The Southern Economy Without Slavery?

[Kaptin Kurk]

He wasn't recalled or raising them; he ended up withdrawing after he lost and was stuck in another quasi-siege of Boston in Norfolk, no?

As I recall, the Ethiopian regiment mostly dropped dead from small pox because innoculation wasn't that common in American, especially among slaves, Dunmore sat fumming on board ship for a while after that, then returned to England where he continued to encourage the government, with little success, to raise black troops.

 

[Jared]

I've been kicking around some ideas for how to get rid of slavery in most of the southern states by the 1790s, and I've been mulling over the consequences for American history. Alas, I genuinely can't figure out what a Southern economy without slavery would look like. Plantation agriculture has played such a big role in the region that the alternative is hard to see.

While it's not a complete answer, I'd highly recommend some of Gavin Wright's work in this regard, particularly Old South, New South and Slavery and American Economic Development as a starting point to get some ideas.

He pulls together a lot of comparisons about North and South developing pre-ACW, and of how the demographics of the South changed after the ACW.

Off the top of my head, a South without slavery would expand west more slowly, but would have higher population density - particularly more small towns - and greater industrialisation per capita.

It wouldn't necessarily be wealthier overall - cotton plantation agriculture was insanely profitable, even more so than small farmers with cotton would be - but cotton was farmable by small farmers, as was tobacco. It was just less efficient than with slaves. Or, more precisely, without the opportunity to develop into large plantations, which is what slavery permitted. (Free workers would quit and start their own farms instead.)

 

[Faeelin]

While it's not a complete answer, I'd highly recommend some of Gavin Wright's work in this regard, particularly Old South, New South and Slavery and American Economic Development as a starting point to get some ideas.

Thank you; this is very helpful.

 

[eschaton]

Point here is had Harrison been able to bring slaves enmass to Indiana he may have had a chance of denying land & political power to the migrant settlers. Had slavery been prohibited from the early 19th Century across the south, then the established plantation economy may have survived in the eastern tidewater regions, but it never would have effectively spread across the Appalachians. Kentucky, Tennesse, Alabama, & points west would have been dominated by the rednecked white settlers. Cotton would still have favored some farmers over others, but without the low cost of slave labor the larger plantation style mega farms could not have developed.

Either way, without the slavery question the political divides between the states would have fallen out differently. Up & coming western states vs the old established originals, industrial Great Lakes region vs the larger agrarian regions, Texas vs everyone else... Without the debilitating Civl War, and destruction of the Souths economy the development of the US in the latter 19th Century would have started higher, & gone further faster.

I'm sorry, but the effect of climate can't be ignored. Despite being settled by people from the Southeast, slavery mainly didn't take off in the lower Midwest because the land itself was poorly suited for plantation-style agriculture. The one exception was extreme southern Illinois, around Cairo. Indeed, cotton and tobacco were grown there, and even after the end of reconstruction, when much of downstate Illinois started enacting "sundown town" laws to exclude blacks, blacks were allowed to remain in the area as sharecroppers because they were too profitable.

You can see the same split elsewhere. For example, why slavery was rare throughout the Appalachians. Or largely absent from northern Maryland, despite that area being excellent farming country. Or how in Missouri slavery ended up concentrated in a belt along the Missouri River (called Little Dixie) because it was good land for mass hemp plantations.

You'd probably need some religious and colonial PoD. Have the Puritans landing in the South, instead of the North. Change immigration patters to bolster their strength, rather than weaken it over time. It won't butterfly away slavery, but it might butterfly away grand plantations, which will change the character of slavery and maybe reduce the number of africans that are imported versus the number of white indentured. Either way, you're probably going to need some religious or social constraint on not slavery perse, but the development of a planter class which can dominate Virginian politics in the early colonial period and beyond, which probably means some type of socially imposed most likely through religion leveling effects.

As to the economy, it probably still lean towards cash crops, but be somewhat more diversified, as a wealthier yeoman class would produce greater demand for non-essential goods earlier on and in a higher quantity.

