No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Smuggling and The “Internal Economy” of Nineteenth Century Brazil: The case of Goiás
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Extract
Until quite recently, most attention to Brazil’s agrarian history has focused on the chief export crops of sugar and coffee. This makes sense both because until the post-World War II period these were largely responsible for integrating Brazil into the world economy and because they have traditionally been the chief financial props for the elites and the central state. Exports have the advantage too of being relatively easy to study, given the availability of reports and statistics from domestic and foreign sources. But it is important to remember that exports have not been what have occupied most rural Brazilians most of the time, and this was particularly the case in the nineteenth century. Rather, their day to day activities have involved primarily the so-called “internal economy,” the production, consumption, and exchange on local, regional and, but only indirectly, national markets of food, animals, raw materials, and artisan handicrafts.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1997
References
1 See, for example, Brown, Larissa, “Internal Commerce in a Colonial Economy: Rio de Janeiro and its Hinterland, 1790–1822,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1986)Google Scholar; Linares, María Yedda, História do abastecimento: uma problemática em questão (1530–1918), (Brasilia, 1979)Google Scholar; Lenharo, Alcir, As Tropas da Moderação: o Abastecimento da Corte na Formação e Politica do Brasil, 1808–1842, (São Paulo, 1979)Google Scholar; Naro, Nancy, “Customary Rightholders and Legal Claimants to Land in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1870–1890,” The Americas (April, 1992), 485–517 Google Scholar; Castro, Hebe María Mattos de, “Beyond Masters and Slaves: Subsistence Agriculture as a Survival Strategy in Brazil During the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century,” Hispanic American Historical Review [HAHR] 68:3 (August 1988), 55–83, and Ao Sul da História: Lavradores Pobres na Crise do Trabalho Escravo (São Paulo, 1987)Google Scholar, and Candido, Antonio, Os Parceiros do Rio Bonito, (São Paulo, 1979).Google Scholar
2 The Additional Act of 1834 forbade provincial import taxes—though this was not always enforced—but was vague on the subject of export levies, and apparently most provinces charged these under the Empire.
3 Arquivo Histórico do Estado de Goiás [AHEG], Documentação Diversa, Codex [Cdx] 8, “Correspondência do Governo e Autoridades Fora da Provincia, 1808–1809,” and almost any of the annual Relatórios of the provincial presidents, from the 1830s to the 1880s.
4 On Minas Gerais agriculture in the wake of the mining boom, see Filho, Amilcar Martins and Martins, Roberto B., “Slavery in a Nonexport Economy: Nineteenth-Century Minas Gerais Revisited,” HAHR, 63:3 (August 1983), 537–568 Google Scholar and the thesis on which much of this was based: Martins, Roberto B, “Growing in Silence: The Slave Economy of Nineteenth-Century Minas Gerais, Brazil,” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1980).Google Scholar
5 Technically a league in nineteenth-century Brazil was 6,600 meters, but on the frontier measurements tended to be a bit more vague. A common definition of a league in Goiás was the distance a horse could travel in an hour.
6 Blainey, Geoffrey, The Tyranny of Distance: How Distance Shaped Australia’s History, (Melbourne, 1975).Google Scholar
7 On eighteenth-century Goiás, see Palacín, Luís, O Século de Ouro em Goiás, (4a edition, Goiânia, 1994)Google Scholar and de Salles, Gilka V. F., Escravidão na Capitania de Goiás, (Goiânia, 1992).Google Scholar Compare the graphs of gold production in Lockhart, James and Schwartz, Stuart B., Early Latin America, (Oxford, 1983), p. 376.Google Scholar
8 Martins Doles, Dalisia Elisabeth, As Communicações Fluviais pelo Tocantins e Araguaia no Século XIX, (Goiânia, 1973).Google Scholar
9 The state repeatedly, and apparently with little luck, offered tax exemptions to those who would settle along the Araguaia: See, for example, AHEG, Doc. Diversa, Cdx 150 “Registro das Leis Provinciais,” Lei N. 11,5 September, 1838.
