereignty over Amazonian territory did not factor into his project.

Maury was not alone in this. Slaveholding US citizens had long shown a deep concern regarding the fate of slavery in Brazil. Matthew Karp writes that “the most pronounced characteristic of proslavery foreign policy was neither a ravenous quest for fresh slave territory nor a desperate search for possible new slave states. Over and above these desires stood the need to protect systems of slave property across the hemisphere.”66 That is, US slaveholders felt secure in the future of slavery as an economic system as long as they saw evidence that it was thriving elsewhere. Brazil was one of the chief places they turned for evidence of this. Maury’s plan, therefore, echoes Secretary of State Abel Upshur’s statement in 1843 regarding the British attempt to abolish slavery “throughout the American continent.”67 Speaking of Brazil, he wrote that “what ever affects [slavery] in a neighboring country, necessarily affects it incidentally among us.”68 This meant not only that a threat to end slavery in Brazil was a threat to its continuity in the US. It also signified that the continued Brazilian reliance on slavery implied the survival of a larger hemispheric system of slavery. The US had neither to colonize Brazilian territory nor to violate Brazilian law in order to perpetuate US slavery there. Brazil, when convenient, was an extension of the US. Though Maury’s plan never received enough support to have been viable, the migration of his ex-Confederate compatriots was a profound reflection of the reallife implications of such a vision.

Horne articulates a connection between the fact that “those who had been so pro-Brazilian slavery were equally anti-U.S. after the Civil War.” 69 This does not imply that those who were pro-Brazilian slavery had always been anti-US, but rather that as circumstances shifted, so too did the allegiances of those who believed they  had the most to gain and lose from changes in official policy positions regarding slavery. The development of the Confederate States was not a reflection of the visceral hatred of southerners against the United States, but rather a response to what they saw as an unacceptable attack on the institution on which their entire economic system was based.70 The same logic, then, can be applied to the actions of Maury, Hastings, and other promoters of emigration, and the thousands of emigrants themselves, who saw in Brazil an opportunity to continue to profit from the same system they, their families, friends, and ancestors, had relied upon since long before the very founding of the United States.

Maury’s designs on Brazil as a “safety valve” for US slavery were not exclusive to him. One similarly-minded US citizen was prominent South Carolinian James Gadsden (1788-1858). Gadsden was a colonel in the US Army who served under General and later President Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 and from 1816 to 1821 at the US southern border, fighting in Spanish Florida in battles with Native Americans and maroons. After leaving army service, Gadsden became a planter in Florida, and was appointed to a commission to help in the expulsion of the Seminole Peoples from Florida and southern Georgia along what would become known as the “Trail of Tears.” He went on to become the president of the South Carolina Railroad company, where he promoted the construction of a transcontinental railroad through the southern US. In response to the admission of California to the Union as a state where slavery would not be permitted, Gadsden became an advocate for South Carolina’s secession from the US eleven years before this state would become the first state to do so.

In 1852, he developed a plan he shared with the Brazilian government to establish a company that would send slaves from the US to Brazil.71 The plan could not be realized, however because of the 1831 Brazilian law regarding slavery, though Gadsden, like Maury, never demonstrated any recognition of it. Gadsden went on to negotiate the Gadsden Treaty as a US diplomat to Mexico. The treaty defined the US-Mexico border and resulted in another major undertaking under Gadsden’s name – the Gadsden Purchase – in which the US acquired much of present-day New Mexico and Arizona from the Mexico in 1854.

While Gadsden himself was the owner of 235 slaves, ambitions to settle enslaved people in the Amazon, however, were not exclusive to southerners or slaveholders.72 Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) had a long-standing interest in promoting US black settlement abroad as a solution to the problem of slavery. It was not until he became president, however, that he was able to put these plans into action. The abolition of slavery became imminent with the start of the Civil War. As individuals like Hastings developed their own expansionist plans for the Confederacy, in the throes of the Civil War, Lincoln and others were crafting their own colonization plans. These plans had been in the developing stages since before the start of the war in 1861 and the publication of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Lincoln administration, however, was not the first to actively consider black colonization. The idea had, indeed, held an important place in US politics for much of the nineteenth century. It was discussed for the first time in the US House of Representatives in 1816 at a meeting in which prominent politician and planter from Kentucky, Henry Clay, defended his support of colonization by declaring that it would purge the country “of a useless and pernicious, if not a dangerous portion of its population,” referring to free black people.73 He also suggested that wherever they settled, presumably somewhere on the African continent, free blacks would spread “the arts of civilized life, and the possible redemption from ignorance and barbarism of a benighted portion of the globe.”74 Colonization, in this case, would be beneficial not only to the US by removal of an unwanted group, but would also serve to better the foreign society they would be joining.

Given their exposure to US civilization, free US blacks would be superior than the locals at the site of the imagined colony. Clay does not specify what this means to him, and many other promoters of colonization would make similar arguments without articulating specifics about what functions black colonies would serve, beyond removal from the US. In his book The Price of Liberty: African Americans and the Making of Liberia, Claude Clegg writes that “the paradoxical language of Clay and other colonizationists regarding free African Americans would, for decades to come, incorporate a tortured logic geared more toward effecting their ends than to proving the intellectual cogency of their position.”75 Rather than serving to diminish their movement, however, Clegg shows how the vagueness of colonization propositions actually made possible their persistent ubiquity in US politics. Colonization had a wide appeal that transcended regional and political boundaries, and it suited the interests of groups with diverging ideologies. That is, the movement was simultaneously pro-slavery and abolitionist. Constant in all this, however, was, as Clegg puts it, a fundamental belief in “irremediable difference, indeed dysfunction” brought about by the presence of free black Americans.76 In order for colonization to be understood as a necessary solution to a problem that was impossible to ignore, the black and white races had to be categorized “as absolutely distinct and dissimilar in nature, interests, and aspirations, and consequently unsuited to coexist as equals.”77

It was under the influence of this ideology that in 1861, Lincoln began publicly advocating for colonization outside the borders of the United States. He presented this option as a viable mechanism for winning the support of the border slave states of Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and later West Virginia. Lincoln hoped that slaveowners in these states would agree to relinquish ownership of their slaves and resettle them in colonization programs abroad “in a climate congenial to them” in exchange for monetary compensation.78 In March 1861, a month before the first shots of the war would be fired, Elisha Crosby became US Minister to Guatemala, where he would work with the Guatemalan president to design a colonization site there. 79 Another member of Lincoln’s cabinet proposed colonizing parts of southern Mexico that were in need of laborers, while another proposed a colony in the Chiriquí province in Panama where a US company hoped to buy land and profit from its coal.80

Members of Lincoln’s administration began preparing in earnest for the abolition of slavery across the United States after the publication of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. While plans for colonization only took off following this new policy, Lincoln had long been an advocate for black emigration and colonization, favoring the creation of the state of Liberia. Historian Robert May has argued that Lincoln “wanted pockets of Latin America preserved for U.S. free black laborers.”81 That spring, as a part of Lincoln’s colonization program, 453 US blacks left from Virginia to the Haitian island of Île-à-Vache.82 US businessman Bernard Kock obtained a ten-year lease on Île-à-Vache from the Haitian government. The deal stipulated that the black emigrants would become Haitian citizens upon arrival on the island and would work cutting timber, a percentage of which Kock would give to Haitian authorities.83 Lincoln eventually approved a smaller-scale version of Kock’s original plan. The plan proved to be a failure, in part due to the lack of communication and full agreement of Haitian authorities, and about 400 of the emigrants were transported back to the US in February 1864.84

Lincoln’s Secretary of State James Seward was a fierce advocate of US interventionism abroad. May describes Seward’s approach to foreign policy as opposite from Lincoln’s in many ways. According to May, while Lincoln never explicitly mentioned the Monroe Doctrine and his political values existed in contrast with those of his predecessors who strongly favored proslavery expansionism, Seward encouraged a much more interventionist line.85 When it came to potential courses of action following the end of slavery, however, Seward did not believe as strongly as Lincoln in the necessity of resettling freed slaves on foreign soil. Black colonization, however, was essential to Lincoln’s vision for the course of the war, and Seward, among others, was responsible for directing various individuals under his supervision to conceive of new options for the transfer of freed slaves. Possible countries included British Honduras, Haiti, Liberia, Panama, Nicaragua, British Guinea, and Costa Rica. The plan that won the most traction with Lincoln was that which was crafted by his Secretary of the Interior Caleb Smith. If Lincoln did not express his hopes for colonization as a product of his belief in Manifest Destiny, Smith did, arguing that if his proposal for a colony in Chiriquí were to come to fruition, the black colonists would establish an “influence” there that would “most probably secure to us the absolute control of the country.”86 Smith does not establish how the US government would formulate the political or economic relationship between the black colonists and the US. Instead, Smith merely implies that the US government could wield its desire to reduce the black population in the US in order to strengthen a US hold on foreign territories, where he hoped they might potentially establish sovereignty, though he never clarified how black colonization would enable this.

It was another strong believer in Manifest Destiny, Lincoln’s appointee to Minister to Brazil James Watson Webb (1802-1884), who would propose a colonization program in Brazil to Secretary Seward. Echoing William H. Edwards, the former US Consul to Buenos Aires in 1847, Webb argued that due to climate similarities between the Amazon and the US South, the Amazon would be the perfect location for black resettlement and labor.87 Webb proposed the creation of a “joint stock colonization company” that would facilitate the arrival of 50,000 black colonists in the Amazon, thus cheaply blessing the US with the “riddance of curse” – its freed slave population – and providing Brazil with valuable laborers who would win the equality granted by Brazilian citizenship.88

In his proposal, Webb portrayed Brazil as being in urgent need of a solution to “the labor question,” given that slavery there was on the decline.89 When Brazil officially abolished the slave trade in 1850, the elites that governed Brazil began planning new ways to acquire labor. One of the consequences of the quest for new sources of labor, which elites agreed should emanate from European immigration, was the Land Law of 1850. The law made it so that individuals could acquire public lands through purchase rather than through grants or squatting. One of the principal objectives of this law was the promotion of European colonization. In order to facilitate it, the law stipulated that the funds from taxes on property registration and public lands sales be used exclusively to finance land-surveying and the immigration of “free colonists.”90 Supporters of the Land Law were desperate to subsidize the acquisition of free labor in the face of the end of the slave trade.91 Opponents of the law were more concerned with the question of colonization than of labor. Instead, some proposed that the government provide land grants to immigrants.92 Tavares Bastos, the same politician who had worked tirelessly to open the Amazon to international commerce and navigation, believed that Amazonia, out of all of Brazil’s regions, was the most in need of receiving immigrants.93

The decline of slavery, in Webb’s telling, is left disconnected from the abolition of the slave trade. Instead, Webb attributes it to the superiority of Brazilian slaves in contrast to the “ignorant and docile” slaves supplied to the US and West Indies.94 Their superior nature made slavery intolerable to them, Webb explained, leading to an ongoing “organized conspiracy to prevent the increase of slavery by the mothers committing infanticide.”95 In reality, the end of the slave trade caused the slave population to decrease because of the high slave mortality rate in Brazil.96

Webb did point out an important aspect of slavery in Brazil which was the prevalence of slave resistance, especially in the form of quilombos, autonomous or semi-autonomous maroon communities. Quilombos were present throughout the country, including in the Amazonian region that Webb hoped to populate with slaves. The decline of slavery, for Webb was a “great evil” to which the solution was US black colonization, of equal benefit to all parties involved – the freedmen, “the philanthropist, the capitalist, and the governments of the United States and Brazil.”97 Aware of the Brazilian pursuit of new sources of labor, Webb represented his personal ambition to rid his country of part of its black population as a service to Brazil. Because of the growth of coffee production in Brazil, coffee growers in the southern provinces of Brazil were importing slaves from the norther provinces. Given the severe threat of the loss of slaves in northern Brazil and of “negro insurrection,” Webb believed that the Brazilian government had every incentive to desire the US government’s offer of “experienced and practical, negro labor.”98 The only means by which Brazil’s “wild lands, now utterly valueless to her” could at last become valuable was if the country placed “upon them the proper laborer for their cultivation.”99

While Webb was not concerned with using freed slaves as cultivators for the purposes of the US government, he suggested the Amazon as a perfect location for black colonization because of his adherence to racist beliefs. In accordance with the popular racial ideology of the time, Webb believed that black people possessed certain racial traits, opposite from those of whites that made them particularly suitable to certain climates, and therefore, to certain places on the globe – that is, the tropics.100 He was joined by many other prominent US citizenss, like those mentioned previously, across the political spectrum, who shared almost identical beliefs about race. Webb’s racist attitudes influenced him to desire to remove black people from the US and his solution to their undesired presence in the country was equally grounded in racism. Like Lincoln and Maury, Webb never held slaves and expressed interest in bringing about the end of the slave trade and the institution of slavery itself. Yet, his anti-slavery views, like those of Lincoln and Maury, did not emanate from a belief in racial equality. Lincoln, Webb, and the other men with which they surrounded themselves in the Union government, were the natural enemies of the staunch Confederate Matthew Maury, who devoted his life throughout the Civil War to playing his part to sabotage the Union war effort. Yet the racial logics of these men did not significantly diverge, and by extension, neither did their beliefs about possible solutions to the problems of slavery and its abolition.

It is here where the ideologies and policy proposals of Maury and Webb intersect. Maury was considered a scientific authority across the US for his role in the study of oceanography, meteorology, and geology, among other disciplines. Many consider Maury, the first head of the US Naval Observatory, as well as one of the founders of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to be the father of modern oceanography. While Maury lauded the richness of the Amazon, he did not believe that the land provided suitable living conditions for white people. Black people, inherently destined for servitude under the white race, possessed a genetic makeup that made them the perfect instruments of the white race in the cultivation of this land, a sentiment with which Webb agreed. These views were founded in the authoritative science of the time, and the reception of such science was not a function of the North-South or Union-Confederacy divide. Both Maury and those involved in the black colonization debate in the Union during the Civil War subscribed to scientific beliefs about the relationship between climate and race, accepting as true that “the black race” was better suited to life in the tropics due to the hot climate.101 Lincoln and his administration are treated as heroes in the popular US imagination, but they shared racist ideologies with those who are more universally accepted as racist figures. This sort of ideology was anything but marginal; rather, it influenced the ambitions and decisions of those in the highest positions of power.

It also fit into a larger way of thinking about the Amazon that prevailed in European and US thought and science. Susanna Hecht explains how scientists and collectors in the European and Anglophone tradition developed a narrative about Amazonia that positioned it as a purely “natural” place rather than one that was shaped by human effort.102 These travelers depicted Amazonian locals in their writings as “gracious hosts, earnest bearers, slaves, helpers, or rowers and watermen” who they did not view as active agents in interacting with and altering the landscape.103 Hecht writes that the colonial imperative of scientific expeditions continued after the colonial era, or rather that “scientific institutions had replaced the coffers of kings.”104 While many of the most prominent scientists to travel through the Amazon “were not formally staking claims,” “they were providing information…to a larger imperial apparatus.”105 The scientists were joined by “adventure tourists” who reproduced the knowledge of the day regarding race, climate, and the tropics.106

Assertions about race in the tropics are ubiquitous in discussions about black colonization in the Union. Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin (1815-1897), a Lincoln devotee, pointed to the Haitian Revolution as a case of “the laws of climate” overtaking “the white man.”107 One of colonization’s most vocal advocates, Frank Blair, in fact, used Maury’s findings about the Amazon to bolster his arguments. Blair was a US Representative from Missouri who remained loyal to the Union and joined the Union Army in 1862. He opposed slavery and proposed colonization in Central or South America as the right course of action after emancipation. In a speech delivered to the House of Representatives in 1858, Blair cited Maury’s paper the “Valley of the Amazon,” which spoke of “the white man’s” inability to alter the wilderness there, to support his call for black people to be settled in the tropics.108 He then cites an article from the New York newspaper Courier and Enquirer, edited by James Webb as further evidence. The article argues that black people should be transferred to the tropical regions of the continent, as, according to “the same law of nature which has given the blacks exclusive possession of corresponding latitudes in Africa,” they would replace white people.109 White people were essentially unfit to inhabit the land, according to the article’s writer, as proven by the fact that they had never succeeded in supplanting “the Indians of the tropics.”110 The extensive reach of these beliefs shows the deep roots that US views about Brazil and the Amazon had in US politics. Brazil and the Amazon consistently appeared in US discourse as part of a broader discourse about slavery, abolition, and expansionism.

The Plow, the Rifle, and Religion

Maury believed that Brazil and the Amazon could become extensions of a US empire. He was part of a post-Civil War movement that ought to expand outside of the physical borders of the US. Maury’s ideas, however, had their origins in the antebellum era. They were consistent with pre-Civil War notions about empire and the elements that constituted it. An understanding of the Amazon as empty wilderness played a key role in the formulation of colonization projects in the region. Maury, and others like him, relied on a long tradition of writing about the Amazon, particularly dominant in the nineteenth century, to come to their conclusions. Maury’s writings present just one example of how one man proposed to shape the Amazonian landscape based on these widespread and entrenched notions.

The Amazon, both as an empty wilderness, and as a potential part of a larger sphere of US influence, made it an ideal tool to use in the resolution of the “question of slavery” in the US. Maury presented the transferal of US slaves to the Amazon as a way in which the burdens of slavery in the US could be alleviated. In doing so, he also revealed his vision of a borderless South.

