Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T01:20:30.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Brazil and the Post-Versailles World: Elite Images and Foreign Policy Strategy, 1919–1929

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Stanley E. Hilton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 1920s remain a relatively neglected period in Brazilian historiography despite a recent boom in the study of contemporary Brazilian history and despite the intrinsic importance of that era.1 The post-war years constituted a watershed in the evolution of Brazilian culture, for example, as poets, novelists, artists and other pensants rejected further imitation of foreign models.2 The effervescence in the cultural sphere found ample resonance in political life; indeed, during the 1920s republican institutions were perhaps more seriously questioned than at any time since the early 1890s. The establishment of the Communist Party (1922) and the phenomenon of tenentismo were the most obvious manifestations of the erosion of the national consensus.3 The absence of an extensive body of scholarly literature on these subjects notwithstanding, their general configuration is at least familiar. One neglected field of inquiry, however, is foreign policy, the subject of this article. The aim of this exploratory probe is not to survey Brazil's diplomatic relations during the period; rather, the central analytical focus here is on the linkage between elite images and foreign policy strategy, the underlying premise being that policy decisions depend upon how policy-makers view their external environment.4

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , November 1980 , pp. 341 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The brief literature on the period is discussed in Skidmore, Thomas E., ‘The Historiography of Brazil, 1889–1964: Part I,’ Hispanic American Historical Review, (HAHR), Vol. 55 (11 1975), pp. 716–48; ‘The Historiography of Brazil, 1889–1964: Part II,’ HAHR, Vol. 56 (February 1976), pp. 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 On cultural nationalism in the 1920s, see Brito, Mario da Silva, História do modernismo brasileiro: antecedentes da semana de arte moderna (3rd ed., Rio de Janeiro, 1971);Google ScholarNist, John, The Modernist Movement in Brazil (Austin, 1967).Google ScholarSkidmore, , Black into White: Race and Nationality in Brazilian Thought (New York, 1974 pp. 274–79, is a brief discussion of the politico-literary ferment of the times and cites further secondary references.Google Scholar

3 Alexander, Robert J., ‘Brazilian “Tenentismo”,’ HAHR, Vol. 36 (05 1956), pp. 229–42;Google ScholarMacaulay, Neil, The Prestes Column: Revolution in Brazil (New York, 1794);Google ScholarChilcote, Ronald H., The Brazilian Communist Party: Conflict and Integration 1922–1972 (New York, 1974), pp. 25–33;Google ScholarDulles, John W. F., Anarchists and Communists in Brazil, 1900–1935 (Austin, 1973), pp. 99–444. For a recent bibliography on the subject of tenentismo, see Centro de Pesquisa e Documentação de História Conteniporânea, Tenentismo (Rio de Janeiro, 1978).Google Scholar

4 The literature on the linkage between perceptions or images and political behavior is extensive. See, for example, Boulding, Kenneth E., The image: Knowledge in Life and Society (Ann Arbor, 1956), passim;Google ScholarBoulding, , ‘National Images and International Systems,’ Journal of Conflict Resolution, No. 3 (06 1959), pp. 120– 31;Google Scholarde Rivera, Joseph H., The Psychological Dimension of Foreign Policy (Columbus, Ohio, 1968);Google ScholarFrankel, Joseph, The Making of Foreign Policy (London, 1963)Google Scholar and Jervis, Robert, The Logic of Images in international Relations (Princeton, 1970).Google Scholar

5 Ambassador Domício da Gama (London) to Ministério das Relaçōes Exteriores (henceforth MRE), 5 June 1923, Arquivo Histórico do Itamaraty (henceforth AHI), volume 219/2/15; Major Estevão Leitão de Carvaiho (Paris) to Foreign Minister Felix Pacheco, October 23, 1923, AHI 274/2/1. Where no AHI volume is given, the reference is to AHI microfilm in the author's possession.Google Scholar

6 Epitácio Pessoa (Paris) to MRE, 1 February 1919, Ministério da Educação e Cultura, Instituto Nacional do Livro, Obras Completas de Epitácio Pessoa, Vol. 14 (Rio de Janeiro, 1961), p. 8. Cf. Consul Hélio Lobo (Paris) to MRE, February 2, 1919, AHI 273/2/19.Google Scholar