10 Borges, Barsanulfo Gomides, O Despertar dos Dormentes, (Goiânia, 1990).Google Scholar
11 There is considerable folklore literature on Brazilian mule trains—eg. Goulart, José Alípio, Tropas e Tropeiros na Formação do Brasil, (Rio de Janeiro, 1961)Google Scholar—and ox-carts—more scholarly Sousa, Bernardino José de, Ciclo do carro de bois no Brasil, (São Paulo, 1958)Google Scholar—is but little serious academic research. On Goiás specifically, see Nogueira, Wilson C. Mestre Carreiro, (Goiânia, 1980)Google Scholar, and Gumeiro, Maristela, “Os Tropeiros na História de Goiás-Séculos XVIII e XIX,” (Diss, de Mestrado, U. Federal de Goiás, 1991).Google Scholar
12 On the possibilities of cotton production and exports, see “Subsídios para a História de Goiaz (1756–1806)”, Revista do Instituto Histórico y Geográfico Brasileiro, t. 84, 282–284; for information on a successful exporter, see Saint-Hilaire, Augusto, Viagem as Nascentes do Rio São Francisco, (Belo Horizonte, 1975), p. 182.Google Scholar
13 The imperial and provincial government subsidized a water powered textile mill in Goiás from the 1820s to the end of the 1830s, without great success. On this, see, among much more correspondence, Arquivo do Museu das Bandeiras (AMB), vol. 406, Carta Regia, 25 July, 1818, Aviso Regio, 24 October, 1818 and 4 June, 1819; Pac. 353 “Fábrica de Tecelagem; AHEG, Documentação Avulsa, Caixa [Cx] 83, Presidente-Sec. Negócios de Fazenda, 1 August, 1828; Livros Gabinete, Cdx 59, fólios 7–9v (3 March, 1839).
14 For a general treatment of the first half of the nineteenth century in Goiás, see Funes, Euripedes Antônio, Goiás 1800–1850: um Período de Transição da Mineração a Agropecuario, (Goiânia, 1986).Google Scholar
15 On mal de cadeiras see Wilcox, Robert, “Cattle Ranching on the Brazilian Frontier: Tradition and Innovation in Mato Grosso, 1870–1940,” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1992), p. 137 Google Scholar; AHEG, Município Rio Verde Cx 1, Recebedoria-Inspetor, Fazenda Provincial, 28 May, 1881 and Inspetor, Fazenda Provincial-José Francisco Guimares, 28 July, 1882. The Vão da Parana specialized in horse raising: AHEG, Município Cavalcante Cx 1, “Informação circumstanciada do Julgado de Cavalcante—sua estatística, 1828.”
16 For numbers of horses, see various censuses made in connection with the attempt to implant a production tax in 1880: e.g., AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 66, “Lançamento do imposto de produção de gado vaccum e cavallar … Ipamerí; 1 January, 1880.”
17 Presidente, , Relatório-1835 [reprinted in Memorias Goiânas-3, Goiânia, 1986], p. 35.Google Scholar
18 This project, funded by the CNPq and coordinated by Prof. Dalisia Doles, UFG, is presently in the final stages of this work.
19 There are several general treatments of the 1850 land law and its effects, including Dean, Warren, “Latifundia and Land Policy in Nineteenth-Century Brazil, HAHR 51:4 (November 1971), 606–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Costa, Viotti da, “Land Policies: The Land Law of 1850, and the Homestead Act, 1862,” in The Brazilian Empire: Myths and Histories (Chicago, 1985), pp. 78–93 Google Scholar, and Carvalho, José Murilo de, “Modernização frustrada: a política da terra no Império,” Revista Brasileira de História (March 1981), 39–57.Google Scholar Specific local studies are rare, but see Saboya, Vilma Eliza Trindade de, “A Lei de Terras (1850) e a política imperial—seus reflexos na provincia de Mato Grosso,” Revista Brasileira de História 15:30 (1995), pp. 115–36.Google Scholar In the case of Goiás, the regístros paroquiais are held in the archive of the Procuradoria das Terras, Goiânia and available for research by special application. On the process of registration in Goiás, see the correspondence, among others, of AHEG, Cdx 331 “Terras Públicas— 1858–1860,” Cdx 246, “Correspondência, Presidência-Min. de Negócios do Império, 1851–1857,” and Cdx 308 “1857–1860.” More broadly, see Repartição-1859.