Maury attempted, however, to show that his colonial ideas were not efforts to expand the practice of slavery. He viewed himself as merely ensuring the normal functioning of a system that was already in place. “I am not seeking to make slave territory out of free, or to introduce slavery where there is none. Brazil is as much of a slave country as Virginia, and the valley of the Amazon is Brazilian,” he declared.111 Therefore, to send US slaves to Brazil would be no different than the internal transfer and trade of enslaved people that happened with full legality within US borders. Though Maury labelled slavery a “curse,” he did not dare to envision the abolition of slavery. He argued in 1855 that in his state of Virginia, if slavery were to be announced illegal, Virginians would leave the state or sell their slaves further into the South.112 Maury took this claim to an even more extreme conclusion. He foresaw a war as inevitable if US slavery were threatened, and he believed that slaveholders, “in order to prevent this war of races and its horrors,” would “in self-defence [sic], be compelled to conquer parts of Mexico and Central America, and make slave territory of that which is now free.”113 In his mind, then, it was better to send black laborers to regions south of the US border with the agreement of foreign governments, than for US citizens to invade foreign territory and institute slavery where it was unwanted.

As “we must deal with mankind as they are, and not as we would have them,” the natural response to this predicament was to look to a far-away place like the Amazon that, according to him, demanded black labor.114 The inhabitants of the Amazon, Maury claimed, would always depend on slave labor, and the Amazon forest itself could only be properly subdued through black labor.115 According to him, “Brazil is a slave country, and all the travelers who go there, I am told, say that the black man, and he alone, is capable of subduing the forests there.”116 If this was true, then the only question left to ask was whether enslaved labor would be purchased directly from Africa or from within the Americas. If from within the Americas, then not only would the number of slaves in the world not increase, but it would also “be relieving our own country of the slaves, it would be hastening the time of our deliverance, and it would be putting off indefinitely the horrors of that war of races which, without an escape, is surely to come upon us.”117

While Maury wished to avoid the coming bloodshed that the battle to continue slavery would incite, he also argued for the perpetuation of white supremacy in the same place he hoped to deposit black slaves. If slavery might be reaching its end point, the system that enabled it was not. Maury wrote: “For more than three hundred years the white man has been established in that Amazonian basin, and for more than three hundred years it has remained a howling wilderness.”118 This statement, which reveals a belief that Brazilians of European descent who lived in the Amazon were indeed white, also suggests a hierarchy within his conception of those who were white. Brazilian whites had failed thus far to cultivate the Amazon. This did not imply that no white man was matched to the task. He did not believe that the entire white race should be excluded from the opportunity to colonize the Amazon. What the region needed, in fact, was specifically a white US presence. According to him, “in the valley of the Amazon, the plow is unknown and the American rifle and axe, the great implements of settlement and civilization, are curiosities.”119 Here, Maury mimics O’Sullivan in his listing of two crucial elements of successful US occupation of the western territories – the plow and the rifle. What Maury saw when he turned his gaze towards the Amazon was a landscape that had many of the same characteristics that previous foreign observers had noted. He also saw a land that was virtually empty, just as other lands conquered by the US had previously been viewed. Maury’s in his belief was specifically in the supremacy of US white settlers – the Amazon’s only and last chance for progress and cultivation after the failures of indigenous and European peoples. Hecht demonstrates how Maury’s racist beliefs complemented commonplace nineteenth century myths about the Amazon as bountiful but empty. English naturalist Henry Walter Bates, a prominent traveler to and writer about the Amazon, claimed that “everything in Amazonia remains to be done.”120 According to Hecht, “the tropes of emptiness, primitivity, and incapacity” combined with a new set of logics – economic, political, racial, and religious – to create what she terms the nineteenth century “Amazon Scramble.”121

Maury’s belief in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race was shared by many during this era. This ideology became dominant in connection with ideas of Manifest Destiny during the Mexican War. By 1850, according to Reginald Horsman, US Anglo-Saxons had come to be view themselves as “a separate, innately superior people who were destined to bring good government, commercial prosperity, and Christianity to the American continents and to the world.”122 US citizens were choosing a narrative of their own history that would justify and glorify their current objectives of global conquest. Horsman writes: “From their own successful past as Puritan colonists, Revolutionary patriots, conquerors of a wilderness, and creators of an immense material prosperity, the Americans had evidence plain before them that they were a chosen people.”123

One of the benefits Maury expected this chosen people might find in South America was gold. According to him, the Andean gold that could potentially be discovered might rival the quantity present in California. Therefore, one consequence of US conquest of the Amazon was the possession of this gold, which could flow directly to the Atlantic. This claim speaks to the permanence of the myth of El Dorado, which held there was a golden city in the Amazon and other areas. This myth dates back to Columbus’ claim that more gold and items of value could be found south of the equator than elsewhere, a belief that would go on to influence European and US thought.124 The southern journal that published much of Maury’s writings about the region disseminated the idea of the Amazon as “a gold and diamond country.”125

According to Maury, the status quo precluded the possibility of profiting from this gold, as it was to be found in “Indian country,” the inhabitants of which lacked the “energy and enterprise” to do the work necessary for it.126 The Andes, however, were not the focus of Maury’s vision; the Amazon Valley was. There too, the local inhabitants had failed to properly benefit from its resources. After three hundred years of unsuccessful European and indigenous attempts at “contending with the forests,” “no impression” had been made.127 Other than this myth, there would be no reason for Maury to believe that there were large gold deposits in the Amazon. The solution to the seeming immutability of the Amazon, though, was clear and singular: “If ever the vegetation there is subdued and brought under; if ever the soil be reclaimed from the forest the reptile and the wild beast, and subjected to the hoe, it must be done by the African, with the American axe in his hand.”128

The benefits, too, of a US presence in the Amazon, would be extended to the US in general, and not just to the southern slaveholder. The enormous wealth this project would bring about was so evidently appealing to Maury he believed it would not “fail to find favor with every true hearted American, whether he come from the North, or the South, the East or the West.”129 This was the case because his project would connect the US directly to a whole other section of the globe: “Settlement there, will transfer the productions of India and place them in Amazonia at our feet; so that the ships of all nations that may flock there to buy and carry them away, will have to pass by our gates.”130 Rather than privileging the southern US so as to disadvantage other regions, his plan would unify the nation; the only factor that privileged the South in this scheme was its greater geographical proximity to South America.

In Maury’s worldview, “the South” was not limited to the southern US. Johnson, in fact, argues that what was now viewed as “the South” emerged entirely of the secession of a certain conglomeration of states from the Union, rather than the pre-Civil War reality. Instead, Johnson proposes that it might be more helpful to ask “where Southerners (and slaveholders in particular) thought they were going and how they thought they could pull it off in the first place” in the years before the war.131 According to Johnson, in the 1850s, “many of those who would later become Confederates were busily imagining and promoting a vision of a pro-slavery future – of pro-slavery time and space.”132 This harkens back to the notion of border fluidity to which Maury seemed to subscribe.

Maury’s writing betrays a vision of a pro-slavery space that was expansive and that he only vaguely defined. In an 1845 paper entitled “The Commercial Prospects of the South” and presented to the Virginia Commercial Convention, Maury first proclaimed “Let the South look to the South! Behold the valley of the Amazon!”133 He repeated the same entreaty in his 1852 paper published in DeBow’s Review in 1852, imploring twice that “the South not forget to look to the South.”134 Rather than articulate a relationship between different sovereign nations, Maury implies that two slaveholding regions, separated by national and geographical boundaries, are in fact, parts of an expansive, unified system. The southern US and the Amazon were one and the same.

Maury’s arguments show that he was dedicated to a vision that was deeply rooted in the US tradition of expansionism. He was committed to ideals that were not confined to the borders of the nation. Walter Johnson argues that for Maury, “space was not defined by politics, and it was neither national nor regional; the economy produced space, rather than being bounded by it.”135 That is, at the moment at which the Amazon began to figure centrally in Maury’s imagination, many US southerners were conceiving of ways to respond to the heavy reliance of their economy on exports. Maury understood the slavery-reliant economy of the southern US to be under threat, and in response, he was resolved to extend US slavery into a greater South beyond US national borders. The Amazon river, in fact, was an “appendage” of the Mississippi, and by connecting the two, the “American Mediterranean” (the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean) would become the center of a new empire.136 This new empire would also be connected to Asia, as Maury hoped that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would be joined via the Isthmus of Panama.137

When Maury compared the Mississippi Valley to the Amazon Valley, he participated in a long US tradition of invoking the Mississippi Valley as the central target of expansionism. Before US leaders like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson began envisioning and enacting the expansion of the US empire into the Mississippi Valley, it was the French who dreamed of its annexation. Napoleon thought of the region as a provider of food for the enslaved people employed in sugar cultivation in the French colony of St. Domingue.138 Before its fall as a result of the Haitian Revolution, St. Domingue had been one of the world’s most lucrative colonies, and after its fall, the Mississippi Valley lost much of its value to Napoleon.139 The Valley then became of principal interest to one of the chief architects of the early United States – Thomas Jefferson. In Jefferson’s view, by expanding the domain of the US into the Valley, the fledgling nation could create an “empire for liberty.”140 This liberty was the liberty of white male farmers whose livelihoods would depend on slave labor. In this way, the story of interest in expansion into the Mississippi Valley was inextricable from the expansion of the institution of slavery. Emphasis on the natural rights of US Anglo-Saxons would provide the perfect alibi for the institution’s expansion into new lands.

Belief in the racial superiority of Anglo-Saxons, however, did by no means develop exclusively in the US. As Maury and so many others were articulating a global role for the US that was justified by the racial superiority of the US citizen.

Brazil was advocating for European immigration based on similar racial premises. As Brazil prepared for the abolition of slavery, it searched for a new labor force that would supplant the enslaved one. The determination on the part of those like Maury to mold Brazil and the Amazon on the basis of their racial ideology, then, coincided with the desires of elite Brazilians who had the power to act on such beliefs.141 Viotti Da Costa writes that the Brazilian Empire prided itself on its adherence to liberalism, which served as a “utopia for the elites,” but as “empty rhetoric” for the large majority of the population.142 Instead of seeking radical change, those in power blamed the empire’s problems on Brazilian “backwardness.”143 For the most part, she argues, the colonial structure, dependent on slave labor and the patronage system, persisted following independence.144 The dependence on slave labor, as well as the attitude towards land it produced, fundamentally connected the US and Brazil. In the backlands of colonial Brazil, “anyone who was able to fight the Indians and survive in the wilderness could secure a piece of land.”145 Like in the US, land ownership, attainable through domination of indigenous people, was central to conceptions of the Brazilian citizen. The power of Brazilian elites also resembled that of US southern planters, though slaveholding Brazilians controlled the entire country, in contrast with the regional confines of slavery’s direct practice in the US. In the 1850s after abolishing the slave trade, “Brazil’s ruling planters worked consciously to duplicate the thriving US model: a slave society that could reproduce itself through better slave management, the internal slave trade, and a close slaveholding grip on the power of the central government.”146 “No two countries in the world have greater mutual interests than this beautiful Empire and our own Republic,” proclaimed Robert G. Scott, the Virginian serving as U.S. consul in Rio de Janeiro. The reason was simple: “[t]hey are the two greatest and only powers on the globe with negro slavery recognized and governed by law.”147

In Maury’s argument for the changing of Brazil’s laws concerning foreign access to the Amazon, he refers to the context of US expansion westward in order to prove his point about the absurdity of the limitations of these laws. “Suppose the United States had established military posts in California to prevent the people there from going there and digging for gold, what would have been the condition of that State now in comparison to what it is? It would have been as the interior of Brazil is now.”148 What he saw as the Brazilian government’s refusal to promote commerce amounted to a crime given that Brazil was “the finest country in the world.”149 Brazilian law as it stood was insignificant to Maury in that he viewed it as an obstacle to overcome in the pursuit of his dream.

Though this dream was specifically a US one, its implications extended far beyond the nation’s boundaries. Nícia Villela Luz claims that Maury saw himself as a pioneer in the model of Christopher Columbus. He, too, would introduce the world to a new territory rich in resources, but in need of being domesticated and civilized.150 Maury articulated the fated conquest of the Amazon as part and parcel of a longer arc of history. As he saw it, the US was still animated by the “spirit which moved men in the days of knight-errantry, which drove them in the time of the crusades, and which at a later period, carried them across the seas and conducted them to the New World in search of adventure and geographical discovery.”151 If this very same spirit was “permitted upon the wings of free navigation to enter the grand river basins of South America,” it would “cause the wilderness there to blossom.”152 Brazil owed it not just to the US to allow US steamships up the Amazon but also to “the good of commerce, science, and the world.”153 The US had a destiny, in which the Amazon figured importantly, and it was the obligation of all involved to take the necessary steps to fulfill it. Maury consistently articulated his vision of the Amazon as something greater than simply an economic project. Not only did commerce demand the free navigation of the Amazon, but so did the “necessities of Christendom.”154

While Maury named Christendom as one of the larger motivating factors in the need to colonize and civilize Brazil, US Protestant missionaries had already been articulating the need for Christianization as a necessary tool in the promotion of civilization. Christianization, for them, implicated missionizing Catholics, as they did not view Catholicism as properly Christian. They considered Catholics as part of an inferior religion. Paul Naish argues that, during the 1850s, as the debate about slavery intensified in the US, pro-slavery southerners used anti-Catholic sentiment to bolster their arguments in favor of US slavery, as opposed to the slavery practiced in Latin American countries where Catholicism was the dominant religion.155 While Maury spoke of an expansive south that was limited by geopolitical borders, many southerners spoke disparagingly of slavery in places like Brazil and Cuba. Instead of articulating commonalities with other slave societies, southerners more often chose to distance themselves from Latin American countries. Religious difference was key in establishing this distance. Naish writes that southerners’ “enmity to Catholicism” was “reflexive and unselfconscious.”156 It was also racialized, as descendants of the Spanish and Portuguese colonists were considered to be tainted by the Muslim and Jewish blood of their ancestors.157 Maury, like other similarly-minded polticians, targeted the Amazon not for its use of slave labor, but for what he saw as the unfulfilled potential of the land. In focusing on the land itself, these southerners ignored the question of the usefulness of slave labor in Amazonia. As a promoter of emigration after the Civil War, Hastings would perpetuate this willful ignorance.

Protestant churches had chosen the heavily Catholic Brazil as a target for proselytization and sent agents there for such purposes. In fact, one of the chief sources of information about Brazil in the US was a book entitled Brazil and the Brazilians written by Daniel Kidder, a New Yorker, who upon graduating from Wesleyan University in 1836, entered the Methodist ministry and traveled throughout Brazil on a mission. The book was widely read, especially in the South. Several editions were published, including new ones in 1866, 1867, and 1868, when southerners were considering emigration. In the book, Kidder sets forth a narrative of Brazilian history that commends the empire for its relative progress given its Portuguese origins. He argues that Brazil stands out amongst other nations of the “Latin race,” which he denotes as inferior and therefore not worthy of comparison to those of the Anglo-Saxon race.158 Like Maury, he believed Brazilian backwardness to be at fault for the large swaths of yet un-surveyed and uncultivated land existent in the country.159 Also like Maury, Kidder believed that immigrants were necessary in order to make proper use of this land and for Brazil to achieve its great destiny.160 At the same time, Kidder echoed the belief that, in the Amazon, the tropical climate might prevent permanent white settlement, writing that “whether the Amazon region...can ever be thickly peopled by a more Northern race, remains to be seen. It is in one range of temperature…and is as yet an almost unbroken wilderness.”161

The first Methodist reverend to visit Brazil, two years before Kidder, was Tennessean Fountain Pitts. Writing from Rio de Janeiro in 1835, Pitts claimed that the city – this “thoroughfare of Papal delusion, and mart of slaves and coffee – was “the most unchristian place” he had ever encountered, while expressing hope that “the day of gospel light will soon dawn upon” it.162 Pitts would later go on to become a chaplain in the Confederate Army and his son, Josiah would follow Hastings to Santarém. Fountain Pitts’ church, following his trip to South America, resolved that proselytization was the duty of all, as “every genuine lover of freedom should aid in the advancement of a religion that has always been the precursor of civilization, literature, and the rights of man.”163 Maury, then, was not alone in articulating progress in Brazil and the demands of Christianity as mutually dependent.

Like Hastings, Maury’s ideas for a different future for the US, however, were not relegated to his imagination. As mentioned before, he manipulated his influence in the upper echelons of US government to bring to fruition a government-funded exploration of the Amazon in the hopes of convincing the Brazilian government of the advantages of opening the river to international navigation and commerce. His goal was also to reveal these benefits to the US public for which the Amazon was largely a far-off land of little consequence to the US.

