1st Please, don't forget to sign before leave yr comment

2nd No, you saw pretty wrong - the 2nd quote of the version I propose is not present in the current version. 

3rd Again... One more time... the present version has a serious flaw, as I put above in the section Spurious Quotations, by using a book citation in a spurious way doubly, not only by stating a different thing from the original citation, but mainly acting so, leaving a implicit meaning totally different from the original quote (To refresh your memory:) " The original book citation states that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability, while the present version using the 1st one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability."
"Thus, spurious quotation aside, also a spurious correlation."

So, if to one:
a) eliminate such spuriousness and
b) put the appropriate initial causes of the instability of this period with proper references
is not an improvement... Well, it would become not just hard, but impossible to believe in this one's good faith, as well as it would be the confirmation of this one's selective double standard behavior... 

4th Concerning to the civilians' rising to power in the end of 1894, it was implied in some of my previous versions... 
which also, after more than a year... were not improved neither discussed, but disruptively reverted...
Anyway... for now, how about(?):
 "The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship.* Following the bubble of encilhamento** and the 1st naval revolt, the country entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by rebellions, both civilian*** as military,*** that even with the ascension to power of civilians at the end of 1894, did not stop. Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt.* "
Oooor...
"The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship,* and pretty before the civilians rise to power in 1894, following 2 severe crisis, an economic and a military,** the country has entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by rebellions, both civilian*** as military.***' Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt.* "

And Last but not Least, concerning to changes of Brazil's boundaries in the early 20th century, it is already there in the version I propose, in the foreign affairs, 3rd paragraph (that same one, which yourself considered "pretty solid")...

So, any more doubts about this paragraph?