Three important differences between Brazil and US.
First, Brazil's abolition was national because slavery was legal everywhere. Thus the end of slavery could be part of a national agenda
Second, Brazil ended slavery after the US had; and by 1888 it was all alone in the Western Hemisphere.   It is hard to know if Brazil would have ended slavery if it was still strong and viable in the US (ie:  no civil war)
Third, while Brazil is no racial paradise, the nation was not as obsessed with race as the US, there was no presumption of servitude (as existed in the US) for all blacks.  There was a large free black population and a very large mixed race population.

========================================

Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law 
Albany Law School 
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208

518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)

[log in to unmask]
www.paulfinkelman.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] The Peculiar Institution's End Without The Intervention Of The Civil War

We also have the example of the other big slaveholding republic, Brazil. It didn't abolish slavery until 1888 when it did so without a civil war. That it remained as the last slave country, of course, played a big part. And like the South, the agricultural labor arrangements retained dependency far into the 20th century. Nevertheless, Sao Paulo, where slavery had been important, was well on its way to becoming an industrial powerhouse by the late 19th century.

Jim Hershman

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html