In 1851, Maury’s brother-in-law Colonel William Herndon (1813-1857) set off on an expedition that would begin to concretize Maury’s plans. Herndon’s expedition was directed by the Secretary of the Navy under President Millard Filmore. Herndon’s report was submitted to the both houses of congress. The Secretary of the Navy ordered that twenty thousand additional copies of it be published.164 Before setting off, Maury made it clear to Herndon that this journey was to create “the first link in that chain which is to end in the establishment of the Amazonian Republic.”165 Repeating a favorite phrase of his, Maury entreated his brother-in-law to do the preliminary work required to establish the dominion of “a race that has energy and enterprise.”166

 

 

PICTURE

 

Upon their return to the United States, Herndon and Gibbon, each wrote their own accounts of their time on the Amazon. Herndon’s mission was described primarily as a scientific and commercial one, but he did not limit himself to observations of that nature, and neither did his second-in-command Lieutenant Lardner Gibbon in his separate account. Herndon’s book would become a national bestseller.167 In the final section of his report, Herndon concluded that there was a “bond” between Brazil and the US given they were both slaveholding nations.168 While acknowledging that the US had to respect Brazil’s wishes, Herndon invokes this “bond” to harshly criticize the country for refusing the US her “just rights” in limiting access to the Amazon.169 He then re-produces an address Maury had made to Congress in which he concluded that Brazil, in keeping the Amazon off-limits to foreign use, was acting in defiance of “divine law.”170 According to Maury and the jurisconsult he was citing, “Providence” had ordained that commerce between different nations was “essential to the moral well-being of the whole human race.”171

For Herndon, if divine law mandated a US influence on the Amazon region, so too, did the inherent deficiencies of the people who inhabited it. While in Pará on the Amazon, Herndon commented on the idleness of the population there, writing that “men, in these countries, are not ambitious. They are not annoyed, as the more masculine people of colder climates are, to see their neighbors going ahead of them.”172 Brazilians in general, he said, were “perfectly contented” with the basic necessities of life due to the climate, the relaxing effect of which makes labor impossible. The solution to this problem, according to Herndon, was to make labor compulsory. The restitution of the slave trade was out of the question, since public opinion was against it, and so was coercive indigenous labor, given that indigenous people would “sooner die than do more than is necessary for the support of their being.”173 Given these restrictions, Herndon foresaw US settlement as the best option. The Brazilian government, as Maury so desperately hoped, would first have to modify its long-standing limitations on who could enter the Amazon, requiring them to “throw off a causeless jealousy, and a fear of our people.”174 Then, Southern planters who feared the coming disappearance of slavery at home in the US would “remove their slaves to that country, cultivate its lands, draw out its resources, and prodigiously augment the power and wealth of Brazil.”175

 

 

PICTURE

 

The opening of the Amazon, for Herndon, was about more than US access to greater commercial opportunities. By encouraging emigration as well, Brazil would gain access to the wealth the Amazon Valley, with its “unrivalled fertility,” had the potential to produce as long as it was cultivated by US citizens. 176 Brazil, he entreated, should “stretch out her hands to the world at large, and say, ‘Come and help us to subdue the wilderness; here are homes, and broad lands, and protection for all those who choose to come.”177 The result of such a revolution in policy would be the transformation of Rio de Janeiro, the then-capital of Brazil, into a mere village, compared to Pará, and of Santarém, the site of the future ex-Confederate colony, into the new St. Louis, Missouri.178 The US impact on the Amazon would be so great, he believed, that its fundamental character would shift from its primitive, inferior state into a center of modern civilization. “No longer would the forests that line its banks afford but a shelter for the serpent, the tiger, and the Indian; but furrowed by a thousand keels, and bearing upon its waters the mighty wealth that civilization and science would call from the depths of those dark forests, the Amazon would ‘rejoice as a strong man to run a race’” he wrote.179 The specific advancements Brazil would point to were “the blossoming wilderness, the well-cultivated farm, the busy city, the glancing steamboat.”180 Listening “to the hum of the voices of thousands of active and prosperous men,” Brazil could say, “‘thus much have we done for the advancement of civilization and the happiness of the human race.’”181

Conclusion

When Herndon published this report, entreating the US government to advocate for a change in Brazilian policy toward the Amazon, the kind of “Amazonian Republic” that Maury envisioned was still a dream. He did not know that his work would help fuel the establishment of a colony of US citizens motivated by similar impulses. Hastings would use Herndon and Maury’s language and information for his own propagandistic purposes. While Herndon’s report painted a vibrant picture of what a US presence in the Amazon could look like, this picture existed mostly in his imagination. What had been a fantasy for Herndon and Maury would turn into an imagined necessity for their ideological heir, Hastings. While Herndon’s book had entreated the US government for its support of the US government, by the time Hastings set his mind on the Amazon, he no longer required it. The Brazilian Empire’s interest in facilitating immigration would sync with the wishes of the US southerners who could not tolerate the consequences of the Civil War. With the backing of the Brazilian Emperor Dom Pedro II himself, Hastings would position himself to his southern US compatriots as the man who would prove that US citizens did indeed possess the “energy and enterprise” to alter the Amazon, and thus contribute to the grand civilizing project Herndon so eloquently described.

Chapter Two

Paving the Path for Migration: The Planning of an Amazonian Colony

Matthew Maury was not alone in imagining himself as a modern-day conqueror in Columbus’ mold. While Maury long-dreamed of some iteration of US colonization in the Amazon, he would never personally make it there. The ideas and information about it that he propagated did arrive in Brazil by way of Hastings. Hastings was Maury’s heir, as exhibited by his book dedicated to advocating for colonization in the Amazon. In it, he firmly established his commitment to turning Maury’s dreams of empire into a reality. Filled with poetic language and vivid imagery, his appeal is more than mere propaganda. Instead, it is a work deeply grounded in the science of the time, which Hastings employs to make a convincing argument that immigration to the Amazon was a viable alternative to life in the US where slavery had been outlawed. Slavery was the institution that had enabled the nation to be a global economic power, and upon which the southern US economy had been built. The economic dimension, as Hastings articulates it in The Emigrants’ Guide to Brazil is also inextricably linked to other aspects of ex-Confederate identity. As it becomes clear in the writing of Hastings and many others of a similar mind, the impulse to emigrate derived its force from a belief that the 1865 surrender of General Robert E. Lee to the Union Army made life in the US untenable.

While staying in Santarém, Hastings was struck by what he described as the city and its surroundings’ spectacular natural attributes. One night, after a delicious dinner, Hastings describes how while some of those in attendance at the dinner retired to their hammocks, he and his fellow US citizens and ex-Confederates, unused to this remarkable beauty, assembled to “witness the magnificent scenery, wonders, and glories of the world-renowned Amazon.”182 Hastings depicts he and his men as being “fanned by the refreshing trade winds, gazing upon the starry heavens until the rising moon pours forth her mellow light, in cloudless majesty, unveiling a night scene, peculiar alone to tropical climes.” The Amazon, Hastings makes clear, was uniquely beautiful because of its tropicality. It was in the tropics that he and his ex-Confederate compatriots could transform themselves from deluded and angered victims of a lost war into proud explorers of a land yet unconquered. There, in the Amazon, the resentment caused by the outcome of the Civil War could become a thing of the past. Hastings goes on to describe the scene as the “American emigrants gaze with ecstasies of delight, forgetting the past, in contemplating the beauties of the present, and in anticipation of the peaceful, glorious future of the New World.”183 In settling in the Amazon, it is clear, the ex-Confederates would not only find wealth through involvement in the same agricultural practices in which they had engaged in the US; they would also become pioneers, just like those white US citizens who traveled westward, removing indigenous people from their land and enabling the perpetuation of slavery. There were, after all, no more “New Worlds” on the North American continent that ex-Confederates could take advantage of  Like so many before him, Hastings exalted Amazonia as a modern-day Garden of Eden where he and his destitute compatriots, abandoned by their homeland, could live in total freedom, a freedom contingent upon accruing wealth without having to work hard for it. For, according to Hastings, Amazonia was so abundant in lucrative crops that, “even from the natural production alone, which he may gather at will, without capital and with very little actual labor, he can at once secure a competency; but it is much preferable for our countrymen to rely chiefly, if not entirely, on the cultivation of the soil.”184 This truth drove Hastings to assert that “the industrious and judicious farmer will realize much more from the same quantity of land, then he could possibly expect as the result of the most arduous and incessant toil, however judiciously bestowed, in any part of the United States.”185 Emigration, then, was not only a desperate response to post-war discontent, but an action that would allow his compatriots to fare better than they ever could in the US.

This chapter begins with a close reading and analysis of the arguments Hastings makes for emigration in The Emigrants’ Guide to Brazil. This precedes a discussion of the debates about the broader Brazilian emigration movement as it played out in US media. I use newspaper articles, primarily those from former Confederate states, as a springboard from which to demonstrate the prevalence and significance of this topic. I also put Hastings’ book into conversation with other books written by similarly motivated ex-Confederates looking to found their colonies in other regions of Brazil. This chapter unpacks the dominant themes present in the ways that these key colonial leaders envisioned settlement. In this intellectual context, the ideas expressed in the conclusion of his book emerge as more than mere propagandistic rhetoric. Instead, they prove to be, for the actors involved, viable alternatives to life in the post-bellum southern US.

By drawing attention to these sources, I hope to show how US nationals, and southerners in particular, engaged with the question of emigration as a response to the Union’s victory in the Civil War, as well as with Brazil as a potential home for those who refused to accept the consequences of this victory. I then conclude by putting these ideas into conversation with the discourse regarding foreign immigration, and in particular US immigration, in Brazilian newspapers. I show how racist ideas influenced both US and Brazilian thinking about emigration. While in the US, the possibility of black equality motivated many to consider emigration, in Brazil, newspapers were labeling white Anglo-Saxons as the best, or only, people prepared to trigger economic development there.

Hastings and the Emigrants’ Guide to Brazil

As the Civil War came to an end, US citizens influenced by the thinking that animated Maury and Herndon, seized the chance to act on the dream of altering Amazonian history. Hastings would become one out of many men to contribute their own ideas to this tradition and to endeavor to turn them into realities. The opening of the Amazon that Maury and Herndon so desired did take place. By the time Brazilian parliament approved of it, however, the tides had turned in the US. Herndon died in 1857. His brother-in-law would not live to witness one of the impacts his obsession with Brazil and the Amazon would have upon fellow southerners.

Upon the outbreak of the Civil War, Maury abandoned his post as a US Navy Commander, and assumed a position in the Confederate Navy. Following the war’s end, Maury, like other ex-Confederates considered ex-patriation from the nation they had devoted themselves to defeating. This time, Maury turned his gaze away from Brazil and towards Mexico, temporarily establishing himself there, and working with emperor Maximilian to establish a colony for southern emigrants – New Virginia – which he promised would provide colonists with all the benefits they had experienced in the South’s “palmy days,” save enslaved labor.186 Maury was one of several ex-Confederates, many of them generals and other prominent figures, who looked to Mexico as a place to settle and start anew. These men saw emperor Maximilian, whose rule began in 1864 and ended in 1867 with the fall of the monarchy, as an ally in realizing their objectives for colonization. The emperor, however, was not recognized by the US government as the rightful ruler of Mexico, as he had been invited to rule by the French, under Napoleon. The US considered French reign in Mexico as a threat to its sphere of influence, and tensions between the two nations complicated southern migration. Maximilian was supportive, though, of the prospect of colonization. In 1865, he issued an imperial decree announcing the granting of land titles to immigrants, and, among other privileges, permitted immigrants to bring laborers of any race with them to cultivate the land upon which they would settle.187 After Brazil, Mexico became the country which received the most ex-Confederate migrants.

While Maury used his contacts in the Mexican government to facilitate southern emigration, others turned towards Brazil, among other locations south of the US, as a locus for southerners who preferred settlement abroad to life in the postbellum South. It is in this context that Lansford Hastings’ appeal for US colonization of the Amazon in The Emigrant’s Guide to Brazil appeared. The book was published in 1867 after Hastings’ travels through the Amazon. He had settled upon the city of Santarém as the ideal place for a future colony. The work offers a wide variety of observations about Brazil, the Amazon, and Santarém. Like most of the European and US commentators on the Amazon in the nineteenth century, Hastings aimed to articulate a vision of the region that was total in its scope; that is, he made no distinction between the scientific, religious, political, or the economic. The aggregation of perspectives in his writing had the effect of producing a work that purported to have the answers to any and all questions about the subject at hand. Additionally, he combined authoritative claims with flowery, elegant language and quoted poetry to create what was meant to be a simultaneously objective work of non-fiction and a convincing appeal to join a man on his quest to start a new life in an unknown land.

Like Maury and Herndon, Hastings’ various types of observations and his certainty in their veracity, combined to lead him to very specific conclusions about the rightness of the US colonist’s mission in the Amazon. His scientific descriptions of the region echoed those of Maury and Herndon but led him to a more limited conclusion than that of his predecessors. No longer acting in the name of the US government, Hastings did not articulate colonization as being part of a greater project to incorporate Amazonian territory into the US empire. Despite this deviation in goals, the information Herndon had gathered on his expedition was invaluable for Hastings in pursuing settlement, as evidence by his direct reference to it as producing authoritative scientific information.188 Given the consequences of the Civil War, the expansive slave empire based in US territory, was no longer possible. However, though Maury and Herndon’s objectives were not identical to Hastings’, they shared the same imperial impulse. If the establishment and perpetuation of what Walter Johnson calls a “global whitemanism” appeared dead on US shores with the vanquishing of the Confederacy, the believers in this dream would have to go elsewhere.

In the preface to The Emigrants’ Guide to Brazil, Hastings outlined the stakes present in the emigration movement. The former residents of the Confederacy, he believed, had only two options, given the results of the Civil War: “the acceptance of the situation, without mental reservation, or voluntary expatriation.”190 Southerners, however, were “noble patriots” and a “high-toned, conquered people” who would struggle to accept their defeat. The only aim he wished to achieve in the writing of the book and the various steps he had taken to make settlement in Brazil possible, was to “secure peaceful and happy homes for himself and his distressed countrymen.” The Amazon was the ideal place for their new homes given the incomparability of its “abundant, varied, and valuable” natural productions that promised emigrants economic success.

Whereas Herndon and Maury had depicted the Amazon region in general as a wilderness that lacked the commerce and industry necessary to make it suitable to the expectations of US citizens, Hastings had a differing viewpoint. On his journey, he wrote that the river was “teeming with commerce” and that the towns and plantations presented “so many evidences of activity and prosperity, that I can really see no resemblance between the great Amazon now and that vast region of desolation and solitude so uniformly described by former tourists.” Observers of the Amazon had long articulated contrasting visions of the region as both bountiful and poor. Here, in an effort to write successful propaganda, Hastings evokes the abundance of the Amazon without relying on the stereotype of its poverty.

Out of the entire region, he observed, the city of Santarém was the most advanced in terms of commerce.194 Rather than present it as a region with eminent potential to be a fount of wealth if incorporated into a larger economic system, the Amazon, in Hastings’ conception of it, was already producing wealth and US citizens could capitalize on this situation without doing so in the name of a greater US empire. Hastings’ mission to settle in Santarém was much more than a rhetorical product of Maury and Herndon’s work. He acknowledges it without mentioning the names of either man when he concluded that “those of our countrymen who contemplate locating on the Amazon, or its tributaries, will be grateful to know that the great Amazon is, by imperial decree, thrown open to the commerce of the world.”195 Hastings was referring to the decree of 1866, permitting for the first time international navigation of the Amazon river. This change in policy that Maury and Herndon had worked so hard to achieve meant that Hastings could convincingly defend settlement on the Amazon. There were no longer any limits to the profit to be had.

Like Maury and Herndon, Hastings envisioned that US emigrants would indelibly transform the Amazon region. In his view, after US had turned the region into a commercial world capital, “then will all patriotic citizens, both natives and adopted, exaltingly point to the triumphant success of the American emigration.”196 This success, however would not only come about thanks to the emigrants themselves. Hastings continues to write that Brazilians would also have “the wise and liberal policy of the government” to praise “as the grand sources, the chief causes, of the high clergy and rising property of the Brazilian Empire.” US ingenuity, coupled with Brazilian governmental policy that enabled it, then, would be the sources of all the great changes that were to come.

The US emigrants would work in tandem with a Brazilian government supportive of them to convert the Amazon into the economic paradise he, like Maury and Herndon before him, imagined. Implicit in this statement is a belief that the Brazilian government would provide the colonists whatever they needed to make their new lives in the Amazon the incredibly profitable venture Hastings envisaged. In exchange for full institutional support, Hastings seems to say, the colonists would become “patriotic citizens” of Brazil.198 As long as the Brazilian monarchy facilitated the realization of his and his fellow colonists’ dreams, the emigrants would be willing citizens of Brazil. This suggests that national identity for Hastings was based on the complete freedom to determine by what means they would accrue wealth. In the US, the identities of many of those who would follow Hastings to Santarém revolved around access to land and the cultivation of lucrative crops through use of enslaved or cheap labor. They saw the victory of the Union in the Civil War as signifying the end of this lifestyle, thus placing into doubt their identification with the nation. For Hastings, the defeat of the Confederacy should prompt southerners who prided themselves on their particular use of land and labor to look elsewhere for a nation they could identify as their home. Hastings’ idea for emigration was consistent with Maury’s antebellum ideas about how to bring about what Johnson calls a “pro-slavery time and space.”199 Johnson writes that, “in Maury’s vision, space was not defined by politics, and it was neither national nor regional; the economy produced space, rather than being bounded by it.” After the Civil War, the US and Brazil were no longer linked by joint participation in a borderless slavery-based economy, but the changed circumstances did not prevent individuals like Hastings from acting upon Maury’s vision. The economic freedom Hastings was determined to gain for those who would follow him to Brazil superseded any attachment they had to the conception of the US as limited by its geopolitical borders.

In emigrating to Brazil, the ex-Confederates would not necessarily be abandoning the values they held dear at home in the US. To the contrary, they would be returning to their antebellum state of affairs. Having fought for their right to what they viewed as their economic freedom during the Civil War, they would avail themselves of an opportunity to immigrate to a place where the laws that governed it would better empower them to accrue wealth as they wished. More than anything else, it was the expectation of great commercial success that made Brazil enticing as a future home: “Within one year we may at one view, from our homes on those table lands, behold steamers, bearing the flags of all commercial nations, coursing up and down those vast rivers, supplying Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela with merchandise from the European marts, and bringing down in return, the rich, natural products of that immense and wonderful country.” The glory that was to come under the aegis of the Brazilian government would make possible a proud embrace of Brazilian citizenship.

The changed circumstances brought about by the Civil War also led Hastings to specifically refute the claims of his predecessors. He cites one Brazilian government official’s concerns that allowing US citizens to settle in the Amazon would cause the region to become overrun with them, and that as a consequence, the entire area would fall into the hands of the US as California once had. Hastings responds by deeming this worry “simply absurd.” While Maury and Herndon had spoken if not in the name of the US government, than in the hopes of drawing it to their side, in 1867, Hastings was a lone agent. No longer pledging allegiance to any government, he turned to praising Brazil’s. Of the many benefits of immigrating to Brazil, the political aspect was one of them. Hastings did not shy away from hyperbole, writing that “there is no country where life, liberty, person and property are more secure.” He contrasted the sense of security he felt in Brazil to that which prevailed in the US, and in New York City specifically. Hastings then takes the opportunity to disparage his soon-to-be former home. He sarcastically cites the constant reminders in New York to guard one’s personal belongings against thieves as “conclusive evidence of the triumphs of our boasted civilization.” While he had previously used US and Confederate government channels in his efforts to achieve his ends, he now acted without the backing or the hope of backing from any governmental institution. Rather than contribute to the founding of a vast and growing empire, Hastings’ venture would primarily benefit himself and whichever fellow ex-Confederates would find it worth their while to pick up their lives and restart in the far-off Santarém.