I'm not sure the Puritans being in the south would matter. IOTL the second group of Pilgrims settled on a small island off the coast of Nicaragua, and became plantation slavers (the decedents of their slaves ultimately formed the Mosquito kingdom however, which is interesting).

Also, there was slavery throughout 17th century New England. Massachusetts actually developed into a key link in North American slavery in the later portion of that decade, selling Native American slaves to the South and the Caribbean, and buying seasoned black slaves from the West Indies. However, it just wasn't economical to use on a massive level, as indentured servants generally worked better in the climate, and didn't die in high numbers as in the south.

Malaria isn't nearly as big a deal in the South as it is in say, the Caribbean. Particularly the further north in the south you go, and particular if the introduction of African malaria can be avoided. I think, should someone get a critical mass of white settlers who have a cultural distaste for slavery, it is entirely possible to settle it on the New England or Pennsylvania model of yeoman farmers.

It was a big deal in the early days of the colonies. The casualty rate in Jamestown was 80% for all Englishmen who immigrated between 1607 and 1624. Much of that is attributable to Malaria, either directly or indirectly (e.g, the weakness of fever made many unable to work, or susceptible to other diseases. The death rate fell to 20%-30% by 1650, and 10% by 1670 for newcomers, but it was still uncomfortably high - particularly considering virtually everyone of European decent who didn't have malaria as a child would get it, even if they didn't die from it, and be out of work for a year in recovery. Kind of bad if you're recruiting an indentured servant for a seven-year stint.

Also, it was inevitable that the African strain of Malaria (which is much, much worse) would have been introduced. After all, British North America didn't live in a vacuum, and even if somehow no African slaves at all were introduced, it would have come through Spanish Florida, French Louisiana, or Spanish Texas, in much the same way Malaria made its way into areas of the Amazon essentially untouched by Europeans far before they (or runaway slaves) arrived.

 

[Socrates]

While it's not a complete answer, I'd highly recommend some of Gavin Wright's work in this regard, particularly Old South, New South and Slavery and American Economic Development as a starting point to get some ideas.

He pulls together a lot of comparisons about North and South developing pre-ACW, and of how the demographics of the South changed after the ACW.

Off the top of my head, a South without slavery would expand west more slowly, but would have higher population density - particularly more small towns - and greater industrialisation per capita.

It wouldn't necessarily be wealthier overall - cotton plantation agriculture was insanely profitable, even more so than small farmers with cotton would be - but cotton was farmable by small farmers, as was tobacco. It was just less efficient than with slaves. Or, more precisely, without the opportunity to develop into large plantations, which is what slavery permitted. (Free workers would quit and start their own farms instead.)

Would smallhold farms with tobacco and cotton be similar in profitability to the wheat grown in the Midwest? If so, would a south without slavery look fairly Midwestern, with a decent standard of rural living in most places, and industry along the rivers? I wonder what sort of white ethnic groups would move in. Presumably the Scandinavians are attracted to the northern climate, but I imagine the Italians might prefer the South.

 

[Jared]

I'm sorry, but the effect of climate can't be ignored. Despite being settled by people from the Southeast, slavery mainly didn't take off in the lower Midwest because the land itself was poorly suited for plantation-style agriculture. The one exception was extreme southern Illinois, around Cairo. Indeed, cotton and tobacco were grown there, and even after the end of reconstruction, when much of downstate Illinois started enacting "sundown town" laws to exclude blacks, blacks were allowed to remain in the area as sharecroppers because they were too profitable.

Not exactly. Slavery was in fact quite profitable with wheat and other small grains, as was shown in Virginia and elsewhere. Cotton and tobacco weren't needed for slave plantation agriculture to outcompete free farmers; wheat worked too.

What happened was that with a limited supply of slaves, cotton planters (in particular) and tobacco planters (to a lesser degree) were able to outbid other agricultural uses of slave labour, and so the slave labour was sucked further south. Which is why, although it's tangential to this thread, that one of the odd butterflies of a delayed cotton gin may well be slavery becoming much more established in downstate Indiana and Illinois.