7 Calógeras, Ministro da Guerra Joāo Pandia, Relatório apresentado ao Presidente da Rcpública… 1920 (Rio, 1920), p. 7.Google Scholar

8 Amb. Raul Regis de Oliveira (Paris) to MRE, 14 October 1922, AHI 274/2/1.Google Scholar

9 Admiral Carlos Souza e Silva (Paris) to Pacheco, 15 April 1924, AHI 274/2/2; Amb. Afrânio de Melo Franco (Geneva) to MRE, September 1925, AHI 274/2/13; MRE (Ronald de Carvalho), Relatório reservado sobre a política exterior do Brasil e dos países da America do Sul, mimeo, 4 May 1927, AHI.Google Scholar

10 Captain Aníbal do Amaral Gama to President Artur Bernardes, 6 July 1923, AHI 2.983.Google Scholar

11 General Augusto Tasso Fragoso (Estado-Maior do Exército), memorandum, n.d. [1926], AHI 274/2/10.Google Scholar

12 Melo Franco to Pacheco, draft report, [n.d.] 1923, Afrâ.nio de Melo Franco Papers, Biblioteca Nacional, Rio de Janeiro; Melo Franco to MRE, 29 February, 2926, AHI); Leito de Carvaiho (Geneva) to Pacheco, 22 March 1926, AHI 274/2/10.Google Scholar

13 Heitor Lyra (London) to Armando Gaioso, January 1, 1924,Google Scholar in Lyra, , Minha Vida Diplomática: Coisas Vistas e Ouvidas, 1916–1925 (Lisbon, 1972), p. 626.Google Scholar

14 See, for example, Brazilian minister (Berlin) to MRE, 13 June, 30 August 1923, (AHI 203/1/8; Brazilian amb. (Paris) to MRE, 8 January 1924, AHI 226/4/2: Souza e Silva (Paris) to Pacheco, March 1925, AHI 274/2/6.Google Scholar

15 Burns, Unwritten Alliance, pp. 183–6;Google ScholarLivermore, Seward W., ‘Battleship Diplomacy in South America, 1905–1925,’ Journal of Modern History, Vol. 16 (03 1944), 32–40.Google Scholar

16 British Amb. Sir John Tilley (Rio) to Foreign Office, 12 December 1922, Records of the Foreign Office (henceforth RFO), Doc. A57/57/51.Google Scholar

17 Potash, Robert A., The Army & Politics in Argentina, 1928–1945 (Stanford, 1969), p. 8.Google Scholar

18 Brazilian amb. (Buenos Aires) to MRE, 3 November 1923, AHI 206/4/11; 7 October 1925, AHI 207/1/10; 23 July 7926, AHI 207/2/2; 1 October, 23 November 1926, AHI 207/2/3; MRE to Ministrio da Guerra, 12 July 1927, AHI 300/2/1; Brazilian amb. (London) to MRE, 8 February 1928, AHI 258/3/I; Brazilian minister (Prague) to MRE, 27 February 1928, AHI 228/1/3; EstadoMaior do Exército, memorandum (‘Informaçōes syntheticas sobre o Poder Militar, naval e aéreo da Argentina, 1927’), n.d. [1927–1928], AHI 4.161.Google Scholar

19 U.S. minister (Asunción) to Department of State, September 1922, National Archives (Washington) [henceforth NA], Record Group [henceforth RG] 59, General Records of the Department of State, Doc. 732.34/2.Google Scholar

20 See, for example, Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE, 29 February, 15 July 1929, AHI 202/3/20; 23 February 1924, AHI 202/3/22; Brazilian legation (La Paz) to MRE, 22 September 1923, AHI 211/3/8; 32 December 1925, AHI 211/3/10.Google Scholar

21 Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE, 5 October 1925, AHI 201/3/12; 9 March 1927, AHI 201/3/13; Brazilian legation (La Paz) to MRE, i October 1927, AHI 211/4/4; 1 January 1929, AHI 211/4/7; 8 January 1930, AHI 211/4/9.Google Scholar

