Was slavery an inevitable part of the rise of the West?

[eschaton]

When I look back at the arc of modern history, I always note the great disjuncture between the slavery of the middle ages, and the slavery of the early modern era.

Medieval slavery was essentially a continuation of the Roman slave tradition, and was slowly on the decline. Enslaving non-Christians was seen as somewhat unseemly, and sources of pagan slaves were becoming limited on the continent. Indeed, most slaves from the period of 1000-1500 were heading out of Europe and into the Muslim lands - in latter days it was mainly Genoa and Venice facilitating the flow of slaves to the Ottoman Empire.

But it began to change in the mid 1400s, for several reasons. Portuguese exploration of the African coast meant that sub-Saharan Africans were within the European trade network for the first time. The Church issued several papal bulls legitimizing the hereditary enslavement of non-Christians. And the Spanish and Portuguese began converting the economies of the Canaries and Madeira to giant sugar plantations. This, along with the lack of disease resistance by Native Americans, was enough to set the stage for the massive trans-Atlantic slave trade.

But was it inevitable plantation slavery would have to be discovered? What if the Popes at this juncture were consistently against the expansion of slavery? Could the New World have been successfully integrated into the European economic system without slavery? Or would the lack of slavery have caused most colonial ventures to fail, leading to the essential abandonment of the New World, or at least the parts used to grow sugar, cotton, and tobacco IOTL?

I guess my ultimate question is is a TL possible where the West is as omnipresent, wealthy, and powerful as it is IOTL, without the creation of a slavery-based economic system?

[Alex Richards]

Probably not, but I'd expect a slower development.

[Faeelin]

Actually, I think it might have been necessary. Capital from growing sugar and tobacco were key to financing industrialization in Britain; and this ignores whatever role sugar might have played in helping feed Europe in the 18th and 19th century. Without that? I'm not sure Europe could break out of a Malthusian bottleneck.

[MNP]

I've been researching this question for about 4 months off and on for my own TL and the answer so far is "no."

I think it's possible to reduce the slavery issue, but you can't have a rise of the west nearly as quickly without it. It's not so much about sugar (profits) feeding Europe, but as sugar plantations making exploitation of the new world a much higher priority and with exploration of the NW you get the potato and other goodies.

[bobbis14]

With a mercantile ecconomy in place it is highly likely

[Lusitania]

If we are taliking about a society that already practiced a form of slavery namely serfs then yes. During all of humanity there has been slaves. Just to look at ancient Egypt, Greeks and Romans that practice moved to serfs in the dark ages but never completely went away.

It was just not Blacks, debtors prison was practiced for centuries with only a few of these ever working off their debt. So when Europeans came across people whom they figured were inferior and below them they automatically enslaved them. The natives died off too fast for the Europeans to use them effectively. Spain in the 16th century did send hundreds of natives to Spain not as tourists but they found them less desireable than blacks and in the new world of course natives would just run away.

[Onkel Willie]

Well, if human history has shown us one thing then it's that when a technologically more advanced society meets a more primitive one, it usually does not end well for the latter. Slavery is probably inevitable considering the existence of serfdorm as a predecessor and the use of slaves throughout human history. Western Europe has the tech to easily subjugate western African tribes by the 16th century (gunpowder, artillery, warships, cavalry...). A PoD that makes these civilizations stronger could help, but that might butterfly away 16th century Europe as we know it.

[Sachyriel]

No but the manpower shortage after the plagues would require it be filled by number of cheap workers from other regions. Slavery wasn't inevitable because the West needed Manpower to power economic growth though. The slaves were there because the West had a shitty sewage system. Every plague brought new shortages in manpower, a bigger demand for slaves; however with slavery economic activity got a boost and the population expanded as well; more shit in the same sewage system meant continuing plagues. More plagues, more demand for slaves; the Europeans kept themselves in constant warfare over slavery that they became slaves to it themselves, all because of their lack of good hygiene.

GO WASH YOUR HANDS

[Andrew Hudson]

Where the Transatlantic slave trade differs from the Trans Saharan slave trade is the break in Western Europe between the ending of feudalism and the reintroduction of slavery in the New World.

Was this inevitable? According to Marxists yes it was a consequence of imperialism and it is claimed that slavery financed the industrial revolution. It did however have nothing to do with coal or steam power and arguably wool could have replaced cotton but the rate of economic growth may have been slower.

The settlement of much of North America did not rely slavery but farming and fishing, there were few slaves in New England. There was however some use of indentured labour and political prisoners were sentenced to period of forced labour i.e by Judge Jefferies but largely in the South. There may well have been no Civil War. Adam Smith was opposed to slavery on utilitarian grounds. Labour shortages do not necessarily result in slavery, once of the consequences of the Black Death in England was wage inflation caused by labourers being able to move where wages were higher and culminating in the Peasant's Revolt.

I would certainly like to believe that the economic growth of the West could have been achieved without slavery albeit at a slower rate and did do a paste on this theme back in 2007. What is really needed is a serious counterfactual

[Ahura Mazda]

I think the west would've risen without slavery, it was no necessity. But still I think large-scale slavery in some form was inevitable because there will always be people who are cruel....