20 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 224, “Juiz de Direito-Presidência, 18 January, 1873 “1873 Relação de terras de posses sujeitos a legitimação.”
21 This should raise some doubts about the general applicability of the otherwise excellent study of land based on cartório transactions by Alencar, Maria Amelia Garcia de, Estructura Fundiária em Goiás: Consolidação e Mudanças, 1850–1910, (Goiânia, 1993).Google Scholar
22 This is based on a sample of information from regístros paroquais and a brief sampling of testamentos (wills) in the Cartório da Familia, Santa Cruz, Goiás. Compare Mattos de Castro, Ao sul da história.
23 AHEG, Município Rio Verde, Cx 5a, “Relatório apresentado pelo Juiz de Direito da Comarca de Rio Verde, 1910.”
24 Testamentos, Cartório da Familia, Santa Cruz.
25 Where conflict over land did occur, it was almost always the result of an inheritance dispute or involved agricultural not cattle land. See, for example, AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx, 137, draft presidential relatório, appx. 1863
26 For a description of a cattle roundup in Southern Maranhão but quite similar to those in Goiás see Ferreira Costa, Lena Castello Branco, Arraial e Coronel: Dois Estudos de História Social, (São Paulo, 1978), Part II.Google Scholar
27 See various letters and lists in AHEG, Doc. Diversa, Cdx 246 and Doc. Avulsa, Cx 117.
28 For the activities on one such individual, see Palacín, Luís, Chaul, Nasr Fayad, and Barbosa, Juarez Costa, História Política de Catalão, (Goiânia, 1994), Part I.Google Scholar
29 The classic on this is Carvalho Franco, Maria Sylvia de, Os homens livres na ordem escravocarata, (São Paulo, 1976).Google Scholar
30 The literature for Spanish America on non-slave but not-free labor, i.e., “forced wage labor” is enormous but it is less developed for Brazil. For most of this period labor was theoretically regulated by the law of 13 September, 1830: Collecção das leis do Império do Brasil, desde a Independência: 1830–1831. V. III, Ouro Preto, 1830 (sic), but this had little impact on the day to day reality of rural Goiás. The 1879 law was equally ineffectual: Correio Oficial, 22 November, 1879, 1–2.
31 In the regional classic Tropas e Boiadas by Carvalho, Hugo de (Goiânia, 1984)Google Scholar, the landowner sends his foreman after a runaway worker.
32 Capel de Ataides, Heloisa Selma Fernandes, Flores de Goiás: Tradição e Transformação, (Diss, de Mestrado, U. Federal de Goiás, 1990), pp. 57–61.Google Scholar A very few slave cowboys turn up in the 1872 and 1885 slave matrículas, AMB.
33 So was most of Brazil, except for the South: Dr.Rebourgeon, C., Relatório sobre a lavoura e criação do gado, Rio de Janeiro, 1884.Google Scholar
34 On the poverty and underdevelopment of the north of Goiás, see A Tribuna Livre, 21 May, 1881.
35 Wilcox, , “Cattle Ranching on the Brazilian Frontier,” p. 136.Google Scholar
36 See, for example, AHEG, “Restaurar—1812–1815—Ofícios do Governo,” Fernando Delgado Freire de Castilho-Conde de Galvez, 20 December, 1813.