22 Tasso Fragoso, memo (‘Ligeiras Reflexões do Estado-Maior do Exército sobre a situação militar do Brasil, especialmente em comparaccedil;ão com a da Argentina’), December [13], 1922, AHI 2.975. Tasso Fragoso was a former military attaché in Buenos Aires and had called public attention to Argentina's superior mobilization capacity on the eve of the First World War. de Alencar Araripe, Tristao, Tasso Fragoso: Urn poaco de história do nosso exército (Rio, 1960), pp. 244–5. For an authoritative public commentary in the 1920S on the disparity in the two countries’ military capabilities,Google Scholar see Duval, Armando, A Argentina: poténcia militar (2 vols., Rio, 1922). Major Duval had recently served as military attaché in Argentina.Google Scholar

23 Amaral Gama to Melo Franco, 16 March 1925, Melo Franco Papers; Admiral José Maria Penido, memo, n.d. [1928], José Carlos de Macedo Soares Papers, Instituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro, Rio. Macedo Soares headed Brazil's delegation to the Geneva Disarmament Conference in 1932 and served as foreign minister during 1934–1936.Google Scholar

24 Silva, Egydio Moreira de Castro e, A Margern do Ministério Caidgeras (Rio, n.d. [1962]), pp. 52–85; Pessoa, ‘Mensagein apresentada ao Congresso Nacional. 1920,’ ‘Mensagem… 1921,’ ‘Mensagem… 1922,’ inGoogle ScholarObras Completas, Vol. XVII (Rio, 1956), pp. 112–13, 282, 449;Google ScholarBernardes, , Mensagem… 1923 (Rio, 1923), pp. 54, 60, 81–8;Google ScholarMensagem… 1924 (Rio, 1924), pp. 110–18; Mensagem… 1925 (Rio, 1925), pp. 99–200; Mensagem… 1926 (Rio, 1926), p. 152.Google Scholar

25 See, for example, O Jornal, 8 September, 22 September 2926; Assis Chateaubriand, ‘Pela efficincia do poder naval do Brasil,’ O Jornal (16 September 1926); editorial ‘Segurança Nacional,’ O Paiz (Rio), 20–32 May 1927; Alberto Regio Lins, ‘Politica sul-americana,’ Correio da Manhã (Rio), 26 June 1927.Google Scholar

26 General Maurice Gamelin's devastatingly critical report is cited in de Carvalho, Estevao Leitão, Mernórias de um soldado legalista, Tomo II (Rio, 1962), pp. 58–9. For comments on the French Mission's work,Google Scholar see (General) Bastos, Joaquim Alves, Encontro com o tempo (Porto Alegre, 1965), pp. 35–40.Google Scholar

27 Gamelin, Maurice, Le probléme de la défense nationale au Brésil (Rio, 1922), pp. 14, 22; Tilley to Foreign Office, 5 February 1923, RFO A1136/57/51; British embassy (Rio) to Foreign Office, RFO A3138/172/51.Google Scholar

28 U.S. Military attaché (Rio) to War Department, 30 July 1925, 5 March 1926, NA, RG 165, Records of the War Dept. General Staff, docs. 2006–62, 1744–23.Google Scholar

29 Regis de Oliveira (Paris) to MRE, 14 October 1922, AHI 274/2/1; Ruy Barbosa to Pacheco, 30 November 1922, AHI 3.013; Pacheco to DomIcio da Gama (London), 30 December 1922, AHI 219/3/4; Melo Franco to Pacheco, 20 April 1923, AHI 273/3/16. On the Spanish-American attitude toward Brazil's claim to a permanent seat on the League Council, see Melo Franco to Pacheco, 18 May 1926, AHI 274/3/1; Pacheco to Brazilian minister (Montevideo), 29 May 1926, AHI 224/3/14; Melo Franco to Afrânio Melo Franco Filho, October 1927, Afrânio Melo Franco Filho Papers (private), Rio; Leitão de Carvaiho to Pacheco, 21 March 1926, AHI 274/2/10. Melo Franco's bitterness in this regard was enduring. See Melo Franco to Pacheco, February 1929, Felix Pacheco Papers (Private), Rio.Google Scholar

