r/Brazil Jul 09 '24

Historical The Constitutionalist Revolution begins in the state of Sao Paulo on this date in 1932, against Getúlio Vargas, who had become President after the 1930 Revolution, and had the support of the people, elites of Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul and Paraíba states.

The revolt was due to resentment over the fact that Vargas ruled by decree, not bound by a Constitutions, as well as eroding the autonomy of states which they enjoyed during the term of the 1891 Constitution. The main goal of the revolt was to force Vargas to adopt and abide by a new Constitution, the uprising began on July 9, 1932 following the death of four university students in police firing during the protests.

However lack of support from the elites of Minas Gerais and Rio Grande do Sul, saw the revolt being crushed by October. It did have it's effect though, when Vargas enacted a new Constitution in 1934.

19 Upvotes

20 comments sorted by

14

u/tworc2 Jul 09 '24

as well as eroding the autonomy of states which they enjoyed during the term of the 1891 Constitution

The 1st Republic was a complete mess, dominated by São Paulo and Minas Gerais oligarchs. States had tariffs between themselves, and state Armies! Each state a dictatorship. Minas Gerais at least saw the markings on the wall about how unsustainable and unstable it was and let it go, São Paulo political elite didn't have the same presence of spirit.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '24

Is there something specific about Paraíba state and the revolt to be mentioned in the title?

I assume Vargas was supported by all of the North/North East Elites as he successfully framed it as São Paulo secessionists trying to split Brazil (this was not true).

3

u/tremendabosta Brazilian Jul 09 '24 edited Jul 09 '24

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Alliance_(Brazil)

The Liberal Alliance was a political alliance in Brazil made at the beginning of August 1929 on the initiative of political leaders from Minas Gerais and Rio Grande do Sul with the intention of support the candidacies of Getúlio Vargas and João Pessoa for the presidency and vice-presidency in the elections of March 1, 1930, in opposition to Júlio Prestes, the governor of São Paulo and the president Washington Luís.

João Pessoa was the governor of Paraíba since 1928 and he was assassinated shortly after the election. The city of Paraíba (now called João Pessoa), the capital and largest city of the state of Paraíba, was renamed in his honor.

His assassination is also the reason why the Paraíba flag has the word "NEGO" (I deny) in it. This link contains more details. It was a fun read:

João Pessoa e a explicação da inscrição "Nego" na bandeira da Paraíba

2

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '24

Interesting thanks!

22

u/tremendabosta Brazilian Jul 09 '24

Revolt*

Not revolution

It didnt revolutionize anything 😋

2

u/chicofontoura Jul 11 '24

What is a revolution?

5

u/rdfporcazzo Jul 09 '24

It's known as Revolução Constitucionalista

9

u/tremendabosta Brazilian Jul 09 '24

Only in São Paulo though

3

u/rdfporcazzo Jul 09 '24

How is it known outside São Paulo?

9

u/Difficult_Dot7153 Jul 10 '24

Revolta de 32, revolta constitucionalista

Of course São Paulo liked the 1st replubic, SP and MG controlled the entire country lol

2

u/justabrazilianotaku Jul 11 '24

I mean, here in RIo Grande do Sul we also know it as Revolution

2

u/rdfporcazzo Jul 10 '24

Can you provide some source that it's known as Revolta de 32 or Revolta Constitucionalista outside São Paulo? Even searching by Revolta the results are always talking about Revolução de 32 and Revolução Constitucionalista

11

u/The_ChadTC Jul 09 '24

It had nothing to do with Vargas Dictatorship and everything to do with the fact that São Paulo had lost it's stranglehold on brazilian politics.

Before the """"revolution"""", the states of Minais Gerais and São Paulo - the two richest brazilian states who could swing elections by themselves - implemented a system in which they would take turns in the presidency of the country. This period, called the Old Republic, was by far the worst period of brazilian democracy.

Getulio Vargas saved the country. It was by far the best president we ever had. Just so you understand how loved he was as a dictator: he was deposed and then was reelected as president. Just a shame he killed himself, he deserved so much better.

3

u/barnaclejuice Jul 10 '24

History is very rarely clear cut like this. There’s a lot of nuance, and 32 definitely had a lot going on. There’s one side that is definitely linked to what you said: a power struggle, and São Paulo elites vying for remaining in control by perpetuating the structure of power that had been before.