Would smallhold farms with tobacco and cotton be similar in profitability to the wheat grown in the Midwest?

Hard to say without more details being supplied, and it would vary from area to area. One of the major differences is that cotton and tobacco were much more export-oriented crops. Wheat was often sold locally, or at least within the USA, while cotton and tobacco were exported to Europe in large degree (although some cotton to New England for textiles).

So one of the big differences would depend on the natural transportation net, and thus development along the rivers and suchlike. Of course, there would be more railroads developing too, so that may make a difference too.

If so, would a south without slavery look fairly Midwestern, with a decent standard of rural living in most places, and industry along the rivers? I wonder what sort of white ethnic groups would move in. Presumably the Scandinavians are attracted to the northern climate, but I imagine the Italians might prefer the South.

In general you could expect more immigrants, once major immigration from Europe kicks off. Which ethnic groups would settle where is harder to say - after all, even Irish immigrants ended up in New Orleans in OTL...

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I'm sorry, but the effect of climate can't be ignored. Despite being settled by people from the Southeast, slavery mainly didn't take off in the lower Midwest because the land itself was poorly suited for plantation-style agriculture.

Not sure what you are saying here. Tobacco & cotton were at the core of the monoculture plantation, but there were more balanced models as like Washington developed at Mt Vernon.

The Great Lakes region exported large quantities of timber & grain as fast as the labor arrived. Arguablly the somewhat ad hoc timber gangs that collected & transported the timber were far less 'effcient' than well organized & unpaid slave or bonded labor would have been. Harrison & his plantation clique envisioned more diverse 'plantations' long the lines of his mentor Washingtons Mt Vernon. Tho grain for export to the US east coast & Europe was at the core of the economy Harrison proposed.

 

[BlondieBC]

Seems like Georgia adopted slavery fairly late. If you find a POD where Georgia is not slave, you start to break the solid slave South. You have to then ask if place like Florida or Alabama are free or Slave. Also, look at POD where the NW territory (free land) is larger. If say the Tenn. and Kentucky areas are free, you are also making the slave areas less powerful. Much of the hills of TN are not well suited to the slave economy.

Now I can't get you a POD as far back as you want, but I think these two will have a slave economy in trouble by the early 1800's, as in much more politically weak. Then when UK goes anti-slavery, maybe it is manageable for say the Feds to buy and free the slaves in a phased process.

 

[BlondieBC]

Malaria isn't nearly as big a deal in the South as it is in say, the Caribbean. Particularly the further north in the south you go, and particular if the introduction of African malaria can be avoided. I think, should someone get a critical mass of white settlers who have a cultural distaste for slavery, it is entirely possible to settle it on the New England or Pennsylvania model of yeoman farmers. The trick is getting the critical mass; perhaps if the Puritans had migrated to Virginia instead?

How do you figure? Now you might be right if you mean Malaria and exclude other disease like Yellow Fever. Washington LA, one of the older cities in the swamp had a huge yellow fever problem. A full 1/3 of its graveyard is the yellow fever section. It is likely tropical disease were a contributing factor in a majority all deaths in many slave areas for decades on end.

 

[Horatius Cocles]

How do you figure? Now you might be right if you mean Malaria and exclude other disease like Yellow Fever. Washington LA, one of the older cities in the swamp had a huge yellow fever problem. A full 1/3 of its graveyard is the yellow fever section. It is likely tropical disease were a contributing factor in a majority all deaths in many slave areas for decades on end.

Without getting into the merit of the question, the deterministic view that equates non-European settlement to tropicality is just not (necessarily) true. The so-called tropical diseases like Malaria or the Yellow Fever were just as endemic to tropical lands as to Southern Europe and Northern US until at least the beginning of the 19th Century. Malaria itself is a Italian word: Mal aria (bad air). A lot is said today how this kind of malaise is somehow a "poor's disease". Malaria and Yellow Fever are not endemic in most parts of Tropical Latin America nowadays.