30 Amaral Gama to Bernardes, 6 July 1923, AHI 2.983; Tasso Fragoso, memorandum ‘Parecer sobre o Questionário…’, n.d. [1926], AHI 274/2/10; Ministério da Marinha to MRE, 1 November 1927, AHI 304/2/10.Google Scholar

31 Souza e Silva (Geneva) to Pacheco, 21 April 1925, AHI 274/2/7.Google Scholar

32 Souza e Silva, memorandum (‘A situacão sul-Americana’), August [?], 1918, AHI 2.981; Memória sobre a indicacão do Porto Militar e das Bases Nauais […] (Rio 1923), p. 42; letter to Pacheco, 22 April 1926, Pacheco Papers. Mi da Marinha to MRE, 16 October 1923, AHI 304/2/9; Brazilian embassy (Buenos Aires) to MRE, 3 November 1923, AHI 206/4/11; Brazilian naval attaché (Santiago) to Min. da Marinha, in Min da Marinha to MRE, 12 November 1927, 304/2/10; MRE (Ronald de Carvaiho), Relatório reservado…, 4 May 1927.Google Scholar

34 Graham, Richard, Britain and the Onset of Modernization in Brazil, 1850–1914 (New York, 1972);Google ScholarBrunn, Gerhard, Deutschland und Brasilien, 1880–1914 (Cologne, 1971).Google Scholar

35 Foreign Office to Brazilian Ambassador, 28 January 1979, AHI 278/3/1. On Brazil's participation in the war, see Martin, Percy A., Latin America and the War (Baltimore, 1925), pp. 30–106.Google Scholar

36 Pessoa (Paris) to MRE, 11 March, 28 April 1919, Obras, XIV, 79–20, 33;Google ScholarPessoa, , Mensagem … 1920 (Rio, 1920), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

37 Brazilian ambassador (Paris) to MRE, 21 January 1920, AHI 226/3/6.Google Scholar

38 Domício da Gama to MRE, 12 October 1922, AHI 274/2/1; Consul General Hélio Lobo (New York) to MRE, 8 April 1923, AHI 15/4/3.Google Scholar

39 Bernardes, Mensagem… 1924, p. 87; Souza e Silva to Pacheco, March, 11 March, 24 1925, AHI 274/2/6, 274/2/7; Hildebrando Acioly (Geneva) to Pacheco, 6 October 1925, Acioly Papers.Google Scholar

40 Pacheco to Domício da Gama, 29 March, 20 June 1923, AHI 219/3/4; Pacheco to Melo Franco, 24 1925, AHI.Google Scholar

41 Ambassador Edwin Morgan (Rio) to Dept. of State, 23 September 1923, 1 October 1924, 28 May 1925, NA, RG 59, 500.Coo1/223, 266, 297; Tilley to Foreign Office, 6 July 1925, RFO W7273/1993/98.Google Scholar

42 de Melo Franco, Afonso Arinos, Um Estadista da República: Afrânio de Melo Franco e seu tempo (3 vols., Rio, 1955), III, 1163–1272. For additional insights into the episode, which was an exercise in presidential diplomacy,Google Scholar see Amado, Gilbert, Presença na Política (2nd ed., Rio, 1960), pp. 295–300. Amado was then a member of the Finance Committee of the Chamber of Deputies.Google Scholar

43 Morgan to Dept. of State, 11 June 1926, NA, RG 59, 500.C112/295.Google Scholar

44 de Oliveria, Yves, Otavio Mangabeira: Alma e Voz da República (Rio, 1971), pp. 507–9, 303–7.Google Scholar

45 Villela, Annibal and Suzigan, Wilson, Politica do governo e crescirnento da econornia brasileira, 1889–1945 (Rio, 1973), p. 155.Google Scholar

46 U.S. military attaché (Rio) to War Dept., 5 March 1926, NA, RG 165, doc. 2744–23; Tasso Fragoso, [A revoluco de 1930,] in Alencar Araripe, Tasso Fragoso, p. 525.Google Scholar