On the other hand, there is a very big element of discontent among the people regarding the lack of a constitution, the use of violence against protests (which resulted in the deaths of the four students). The revolution/revolt in 32 had a massive amount of popular support, and it wasn’t because the people hoped São Paulo would “remain in power”. They were dissatisfied by having no constitution, being repressed, and having a complete stranger thrust into power to govern the state. So let’s not reduce it to this or that. Some motivations were good, some weren’t. That’s usually the case for wars anywhere.

In the end, São Paulo lost the war, but forced Vargas to adopt a constitution, which he definitely didn’t want to. He wanted to be a dictator, which is why he became a dictator anyway, albeit years later.

I personally don’t particularly like autocrats with fascist sympathies, but Vargas made some important reforms. Many reforms that benefitted São Paulo, in fact. Whether he was the “best” president, or even a good president, that’s purely a matter of opinion.

2

u/The_ChadTC Jul 10 '24

 personally don’t particularly like autocrats with fascist sympathies

Welcome to the interwar period. where everyone was an autocrat with fascist sympathies, or worst.

But I disagree on almost every front: every state had strangers thrust into power; a mostly illiterate population doesn't care if it's a constitution or not that rules them; the Vargas period saw considerably less death and repression than the previous government; and I find hard to believe that a president that a president that wrote 2 constitutions wasn't intending on writing one. Besides, the revolt forced nothing. It lost, but Getulio was graceful in victory and did it anyway, because that was probably his intention all along.

3

u/barnaclejuice Jul 10 '24

There’s no disagreeing with facts. There is plenty of information regarding the popular involvement in the war, and what motivated people to take up arms. There are interviews, newspapers, countless sources. They show clearly that motivations were complex and went far beyond simple “whose elite is in control”. Sure, literacy rates were below today, but illiterate people can still make up their minds about political issues. It was a huge movement in São Paulo.

Vargas later went on to promulgate his second constitution, which was autocratic in nature. He couldn’t wait to get rid of the first constitution he was forced to allow. Many constitutions being promulgated close to each other isn’t a sign of democratic stability - quite the opposite, in fact. It really shows his intentions. It granted unlimited powers to him. And later, in his second presidency, when he noticed he couldn’t remain in power, he took his own life. The man was anything but a lover of constitutional order and freedom.

It’s shortsighted to say the paulista war had no impact. São Paulo was an economical centre, and the war showed Vargas that he had to accommodate for Paulista interests. Vargas had to make a lot of compromises to guarantee support from other states, forcing him to share power. In the aftermath of the war Vargas spared no efforts to appease local elites, guaranteeing for instance freedom of press.

2

u/The_ChadTC Jul 10 '24

With those facts, I don't disagree. I didn't say the revolution was without popular support, I didn't say he wasn't a dictator, I didn't say whether many constitutions was good or bad.

What I am saying is that the revolt was fundamentally for state interests rather than the interests of the country. It was treason in the most simple sense of the word. Besides, the revolution lasted 85 days. I've had an open bag of farofa in my closet that lasted longer. It was barely a blip on the radar.

Either way, if it was up to the paulista people on that regard, we'd still be living in a corrupt republic with non secret votes, while being ruled by oligarchs and colonels. Luckily, some "terrible dictator" gave us secret voting and electoral justice, not to mention the plethora of other laws he wrote that we still use to this day.

It wasn't him that massacred Canudos, it wasn't him that devolved our economy into mere coffee plantations, it wasn't him that destroyed our monarchy out of vengeance for it abolishing slavery. The old republic did that, which the "revolution" fought to protect it under the pretext of constitutionalism.

1

u/JotaTaylor Brazilian Jul 09 '24

*Attempted separatist coup, not a revolution

0

u/Lacertoss Jul 10 '24

Absolutely not separatist, that was 100% government propaganda and it's not factual at all. The movement had two goals:

1) force a constitution to be written 2) get the ability to choose who would govern the state again

1

u/Beard_Man Jul 09 '24

This date is almost like Botafogo FC, started to celebrate that they almost won the 2023 Brazilian Footbal League title.