Hastings traveled to Santarém with six other Confederates. While there, Hasting and his companions surveyed the location of the future settlement at the “table lands” in the vicinity of Santarém. In Hastings’ description of the surveyed lands, he makes it clear to readers his strong belief in the superior nature of them. While scoping out this area, Hastings sent an advance party ahead to report back. In The Emigrants’ Guide to Brazil, he reproduces writings by the two Confederate companiones who recounted the results of their explorations. In these sections, three of Hastings’ companions each state that the land they had seen was the very best, not only as far as options went in the area, but also in comparison with other lands in both Brazil and the US. One of the travelers who had traveled throughout São Paulo claimed that the land was better than any other land he had seen in Brazil. Hastings named “coffee, cacao, sugar, rice, cotton, tobacco, india-rubber, indigo, and medicinal plants” as the main agricultural products of the region, based on what he had observed at an exhibition of Pará’s products in Belém. He also recounts seeing “gold, silver, copper, iron, lead, and coal” on display. Ultimately, Hastings determined that these “table lands” were especially “suited to the wants of our people” because the soil and climate there would be best adaptable to the cultivation of cotton, which the settlers would prefer out of all the possible economic endeavors.

The focus in this report is the richness of the soil in the given lands and the abundance of timber. Hastings’ men tested the timber and determined that it was suitable for “house and ship building.” They go on to list other “valuable articles of commerce,” such as rubber, various nuts, and various medicinal plants. In response to the report he received, Hastings concluded on the exact location of the future colony, a portion of land measuring sixty square leagues in the table lands “above and below the town of Santarem, between and bordering upon the Amazon, Tapajos, and Curua rivers.” He justified his selection by describing the region as possessing a perfect nature. According to him, there, “the sugar cane grows most luxuriously; the coffee thrives admirably; the chocolate tree is indigenous; the tobacco is superior; the corn yields several crops a year.” Besides these profitable crops, “fruits and vegetables are abundant; game exists in great variety; the rivers fairly swarm with fishes” and “domestic animals are plentiful and cheap.” The final recommendable qualities were the “delightful” climate and the “kind and hospitable” local residents who were “very desirous” that the southerners make their homes there.

Hastings shows a great preoccupation with the issue of the climate in the future colony, preempting arguments that others might make against the location he had chosen. Citing the lines of latitude and longitude between which it was located, Hastings acknowledged that many would use the land’s proximity to the equator as fodder for its condemnation. Ideas about the regions of the world near and south of the equator had been present in the European imagination long before European exploration and conquest of Africa and the Americas. Nicolás Wey Gómez argues that the centrality of the concept of latitude was reinforced by Christopher Columbus’ voyages to the Caribbean. Latitude, Gómez writes, was an “integral and explicit organizing principal” in his expeditions, and Columbus was deeply engaged in determining connections between “latitude, temperature, and the nature of places on the globe.” Columbus strengthened ideas about the zones north of the equator as “civilized,” in opposition to the “uncivilized” tropics to the south of the equator at the same time as he complicated how Europeans viewed the globe.Columbus, in fact introduced what Gómez labels relative temperateness, the notion that the Indies exhibited some elements of the temperate zones, and were therefore not as unbearably hot and uninhabitable as the science of the time would have predicted. Gómez points out that while Columbus re-framed how the southern zones of the globe were viewed in a way that was revolutionary at the time, in his role as “colonizer,” he did not challenge the natural destiny of the inhabitants of the traditional temperate zones to rule over these lands, and enslave their peoples.

Ideas about the tropics as uninhabitable, however, kept their hold, and Hastings took it upon himself to refute objections people might make to Amazonian settlement on this basis. Hastings recommends any readers who continued to have doubts about the suitability of the land he had chosen to settle to consult “the reports of the scientific explorers sent out by this government, or any or all of the works of travellers [sic] who have visited that country for scientific purposes.” Defensively, Hastings states that all his US compatriots who had accompanied him to Santarém had “no objections” to the climate and that he was “delighted” with both the “country and climate.” Though it was always either “spring, or summer,” the heat was not uncomfortable, and the nights “always cool and pleasant.” Hastings even goes so far as to assert that in all parts of Brazil, excepting the extreme south, the “equability of temperature” “is such as to guard the inhabitants against all the onerous expenses and distress incident to the cold and cheerless north.” It was in this climate that Hastings planned to “gather around” him everything that was “near and dear” to him, and enjoy, along with the other colonists “the home-felt quiet of that sacred refuge of life.”

At the same time as Hastings rejected climatic determinism in his defense of the Amazon as an optimal location for US settlement, he upheld other types of racism. Like Columbus, Hastings depicted the Amazon as simultaneously perfectly habitable and destined to be dominated by whites. Like many of his contemporaries, as well as those that came before him, his conclusions about the region rested on racist beliefs. These beliefs often echoed those of Maury as one of the pioneers in advocating for the US colonization of Brazil. Men like Maury, Hastings, and those who engaged with their ideas, looked to Brazil and its existence as a slave society with an ever-present mixture of awe and fear. They deeply admired and respected the role slavery played in Brazilian society at the same time as they viewed the overwhelming presence of Brazilians of African descent as a threat to their notions of the racially pure society they wished could exist in conjunction with slave societies. Hastings, well-aware of the conceptions his fellow ex-Confederates had already been exposed to about Brazilian racial dynamics, acknowledged that they were indeed grounded in unfortunate realities – large non-white populations, as well as mixed-race ones. The US Consul in Belém, James Bond, confirmed ideas about Brazil as a racially mixed society that would negatively impact his US compatriots if they chose to settle there, writing that “they who fly from contact with the black man at home will if they settle in this country... at no distant day, behold the detested color shading the cheeks of their own descendants.”

Hastings begins his chapter by describing the population and government of Brazil by establishing the racial demographics of the country. This was a strategy that he had already used in The Emigrants’ Guide to Oregon and California. He states that the empire consisted of “three distinct classes” – “the European, Indian, and negro.” There was a significant “slave element” to the population, which worried southerners who desired an escape from the people of African descent they so hated. At the same time, Hastings assured his readers that this element only represented one-sixth of the population, a much smaller portion than in the pre-abolition United States. In total, according to Hastings, in 1860, one-third of the US population consisted of “an African element,” double that of the black portion of the Brazilian population.229 Though the populations of both Brazil and the US were significantly formed and transformed by the slave trade, very different trends took place over the course of their respective histories. Before the official abolition of the slave trade to the US in 1808, the country had imported approximately 360,000 slaves. Brazil, on the other hand, imported about four million slaves before the abolition of the trade in the 1850s. Despite the wide gap in numbers of imported slaves, the US had a population of about four million enslaved people in 1860 while Brazil had 1.5 million enslaved people in 1872. This number was in part due to the fact that manumission was a more common practice in Brazil that grew over the course of the second half of the nineteenth century.

Hastings described Brazil’s slave population was “faithful and obedient,” alongside a population of “domestic Indians” who could be used for labor. Though slaves were scarce, according to Hastings, they were “very cheap” and “excellent able-bodied men and women” could be bought at prices ranging from three hundred to six hundred dollars. Hastings obtained this information from personally observing slave auctions in Pará and Santarém, and from information conveyed to him by various Brazilians during his travels. Hastings acknowledged that abolition was imminent in Brazil, but that it would happen entirely dissimilarly from how it had in the US. The central difference between the two countries was that every Brazilian province was a slave-holding one and that each one would have to approve of abolition before it could become law. As opposed to the US, Hastings stated that in Brazil there were no “conflicting interests” and no “wild, fanatical parties in hostile array against that institution.” In addition, he was sure that if, and when, the government enacted abolition, slave owners would be compensated for their loss.

The essential difference Hastings hoped would comfort his audience was that in Brazil, black people remained slaves, while in the US they were free. In fact, the absence of slaves in the new version of the US is the “chief cause of complaint” and “present distress” of “our people.” Hastings shows no awareness, or simply chooses not to discuss the large population of freed slaves, known as libertos, in Brazil. Absent from the information he presents is the fact that, according to the 1872 Brazilian census, Brazil was home to 4.25 million free blacks, forming the largest class of free blacks in any country in the Americas. In the province of Para, according to this census, there were 11, whites and a total of 8,592 free people of color (this includes people classified as pardos – a general term used to label people of multiracial descent and pretos – black people). By mentioning “negro equality,” Hastings indirectly acknowledges this population of free blacks. He identifies the degree of “negro equality” and the various shades of skin color in Brazil valid objections, but in the end, Hastings argued, “negro equality” was greater in the US “than it ever will be in Brazil.”

Though Hastings did not fear the end of slavery in his lifetime, he warned readers not to depend on slave labor or any other kind of labor, writing that it was lacking across the Empire. Despite the possibility of purchasing slaves and hiring indigenous people, Hastings recommended that colonists make arrangements prior to leaving for Brazil. He maintains that a “life of ease, comfort and prosperity” were not “inevitable” if settlers could not “command either capital or labor.” One suggestion Hastings has for future emigrants is to hire “able-bodied, industrious and intelligent” southern young men, without means, to move with them to Brazil and replace the male relatives so many families had lost in the war.

Hastings’ understanding of available labor seems to originate in his personal experiences while in Brazil. Throughout his book, he consistently refers to “Indians” that accompanied his party as they travel from location to location, serving as guides and interpreters. While in Santarém and surrounding areas, Hastings employed indigenous labor to assist in the surveying of the land that would become the location of the US colony. He, and his fellow travelers, hired indigenous residents to guide them in their explorations of the lands that Hastings ultimately decided would serve as the locus of the colony.

When Hastings’ party arrived at the “table lands” of the city, they were housed by a “half-civilized Indian” named Peter. Peter then became the leader of Hastings’ surveying expedition. Hastings and the other US citizens seemed to be entirely dependent on Peter’s expertise as they traversed the Amazonian forest. The party also consumed meat from animals killed by their indigenous companions. One of Hastings’ preparations while at the future settlement site was the examination of the soil and determination of potential water sources. For this endeavor, he had indigenous people make blacksmith’s tools and employed five indigenous people in the work of digging a well. He writes that those employed in this work were “excellent and faithful laborers,” though they considered well-digging a “useless” activity. When he discusses the tracts of land that he and the other Confederates had chosen as their own, he claims that three of the men were already occupied in building their homes and were living on their lands “with their Indian servants around them.”

PICTURE

While in Santarém, a man by the name of Miguel Antônio Pinto Guimarães (1808-1882) hosted and guided Hastings. Pinto, known as the Baron of Santarém, was from one of the region’s wealthiest and most prominent families. Pinto was a colonel in the National Guard who also served various political roles, including president of Pará for multiple terms in the 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s. Pinto owned many properties in Pará, including a large number of enslaved people. His mother-inlaw, Maria Margarida Pereira Macambira, was also the matriarch of one of the most prominent slave-owning families in Santarém. Her plantations were also located in the across-the-river towns of Alenquer and Monte Alegre.

The night before Hastings left Santarém to begin his journey home, he attended a dinner hosted by Colonel Pinto. According to his description of the feast, Pinto and the other Brazilian guests all expressed “a most sincere desire for the success of the American emigration” and pledged always to receive the emigrants “with open arms and open hearts.” As he does in his discussion of the land and its natural qualities, Hastings again resorts to hyperbole in his description of the Santarém residents: “a more kind and hospitable people the world never produced, among whom the increasing desire to encourage and facilitate American emigration is clearly a matter of permanent consideration.” In the entry he wrote on the day he left Santarém, he quotes Pinto’s wife as expressing “heartfelt sympathy” for the US citizens “constrained to abandon the homes of their fathers.” This comment serves to help Hastings formulate a narrative about the motivations for colonization that established the project as a noble and worthy cause. Ex-Confederates had no choice, not only according to Hastings himself, but to his Brazilian hosts as well.

Hastings made it clear that because of the ideal location of the colony, the excitement of their Brazilian hosts in welcoming the immigrants, and the circumstances of the southerners in the US, it was the colonists’ duty to form the best possible group of settlers. Hastings recommends members of two professions as being necessary elements of the future colony: clergy and doctors. As he put it, “clergymen are indispensable in every community; honest and faithful clergymen are the pillars of society,” and for that reason, he argued that any given ship that left for Santarém should have members of the clergy on board. Outside of these two professions, Hastings acknowledged that other careers practiced by emigrants would not necessarily be useful in their new lives in the Amazon. “The lawyer,” for example, “as his profession will not be lucrative, should take with him a few of the very best hoes and axes, with which to test the solidity of the woods and the fertility of the Brazilian soil.” He concludes the section about what to transport to Brazil with a comment about wives. He directs all emigrants who are without wives to “get one at the earliest possible and convenient moment, so that you may increase, multiply, and replenish the earth, and thus fulfill the destiny of man.” The southern emigrant, then, would not relocate to Brazil for selfish reasons, but for a greater good. The colonists would continue to pursue their natural, predetermined destiny as white US citizens, even in Brazil.

This would be made possible by life in a place free from what Hastings viewed as the horrible changes brought about by the fall of the Confederacy. The fact that the government’s chief sources of revenue were export and import taxes, implied to Hastings that emigrants would have no need to “dread the importunities of the rapacious tax gatherers.” Hastings intended the discussion of taxation in Brazil as a depiction of a stark contrast with life in the US, and as a condemnation of the state of affairs in the post-bellum south. The US citizen in Brazil would not suffer from “that peculiar class of itinerant agents, whose visits so frequently annoy and distress the denizens of our once happy and prosperous land.” Hastings later clarifies that though he is discussing “American” emigrants, these emigrants were exclusively Southerners. Northerners, he spitefully insisted, believed their government was the “‘the best in the world’” and had no reason to leave given that they were in “full enjoyment of the fruits of their triumphs, in the height of their glory.” If the US no longer presented the best governing system to southerners, Brazil did. According to Hastings, there were “few countries, if any, as well governed as Brazil.” Hastings attributes what he saw as the “quiet and orderly” nature of the Brazilian people primarily to the “rigid enforcement of the law.” The effectiveness of the Brazilian government served as a counterpoint to the deterioration that Hastings believed had taken place as a consequence of the Civil War.

Besides being replete with expressions of Hastings’ hopes and dreams for his future colony, The Emigrants’ Guide to Brazil also contains an English translation of the contract signed on November 7, 1867 by Hastings and the president of the province, ensuring the establishment of the colony. In it, the government set aside land “on the south side of the Amazon and Tapajos rivers, and between said rivers and the Curua.” This tract measured ten leagues from east to west and six from north to south, equaling a total area of sixty square leagues. The government promised to subsidize the measurement and surveying of this land, and bestowed the title for it upon Hastings. The government also was bound to provide provisional housing for the emigrants upon their arrival. In addition, the government was bound to pay for the passage of a ship carrying one hundred or more colonists. One of the final articles of the contract stipulated that all agricultural implements and machinery bought by the emigrants would be exempt from import taxes. Hastings claimed that the price of land for emigrants had been set at the lowered price of twenty-two cents per acre and that they would be allowed to finish paying after five to six years. Each emigrant with a family was to receive one square mile, and family-less emigrants half a square mile. According to Hastings, the government was already at work building houses and roads for the emigrants, and promised to build schools. For Hastings, this contract was the proof he needed to show potential colonists that Brazil, and Santarém in particular, were not just products of the emigrant imagination. Instead, immigration to Brazil was as real a possibility as the government’s paper promises.

Debating the Colony: The Dream of the Amazon Empire in the US Newspapers

Though many shared Hastings’ views of Brazil, others disagreed. Both sides of the debate were represented in numerous newspaper articles written at the time. For US southerners after the Civil War, newspapers were one of the chief sources of information about Brazil and the opportunity of settling there. US citizens from all areas of the country were accustomed to receiving information about Brazil and the Amazon by this mechanism long before the Civil War. The ideas about Brazil and the Amazon expressed by politicians like Maury were widespread and easily accessible in the newspapers that every-day US citizens regularly read. Both the pro and anti-emigration pieces that appeared in newspapers following the Civil War assumed a certain knowledge base regarding Brazil on the part of their readers. The writers of these articles trusted that certain ideas and information about the country had already found their place in the popular US imagination.

After the war, newspaper articles, often in the forms of letters or reports written by people who had either traveled to Brazil or received information from someone who had, provided readers with sketches of Brazilian economy, politics, and culture. These articles hoped to encourage colonization. Often, they were written by people who had been commissioned to explore colonization options in Brazil by recently formed colonization societies or groups of families and individuals who were interested in emigration. Though sponsored by different groups, many of the colony hunters were in contact with each other. Some met while in Brazil and scouted out neighboring territories. Several of them wrote books after their expeditions, outlining the available opportunities and encouraging southerners to take advantage of them. In these books, they mentioned the other US citizens they had met in Brazil, sometimes quoting others with whom they interacted there and who had undertaken similar expeditions. Newspapers often published reports from these journeys and excerpts from their books. The sources served as the primary means of communicating information about Brazil and the possibility of emigration to a broader audience.

In 1865, a South Carolina newspaper published an article that ultimately disagreed with the Brazilian colonization movement and with Hastings’ justifications for it. “In one respect Brazil affords at least one feature congenial to the views of the Southern people – that is slavery,” it states, going on to argue that the reader must “examine the basis upon which the hopes of those who wish to expatriate themselves is founded. The Government of Brazil is a monarchical and despotic one. The laws that support the institution of slavery being the will of the ruler, may any day be changed, and slavery disappear from Brazil as it has from the other South American nations.” The monarchical structure of the Brazilian government was to be feared and avoided for the post-Civil War southerner not because of a fundamental flaw in its make-up, but because of the potential for it to wield its power for anti-slavery purposes. The fact that slavery persisted in Brazil was not sufficient for the purposes of the racist southerner, for “the negroes in Brazil are not like the negroes in the United States. If he is free he has just as many rights as the European; indeed, one of the ministers of the Imperial Government, at the present time, is a negro, if we are rightly informed.” This article suggests that while the US government had eliminated slavery from its borders, the country had not yet reached a point at which the presence of a black person in government could be viewed as normal, the opposite was true in Brazil.