47 Silva, Castro e, Calógeras, pp. 66–77; Bernardes, Mensagem… 1924, pp. 116–17; Mensagem… 1925, pp. 99–100; U.S. military attaché (Rio) to War Dept., 30 July 1925, NA RG 165, 2744–23.Google Scholar

48 U.S. military attaché (Rio) to War Dept., 5 March 1926, RG 165, doc. 2744–23.Google Scholar

49 Calógeras to MRE, 12 April, 17 August 1921, 5 May 21 October 1922, AHI 299/3/15; MRE to Brazilian amb. (Washington), 23 August 1921, AHI; Ministro da Marinha to MRE, 20 April 1922, AHI 304/2/8; Pessoa to Domício da Gama, 20 September 1922, Obras, XIV, 146.Google Scholar

50 Pacheco to Brazilian amb. (Santiago), 21 November 1922, AHI 231/4/16; Pacheco to Brazilian amb. (Buenos Aires), 24 November, 28 November 1922, AHI; Pacheco to Ruy Barbosa, 27 November 1922, AHI 3.009; Pacheco to Bernardes, 1 December 1922, AHI 3.009; Pacheco to Ministro da Guerra, 28 November 5922, AHI 300/1/13; Brazilian amb. (Buenos Aires) to MRE, 1 December, 2 December, 5 December, 7 December, 1922, AHI 208/2/I; Tilley to Foreign Office, 12 December 1922, RFO A57/57/51; 22 December 1922, RFO A428/57/51;Google ScholarExército, Estado-Maior do, A Questão dos Armamentos na Con jeréncia de Santiago-Absolutamente Secreto (Rio, 1923), Melo Franco Papers; Pacheco to Melo Franco, 1 April, 15 April, 23 April 1923, A.H., Conferncia de Santiago; Melo Franco to Pacheco, draft report, n.d. [1923], Melo Franco Papers; Souza e Silva, report, 8 June 1923, AHI 2992. The latter was the chief naval adviser to the deleganon in Santiago.Google Scholar

51 Penido (Geneva) to MRE, 26 April 1921, AHI 226/3/8; 15 July 1922, AHI 274/2/I; MRE to Domício da Gama, 11 September 1922, AHI 274/2/4; DomIcio da Gama (Geneva) to MRE, 52 September 1922, AHI 274/2/3; Souza e Silva (Rome) to MRE, nd. February 1924, AHI 274/2/2; Pacheco to Melo Franco, 23 June 1925, AHI 274/2/11; Unsigned memorandum (‘Opinião Naval Brasileira sobre a Limitação dos Armamentos’), n.d. [1926], Pacheco Papers; Souza e Silva (Paris) to Ministério da Marinha, 24 April 1926, Pacheco Papers; Souza e Silva to Pacheco, 2 May 1926, AHI 274/2/10; Amaral Gama, report, 28 July 1926, AHI 322/4/7; Leitão de Carvalho, report, 26 July 1926, AHI 322/4/7. Leito de Carvaiho, Memórias, deals mainly with the author's work in League disarmament debates.Google Scholar

52 Pacheco to Brazilian amb. (Santiago), 1 April 1923, AHI.Google Scholar

53 Pacheco to Brazilian amb. (Buenos Aires), n.d. 1923, AHI 2.993.Google Scholar

54 Pacheco to Brazilian amb. (Buenos Aires), 11 September, 20 November 1924, AHI.Google Scholar

55 Foreign Minister Otávio Mangabeira, memorandum, 19 December 1927, AHI 32.804; Mangabeira to Raúl Fernandes (Habana), 2 February 1928, AHI 293/3/18.Google Scholar

56 MRE, Relatório… 1928, Volume I (Rio, 1929), xviii–xix; Acioly, memorandum, 15 May 1928, AHI 33.056.Google Scholar

57 Pacheco to Brazilian amb. (Santiago), 8 January 1923, AHI.Google Scholar

58 Brazilian amb. (Buenos Aires) to MRE, January, 2, 1920, AHI 206/4/3. Cf. Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE, 11 April 1919, AHI 201/3/10; 22 November 1921, ART 201/3/11; 10 January 1923, AHI 201/3/12.Google Scholar

