If chattel slavery was banned in America, and instead indentured servitude is used instead, what would be the consequences for African immigration? Would Africans willingly come to the continent for the money the plantation owners were paying? If yes, would the rising population of free blacks end up with racist white elites banning further black immigration?
Chattel slavery banned, consequences for African immigration
- Thread starter Socrates
- Start date
To answer the latter two questions, in a nutshell; it really depends, and unfortunately quite possible, respectively.
It depends on when chattel slavery would be banned in America. A lot of racism towards blacks was a result of the ubiquity of black people as slaves in Europe and the Americas. You cut off chattel slavery off early enough in the Americas, and the same level of "blacks are subhuman" never develops though they'd off course still face discrimination, especially since most of them would either be Muslim or follow traditional African religions.
Blacks would still be the most desirable workers for plantations as they'd have good resistance to the heat and sun compared to whites. Africans might willingly come but I can't imagine whites tolerating Muslims living near them. What would likely happen is that it would be expected that after the indentured servitude was finished, the Africans would be expected to return to Africa.
I think Africans would be quite willing to come as indentured servants as the pay would be much higher than in Africa. As far as being Moslem the US never made Jews , Hindus or others to leave. My guess is that they would be treated as second class citizens though. They probably couldn't find any place to rent or buy outside of their own neighborhoods.
Agreed. Can't see people going back to Africa, with the higher standard of living and free land available in America.
So if we imagine a limited amount of African indentured servitude, and then a backlash against so many free blacks being about, who wins that political clash? The moneyed interests who still want their cheap labour, or the lower income white labourers?
Those groups never amounted to anywhere near the percentages as blacks do in America.
Anyway, if slvery is nipped in the bud, so to speak, then indentured servitude is likely the most plausible option. Perhaps some considerations regarding religion will be worked into the length of servitude (Christians work x years of service, Muslims work 1.5x years).
Why? The US has a higher standard of living than Africa so why wouldn't they voluntarily move here?
Cultural and language differences? Its much easier for, for example, a poor Brit to adapt to America than a person from sub saharan Africa.
People are adaptable. There would be some difficulties but they would survive it. The vast majority would be living better in the US than Africa.
There is no reason for West Africans to emigrate all of the way to the U.S. to be indentured servants.
The problem is that indentured servitude is not a good substitute for slave labour. With North America, the problem was that land was cheap but labour was in short supply. So without a way of controlling the labour supply, migrants would finish their term of service then go somewhere that they could farm land themselves rather than working for someone else. Resistance to tropical diseases played a small part, too, but the biggest attraction of slavery in North America was being able to control the labour supply. Said control often being more than just the usual labour; what happened to slave women was horrific.
Given all that, I would expect strong and sustained pressure to legalise slavery, as it would be practised elsewhere (such as the sugar Caribbean). Slavery was banned in some North American colonies for a while in OTL, such as Georgia, but was later legalised.
If some ASB prevents the adoption of chattel slavery in North America, I'd expect that there's no boom in African indentured servitude. On a small scale, yes, but nothing like the rice, tobacco and indigo boomed which happened in OTL. More slaves get sold to the Caribbean and Brazil. Colonial North America is a place of small farms and small towns; somewhat more urbanised than in OTL, but much poorer and less populous than in OTL.
Given all that, I would expect strong and sustained pressure to legalise slavery, as it would be practised elsewhere (such as the sugar Caribbean). Slavery was banned in some North American colonies for a while in OTL, such as Georgia, but was later legalised.
If some ASB prevents the adoption of chattel slavery in North America, I'd expect that there's no boom in African indentured servitude. On a small scale, yes, but nothing like the rice, tobacco and indigo boomed which happened in OTL. More slaves get sold to the Caribbean and Brazil. Colonial North America is a place of small farms and small towns; somewhat more urbanised than in OTL, but much poorer and less populous than in OTL.
I wouldn't say poorer, just slower to develop and forced to diversify quicker. But I do think that indentured servitude could work, just not as well as slavery.
The British might even encourage indentured servitude from the British isles in order to lower the numbers of domestic "troublemakers" such as the Irish and new urban lower classes.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
A way this could be done is to have the British crown enforce more control over their colonies - the slave trade had been made illegal in England by William the Conqueror (not ownership, but trade).
If this law was enforced in the colonies from the beginning, but also extended to British shipping, then the slave trade from OTL takes a massive hit - from losing customers - and making it riskier for OTL's biggest slave shippers to operate.
As far as I know, England is the only European nation involved in the New World that had any sort of anti-slavery laws. They seem to be the best starting point.
If this law was enforced in the colonies from the beginning, but also extended to British shipping, then the slave trade from OTL takes a massive hit - from losing customers - and making it riskier for OTL's biggest slave shippers to operate.
As far as I know, England is the only European nation involved in the New World that had any sort of anti-slavery laws. They seem to be the best starting point.
.I don't think you'd see large-scale African immigration, at least not in the colonial period. Africa to North America is a longer sea voyage than Europe to North America, and without the huge profits to gained from slavery, I don't know if Europeans would bother.
It's pretty hard to imagine slavery being banned in the colonial period in any case. As early as 1502 African slaves were being brought over. The notion of Africans as being of lower status than Europeans was quite ingrained by the time England began to colonize North America.
Slavery was illegal on European soil in a number of countries. They just didn't apply these laws to their colonies.
It's pretty hard to imagine slavery being banned in the colonial period in any case. As early as 1502 African slaves were being brought over. The notion of Africans as being of lower status than Europeans was quite ingrained by the time England began to colonize North America.
Slavery was illegal on European soil in a number of countries. They just didn't apply these laws to their colonies.
TinyTartar
Banned
The US had a relatively low amount of slaves in comparison to the West Indies and Brazil. Banning it in the US will have almost no real effect.
Poorer because it lacks the huge export volumes of cash crops (tobacco, rice and indigo, mostly) which made colonies so profitable in OTL.