Hastings argued the opposite in The Emigrants’ Guide, writing that in Brazil “free Negroes must possess certain property qualifications to entitle them to the elective franchise,” while in the US “the only qualification necessary, is to be black, which entitles them to fill the highest offices within the gift of the people.” This did not mean that the racial dynamics in Brazil were to be celebrated, however. Instead, Hastings proposed that he and the future colonists did not have to “associate and mingle with the objectionable masses.” If, according to Hastings, it was true that southerners had less to fear in Brazil given the greater degree of racial inequality there, they still would have to guard against the threat represented by Brazilian intermixing. He claimed that though marriage between the “pure-blooded and the mixed races” was rare, “concubinage exists to an unpardonable degree.” “This sin, or indiscretion,” he lamented, extended to foreigners, including US citizens who lived there.

Hastings considered intermixing such a threat that it would impact how the Santarém settlement would organize itself; he proposed that it isolate itself from society at large. “This evil may be easily remedied by our people,” he wrote, “for which purpose we should settle together, form our own society, and discountenance every impropriety of that nature.”261 By living together, he believed, the colonists could have control over their lives on the Amazon. Their success, then, would depend upon the “material” they would bring with them from the US and their efforts to permanently establish the colony “upon the firm and enduring basis of christian virtue.” The language barrier that he cites as one of the primary reasons that “social intercourse with the Brazilian people” would be limited to “business men and the better classes” constituted an asset to the community. For this reason, Hastings argues that it would be necessary for the colonists to form a community apart from the rest of society in the initial stages of colonization. The colonists, he writes, would eventually have to learn Portuguese, however, if they were ever feel “satisfied.”

In order for “all the blessings of a new home in that land of promise” to be attained, then, Hastings believed it was important for “relatives, friends, and former neighbors” to continue as neighbors in their Brazilian homes. Like the Mexicans he had depicted in his previous book twenty-two years prior, most Brazilians were tainted by their possession of nonwhite blood. This made it so that US settlers had few options of individuals they could interact with in their future home. More than anything else, the land and the opportunity to cultivate it through whatever means they desired was what made the Amazon the place for southerners to be. Arriving in Brazil with their own materials, their own protestant Christian values, and a determination to live amongst their own kind, Hastings proposed that he and his compatriots would pick and choose what aspects of Brazilianness and Americanness they wanted to adopt and which to avoid altogether.

Hastings relied on the reader’s knowledge of his past work promoting westward expansion to instill faith in his claims. In the conclusion of his book, Hastings writes: “At an earlier period I organized and conducted the first colony that ever crossed the continent to Oregon and California.” The members of this colony had had traversed 2,000 miles of terrain that had “previously been thought impassable for wagons, and which abounded everywhere with hostile Indian tribes.” Like the Amazonian territory in question, this land had been a wilderness, according to Hastings’ portrayal. Both regions were unaccustomed to what Hastings viewed as the civilizing influence of the wagon, a white man’s tool in his endeavor to conquer land illegitimately occupied by indigenous people. Hastings acknowledges that many who had taken his route to California and Oregon had failed to successfully reach their desired locations. He references the Donner Party’s catastrophic journey, but then goes on make clear that his route had subsequently been redeemed by the fact that families had continued to travel it ever since then. By specifically referencing previous emigrants’ journeys westward, he also establishes himself as an authority on emigration and colonization, and someone well-versed in the challenges it entails.

The discussion of Brazil in newspapers as an optimal target for southern US settlement revolved around complimentary descriptions of the country’s land and climate and the crops that could be easily grown and profited from. While the focus was certainly economic, such reports also relied upon basic information about the Brazilian political system. The goal of each author was to show that the southerner would have no problems adjusting and becoming a citizen of a new political realm. The writers of these articles often articulated the economic and political dimensions of Brazilian society in comparison or opposition to the post-war circumstances of the southern states. They presented these dimensions as motives for colonization; that is, they argued that Brazilian emigration offered southerners the possibility of escaping to a place with political and economic conditions that harkened back to those of the antebellum South.

Already a few months after the conclusion of the Civil War following the Surrender at Appomattox in April,1865, newspapers were describing efforts ex-Confederates were undergoing to raise interest in immigration to Brazil. The Daily Phoenix of Columbia, South Carolina entered into the conversation about immigration to Brazil in August 1865, stating that “vague reports” untraceable to authoritative sources “represent the Emperor of Brazil as offering bounties in land, in slaves, and even in money” to southern immigrants. Brazil was “a most suitable and desirable country for Southern raised people,” its government would promise to secure “the rights of persons and property” that would be “speedily vindicated” when threatened. “There are large tracts of unimproved lands, much of which is vastly rich,” the article claimed, without yet being able to point to any specific plans for colonization.

PICTURE

This lack of specificity soon changed. In August 1866, a future colony leader and former Confederate surgeon originally from Columbia, South Carolina, James McFadden Gaston (1824-1903), published a report in the Yorkville Enquirer, a newspaper local to York, South Carolina. His piece aimed to convince readers to join him in settling a particular territory in Brazil that he had personally surveyed and determined upon.269 Gaston traveled from New York City to Rio de Janeiro, where he made contact with US citizens already living there, as well as with the official Brazilian colonization agent Dom J.C. Galvão, appointed by the Emperor Don Pedro II to encourage emigration, who directed him to various potential locations of interest in Southern Brazil where land was available for purchase. Gaston would publish his own book Hunting a Home in Brazil in 1867 about his time surveying Brazil, encouraging southern immigration to Brazil the same year Hastings did. The report published in the Yorkville Enquirer is a much shorter version of the book he would publish the next year. In it, Gaston presents Brazil as an ideal location for southern colonization. He provides economic reasons to support this. He also lists the many gains to be had from Brazilian land as superior to those possible in South Carolina and Georgia.

In the region Gaston chose as the location for his future colony, he writes in his report that the colonists could “have space for indefinite expansion of our population, with lands adapted to all variety of products, and withal the cheapest and most convenient transportation of products to market by water.” After describing the cotton and corn yields from this land, Gaston claims that these impressive amounts exist despite “the deficient culture of those people, who know nothing of the use of the plow, and make very sparing use of the hoe.” The potential for incredible wealth, then, was only possible if the land in question was cultivated by US citizens, as they possessed superior knowledge and skills.

Gaston goes on to draw an explicit connection between the benefits of Brazilian colonization and the continued presence of slavery in the country. In comparing the riches to be had through planting in São Paulo as opposed to at home in the US, he alludes to the existence of slavery in Brazil in contrast to its absence in the US. “I feel no hesitation in saying positively that any person who has means to engage in agricultural operations in Brazil, may go to the Province of São Paulo with the prospect of making double the amount of clear cash annually to what can be realized by planting here, even under a better system of labor than at present prevails in the South,” he pronounces. Here, Gaston implies that the wealth that could be accumulated through agricultural endeavors in Brazil was greater than the profit to be had in the US, regardless of the labor system the new South would undertake. Later, he describes “Negro slavery’s” role in the Brazilian economy, labeling it “the chief reliance for labor.”He names the average prices for which “gangs of negroes” that include “entire families” are sold, based on his personal experience being offered a gang of “120 men and boys, 90 women and girls, and 30 children” for hire. This kind of detailed account is not meant merely to spark interest, but rather to provide potential colonists with suggestions as to how they might manage their economic affairs upon settling in Brazil. He goes on to state that “a number of small farmers might combine and hire such a lot, working them together or dividing them as might suit their interests.”

Free labor, too, would be an option for colonists, but it was not as “reliable for constant service” as enslaved people were. The various possibilities for labor acquisition made it so that “all classes of our people may improve their pecuniary condition, as well as their political and social condition by the change of residence.” He would later write in Hunting a Home in Brazil that slave labor was “likely to afford results that cannot be secured by hire in the Southern States,” arguing that once Brazilian slaves were trained to cultivate cotton like slaves in the US previously had, “we may anticipate yields of this staple exceeding any that have ever been realized in the United States.” The way in which Gaston articulates the potential elements of Brazilian colonization were not particular to him; instead, his writing and that of others involved in encouraging emigration presented similar themes revolving around questions of labor and agriculture. These writers could not imagine a world in which other kinds of labor regimes were possible. The primary impetus for self-inflicted exile, then, was the absence of slave labor in the US. That Brazil remained a slave society made resolving this problem possible through relocation there.