59 MRE to Brazilian legation (Asunción), 19 March 1919, AHI 202/1/4; Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE, 24 February 1924, ART 201/3/12; Ministro da Guerra, to MRE, 15 May 1926, ART 299/3/17; Brazilian minister (La Paz) to MRE, 31 December 1925, ART 211/3/10; Brazilian amb. (Buenos Aires), 26 November 1926, ART 207/2/3; Acioly, ‘Ainda a Ligação Ferrovilfria corn a Bolcvia,’ O Jornal, 1 November 1924.Google Scholar

60 MRE to Ministério da Viação, 26 April 1918, ART 305/2/15; MRE to Brazilian legation (Asunción), 59 March 1919, AHI 202/1/4; Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE, April 15, 1920, AHI 202/3/10; decree 4741, 3 January 1922, Didrio Oficial, 8 January 1922; MRE, Relatório… 1922 (Rio, 1922), annex C, p. 7; Relatório… 1923 (2 vols., Rio, 1924), 1, 202; Ministério da Viação to MRE 24 December 1926, AHI 202/1/5; Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE 18 October 1927, AHI 201/3/15.Google Scholar

61 MRE to Ministério da Viação, 6 June AHI 305/2/15; Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE, September 18, September 28, AHI 202/4/1.Google Scholar

62 Estanislau Bousquet to MRE, n.d. [1922], AHI 332/3/37. Bousquet was a civil engineer charged with studying the projected railroad route.Google Scholar

63 Brazilian amb. (Buenos Aires) to MRE, 7 January 1922, AHI 208/2/1; Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE, 21 September 1923, 10 August 1924, AHI 211/3/8; 31 December 1925, AHI 211/3/10; Acioly, ‘Ainda a Ligação Ferroviária.’Google Scholar

64 For correspondence on the subject, see AHI 211/4/4, 211/4/5, 211/4/6, 211/4/7, 211/4/8.Google Scholar

65 Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE, 19 February 1919, AHI 201/3/10; MRE to Brazilian legation (Asunción), 31 May 1922, AHI 202/1/14.Google Scholar

66 Brazilian legation (Asunción) to MRE, 6 October 1925, AHI 201/3/12; Mangabeira to Brazilian legation (Asunción), 6 June 1928, 29 January 1929, AHI 202/1/5. For the background of the Chaco conflict,Google Scholar see Rout, Leslie B. JrPolitics of the Chaco Peace Conference, 1935–1939 (Austin, 1970), pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

67 Mangabeira, circular, 18 March 1929, AHI, Circulares; Mangabeira to Brazilian legation (La Paz), 37 December 1929, ART 212/1/4.Google Scholar

68 Burns, Unwritten Alliance, passim. The quote is from p. 169.Google Scholar

69 Pessoa (Paris) to MRE 7 February 1919, AHI 273/2/9; Foreign Minister DomIcio da Gama to Secretary of State Robert Lansing, 18 April 1919, quoted in Lansing to Dept. of State, 7 June 1919, NA, RG 59, 711.32/23.Google Scholar

70 Pessoa to Woodrow Wilson, 4 July 1919, Obras, XIV, 66; Dept. of State to U.S. embassy (Rio), 18 July 1919, NA, RG 59, 71 I.32/23a. The United States at the time was engaged in keen economic competition with Great Britain in the Brazilian market.Google Scholar See Rosenberg, Emily S., ‘Anglo American Economic Rivalry in Brazil During World War I,’ Diplomatic History, 2 (Spring 1978), pp. 131–52.Google Scholar

71 Pacheco to Melo Franco, 12 April 1923, Melo Franco Papers. The United States and Brazil, one diplomat wrote, were the ‘backbone’ of New World civilization.Google ScholarLobo, Hélio, Brasilianos e Yankees (Rio, 1926), p. 367.Google Scholar