[Valdemar II]

While I have a hard time seeing the West avoiding slavery, but was it a necessary? Not really; but Europe and America would have looked quite different without African slaves imported to Carribian. It would have it harder for the French, English and Dutch to build up their Caribbian possesions, and for the Dutch Brazil, which only could be build up so fast thanks to the ability to import large scale labour. We would likely have seen a greater focus on the East Indias as a capital source in West Europe.

[Hubris Incarnate]

It wasn't needed(perhaps). But it was inevitable, as it was still legal in many Western countries prior to colonialism. The only way to completely stop slavery is for all of Europe to illegalize slavery prior to the colonial era- and how likely is that? Probably impossible.

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by Hubris Incarnate

It wasn't needed(perhaps). But it was inevitable, as it was still legal in many Western countries prior to colonialism. The only way to completely stop slavery is for all of Europe to illegalize slavery prior to the colonial era- and how likely is that? Probably impossible.

You could have limited it, if West Africa had been home to stronger centralised states, we would likely have seen a much more limited slavery in the Americas, and a greater focus on small tenant-farmers in pseudo-serfdom. Which would have been a great improvement, mostly because you don't work serfs to death*.

*They need to reproduce to ensure the next geenration of workers.

[Corbell Mark IV]

THe first question that comes to my mind is are there any other models in history?

How many slaves where there in Canada? Austriala?

Those are both rich, powerfull Western states.

All the techonolgical advantages already mentioned would still be there (plus disease of coure).

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Valdemar II

You could have limited it, if West Africa had been home to stronger centralised states, we would likely have seen a much more limited slavery in the Americas, and a greater focus on small tenant-farmers in pseudo-serfdom. Which would have been a great improvement, mostly because you don't work serfs to death*.

Herm. The fatality rate among indentured servants in 17th century Virginia was horrifically high. How much of that was just disease is unclear, but it doesn't agur well.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV

THe first question that comes to my mind is are there any other models in history?

How many slaves where there in Canada? Austriala?

Those are both rich, powerfull Western states.

All the techonolgical advantages already mentioned would still be there (plus disease of coure).

Consider, though. New England and the Midatlantic colonies prospered in part because of the triangle trade; they shipped grain to England and to the Caribbean plantations. Without that, who will be growing grain in 18th century America? And why?

[The Kiat]

Roman slavery seems a bit odd, since there were plenty of citizens to work, and all slavery did was take jobs away from freeborn. Either that or the Romans were "too lazy" to work. I remember a thread about Dubai and the reason they import laborers is because the locals won't do it (well, that and there isn't enough of them for the construction explosion). Don't know if there is any corralation.

America without slavery would be drastically different. Since American culture is a fusion of European and West African, without slavery we'd be a lot more like Canada culturally speaking (that is mostly European). Maybe just replace it with indentured servants instead. At least the transport of them isn't anywhere near as appauling as the slave trade.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Consider, though. New England and the Midatlantic colonies prospered in part because of the triangle trade; they shipped grain to England and to the Caribbean plantations. Without that, who will be growing grain in 18th century America? And why?

What percent of trade was that?

Was Canada a part of this?

Could free farmers have been induced to move to the Caribbean?

Production might have been slower to ramp up, but the long term effects could have led to a differant "rise of the West".

[dreadnought jenkins]

Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV

What percent of trade was that?

Was Canada a part of this?

Could free farmers have been induced to move to the Caribbean?

Production might have been slower to ramp up, but the long term effects could have led to a differant "rise of the West".

Directly, Canada wasn't.

The primary exports of northern north America was fish and fur, with the former actually being the most profitable.

The Europeans would have come to the Grand Banks anyway. Alot of Catholics need alot of fish.

Fur might be more debatable. Wether the Europeans would have developed such an avaricious demand for furs without sugar wealth is up in the air, but I believe that the Europeans would have gone at it anyway.

The French tried a number of schemes to bring Canada closer into the mercantilist sphere, but travel times were still too slow for food exports to be profitable and Scandinavian/Baltic lumber was still cheaper even with import duties.

In such a scenario, I think you'd see Canada develop more along the lines it did in OTL up to a certain point.

[eschaton]

I'm answering my own question as yes, with some caveats. As some have said, while slavery wasn't needed to colonize the new world, it boosted initial productivity and revenue so much that it would be difficult to avoid. I think it would be ultimately hard to keep large-scale plantation slavery out of the New World, unless the early colonies were such a failure that the Caribbean doesn't get intensely settled until the early industrial era.

The best way I can think of to stop slavery from being widespread would be to have the Islamic world more powerful. This would mean the Middle East and North Africa would have a much higher demand for slaves, which would cut down on the supply in West Africa. In the long term, higher slave prices (since Europeans typically bought slaves from other tribes, they didn't bother capturing them themselves) would mean slavery could be economically uncompetitive compared to white indentured labor. But even this would only reduce the use of slaves in the New World, not eliminate it.