While Gaston focuses his appeals on the positive potential elements of the Brazilian land and economy, former Confederate General William Wallace Wood encouraged emigration primarily via a lament of post-war circumstances. He articulated this view in his six-part series of newspaper articles entitled “What about Brazil?” Originally from Mississippi and by that point a long-time resident of New Orleans, Wood was a lawyer, editor, and public speaker. In the summer of 1866, a group of 600 southern planters sent Wood to Brazil with four other southerners to survey options for settlement. Like Gaston, Wood and his companions arrived first in Rio de Janeiro where the imperial government offered Wood’s party access to any resources they required for exploration of potential settlement sites.278 They then embarked on their journey accompanied by a government-sponsored guide, engineer, and interpreter, as well as letters of introduction to provincial officials.
On his journey through Brazil, Wood’s party encountered Gaston in the interior of São Paulo. They made itineraries together and shared information. Wood’s series was published in multiple southern newspapers upon his return to the US. Wood articulates the need for emigration to Brazil in stark terms. He states “the mind of the Southerner traveling in Brazil…naturally contemplates two pictures” – one of the realities of post-Civil War life in the US, and the other of Brazil. He provides vivid descriptions of the desperate state of the south, which found itself under the domination of an all-powerful, oppressive government that had turned the southern states into “provinces under a goading and exacting military rule.”281 For Wood, the end of the war had brought about the eradication of the former laws the south used to govern itself, the enactment of vicious taxation schemes, and the impoverishment of the rich, among many other grievous consequences. Brazil, then, with its rich economic opportunities suited to the southern planter’s background, was the natural destination for the ruined southerner. Different Brazilian provinces, however, provided varying opportunities for how the southern settler could go about creating a new economic life. In the province of Bahia, for example, Wood claimed, the climate was too hot for the “white man” himself to labor, so he recommended the emigrant rely upon slave labor, listing specific prices for which enslaved people were sold, based on information he obtained during his travels. In São Paulo and Santa Catarina, however, the climate was colder, and the white man could work his own fields. For that reason, Wood recommended that the colonist that lacked the capital sufficient to pay for labor settle in these regions where cultivating his lands personally would be a viable option.
Before Wood and Gaston returned to the US, they met two other US southerners scouting for land: Robert Meriwether and H.A. Shaw. Meriwether and Shaw were sponsored by the Edgefield Colonization Society of Edgefield, South Carolina. The Society’s efforts were chronicled and advertised for in the local newspaper, the Edgefield Advertiser. The newspaper’s owner was Joseph Abney, who was also one of the Society’s founders. The newspaper announced formation of the Society in 1865, and it promised to make the necessary arrangements for emigration to “prevent hasty proceedings and ultimate disappointment.”283 The group was responsible for organizing many residents of Edgefield and surrounding areas for Brazilian colonization. The principal founders and agents of the society traveled to Brazil and published their reports on their expeditions in the Edgefield Advertiser in 1866 and 1867. Before travelers began to make their way to Brazil, an August 1865 edition of the newspaper re-published an article from the New York Herald written in response to the author’s observation about the presence of southerners in New York City destined for Brazil. Before direct lines opened from southern ports to Brazil, southerners had no choice but to journey to north before making their way to their desired destinations. In the article, the author writes about his realization that these southerners were part of “the advance guard of the exodus that is commencing” from the South to Brazil. The article proceeds to cite the opening of a line of steamships between New York City and Rio de Janeiro as reason to hope for, among other benefits, greater commercial cooperation between the US and Brazil, stating that “American invention and enterprise will meet with fresh fields of conquest.” It also positively portrays emigration for southerners reeling from the outcomes of the Civil War. It affirms: “Planters whose homes have been broken up by the war, and have saved yet a few thousand from the wreck – men of capital who desire new fields for speculation and investment – can nowhere do as well as in Brazil.” Involving themselves in agricultural pursuits, according to the author, would not only provide southerners with easy means of procuring wealth, but it would also benefit Brazil. He claims that “it will be a source of gratification and encouragement to this government when its soil shall be dotted here and there with plantations of cane, cotton, and tobacco &c., cultivated with the energy and skill that mark the North American wherever he may be or in whatever occupation engaged.”
The next year, The Edgefield Advertiser published a report written by Meriwether and Shaw, the colonization agents the Edgefield Colonization Society had elected to send to investigate options in Brazil. In a letter to the editor that precedes the report, Joseph Abney states the reasons for the founding of the society. He claims that thousands of “our people” were unsure of “their future destiny and that “the prospects before them were so discouraging, that many indeed resolved to abandon their homes, though hallowed by all the cherished recollections of their youth, and consecrated by the blood of their manhood, and to seek an asylum among strangers, in a far distant land.” The southern political situation forced the “eye of reason” to “turn towards a brighter heaven for relief from the doubt and obscurity that hear envelop its vision,” and this better place was to be found in Brazil.
According to Meriwether and Shaw, Brazil was such a place because there, “there is nothing that man needs or can fancy, which he many not raise or procure here, with the least imaginable toil. Her water power is sufficient to drive all the machinery in the world, and her natural and material resources are equal to the support of the population of China.” Another colonization agent, Ballard Dunn, in his book, Brazil: The Home for Southerners, published in 1866, printed the full version of Meriwether and Shaw’s report. Dunn was a reverend and a rector of a New Orleans church that had gone to Brazil at the same time as Meriwether and Shaw on his own volition, seeking new homes for him and his Christian friends. Dunn writes in the preface that his pro-expatriation message was directed towards those who rejected the “conquering North” for “higher, nobler, and more painful” motives than simply fleeing the “federal tax-gatherer.” Dunn claimed that “these four years of disastrous war have left most of them who have been true to themselves and their ancestors penniless, homeless, despoiled, and bereaved,” and that the future, too, promised nothing more than “poverty and humiliation.”
In their report, Meriwether and Shaw claim that “the vast domain of Brazil, contains the most fertile soil in the Universe, and more cheap lands to allure the emigrant more than any other nation under the sun. For the supply of the millions that will be flocking to her shores, she abounds in the precious metals and costly gems, and in the most valuable products known to commerce.” For them, this sketch of the prospect of Brazilian colonization should make clear for the southern reader the contrast between the dark cloud of oppression that hung over their heads of following the end of the Civil War, and the bright future to be had under the Brazilian political system. Speaking of the Brazilian emperor, they write that “he and his ministry, indeed his entire people, appear to be animated and actuated by the same enlarged and generous views of the future greatness and the destiny of his wide and magnificent realm.” Not only was the Brazilian government interested in the same visions of empire that southerners were, but in Brazil, “the foreigner on entering his dominions finds no prejudices to combat, no antipathies to avoid.” In Meriwether and Shaw’s conception, then, Brazil, represented freedom from the suffering experienced by southerners under the new political and social system being imposed upon them by the US government.
In the views of these promoters, the Brazilian government and the population in general were fully prepared to welcome and protect the southern immigrant. Brazil had designs on imperial glory and the US southerner had a role to play in bringing it about. “There is a spontaneous movement of the whole Empire,” announced Meriwether and Shaw, “to open wide its arms for the men of enterprise and labor of all nations who have a mind to seek the grandest theatre for the exercise of their energies and the display of their genius ever presented on the face of the green earth.” According to them, by settling in Brazil, the immigrant would be applying his enterprising spirit not only for his own benefit, but also to that of a greater project that superseded the individual one. There is no indication that Meriwether and Shaw desired to assist in the advancement of the Brazilian empire; rather, it seems they appreciated the language of empire and appropriated it as a technique of persuasion. Southerners were accustomed to hearing a similar type of discourse about US empire and though prospective emigrants might not have been interested in serving Brazil, the notion of living and working in a place where they could accumulate profit through the same agricultural activities they had always participated in, and where the expansion and progress of an empire was underway, would probably have been appealing to many.
Coverage of the question of Brazilian emigration, however, was not onesided. While many newspapers were publishing its praises, they were also disseminating contradictory opinions. Some newspapers based in northern states countered predominant southern narratives about emigration. In an article entitled “Southern Schemes of Expatriation” and published in the New York Times in December 1867, the author labels such schemes as ventures that had already entered history as “disastrous, speedy, unqualified failure.”291 In his denunciation of colonization, the author claims that the sources of such failure can be traced to the specific motivations of the emigrants. The decision to emigrate was impulsive and “in the mortification and rage of the hour, anything seemed better than to live in a country they had failed to conquer, and obey a Government they had sought to cast down.” The reasons for the anger and shame at having lost the war, however, were rooted in the Confederate defense of slavery. The decision to go “southward” to Brazil, in turn continued to reflect this for “many hope still to enjoy the blessings of the ‘peculiar institution’ which the war had destroyed.” According to this author, love of slavery was so strong it had clouded the emigrants’ minds and made them unable to properly weigh the costs and benefits of emigration.
Anti-emigration, as well as pro-emigration sentiments, were debated in the press, both southern and northern. Those who opposed emigration or thought it important to draw attention to possible downsides of it, also participated in the production and reproduction of similar racial discourses to those who supported it. They used similar views about race, labor, and the tropics to argue opposing points to the emigration promoters. The Planters’ Banner of Franklin, Louisiana published a rebuke to this movement in December of 1867 premised on the notion that southerners were needed at home in the South more than ever because the South required salvation “from the twin curses of African barbarism and oriental despotism which a cruel partisan policy has prepared for her failure.” A December 1865 article in Meriden, Mississippi’s Daily Clarion urged southern citizens to remain in the US for similar reasons. “The war is at an end, yet we are treated as if still in rebellion,” it declares.295 If southerners abandoned their lands, “Yankees and foreigners” would invade, a fate that had to be avoided at all costs. Re-stating something that had been published in the New York News that pronounced that it was “most gratifying” that Brazil “offered a harbor” for US “fugitives of honor” who “were wedded to a cause which was, to all engaged in it, most sacred and sublime.” US citizens were called, however, to summon their patriotism and remain in the US in the hopes of achieving the same generous treatment at home that they would in Brazil.
“Brazil Not So Good” declared North Carolinian newspaper Charlotte Democrat in December 1865. Attempting to counter the dominant discourse on Brazilian emigration, the paper writes: “It appears from late statements concerning the government of Brazil that it would not be so good a place for southerners to emigrate to as many of our people supposed.” The only reasons the article provides for the disadvantages of Brazilian colonization are racial. According to this article, the Brazilian Emperor’s cabinet consisted mostly of black people, as well as did many judges throughout the country. These facts, the author guesses, were probably largely unknown by those who were considering settling in Brazil. This was due to “their attachment to the institution of slavery,” which the article presumes clouds the potential emigrant’s judgement of Brazil; that is, the slave-holding southerner assumed that Brazil would be an ideal location given the continued existence of slavery, without being aware of the other racial dynamics at play. In addition to this, the end of slavery in Brazil was near, according to the article, and once the potential emigrants in question realized this, southern colonization schemes would also come to an end. In a return to the thinking of the antebellum and Civil War era, the writer then ends the article by proposing “a strong tide of negro emigration” instead. Echoing the thinking of men like Maury, he cites the climate as a chief motive, and ends by suggesting that the degrees of political and social equality present in Brazil would provide US blacks with an opportunity to “show their capacity for self government” without entering into any further discussion of how a black colony would function.
An article published two months earlier, however, had discussed this possibility for black colonization and rejected it on practical grounds. Montgomery, Alabama’s Montgomery Advertiser published a report on a recently-held Cotton Growers Convention which had proposed the colonization of four to five million freedmen from formerly slave-holding states in a Central or South American country. “Brazil would accept the whole of our four millions of free blacks, and furnish them with land enough for the thousandth generation,” it had proposed. In Brazil, “the African race may live, if they please, with as little of the sweat of the brow as Adam and Eve had in Paradise.” The primary reason given in the article for black colonization is that cotton growers did not want to rely on free black labor, fearing “indolence and insubordination.” Instead cotton growers had shown interest in promoting “the emigration of whites as cultivators of the soil.” According to this article, however US blacks, would be unwilling to participate in a colonization plan, given that they considered the US their native home. Colonization was “hopeless,” and the only feasible plan was to for freedmen to “remain where they are” and be employed in cotton and corn cultivation.
In his book about his observations traveling around the post-war South, After the War: A Southern Tour. May 1, 1865, to May 1, 1866, northern journalist and politician Whitelaw Reid commented on the public debate about emigration and placed it in the context of other issues southerners were struggling with in the aftermath of the Civil War. Writing of Mobile, Alabama, the city from which Lansford Hastings and many of his colonists would later depart for the Amazon, Reid stated: “Alabamians had as yet scarcely recovered from the shock of the surrender, and few in the country adjacent to Mobile had formed any definite plans for the future. Some thought of going to Brazil; some wanted to plunge into Mexican broils; a few wanted to get away from the ‘sassy free niggers’ by going forth.”299 He also echoes that which had been written about the Cotton Growers’ Convention, writing that many southerners did not believe that free blacks would agree to continue farming their land, thus making land cultivation in general impossible. Reid quotes “a young Georgia planter” who states his belief “that in five years the South will be a howling wilderness. The great mass of our lands are fit for nothing else, and you've destroyed the only labor with which we can cultivate them in cotton.” The end of slavery, for this southerner, meant the regression of the South into the state Matthew Maury had ascribed to the Amazon – “a howling wilderness.” For him, progress and abolition were diametrically opposed. Enslaved black labor made the cultivation of land possible, and without it, civilization did not exist.
Dreaming of Immigration in the Brazilian Press
Brazilians were also engaging in a debate about immigration in an effort to devise solutions to the coming abolition of slavery. This debate was ever-present in Brazilian newspapers. By the 1860s abolitionist discourse in Brazil was beginning to gain new strength, making the end of slavery imminent. As I discussed in Chapter One, foreign immigration from European countries came to be seriously considered during this time as a mechanism of securing alternative sources of labor. Newspapers often played the role of advocate for government policies that would greater facilitate immigration before, during, and following the waves of US immigration to Brazil. In a report published in April 1867, the president of Pará declared that “as long as a current of emigration that brings us active, intelligent, moralized, and capable workers, is being directed to the province, the great future of the province of Pará will be sown.” The Jornal do Pará echoed this sentiment in December of that year, declaring that “immigration is without any doubt the most effective means that we have for the industrial development of Brazil” “To the intelligent and hardworking foreigner,” it stated, “we offer the marvels of a new, fertile, and opulent country, which seems to have been chosen by Providence to one day figure as the first empire of the World.”
If immigrants from the US were welcome in Brazil because of the potential for US immigration to revolutionize Brazilian development, Brazilian law and public opinion made it clear that not all US citizens could take part in this process. In April 1867, the front page of the Jornal do Pará reported on the arrival in Rio de Janeiro of one US immigrant in particular. I.A. Cole, the paper announced had disembarked in Rio “bringing black woman, accompanied by children.” According to the article, Cole had originally traveled to São Paulo to buy land, before returning to the US. He knew that the 1831 law regarding slavery in the empire prohibited the introduction of slaves into the empire, but believed that it permitted the entry of free blacks. He consulted with a lawyer, who agreed with his understanding that he could bring with him a black woman who had long worked for him, and her two daughters. He then went to New York City to solicit passports for the woman and her daughters, but the Brazilian consul denied them. Despite this, all four managed to be permitted aboard the “Guiding Star,” making it to Rio without a problem. Cole claimed many in the US who were considering immigration to Brazil were under the same impression as he was. Courts decided that 1831 law clearly banned non-Brazilian free blacks from setting foot on Brazilian shores. The rationale for the law, as explained by the newspaper, was to “impede the growth and preponderance of the African race” and “smoothen out European colonization,” as well as to “prevent…the fraud of introducing slaves under the pretext of being freed slaves.” The article argues that the empire’s courts must consider the problem instigated by Cole as a “danger to the public order.” This was the case because the arrival of “recently emancipated people” coming from the Civil War “still with the enthusiasm of victory, cannot help cannot help but be a great conflagration” in a nation where slavery still reigned.
The Brazilian Reflector, an English-language newspaper, published an article in 1869, re-printed in the Diário de Belém, promoting an immigration-friendly policy in the particular hope of attracting more US citizens for the job of converting Brazil into such a global power. The article states that so far, the US colonists had brought great amounts of capital to the country, which they were investing in land and slaves. 308 According to the article, the confederados were already contributing to the development of Brazil’s agricultural resources more than any other immigrant group, as well as more than native Brazilian planters themselves. The article draws parallels between Brazil and the US, claiming that the soil, climate, and products of Brazil were identical to those of the southern US. It discusses the US south before the Civil War, declaring that it occupied “a position of wealth, prosperity, and power like no other modern people.”309 This people, according to the article, in the aftermath of the Civil War, were forced to serve a “despotic and tyrannical dictatorship.” Brazil, the article’s author believed, provided a place for these hard-working, “eminently capable,” farmers to put their skills to use in a country that did not oppress them.
An article entitled “What Good People” in the Diário do Gram-Pará from 1867 reported sarcastically on the arrival of the US steamboat Guiding Star in Rio de Janeiro with three hundred-some US emigrants aboard. The article states that the “learned” call the emigrants “profitable descendants of the Anglo-Saxon race,” which was of a “laborious” and “mild and pacific” nature. According to the “learned,” Anglo-Saxons were the “most convenient to populate our big deserts and cultivate our fertile soil, snatching us from the dark in which we live with their lights.” The behavior of these emigrants while still aboard the Guiding Star, put these claims into question, the article seems to suggest, as it goes on to describe how a group of the colonists had tried to assassinate the ship’s commander in the hopes of taking control over the ship. If the US continued to send its “optimal Anglo-Saxons,” Brazilians would see if the progress they dreamed of would become reality.
Conclusion
In the post-bellum US South, many southerners had reached a consensus that the new circumstances brought about by the Civil War were untenable. As Hastings put it, “they have lost their property, their cause, their all; the ties that bound them to their native land are effectually severed; accumulating political disasters have completely obliterated the last glimmering ray of their lingering hope; why should they, how can they remain?” If, for some, life in the transformed South was so unbearable, it was logical that they would look elsewhere for solutions. Southerners, like US citizens in general, were not unused to considering themselves as members of a larger world outside of the United States. Before the war, slavery had connected them to other nations in the world that participated in this system. Brazil had been one of those places, and while the Civil War had brought about slavery’s downfall in the US, Brazil’s reliance on it continued. If this drew many to consider immigrating there, the Amazonian region of the country – represented as largely empty and rich in yet undiscovered and uncultivated natural products – had yet other pulls. Hastings believed he held the answer for a people certain they possessed a racial superiority that endowed them with the right and duty to dominate land and people. Along the Amazon River, those who had determined to leave the US, seeking “that security of person and property, justice and equality, which are denied them in the land of their nativity,” could build happy lives. It would remain to be seen how the colonists would go about making this dream a reality.

Chapter Three

                                               Portraying the Empire of the South:                                                The Confederado Colony in Santarém, 1867-1888

Hastings had high hopes for what the US southerner could do with the land in the Amazon. He believed that the land, at the time of confederado settlement, had great potential of which only the US citizen would be able to take advantage. The Amazon, as it had for song been depicted, had yet to experience proper cultivation. According to Hastings, “the agriculture of Brazil is, as yet, in its incipient stages; this vast Empire, although now nearly forty-five years old, is still in its agricultural infancy.” The Brazilian Empire, then, was extensive geographically, but not technologically advanced. It was “a giant in natural wealth, but a pigmy in agricultural appliances; herculean in resources, but dwarfish in their development.” 319 The cause for this discrepancy, in Hastings’ mind, was the very nature of the environment, for “the fertility of the soil and vigor of organic life, so multiply the means of subsistence as to greatly retard all agricultural pursuits.”  The perfect Amazonian climate, then, was a double-edged sword; it made life there ideal, at the same time that it “greatly diminished” “the usual incentives to labor, energy, and enterprise,” the qualities that Maury and Herndon had so lauded. “In the midst of abundance,” Hastings writes, with little or no effort, every want is supplied.”321 In the face of such bounty, then only the “industrious” US colonists “who retain their energy,” would be victorious and “in a very few years, amass wealth and accumulate fortunes, which in less favorable climes, would require a whole lifetime of incessant toil.”

After settling in the Amazon, the confederados’ capacity to transform their environment remained a central concern for the confederados themselves and those who visited them. The metric of the colony’s success would consistently be the degree to which the confederados achieved the diffusion of US attitudes towards labor, as well as US modes of production and technology. The writings of three US visitors to the colony all share a focus on the ways in which the confederados distinguished themselves from local Brazilians. In this chapter, I demonstrate the power of certain conceptions of race, labor, and economic progress in shaping how the story of the Santarém colony was narrated from its first days in existence, both by its members and those who visited from the US, regardless of whether they were residents of the southern or northern US.

Settling in Santarém: Reports of Successes and Failures

After about eight months of travel, in November 1866, Hastings returned to Mobile, Alabama from Santarém. By July 1867, Hastings had gathered a group of southerners, mostly from Tennessee and Alabama, who were ready to immigrate to the Amazon. On July 13, 1867, the Mobile Advertiser and Register published the passenger list for the Red Gauntlet, the ship headed to Belém with Hastings and his colonists aboard. The journey did not go smoothly, however, as the ship was apprehended by the US governor of Saint Thomas due to unpaid debts. Hastings managed to acquire a Brazilian ship upon which he and the other US passengers finished their voyage. At some point on this next leg of the journey, Hastings became sick and died, never again to set foot upon Brazilian territory. The rest of the group continued to Belém before boarding the steamboat Inca to Santarém.

When these Southern emigrants embarked on the shores of Santarém on September 17, 1867, they were welcomed by Colonel Pinto, Hastings’ primary contact in Santarém. In Norma Guilhon de Azevedo’s Os confederados em Santarém, she describes the Confederate arrival. She writes that the city’s residents would have been accustomed to seeing foreigners somewhat frequently, given the volume of travelers and scientists who had visited over the past several decades. The group of immigrants, in Guilhon de Azevedo’s view, would have appeared extremely heterogenous, a mix of planter families and foresters and adventurers who had decided to join Hastings, “attracted by the taste of an adventure in the tropics.” According to Guilhon de Azevedo, the latter types of people had joined the group not because of their moral convictions, and some were fugitives of the law who took advantage of the opportunity to cheaply escape from the country. Already in Santarém was a small group of emigrants who had arrived there earlier that year without Hastings’ direction, instead having been sent by the Brazilian Minister of Agriculture from Rio de Janeiro. Altogether, the US colonists numbered about 196 at this point.

At the time of the Confederate settlement of Santarém, there was no local newspapers to report on the emigrants’ arrival. US newspapers, however, published information about the emigrants. Like the letters re-printed in newspapers before the first waves of immigration, the letters speaking to life on Santarem’s shores told conflicting stories. The North Carolina Argus published extracts of letters from Hastings’ father-in-law J.B. Mendenhall, who , according to the 1860 census had been the owner of twenty-three slaves, about his journey to Brazil and his first days in the country in 1867.327 In the introduction to the extracts, the paper makes clear its anti-emigration stance, predicting that though Mendenhall “seems to be content so far,” “he will become weary of his self-imposed exile and he will ere long return home to battle for his ‘birth right’ under the Constitution.” Mendenhall’s first impressions of Brazil are generally very positive, however, though they also include harsh critiques. He reports that he and his fellow colonists were very well-received upon their ship’s arrival in Belém, which was in a state of “jubilee,” as Brazilians were celebrating Brazilian independence as well as the opening of the Amazon to international navigation and commerce.

On this very first day of his time in Belém, Mendenhall had also begun to comment on the backward state of Brazilian life, writing that “the people here are a whole age behind in everything except trade in merchandise, which is conducted by the more shrewd of the population.” This impacted the difficulties he and other colonists had in arranging effective transportation to the lands where they would settle, but Mendenhall emphasized the unmatched natural qualities of the region as a counterpoint to these downsides. He wrote that “the climate is the most perfect” that a southerner could hope for and “no one could, with the power granted, make any improvement.” He describes the land where he had settled as “like the best of the hammock lands in Alabama.” Mendenhall ends his letter this way: “I advise you to come and grow up with the country, though at present it is in a rude, underdeveloped condition, even behind the pack mule age.” The superior nature of the land and climate, he believed, was inducement enough for further settlement, despite the lack of development. US colonists, provided they imported certain supplies, such as hoes, shotguns, axes, shoes, and certain seeds for planting, as he recommended his family bring, could make a positive, lasting impact on a backwards Brazil.

PICTURE

Another member of the Hastings colony, Josiah Pitts, affirmed that life in Santarém was going well. He wrote a letter home to a friend, William Rear, which was published on May 24, 1868 in the Nashville Union and American. The newspaper first published a note by Rear in which he presents Pitts’ letter and states some of his own observations about Belém and Santarém, having traveled there himself. In the Pitts letter, Pitts states that he and his family are “well and fat” and that “I have made enough to live well on and am better placed than ever.” He concludes his letter on a positive note, encouraging others to join the colony: “The colony is in fine condition and doing well. There is no truth in the reports that the enterprise is a failure; it was manufactured by that Mobile crowd. Col. Pinto has recently paid us a visit and seemed highly pleased at our advancement and improvements. So bundle up and come out.” Pitts considered those emigrants who had been residents of Mobile, who he viewed as lazy good-for-nothings, for spreading untrue rumors about the colony. He describes one Mobilite who had attempted to rob and murder a woman in Belém, resulting in a twenty-year prison sentence. Despite incidents like this one, the general picture Pitts painted was one of positive forward motion for the colonists. “We will soon have a good neighborhood,” he stated. His conclusion then was that his family members and friends “had better pick up bag and baggage and come out and so get rid of Brownlow, negroes, Yankees, and taxation.”

William Brownlow, to whom Pitts refers, was the governor of Tennessee, elected to office in 1865 after former Confederates had essentially been banned from voting. Brownlow aligned himself with the Radical Republicans and used his governorship to temporarily disenfranchise ex-Confederates, enfranchise black men, and allow them to qualify for public office. Under his leadership, Tennessee became the first ex-Confederate state to be readmitted to the Union. Pitts’ reference to “Brownlow, negroes, Yankees, and taxation” signified a clear rejection of the social and political changes being brought about by Reconstruction. By moving to Santarém, Pitts was not ridding himself of “negroes,” as he mentions another emigrant who was “farming with negroes” on the Amazon. Instead, he was fleeing from a place where black people were being treated as citizens for the first time.

Though Reconstruction may have provided the impetus for Pitts’ relocation of his family to Santarém, he would have been familiar with Brazil well before Reconstruction and the Civil War due to his father Fountain Pitts’ missionary travels there. Fountain served first as the chaplain of the Eleventh Tennessee Regiment, before going on to raise his own regiment – the Sixty-First – and become a colonel.338 His obituary states that in one of his wartime speeches to his soldiers, he declared that “he knew no State lines,” being “at heart a Southerner.” Josiah, a doctor, also served in the Confederate army. The Pitts’ connection to Christian missionary work did not come to an end upon settlement in Brazil. H.C. Tucker, a Protestant minister traveling through Latin America in 1889 found hospitality in Josiah Pitts’ home while stopping through Santarém. Tucker wrote that Pitts “kindly opened his house for preaching,” and that he conducted six services there to large audiences. Before Tucker left, Pitts’ son promised him to pass out bibles to those who so desired.

