Chungus Maximus
Banned
how does this effect the course of American history?
Would the revolution still happen?
Obviously there would be no civil war
Would the revolution still happen?
Obviously there would be no civil war
WI no slaves brought to America?
- Thread starter Chungus Maximus
- Start date
Why?
To oversimplify, slaves were transported to America primarily because Natives were more susceptible to disease because of lack of exposure and could flee slavery more easily as they were familiar with the surrounding lands. Also, there was already a African slave trade that was easier to expand. Slaves were used primarily for large plantations, although they also served in different roles.
Also, the Civil War was primarily of slavery, but it is important to also consider the cultural and economic differences between the North and South.
To oversimplify, slaves were transported to America primarily because Natives were more susceptible to disease because of lack of exposure and could flee slavery more easily as they were familiar with the surrounding lands. Also, there was already a African slave trade that was easier to expand. Slaves were used primarily for large plantations, although they also served in different roles.
Also, the Civil War was primarily of slavery, but it is important to also consider the cultural and economic differences between the North and South.
Lusitania
Donor
Slavery existed in northern colonies and states till early 19th century. There were several reasons slavery died down in north.
- Religious group such as quakers and other who were opposed
- northern farms were smaller and usually tended by family
- Growth of industry which made slavery costly for owners plus workers became opposed to slaves due to competition for jobs.
This topic strikes me as one where the POD is very important. For example, in 1500, large plantation-based slavery had not existed in Europe for 1000 years. It also did not exist in Africa so it is at least plausible that no one "thinks" of it. However, this likely requires a massive economic change (e.g. no sugar plantations in the Caribbean, no silver mines in Peru) basically rendering our world totally unrecognizable. Moreover, avoiding ASB requires fairly careful explanation of why African slavery never took hold in the Americas. I will note that I find it totally implausible that there could be a scenario in which the trans-Atlantic slave trade could go on for a century but somehow that ship never finds its way to Virginia in 1619 (and not other ship does for another 2 centuries).
Enslaved people were utilized for skillsets that indigenous people did not have.
Cattle raising, blacksmithery, rice cultivation, indigo and cotton production, etc.... the first group of Africans that came to the U.S. were lusophone Catholics captured on a spanish ship, were in contact with Westerners on the coast before enslavement and who through acculturation aligned more with the societal structures of the colonial frontier.
The notion that they could not run away is false as we see with ththe Great Dismal Swamp and the maroonages of Louisiana. The diseases of malaria and yellow fever only came about after a generation or two of ships that landed in Africa.
Lusitania
Donor
Sorry but the Portuguese were importing African slaves into Portugal as one of the first trade items they bought when they reached West Africa. We have to understand that indentured servants, serfs existed in Europe and slaves were imported into Europe to supplement the economy where there were not enough regular workers. We have estimates that upto 1/3 of Lisbon population was slaves in 1500. Slavery was an everyday occurrence in North Africa and Middle East. So do not see any POD where slavery is not used. Where ever Europeans went the people they conquered became slaves. This did not change regardless of who was the conquering or colonizing. If the Natives had not died off the Europeans would of used them as slaves because they did not have to buy them and pay their transport.
Seems the most likely way of achieving a "no trans Atlantic slave trade" is via a slightly lower die off of Amerindians. If there were more Amerindians and they didn't die so fast when enslaved and used for heavy labor then it would probably be just easier and cheaper to continue primarily using Amerindian slaves. You would have seen a much larger inter America slave trade with different tribes/nations dominating the process. Think the Cherokee slave trade writ large. A lot of inter conflict between different nations hunting each other to be sold or traded to Europeans for trade goods.
This seems a pointless oversimplification, there is a world of difference between the various levels of bondage different people were put through in different places of the world at different times, the idea that millions of people were going to be bought and brought over an entire ocean just because slavery(a very broad concept) is a normal occurence in human history seems overly deterministic at best.
twovultures
Donor
Interestingly enough, according to Thomas Mann in his book 1493, variolation (the precursor to vaccination) for smallpox was introduced to North America by a slave. So if the American revolution occurs ITTL, the equivalent of the colonial army will not be variolated. And with many of its soldiers having never been infected by smallpox due to being raised in isolated agrarian economies, when smallpox does break out in the campaign trail unlike OTL it will devastate the rebels and possibly turn the tide of the war to the British.
You are missing a key descriptor in my statement. Namely, I noted that large Plantation-based agriculture had not been practiced in Europe for 10 centuries. I would agree that various forms of bondage (indentured servants, serfs etc) were common in Europe. However there was something truly unique and horrifying about the Plantation based agriculture practices in the Caribbean. For example, the average lifespan of a slave on the sugar plantations was 3-4 years. Hence, the need to continuously import slaves. The horrid conditions also required a particularly brutal type of slavery that was not found in most other types of bondage.
I woudln't say plantations didn't exists in Europe, I think Mediterranean islands and Macaronesia had them and also used slaves.
twovultures
Donor
I'd say this is the crux of the matter if you want to avoid the development of plantation slavery, which really is the big game changer both for slavery and the colonization of the tropics by Europeans. Plantation slavery began in the Mediterranean, in islands which had low populations and so needed an imported labor force to grow sugar. Avoid or change how the sugar economy transforms those islands, and you avoid the development of the whole economic model of plantation slavery.
And mainland Iberian kingdoms, and the entirety of the the Mediterranean Muslim world. Exactly the kind of agricultural cash-crop slavery that's implied by the word today, sometimes complete with what can easily look like a work-to-death approach in malarial conditions.
Lusitania
Donor
But the issue was that sugar plantation also existed in North Africa and Arabs had been using slavery for close 1,000. Só European islands had to use same methods to be competitive.
Lusitania
Donor
But I think you are missing the fact the attitudes by those in power towards those below them be they serfs, indebted servants or slaves where they did not matter and if they die another can replace them. Along with enslaving non Christians is exactly what led Europeans to treat people like chattel and only interested in profit regardless of human cost.
It seems to me that as POD for this you need an ideology shift in the colonizing nations of Europe well before the Caribbean sugar economy was established. Let's say that a cleric was taken as a slave by North African pirates badly mistreated, but subsequently escapes and returns to Europe. He spends the rest of his life preaching against slavery and gains assent from the Pope that enslaving another human being is a Pagan practice, and therefore a mortal sin. When His Most Catholic Majesty Ferdinand's ships come to the New World they have internalized the thought that slavery is an act that will send a slaver straight to Hell. It might not completely prevent the practice but might limit it's utilization.
Is the question regarding the Americas as a whole, or just the British colonies? If the latter, a few legal cases (John Casor, in particular) could render slavery de jure illegal in their colonies.
Recalling my Middle Eastern studies classes from 1981 the Arabs of that era were importing east Africans enmass as slaves for large scale agricultural development in Mesopotamia. The effort was described by the professor as lacking long term sucess. Salinization of the heavily irrigated fields being one factor. This particular segment of the East African slave trade died off by the 19th Century.
Lusitania
Donor
Morocco was also importing thousand of slaves and they had very large sugar plantations which was run on slave labor.