Cuestión militar

In 1883, the Viscount of Paranaguá proposed a bill that made mount of piety contributions mandatory for soldiers. The proposal raised the first disagreements between army officers and the political class. Antônio de Sena Madureira, a prestigious officer and a friend of emperor Pedro II, publicly criticized the proposal and was punished without major repercussions. The episode was the harbinger of even more serious conflicts that would soon take over the Brazilian parliament.^[2]

The following year, Sena Madureira, who was then in charge of the Campo Grande Shooting School, in Rio de Janeiro, authorized the school's students to organize a reception, with expressions of appreciation, for the rafter Francisco José do Nascimento, a black abolitionist from Ceará who became famous for his resistance to boarding slaves that would be sent from Fortaleza to Rio de Janeiro. The students' gesture and the school director's authorization clearly demonstrated the military's adherence to the abolitionist cause, which at that point had already become a consensual agenda among the military.^[5] In order to impose punishment on the abolitionist officer, the then minister of war, senator Franco de Sá, ordered him to be questioned by the army's adjutant general. Sena Madureira did not accept the order and claimed that only his direct superior (the Count of Eu) could ask him for explanations about his activities as a soldier. In response to the act of insubordination, the Ministry of War reprimanded Sena Madureira and transferred him to the Rio Pardo Shooting School, in the province of Rio Grande do Sul.^[6] The military were also prohibited from speaking out in the press.^[2] The prohibitions imposed on military personnel from speaking out in the press and the punishments resulting from non-compliance with this imposition became the focus of tensions between army officers and central government authorities.^[6]

In August 1885, during a routine inspection in Piauí, colonel Ernesto Augusto da Cunha Matos discovered misappropriation of supplies in the unit commanded by captain Pedro José de Lima. Given the signs of corruption, Cunha Matos requested the opening of an investigation on the facts and the removal of Pedro José de Lima. The latter, however, had links with Simplício de Resende, a deputy for Piauí, who from the Chamber of Deputies' tribune alleged that Cunha Matos' conduct was motivated by political reasons. Taking advantage of his parliamentary prerogatives, Simplício de Resende went further and made insulting statements about Cunha Matos, publicly declaring that the colonel, when taken prisoner in the Paraguayan War, had gone to the extreme of opening fire on his fellow Brazilian comrades.^[6]

La reacción de Cunha Matos se produjo a través de artículos publicados en la prensa. Sin embargo, el coronel no se limitó a defender su propia imagen, sino que criticó directamente al ministro de guerra, Alfredo Chaves, que era civil. El ministro castigó inmediatamente al oficial con una reprimenda y detención durante 48 horas. ^{[ 7 ]} Aunque esta reacción fue respaldada por las advertencias ministeriales de 1859, 1878, 1882 y 1885, ^{[ 4 ]} el castigo tuvo amplias repercusiones en los círculos militares y políticos. El mariscal José Antônio Correia da Câmara, vizconde de Pelotas , quien además de ser oficial del ejército ocupaba un escaño en el Senado, salió en defensa de su compañero en el Senado. En sus declaraciones, Pelotas criticó vehementemente la actitud de Alfredo Chaves y argumentó que el castigo representaba una grave ofensa al «honor del uniforme». En el fragor de los debates, no tuvo reparo alguno en afirmar que la compensación por el honor militar ultrajado era un derecho que estaba por encima de las propias leyes del país. ^{[ 1 ]}