37 Nogeira, , Mestre Carreiro, 44–48; Correio Oficial, 2 June, 1866.Google Scholar
38 Arantes Tiballi, Elianda Figueiredo, A Expansão do Povoamento em Goiás-XIX, Dis. de Mestrado, U. Federal de Goiás, 1991, 53; Correio Livre, 14 July, 1880.Google Scholar
39 On the legal export of slaves to Mato Grosso, see, for example, AHEG, Doc. Diversa, Cdx 299, “Contas Correntes com o Administrador do Porto Rio Grande Alto Araguaia … 1856–1875” and to Minas Gerais, Doc. Diversa, Cdx 380, “Conta Corrente com a Recebedoria de Santa Rita do Paranaiba, 1861–1870.”
40 See, for example, A Matutina Meiapontense, 19 May, 1832, pp. 1–2.
41 See AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 497 “Correspondência Presidência-Cia. Metropolitana, October-December, 1896.”
42 Presidente, Discurso-1838, p. 119 and Discurso-1839, pp. 153–54, [reprinted in Memorias Goianas-3]. More broadly, see Bertrán, Paulo, Formação Económica de Goiás, (Goiânia, 1978), p. 57 Google Scholar; Tiballi, , Expansão; Sousa França, María de, Povoamento do Sul de Goiás: 1872–1900, (Dis. de Mestrado, U. Federal de Goiás, 1975).Google Scholar
43 In the one instance discovered to date where criminal statistics were broken down by the origins of the criminals, this appears to have been be the case: AHEG, Estado de Goiás-Mensagem Enviada ao Congresso, 1905, pp. 7–8.
44 AHEG, Doc. Diversa, Cdx 383, Pres. Alencastre, 12 January, 1862.
45 Presidente Relatório-1881, 18 and Relatório-1867, pp. 8–9.
46 There is an enormous amount of material in nineteenth century Goiás government reports and newspapers on Indian—Non-Indian relations. Kayapo and Canoeiro raided settlements at least as late as the early 1890s: Correio Oficial, 2 March and 7 May, 1889 and Goyaz, 22 August, 1890. Useful are Ataides, Jezus Marco de, “Sob o Signo da Violência: Colonizadores e Kayapo do Sul no Brasil Central,” (Dis. de Mestrado, U. Federal de Goiás, 1991)Google Scholar; Silva Neiva, Antonio Theodoro da, “Os Canoeiros: Aspectos da Cultura Goiana,” (Dis. de Mestrado, U. Federal de Goiás, 1971)Google Scholar; Pedroso, Dulce, “Ava Canoeiro: a História do Povo Invisível: Século XVIII e XIX,” (Dis. de Mestrado, U. Federal de Goiás, 1992)Google Scholar; and Karasch, Mary, “Catequese e Cativeiro: Política indigenista em Goiás: 1780–1889,” Cunha, Manuela Carneiro da, org., História dos índios no Brasil, (São Paulo, 1992), 397–412.Google Scholar
47 Particularly damaging to cattle was the disease known as mal de tristeza (Texas Tick Fever) transmitted by ticks: A Matutina Meiapontense, 2 September, 1830 and 21 luly, 1831.
48 Tiballi, Expansão, p. 117; Informação Goiana, 4 November, 1928.
49 See the yearly, but intermittent, tax reports filed for the municipalities, which include information on cattle legally slaughtered for consumption: e.g., AHEG, Município Jaraguá, Cx 1, “Relatório,” l July, 1836–30 June, 1837.
50 Informação Goiana, 4 November, 1928, 5 December, 1928, and 7 February, 1929.
51 Presidente Relatório-1861, pp. 31–32.
52 A Matutina Meiapontense, 6 October, 1831; Presidente Relatório [2nd.] 1854, 73; AHEG, Doc. Diversa, Cdx 200, “Correspondência da Provedoria da Fazenda Provincial, 1847–1850,” Provedoria-Collector Conceição, 17 August, 1847.
53 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa Cx 16, Decreto, 16 April, 1821; A Matutina Meiapontense, 28 January, 13 April, 2 September, 5 Otb., 1830, 7 May, 10 May, 12 May, 14 May, 17 May, 19 May, and 29 May, 1831.