Another prominent colonist, described by some as the informal leader of the colony, religiously and otherwise, following Hastings’ death, was Methodist reverend Richard Thomas Hennington. He was the son of Henry Hennington, a Methodist pastor at a church in Mississippi. Richard joined the Mississippi Volunteers as a Confederate Chaplain in 1861. Hennington traveled to Brazil and surveyed available lands in the vicinity of Santarém before deciding to move there permanently with his family. His observations were published in The Copiahan, Copiah County, Mississippi’s local newspaper on March 14, 1867. In a letter he wrote, he explains the motives of his fellow emigrants. He writes: “they feel that a peace like this is even more intolerable than the war itself.” Hennington would end up immigrating to Santarém separately from the Hastings group, arriving there in August of 1868 with his wife and three children.

In a book written about the Hennington family in 1973 by his grandson Bertie Altman, Altman explains Richard’s decision to consider emigration. They claim similar causes to Josiah Pitts, writing that when Hennington returned home at the war’s end, “the South was under military rule, the economy and the legislature were in control of the carpetbaggers.”  In addition to the change in regime, Hennington’s economic potential had shifted, as “the Confederate dollar was worthless and no one had a Yankee dime. Certain trade goods were obtainable by the flirtatious maiden who could roll her eyes in proper orbit and thus the synonym for kiss became ‘Yankee dime.’” Obtaining money, this implied, was contingent upon being willing to debase oneself for the conquering regime. In light of such a situation, Hennington, like Hastings, took it upon himself to depict emigration to Brazil as an undeniably better option than remaining in the US. Also like Hastings, he portrayed Brazil in a more positive light than previous US writers had, claiming that it was “a country superior to ours under the most favorable circumstances. Brazil is not the wild or barbaric country that many people think it is…then, why remain here when that country promises so much and this one so little?” One of Brazil’s promises, in his mind, was the continuation of a life dependent on slave labor. Writing from Rio de Janeiro in August 1867, Hennington marveled that “what most attracts one’s attentions are the black slaves, just like in our country before the war. Everything that exists there can also be encountered here.”

Richard soon met with success in Santarém. In a letter to his brother in the US written on August 23, 1869, he wrote: “I have now 125 coffee trees, nearly 100 orange trees, 400 pineapples, 150 bananas, 100 casus, 50 jacas, 20 mangoes, 20 copoassue, mamma apples and other seed planted All -but 10 acres was woods one year ago.” Richard’s wife gave birth to two children in Santarém, in addition to the two that had been born in the US before the Civil War. In Altman’s book about his grandfather, he wrote that “there was never an expression of homesickness for the United States but Grandfather saw to it that Tom, then Eddie, then Eliza had an opportunity to go there and have a look for themselves. That all returned to Santarem to settle down must have been rewarding. Mamma was just entering her twenties when Grandfather became a naturalized Brazilian.”

This type of positive report was not the only one that circulated; instead, other letters reproduced in newspapers expressed opposing perspectives. For reasons relating largely to the climate and existence of racial intermixing, these writers depicted embarking on living in Santarém as worthless venture. Less than two months after the publication of Pitts letter, a letter from a visitor to the Hastings colony was published in the Nashville Union and Dispatch and then re-printed in the Montgomery Advertiser, declaring the inverse of what Pitts had stated. It begins: “We found there was not a word of truth in the reports we heard in Nashville, in regard to the Hastings colony at Santarem.” It goes on to state: “when we arrived in Para we found several of the families from that colony there and in the most destitute circumstances, trying to support their families by what little work they could get to do and with small pay, barely receiving enough to keep from starving on the coarsest kind of miserable food.” The letter-writer then references the Pitts family, mentioning that while they remain they “are not doing much.” His conclusion is that Brazil “is no country for the American people” because it is inhabited mainly by “a miserable set of uncivilized beings, who right to the title of human is half questionable, being a mixture of a number of uncivilized races.” These races are named as the Indian, the negro, and the “native Brazilian, which in many instances are, but from their degeneration” is “vastly inferior to either of the former, and lastly, the Portuguese, much inferior to the Brazilians.” In essence, white US citizens were unfit to and undeserving of living side by side with inferior races. By concluding that US citizens could not live in a country inhabited by lesser peoples, the article lays the blame for any challenges experienced by the settlers on race, and eliminates any responsibility on the part of the settlers themselves. In this formulation, it becomes the settlers’, superior to native Brazilians, natural destiny to fail in their efforts.

In addition to the racial aspects that made life in Brazil unlivable, the author of the letter describes agricultural production as a nearly impossible task, detailing the various insects and animals that made crop cultivation difficult. The letter cites “gentlemen from Santarem” who had told the writer that they had been forced to given up farming because of the “prevalence of innumerable reptiles.” The letter concludes by stating that the writers of the letter had no need to spend much time in Brazil to know that the whole project of immigration to such an “abominable country” was a “swindle.” After all, according to him, “the sun is so hot, so excessively hot, that none save Indians and negroes can work under it.” In the letter writer’s opinion, the one endeavor that had financial potential for the colonists was rubber collection, but he returns to a racist discourse to pronounce it impossible, claiming that the work involved in collecting rubber would “kill any white man in a very short time.”

A letter to the editor written by someone identified simply as “a traveler through the [Brazilian] Empire” in the New York Times weighed in as well on the issue of the suitability of US citizens for life in the Amazon in an article published in January 1868. The writer claims that “the Government stands in the way of success,” referring to heavy import and export duties. According to this writer, another key drawback was the lack of easy access to labor, contrary to what emigration propaganda had claimed. He claimed that Santarém lost many of its laborers to the war in Paraguay, who were sent away, very few to return. He asked: “want of laborers is the great cry throughout Brazil, and if Brazilians cannot obtain them, what can the emigrant expect?” He then articulates the labor issue as a racial one, invoking the stereotype of the lazy Indian, writing that “Indians do not care to work.”

An article entitled “A Mobilian’s Experience in Brazil” published in the Mobile Weekly Tribune on December 26, 1868 was similarly negative about the Santarém colony and also framed this discussion in racial terms. The article recounts the story of a young resident of Mobile, James Selby, who had traveled with the Hastings group. From the beginning of his journey to Brazil, Selby had encountered difficulty, and perhaps more significantly, undesirable people with whom he could not stand to share space. On the ship from Rio de Janeiro to Belém, the article claims, Selby was among a group of 150 passengers that were “negroes, Indians, and half-breeds—the very scum of creation—lousy and filthy.” The article later names Colonel Pinto as responsible for providing the Hastings colonists with supplies. Pinto is described as the Vice President of Pará and also as the “proprietor of a harem which turns him out annually a fair crop of half breed Indian and negro offspring.” He then claims that Pinto opened a store filled with the cheapest groceries that he sold at the highest prices. “Delicate women from Alabama” then had to “trudge under a tropical sun” with groceries on their backs from the settlement to Pinto’s store and back.

The article then goes on to describe the inferior quality of the land where the Hastings colony was located, describing the pests – insect and animals – that make life there unbearable. The concluding paragraph of the article claims that “the result of this Brazil ‘fever…’” “will stand as a warning to the Southern people against the hasty abandonment of their native land.” As some who had written before the establishment of US colonies in the country, this writer argues that “even the greatest curse that can fall upon us from the foul womb of Radical hate – the curse of mongrelism, cannot be avoided by going to Brazil or any South American country” where the “nasty fruit has ripened and pollutes earth and air with its sickening odors.” For this author, Brazil, and all of South America were inhospitable locations for US settlers because of the inferior condition not just of the land, but more importantly, of the people. Whatever benefits might be had were outweighed by the irreversible degeneracy of the “mongrel” nature of the human populations. The article affirms that one of the principle reasons an US citizens would choose to emigrate was the threat of racial mixing under a Republican government that sought to bring about change in the racial, socio-political order of the US. In South America, though, “mongrelism” was already a full-blown reality, as evidenced by the example of Colonel Pinto’s mixed-race “harem.

On June 19, 1868, Jackson, Mississippi’s Clarion-Ledger published extracts from a letter received the previous month by Jacksonian A.M. Wood from his son, a member of the Hastings colony. In the letter, the son states that following Hastings’ death the government had abandoned the stipulations of the contract it had signed with Hastings. As a result, the colony was no longer receiving government rations, and many had been forced to relocate to the city of Santarém to earn money, despite having already begun to grow crops on their farms. According to Wood, they had been unsuccessful in the city, and being unable to support their families, had decided to move to Belém, where, upon the writing of the letter, he and twenty-six others had been living in a shed for six days.

Wood recounts the numerous hardships of life in Brazil. These included concerns about burial, which he articulates as a racialized issue. He writes that “when a white man dies here it is a hard matter to get him buried” and describes how some of the colonists had died and been buried in a blanket.368 Wood’s next complaint is that, although “the country is rich and abounds in fruits, fine timber, and good water,” it rained six months of the year every day, and did not rain at all the rest of the year. This fact, in addition to the bugs, worms, and ants that destroy crops, made it very difficult for farming there to be worthwhile. The upshot, Wood, writes, is that he and the others who had left Santarém for Belém would be returning to the US on the next boat. Wood concludes by demanding that his father “tell everybody that speaks of emigrating to Brazil to stay at home. A man can do well in Brazil if he has money enough to live without working; but he can do the same in any other place; so if they have plenty of money they can live at home as well as in Brazil.  Life in Brazil, then, would not be as easy as emigration propaganda had perhaps suggested. The emigrant was required to work and would have no access to instant wealth by simply adopting a new homeland.

One colonist used a Brazilian newspaper to attempt to counteract any negative narratives regarding the colony. The Diário de Belém published a report written by colonist Jos. L. McGee on January 6, 1869, in which the writer declared that the colonists were thriving in the face of the many challenges they had encountered. It states: “we ourselves had to work since none of us had money to hire people,” a difficult task for those who were unaccustomed to physical labor. Despite this, according to the article, some of the colonists were living as comfortably as they had in the US before the Civil War. The article then goes on to cite the Pitts, Rhome, Weatherly, Vaughan, and Riker families as particularly prosperous. Another colonist, the Reverend Harvey, was operating a school that taught English to thirty to forty boys. McGee avows that his mother and sister were “very satisfied and nothing would be able to induce them to return to their motherland.” McGee emphasizes that the colony was not “fallen,” and encouraged “our brothers in misfortune to visit our beaches.” According to him many new southerners planned to embark for Santarém, a piece of information meant to prove the colony’s success, though it does not seem that the colony received any new colonists in significant number.

Outsiders’ Accounts of the Santarém Colony

After the formation of the US settlement in Santarém, US, European, and Brazilian scientists and travelers continued to make their way down the Amazon and publish writing about their experiences in Santarém. Many of these men commented on the community of confederados, as Brazilians called them, and the impact they were having on the region. Some confederados hosted travelers, giving them the opportunity to learn in detail about the new lives they were leading. These accounts of the colony provide interesting insight into the textures of confederado life in Santarém, as well as into the ways in which outsiders narrated the colony’s impact and significance from its earliest days.

PICTURE

One of the first foreign visitors to the colony was the US ornithologist Joseph Beal Steere (1842-1940). Steere, a Michigan native, was a professor at the University of Michigan who spent time traveling through the Amazon and documenting his observations. From 1870 through 1875, Steere was sent by the University of Michigan on a trip around the world to collect various materials for its zoology and botany departments. Steere went first to the Amazon, where he spent about eighteen months. He wrote letters home that were also published in newspapers. While in the Santarém area, Steere encountered a friendly host at Taperinha, the estate of confederado Romulus J. Rhome, where he stayed for over a month. At Taperinha, Steere first saw the plow in Brazil, and spoke glowingly of its use. Before arriving in Santarém, Steere had already written about the differences between Brazilian and US agricultural practices. While in Belém, he marveled that he had yet to see a plow in Brazil. He believed that “proper cultivation,” meaning US practices could change the poor results he observed there.

In this way, he became one of the first people to contribute to the narrative of agricultural progress brought about by confederado settlement. He was not the first US citizen to fixate on the absence of the plow in Brazil, however. When the future leader of an ex-Confederate colony, Ballard Dunn first toured the country, Dunn commented several times on the plow and the methods of agriculture he observed there. He remarked on the first time he noticed a plow. At another point, he observes the use of a second plow, this one “after the pattern of use in Europe two centuries ago.” Merriwether and Shaw confirmed Dunn’s observations about the plow, determining that no plows “have been seen by us that are suitable for the ordinary cultivation of the products of this country.” Several years later, Steere agreed with these men that the agricultural techniques and tools already present in the country were insufficient.

Despite his negative outlook, at Taperinha, Steere saw evidence that styles of agriculture imported from the US were indeed effective. He wrote: “sugar cane and tobacco grow with the greatest luxuriance and I saw some cane, that was so thick and tall that it was perfectly impossible to go through it. This was where Mr. Rhome had used the plow, an instrument the native know [sic] nothing of, though they cannot but wonder at its effects.” It was not just the plow that Steere found worthy of praise. While observing the “Indians and slaves” at work in Rhome’s service, engaged in “cleaning off the logs and brush from new land and planting tobacco,” Steere remarks that “the thorough way in which they did their work showed that their master was trained in a more thorough school of farming than is found in this country.” He took this argument a step beyond agriculture to include all aspects of life in Brazil, arguing that if the Brazilian people were “ever reformed politically, religiously, and physically it must be through us [US citizens].” Unfortunately, he believed that Brazilians were “likely to be left as they are for a while,” because, for those without capital, the country was the worst possible place to attempt making one’s way.

The proper way to develop Amazonia had long been a question for European observers. Few had been willing to acknowledge the usefulness of indigenous methods of working the land and the possibility that the environment was incompatible of European methods. In two of his seminal works on Brazilian history, celebrated Brazilian historian Sérgio Buarque de Holanda (1902-1982) commented on these aspects of the debate surrounding agriculture in Brazilian history. In Roots of Brazil, published in 1936, Buarque calls the effort to transplant European modes of agriculture to Brazil “the dominant fact in the origins of Brazilian society and the one that has yielded the most valuable consequences.” These consequences, according to Buarque, were both positive and negative, for “all the fruits of both our work and our sloth seem to belong to an evolutionary system from another climate and another landscape.” Buarque discusses the use of the plow in Brazilian agricultural history, complicating the narrative of US settlement as representing the successful introduction of the plow to Brazilian agriculture. Buarque explains how Europeans had long attempted to employ the plow in Brazil. He also discusses the role of nature itself in preventing Europeans from employing whichever methods they saw fit, namely the plow. He claims that in some cases, the Portuguese in Brazil adopted agricultural techniques that were “actually retrogressions and were even considered ancient forms of cultivation.” Nature’s obstacles in the Americas, very distinct from those in Europe, contributed just as much to the settlers’ slow progress as did their inertia and passivity.

In Buarque’s formulation, then, attempts to use the plow, actually represented a sort of regression. He cites a remark by a captain-general in 1766 that declared that the plow was, in fact, unusable. Buarque lists various colonizers’ attempts at agricultural production, briefly mentioning the US settlers. He writes that many historians tended to point out and exaggerate similarities between agricultural practices in Brazil and the southern United States. According to Buarque, however, Confederate farmers in Brazil disagreed. He argues that, whether true or not, “the use of plows, cultivators, rakes, and graders on São Paulo rural properties” had been attributed to the ex-Confederates. The settlers imported these implements after having been “shocked by the alarmingly primitive nature of the local agricultural processes.” According to one statement by a Confederate that Buarque cites, Brazilian slaves were planting cotton exactly as North American Indians planted corn.388 Many Brazilians, then, saw the US settlers as bearers of progress, and lauded them as such from their earliest days on Brazilian shores. Despite their failures to alter the Amazon, the confederados became the subjects of a myth of technological success particular to them as white US citizens.

Those colonists who did not participate in what was seen as positive technological transformation, were excluded from this narrative on the basis of their lack of dedication to the values by which the successful confederados lived. The ingenuity of a planter like Rhome, for example, was counterbalanced by the negative reputation of the confederado community in Santarém in general, according to Steere. Before arriving in Santarém, he claimed that his Americanness had been his “passport and security for good treatment.” In Santarém, on the other hand, it was “not much an honor to be an American,” given “the shiftless class of adventurers” among the colony, despite the fact that some had “won the respect of this people by their honesty and steady industry.” The existence of both lazy vagabonds and hardworking, respectable people would become a trope in narratives of the colony formulated by both outsiders and Santarém locals.

The way in which Steere describes the lives of the colonists, however, shows that they were dependent on the labor of others, in addition to their own. Two of the most industrious settlers whose lands Steere visits, were Riker and Vaughn, who had neighboring territories and shared the same road to reach their properties. According to Steere, Riker had already constructed a significant amount of machinery “with his own hands.” The thirty acres of land he was using to cultivate sugar cane and turn into cachaça, however, were worked by indigenous laborers. The same was true for Vaughan, who employed laborers in the cultivation of sixteen or eighteen acres of sugar cane. Another colonist that Steere encountered was a Mrs. White. The sole woman Steere devotes any attention to, White was a widow whose husband had died since arriving in Brazil. She lived alone, two or three miles from her neighbors “except the Tapuios or Indians, who, she said treated her with great kindness.” Steere describes White as dependent on the generosity of these indigenous neighbors for sustenance, as they provided her with most of her food.

