Against the Empire
Despite monarchist's revisionism, the Empire was not a time of prosperity in Brazil
1) The Brazilian income per capita fell behind North America and Western Europe during the 19th century. Between 1930 and 1980, Brazil had a GDP growth much higher than the growth of developed countries, but the huge income gap was built in the 19th century
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10652.pdf 2) Argentina started to become rich in the last third of the 19th century. Brazil lagged behind
3) While Argentina was already starting a mass literacy program, more than 70% of the Brazilian adults were illiterated in the end of the 19th century
4) Brazil had its first university in 1920. Mexico and Peru have universities since the 17th century
5) No national system of railways was built in Brazil during the Empire. There were only some lines going from the countryside to the coast
6) The supporters of the Empire say that the Royal Family was against slavery. So, they were not competent. Latin American republics abolished slavery until the 1850s. Brazil abolished slavery only in 1888
7) The monarchists say that the empire was a time of "political stability". Well, if you consider that the emperor was the ruler, the "political stability" means "autocracy". If you consider that the prime ministers were the rulers, there was no "political stability". There was one prime minister for an average of two years. Like Italy in the 20th century.
I don't want my country ruled by a Portuguese/Austrian/French royal family
Poll