54 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa Cx 117, Chefe de Polícia-Presidente, 10 January, 1858. More generally, see Soares, M. F. S., Notas estatísticas sobre a produção agrícola e carestia dos gêneros alimentícios no imperio do Brasil, RJ, 1860.Google Scholar
55 O Tocantins, 22 October, 1857.
56 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 127.
57 A deficit occurred most years from the 1830s on, but its exact amount from year to year was of some dispute both due to confused bookkeeping and politics: Correio Oficial, 13 March, 1878.
58 AHEG, Doc. Diversa Cdx 442, “Relatórios, 1868–1882,” “Finanças, 1881;” Município Cavalcante Cx 1, Collector-Inspector da Tesouraria da Fazenda, 9 July, 1879, and Município Santa Cruz Cx 2, Collector-Inspector da Tesouraria da Fazenda Provincial, 19 September, 1879.
59 AHEG, Município Formosa Cx 2, Recebedoria Arrependidos-Tesouraria Provincial, 6 December, 1879.
60 Presidente Relatório-1862, p. 143; Informação Goiana, 10 May, 1934 and 15 July, 1919.
61 AHEG, Município Arraias Cx 2, Coletor-Provedor da Fazenda, 28 April, 1846; Doc. Avulsa Cx 163, Presidente-Min. Negócios, 8 May, 1863; Município Piracanjuba Cx 2, Coletor-Director Chefe da Secretária de Finanças, 24 June, 1899.
62 AHEG, Município Sao Domingos, Cx 2, Collector-Tesouraria Provincial, 15 January, 1889 and 18 May, 1894.
63 Correio Oficial, 7 February, 1867.
64 See, for example, AHEG, Município Santa María Taguatinga, Cx 1, Administrador-Provedor da Fazenda, 4 October, 1855; Município Flores, Coletor-Inspetor Público da Provincia, 8 April, 1889; Município Posse, Ten. Joao d’Abbadia-Diretor da Diretoria de Finanças do Estado, 12 January, 1898.
65 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 217, Subdelegado ?-Chefe da Polícia, 8 June, 1872; Município Porto Nacional, Cx 3a, Juiz Municipal-Presidente (?), 28 March, 1891.
66 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 146, Recebedoria Boavista-Director da Renda Provincial, 30 April, 1863; Doc. Avulsa, Cx 156, Presidente-Diretor da Renda Provincial, 15 July, 1864.
67 AHEG, Município Itumbiara, Ten. Pedro Pereira Nunes-Inspetor do Tesouro Público Provincial, 15 Ago., 1889.
68 For example, AHEG, Município Catalão, Cx 2, Delegado-Chefe da Polícia, 21 November, 18/70; Informação Goiana, 15 March, 1919.
69 On the activities of the infamous bandit Indio Affonso and his grandson Antonio Candido, see A Tribuna Livre, 17 March, and 12 May, 1883; AHEG, Doc. Diversa, “1883-Secretaria de Polícia do Estado” Série 1800 anexo n/n, “Relatório,” [manuscript], 29 May, 1883; Município Ipamerí Cx 2, Delegado-Chefe da Polícia, 6 October, 1890; Informação Goiana, 15 November, 1919.
70 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 299, Romeio Pereira de Atheu-Inspetor, Tesouraria Provincial, 12 April, 1880; Município Sumidouro Cx 1, Administrador-Chefe, Directoria de Finanças do Estado, 15 Otb., 1898; Correio Oficial, 10 October, 1885 and 19 May, 1888.
71 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 116, Inspetor, Tesouraria Provincial-Presidente, 4 March, 1857; see also AHEG, Município Custodio Lemus, Cx 1, Recebedoria-Inspetor da Tesouraria, 4 November, 1886.