Steere proceeds to comment on the issue of labor procurement in the Amazon, arguing that it is “a much more perplexing one here than it is in the United States.” The reason for this complexity was that “slaves are running down in value, and usefulness, as the question of liberating them is consistently before the country and every one understands that the system cannot exist much longer.” The other available option was indigenous labor, according to Steere, but the central issue with employing indigenous people was their laziness. Steere was one more scientist out of many who had long promoted the idea that indigenous people were inherently lazy and lacked the strong work ethic of white people. Here, he draws a connection between the indigenous people of Brazil and the US, writing that the indigenous people of the region had “little more ambition than our own Indians in the United States.” Steere goes on to describe the system of labor under which indigenous people were generally employed, equating it to slavery. These laborers, he writes, were forced into a system in which they would inevitably be indebted to their employers, forcing them and their children to continue working for them “as if they were literally slaves.” This statement echoes English biologist Alfred Russell Wallace’s observations twenty years earlier recorded in his book Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro. At one point, he described how a “trader” coerced an indigenous man to accompany Wallace on one of his expeditions. This man, according to Wallace, expressed that he had no desire to join the group, and as a result, was “was driven to the canoe by severe lashes, and at the point of the bayonet.” Afterwards, according to Wallace, “he was very furious and sullen…vowing that he would not go with me, and would take vengeance on those who had forced him on board. He complained bitterly of being treated like a slave.”

Steere wonders about the legality of such a system, but expresses his confidence that, whatever the legality, it was “upheld by the officers of the government, who in all cases send such men to their patrons, when they attempt to get away.” According to Steere, some of the US colonists had relieved indigenous laborers of their debts, paying them off in order to receive the “patronage” of the laborers. Significantly, Steere observed the support for this system on the part of many Brazilians, some of which he had spoken to personally and who defended coerced indigenous labor as necessary, as well as desired “even severer laws in this respect.” Steere acknowledges that he does not know the percentage of indigenous people who were a part of this system of labor, but speculated that many were “christianized."

Ultimately, Steere, like some of the newspaper commentators, saw Brazilian and white US society as fundamentally at odds with each other. Though Brazil had the potential to progress, it remained backwards in most ways. For this reason, he claimed that “for those who cling to their Protestant faith and the civilization of this nineteenth century, there is no hope but to go back home.” The only means by which life in Brazil for such US citizens would become viable would be if many more of them could be convinced to emigrate. This was not likely, thought, because, according to Steere, the abundance of “good land at the West to be had for the making, where there is sure to be good society, schools, and everything else that we are accustomed to consider among the necesities [sic] of life, within a very few years after the settler has scared away the wolves with the first blow of his axe.” In these territories, US emigrants would be in larger numbers and could mold the social environment to their standards, as they would be building a new society from scratch. In the Amazon, on the other hand, emigrants found themselves in an already well-established society that would not be easily changed by the presence of a small number of US citizens. Like Maury and Hastings before him, Steere saw both the US West and the Amazon as wilderness territories in need of civilization. The axe, again, became a symbol of US dominance over nature. This conquest also implied the displacement of impediments to such progress, whether they were wolves or indigenous people.

PICTURE

The most extensive published piece of writing regarding the confederado colony in Santarém is found in the book Brazil: The Amazons and the Coast. The US scientist Herbert Smith (1851-1919) published the work in 1879. Originally from New York, he eventually moved to Alabama, and spent a significant amount of time in Brazil. Smith’s book recounts his time spent in the vicinity of Santarém during the years between 1874 and 1875, “collecting and studying Amazonian animals.” Smith was just one of many US citizens who continued to show great interest in the Amazon, motivated, as outsiders had long been, by purposes that ranged beyond well beyond the collection of scientific specimens.

The chapter entitled “American Farmers on the Amazons” is dedicated to describing the ex-Confederate colonists’ lives in the Santarém area. Smith’s chapter strives to explain why the colony’s numbers diminished so quickly after its foundation. In addition, Smith also addresses the long-discussed issue of the Amazon, its potential as a region, and possible projects to occupy it. This was a question that had preoccupied various US writers long before ex-Confederate colonization. Similar to the early detractors of the colony, the circumstances of the US colonists whose lives he witnessed during some time, proved to him that the Amazon remained a region not well-suited to US whites. However, Smith’s chapter does tell a story of success against all odds on the part of some immigrants. It also cautions about an inhospitable territory and a portion of immigrants who were unsuited to inhabit and cultivate it.

At the time of his stay in Santarém, Smith claims there were about fifty US residents who had emigrated because “people who lost everything were willing enough to begin again on new soil.” Smith attempts to lay the blame for what he views as the failure of the colony and the reduction of its population on the qualities of the US immigrants. He writes that none of the ex-confederate colonies in Brazil were “very successful” but that Santarém’s was “badly made up in the outset; with a few good families there came a rabble of lazy vagabonds, offscourings of the army and vagrants from Mobile, who looked upon the affair as a grand adventure.” Smith saw the pursuit of new lives outside the US as noble and worthwhile, but believed that it had been sabotaged by such people as the immigrants to Santarém that he describes above. The presence of those who were not dedicated to working hard to achieve success in the colony tainted the colony’s overall value.

As Smith saw it, Santarém’s local Brazilian population had originally been willing and enthusiastic hosts, but lost respect for the immigrant community because of its negative elements. According to him, “after a little the good people became disgusted with their guests, who quarreled incessantly and filled the town with drunken uproar. Government aid for the colony was withdrawn; gradually the scum floated away, leaving the memory of their worthlessness to injure the others.” It was left to the “the few families that remained” to “outlive public opinion,” a difficult task, writes Smith, given the “poverty on one side and ill-will on the other.” In doing so, he presented a brief history of a failed colony that had failed to live up to the expectations of Brazilians desirous of hard-workers who would alter the Amazonian landscape.

It took time, according to him, for locals to realize that those who remained “were not vagabonds” and to respect “their industry and perseverance,” but these colonists were ultimately successful in changing how they were perceived of by locals. The result was that at the time of the writing of his book, Smith claims that “all through the Amazons, you will hear nothing but good words of the Santarem colony.” Those who remained, according to Smith, were hard-working, resourceful people who had managed to make do in difficult circumstances.

Smith offers vivid descriptions of various US colonists’ lives based on his time in the colony. Though he changes the colonists’ names, his accounts of the colonists provide interesting insight into the colonists’ lives at the time of his travels there in the mid-1870s, under ten years before the first settlement. The first colonist he discusses is “Mr. Platt” who takes Smith to his home outside of the city of Santarem via wagon. Smith’s description of his time with Platt allows him to weigh in on one of the tropes of the ex-Confederate settlement in Brazil in general: the introduction of new technology by confederados to the Brazilian landscape. Smith writes that Platt’s wagon was a novelty there. When Smith sets forth in Platt’s wagon, he writes that “bare-legged boys come out to stare” at the “wonder” and “noteworthy spectacle.

It had been a struggle to get the wagon to Santarém in the first place. Platt had ordered the wagon from his former state of Tennessee. Brazilian authorities ignored the law that allowed tax exemptions for agricultural tools and Platt had had to pay just as much in taxes as he had paid for the wagon itself. Smith labels this “extortion” to which Platt had no means of legal redress given his lack of sufficient wealth to pay legal expenses. Platt complains about the injustice of the Brazilian state’s careless disregard for the law.

According to Smith, the struggles that Platt faced transformed him into a farmer who was “careworn, and a little discouraged.” Smith describes the land where Platt’s home was located as beautiful, but as unsuitable to his needs, a situation that was worsened by the difficulty of gaining access to the tools necessary to cultivate the land. Platt aimed to own a large-scale sugarcane plantation, which was impossible due to the small size of the stream that ran through his land. Platt had initially used a “rough wooden mill” to grind cane before he could afford to purchase an iron one from the US at double the price of what they would cost in the US. In addition, Platt claims that he is taken advantage of by traders in Santarém who paid him below the market price for the produce he sells. According to Platt, all the colonists had taken it upon themselves to cultivate sugarcane, which was converted into rum and sold in Santarem. Smith describes the rum-making business as undesirable for the confederados. He describes the negative impact alcohol consumption has on Indians and claims that it is even worse on black people. Ultimately, then, though many colonists had found a means of making profit, it involved participating in a less than desirable activity that contributed to what Smith saw as the social ills of the area.

The choice of sugarcane had developed out of the need for the colonists to cultivate a fast-growing crop due to the limited funds with which they arrived in Brazil. According to Platt, while the colonists were still being housed by the government and were being fed by government rations, they struggled with “utter poverty.” When Platt could afford to, he bought a small piece of land with a dozen fruit trees, located six miles from the city, and housed his family under a rough shed before building the thatched house. Due to his poverty, Platt had been slow to acquire “horses, oxen, carts, casks” and even to be able to pay a single Indian laborer to work for him.

Smith compares the difficulties that Platt underwent to that of an immigrant to the US. He writes that in the US an immigrant can usually find some kind of employment, as well as acquire the tools and machinery he needs close to his home and at a low price. The confederados in Santarém, on the other hand, “were brought face to face with the matted forest,” which had many implications. Smith articulates several consequences of this fact. One was that if the colonists wanted to find employment in the service of others, they would have no choice but to receive the low wages paid to Indians. Another was that the market for goods the southerners produced was unreliable. If the colonists needed machinery, the only useful machinery that they could access was that which they themselves had brought from the US, and if they lacked the funds to buy tools and provisions, they were forced to mortgage their crops in advance. Platt, according to Smith, had been “his own carpenter, mason machinist, everything.

Seven years of “hard struggle” had yielded poor results, and Platt’s situation was representative of the general difficulty of being an immigrant in Brazil. The challenges were not to be blamed on the land; instead, Smith argued that it was something akin to a cultural issue. Smith made a distinction between Brazil and “the [US and European] West” where men worked with other men and there was a “division of labor.” On the Amazon, on the other hand, “a poor man has only himself to depend upon; he is in a stagnant pool, a standstill country.” Before Smith, US writers had worried that white people were unfit for life and work in the Amazon. This concern figured centrally in Smith’s mind, as he too saw the US colonist as fundamentally disadvantaged in the region: “your immigrant cannot live as the Indians do, because he has not the woodcraft, the training from childhood to a wild life, of the brown workman.” The kind of life that was the norm in the Amazon was “wild” and not civilized as the life of the white man at home in the US was.

In addition to economic disadvantages, Smith argued that immigrants were “deprived of all social advantages” like a proper education, a complaint “Mrs. Platt” voiced to Smith. Another social disadvantage was the absence of Protestant institutions that made it almost impossible for the colonists to attend a Protestant church service. US citizens struggled to live according to their values and needs given that, at least in one direction, the “American plantations are the farthest limits of civilization” in the area.Beyond these limits, were “wild Indians” who Smith claimed no one had ever seen” in contrast to “the tame Indians” who were “harmless enough—good, simple people who stand very much in awe of the whites” and “never aspire to better their condition.

Smith mentions the figure of the Indian again when discussing his time spent at another US farm owned by “Mr. Ray,” located in an US settlement Diamantina, two or three miles away from Platt. Though he claims Ray’s farm is faring better than most of the other colonists’ businesses, he writes that “the drunken Indian at the still” proves that Ray is not living the “romantic dream” one might be inclined to believe he is based on the beauty of his home. Smith uses the figure of the drunken Indian to evoke a sense of failure; Ray, though successful in his economic pursuits, had not totally succeeded in overcoming his circumstances – a region populated by inferior peoples prone to drunkenness. The “romantic dream” is a reference to material that circulated in the US before the Confederate emigration movement. Here, Smith explicitly mentions Wallace’s book. In it, he writes, among other observations, that in Santarém there are “many persons who live an idle life, entirely supported by the labours of a few slaves which they have inherited.” The US lives that Smith witnessed, on the other hand, were full of challenges, especially in the realm of labor. Besides for Rhome, perhaps, their lives were not idle, as Wallace’s description promised.

The absence of institutions such as schools and churches to which Southerners were accustomed made life in the Amazon too challenging to endure. Smith visits another US farmer – “Mr. Brown” – who complains about this. As Smith sums it up, Brown suffered from “increasing hard work for a bare subsistence, and no schools or society, or hope for the future” and wished “with all his heart” that he were back home in Tennessee.

An article entitled published in 1887 in the Pitsburgh Post-Gazette entitled “A Lazy People” echoed this complaint. The article’s author David Fulton focuses on depicting Brazilians’ inability to develop the Amazon. The article is advertised as a “description of life along the Amazon River,” using Santarém as an example of a “typical city.”In a section entitled “the only drawback,” Fulton states that the US citizens who had arrived in 1867 were doing “pretty well, but complain of lack of society and a church.” This, according to Fulton, was a “serious drawback to residence in this part of the world.” The confederados also complained about the “neglect” of the Protestant Church in the US. The article argues that due to the presence of fifty confederados in Santarém as well as a Brazilian population that does not often attend church, some of whom, however, “take Protestant papers” would be a “great field for missionary work.

Fulton then turns to the crux of his argument: that Brazil is made up of essentially lazy people and requires US industry in order to progress. He writes that the Brazilians “are all very slow” and that the “the great need of Brazil is a little capital, with Americans to push it along.” The interactions between US citizens and Brazilians in Santarém proved to Fulton that Brazilians had become dependent on the confederados. As he saw it, “these people eat American bread ravenously, but won’t make it for themselves. An American is supposed to be able to do anything here. If there are any sewing machines or clocks out of repair he is immediately called in to fix them.” In addition to bread and machine repair, milk production was another area in which Fulton noted a lack of work ethic. According to him, milk was “unknown” in Santarém “simply because the people won’t milk the cows.

In Smith’s work, too, labor figured as a central concern. The acquisition of labor was proving to be more complicated for the colonists than they had been led to believe by emigration propaganda. The colonists were largely dependent on indigenous labor, which Smith portrays as often unreliable. He writes that “the Indian laborers are almost the only help that the colonists can get; they are willing enough, but very unreliable; restraint is irksome to them” and are prone to go off hunting or fishing without their employer’s permission after receiving payment. There was a plus side, however, as, according to Smith, the Indian laborers’ mentalities towards work had changed for the better since the confederados’ arrival; “the forest people” were finally learning to “see the value of constant employment.” Before the arrival of the US influence, then, indigenous laborers did not value labor as they should, according to Smith. The presence of the confederados had made possible a change for the better in the Amazonian approach to labor.

The next stop on Smith’s tour of the US colony is the “May” household, five miles away from Platt’s.Smith describes May as a “Methodist clergyman” from Mississippi who “had a ready capability for all kinds of work” and was “the very best man that could be chosen for a pioneer.” Smith writes that after some time establishing his farm, May returned to the US to procure machinery and tools. Smith considers May and Ray the colony’s most successful members, but credits their success, in part, with the fact that they arrived separately from Hastings’ group. For Smith, these men had achieved success because they would have succeeded anywhere, though he maintains that “in nine cases out of ten” “an American will be happier in his own country than he will in any other.

Smith goes on to finish his account of the US colonists with detailed descriptions of Rhome, one of the most prominent of the colonists. Of Rhome’s home he writes that “at the end of twelve years” it had “become the finest on the Amazons.” Smith describes the bustle of house servants when he arrives, including “three or four negroes” who carry his luggage.445 He mentions that Rhome’s plantation is jointly owned by the Baron of Santarem, and claims that the plantation was not doing well before Rhome’s arrival. According to Smith, beforehand, labor was wasted and a very small portion of the land was being cultivated. Rhome’s takeover, instead, meant that better machinery was being used, including, again, the “wonderful novelty” that was the plow. Rhome’s success, though rare and a “luxury,” proved to Smith “what intelligent labor can do here.”It is significant that Smith depicts the plantation as having been a failure before Rhome’s arrival. Central to the improvements brought by Rhome is the use of slave and non-white labor. In the plantation’s mill-house, Smith wrote that there were “half a dozen stalwart negroes” at work, while another 15 to 20 people were employed in tobacco production. Smith does not limit himself to describing the kind of labor that Rhome employs in his endeavors; instead, he also comments on the characteristics of the black slaves he observes.

Smith ascribes negative qualities onto the slaves that simultaneously express how their suitability for work in the Amazon. He describes one scene that he witnesses of black women preparing tobacco in the following way: “I see here only a number of decidedly ugly faces, and brown or black arms, with not over-clean sacks and skirts” In addition to possessing “ugly faces,” to Smith, they also possess the true level of strength necessary for successful labor in the region. At another point, Smith writes: “look at that great negro, recalling the Discobolus with his brawny arms, as he twists the tobacco-roll; but the Discobolus is only still, white marble; this man is living flesh and blood, with a dash of equatorial glow thrown into his dark skin.” Smith also attended a dance hosted by Rhome at his home that he describes as traditionally Amazonian and that “could only originate in the fertile brain of a negro.” His time spent at Rhome’s plantation, then, is confirmation for Smith of what previous US writings had declared about the region and the types of people that were and were not meant to live there and cultivate its land. By invoking the “equatorial glow” of black men’s skin, he implies the “natural” suitability of black labor in contrast to that of white labor, thus supporting the necessity of the dependence of the US colonists on black labor.

Smith concludes his chapter on the “American farmer” by asking if the Amazon “is an inviting field for American enterprise” and, in particular, whether it “is fitted for profitable farming.” His answer is mixed. On the one hand, like the US writers before him, Smith claimed that the Amazon was one of the world’s most fertile agricultural regions. Brazil’s northern regions had more agricultural potential than its southern ones, he argued, and any previous or current failure to live up to this potential was the result of a lack of labor and high export duties. Smith remained hopeful that northern Brazil would gain the proper prominence, especially due to its closer proximity to US and European markets.

Standing in the way of Smith’s dream for a prosperous Amazon region cultivated by US citizens was a battle between man and nature. For him, it was remarkable that he could even designate the Amazon worthy of being the target of US business ambition, given the “barbarous laws that govern settlers.” As Smith saw it, it was obvious that the region was naturally meant to be home to an “agricultural community” but Brazilian law prohibited it from realizing its true destiny. He writes that “man steps in with his stupid laws and blocks the garden gate.” The obstacles were many, ranging from bureaucratic impediments to full land ownership, the high cost of shipping, and the normalized, albeit illegal, taxation of imported machinery and equipment.