72 MRE, Relatório… 1924 (2 vols., Rio, 1925), I, 290.Google Scholar

73 Brazilian minister (Santiago) to MRE, 13 February 1923, AHI 234/4/11.Google Scholar

74 MRE memorandum, nd. [1926–1927], AHI 4.161.Google Scholar

75 Brazilian naval attaché (Washington) to President Washington Luis, 29 November 927, 26 January 1928, AHI 292/2/9. The United States provided an average of 26 percent of Brazil's imports and purchased an average of 43 percent of Brazil's exports during the 1920s.Google ScholarValla, Victor, Os Estados Unidos e a Influência Estrangeira na Economia Brasileira: Urn Período de Transição (São Paulo, 1972), p. 47.Google ScholarFor the background of U.S. commercial interest in post-war Brazil, see Burns, Unwritten Alliance, pp. 58–75, 266–7;Google ScholarHill, Lawrence F., Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Brazil (Durham, 1932), pp. 293–300.Google Scholar

76 Guedes, Mario, ‘As Tarifas Norte-Americanas,’ Jornal do Brasil (Rio), 27 September 1929.Google Scholar

77 U.S. military attaché (Rio) to War Dept., 23 May 1922, NA, RG 165, doc. 1657–K– 15; Souza e Silva (Paris) to Pacheco, 6 December 1923, AHI 274/2/1; Pacheco to Bernardes, 2 February 1925, AHI 292/2/6; Brazilian amb. (Washington) to MRE, 27 January 1927, AHI.Google Scholar

78 Brazilian minister (La Paz) to MRE, 26 October 1929, AHI 1.065.Google Scholar

79 Brazilian chargé (Washington) to MRE, 8 February 1919, AHI, encloses copies of telegraphic correspondence on the subject.Google Scholar

80 Brazilian amb. (Washington) to MRE, 2 August 1922, AHI.Google Scholar

81 Secretary of State to Morgan, 17 April 1922, Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1922 (2 vols., Washington, 1938), I, 652.Google Scholar

82 Leitão de Carvalho, Memórias.Google Scholar

83 DeConde, Alexander, Herbert Hoover's Latin American Policy (Stanford, 1951), p. 23.Google Scholar

84 See, for example, the following editorials: ‘President Pessoa,’ New York World, 20 June, 1919; ‘The Visit of Dr. Pessoa,’ New York Times, 19 June 1959; ‘The Brazilian Centenary,’ Washington Post, 30 August 1922; ‘The Colossus of the South,’ New York Herald Tribune, 23 December 1926.Google Scholar

85 Mangabeira, circular, 3 December 1927, AHI 318/2/11; Mangabeira, memorandum, 59 December 1927, AHI 32.804.Google Scholar

86 Fernandes' correspondence with Mangabeira is in AHI 273/3/8.Google Scholar

87 Mangabeira to Fernandes, so February 1928, ibid.

88 Brazilian amb. (Washington) to MRE, 23 February 1928, AHI; Mangabeira to Brazilian amb. (Washington), March 1928, AHI.Google Scholar

89 Mangabeira to Brazilian amb. (Santiago), 30 August 1928, AHI 235/4/7.Google Scholar

90 Brazilian amb. (Washington) to MRE, 5 September 1929, ART. Hoover, at least in retrospect, apparently did not see the significance in his visit that the Brazilian authorities saw. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency, 1920–1933 (New York, 1952), pp. 210–15.Google Scholar

91 See the editorials ‘Brazil's Great Progress.’ Washington Post, 6 May 1929; ‘Brazil's Election,’ Washington Post, 1 March 1930; ‘America's Neighbors,’ Washington Post, April 1930; ‘Our Brazilian Visitor,’ New York Times, 11 June 1930; ‘America Honors Brazil,’ Washington Post, 15 June 1930.Google Scholar

92 Note, for example, Washington's response to Argentine resentment over the U.S. naval mission. ‘Our naval mission to Brazil has aroused much feeling in Government circles,’ the American Ambassador in Buenos Aires reported in December 1922. ‘The Minister of the Marine states that he is bewildered by the official character of the mission and says that he is forced to regard it in the nature of an alliance… As our action seems to be an expression of ill will toward Argentina, he is deeply wounded…’ The Secretary of State hastened to assure the Argentine government that ‘the Mission does not signify in any sense an alliance between the United States and Brazil’ and that Washington would immediately cancel it ‘in the event that hostilities appear imminent between Brazil and any other country’. Foreign Relations, loc. Cit., 1922, I, 655–6.Google Scholar