72 Presidente, Relatório-1856, 22; AHEG, Doc. Diversa Cdx 292, “Registro das Resoluções Tomadas pelo Governo da Provincia, 1856–1857,” 4 March, 1857.
73 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 146, Administrador Mao de Pau-Diretor Geral da Administraçao das Rendas Provinciais, 31 January, 1863.
74 Presidente Relatório-1862, 79–80.
75 Presidente, Relatório-1859, 43–45, Relatório-1859 [2nd.], 36, and Relatório-1866, 7; AHEG, Doc. Avulsa Cx 347, Cap. José Ignacio Xavier de Brito-Presidente, 1 March, 1885.
76 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 207, Escrivão, Barreiros-Inspetor Tesouraria, 21 November, 1871.
77 AHEG, Município Santa Maria Taguatinga, Cx 1, Administrador-Rendas Provinciais, 2 February, 1863.
78 AHEG, Doc. Diversa, Cdx 266, “Correspondências com o Governo, 1853–1859,” Provedor da Fazenda-Presidente, 27 September, 1854; Município Morrinhos Cx 1, Coletor-Director Geral da Renda Provincial, 9 July, 1863; Município Caipônia [Rio Bonito], Cx 2, Francisco de Souza Mil-homens-Inspetor, Tesouraria Provincial, 12 February, 1889.
79 AHEG, Município Niquelándia [Sao José do Tocantins], Cx 1, Coletor São José-Inspetor, Tesouraria, 19 October, 1875.
80 Correio Oficial, 10 November, 1880 and 31 July, 1889; Presidente Relatório-1878, 8.
81 Goyaz, 30 September, 1892; AHEG, Município Santa María Taguatinga Cx 5, Coletor-Secretário de Finanças, 13 February, 1915.
82 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 137, Recebedoria Catalão-Inspetor, Tesouraria, 6 March, 1861; Município Formosa Cx 2, Agencia Arrependidos-Inspetor, Tesouraria, 8 December, 1879; Doc. Avulsa, Cx 294, Presidente-Inspetor, Tesouraria, 24 September, 1880; Município Itumbiara [Santa Rita do Paranaiba], Cx la, Recebedoria-Inspetor, Tesouraria, 1 November, 1880.
83 AHEG, Município Cachoeira Dourada, Cx 1, Recebedoria-Inspetor, Tesouraria, 18 November, 1878; Doc. Diversa, Cdx 200 “Correspondência da Provedoria da Fazenda Provincial, 1847–1850,” circular, 27 September, 1849; Município Itumbiara Cx 3, “Termo de declaraçoes prestadas pelo senhor Argemiro Antonio de Araujo, administrador da recebedoria de S. Rita do Paranahyba,” 12 February, 1913.
84 AHEG, Doc. Avulsa, Cx 137, Presidente-Inspetor, Tesouraria, 6 July, 1861; Doc. Avulsa Cx 146, Agente, Cachoeira Dourada-Coletor, Santa Rita Paranaiba, ? November, 1863; Município Custodio Lemus, Cx 1, Escrivão-Coletor, 11 November, 1893; Município São Domingos, Cx 1, Recebedoria-Director Geral das Finanças do Estado, 6 and 9 February, 1894.
85 Vice Presidente Relatório, 1865, p. 12.
86 AHEG, Município Rio Verde Cx 1, Agent, Sao Jeronimo-Director Geral da Tesouraria Provincial, 10 October, 1854 and Coletor, Subagência Sao Jeronimo-Diretor Geral da Administração da Fazenda Provincial, 10 October, 1864; Vice Presidente Relatório, 1863, p. 3.
87 AHEG, Município Rio Verde Cx 2, Coletor-Inspetor, Tesouraria, 12 May, 1874.
88 Wilcox, “Cattle Ranching on the Brazilian Frontier” has a lot to say about to say about smuggling to Paraguay and to São Paulo; for a very superficial look at smuggling on the southern border, see Cesar, Guilhermino, O contrabando no sul do Brasil (Rio Grande do Sul, 1978).Google Scholar