Also, it didn't stop, for instance, Brazil, a country 100% tropical/sub-tropical, to get a large number of European settlers in the end of the 19th century, even more than Canada if I remember correctly.

As for the American South, Slave-based plantation society is just a matter of Economics in its simplest view: it was just more profitable. To avoid it you should just change the economical logic behind slavery. I can see only two options:

1) Make its possibles cultures (cotton, tobacco, what else?) less profitable to its coloniser (England?) and the region would probably follow the settlement pattern of Northern US, or;

2) Make slavery moraly inacceptable. Brazil, again, made a weird transition from a slave labor-based economy to a industrial society without destroying the social establishment. i.e. Most of the European immigrants worked in the same Coffee plantations that the slaves did and most of the Brazilian capitalists were old Slave-owners...

 

[eschaton]

Not exactly. Slavery was in fact quite profitable with wheat and other small grains, as was shown in Virginia and elsewhere. Cotton and tobacco weren't needed for slave plantation agriculture to outcompete free farmers; wheat worked too.

What happened was that with a limited supply of slaves, cotton planters (in particular) and tobacco planters (to a lesser degree) were able to outbid other agricultural uses of slave labour, and so the slave labour was sucked further south. Which is why, although it's tangential to this thread, that one of the odd butterflies of a delayed cotton gin may well be slavery becoming much more established in downstate Indiana and Illinois.

Not surprising, given I knew the same dynamic happened in Brazil, as in the waning days of slavery the coffee plantations managed to snap up a large percentage of the slaves. I did know indentured servants were worth a lot less than African slaves in colonial times (and Indian slaves even less) in part due to the differential mortality, so there was always a pretty big price premium on slaves from Africa.

Plantation agriculture can be done profitably even without sharecropping however. I found out recently that the Arabs tended to pay higher-than-normal wages for work on sugar plantations, as it was onerous and they couldn't figure out how else to get anyone to do it.

The Great Lakes region exported large quantities of timber & grain as fast as the labor arrived. Arguablly the somewhat ad hoc timber gangs that collected & transported the timber were far less 'effcient' than well organized & unpaid slave or bonded labor would have been. Harrison & his plantation clique envisioned more diverse 'plantations' long the lines of his mentor Washingtons Mt Vernon. Tho grain for export to the US east coast & Europe was at the core of the economy Harrison proposed.

Jared got at what I was trying to say in an inexpert manner. Slavery was actually a pretty expensive endeavor in the U.S. Given blacks in the U.S. had one of the highest fertility rates of anywhere in the New World, you'd need a further supply from Africa, and given the tremendous overhead costs of slave-trading (the death rate of the white crew on slave ships was typically higher than that of the Africans being transported), I'm not sure how you'd cut the cost much - particularly since much of the supply was prisoners of war that one African kingdom or another procured, and then sold.

Now I can't get you a POD as far back as you want, but I think these two will have a slave economy in trouble by the early 1800's, as in much more politically weak. Then when UK goes anti-slavery, maybe it is manageable for say the Feds to buy and free the slaves in a phased process.

I think a phased emancipation during the very early 19th century is politically plausible. But major areas of the south like the Yazoo region of Missisippi and Lousiana are just not going to be healthy places for white settlers to set up shop. Given the choice they'd almost certainly hire blacks to work the land for them, and live somewhere higher and dryer.

Without getting into the merit of the question, the deterministic view that equates non-European settlement to tropicality is just not (necessarily) true. The so-called tropical diseases like Malaria or the Yellow Fever were just as endemic to tropical lands as to Southern Europe and Northern US until at least the beginning of the 19th Century. Malaria itself is a Italian word: Mal aria (bad air). A lot is said today how this kind of malaise is somehow a "poor's disease".

While this is true, you have to think about the epidemiology of malaria.

"European" Malaria (Malaria vivax) isn't highly fatal in and of itself. In areas where it was endemic, children would usually get it very young, and if they survived, they'd be resistant for the rest of their lives. But given people didn't move around much, its incidence tended to be in isolated pockets where there were large pools of stagnant water.

But when it comes to setting up virgin-soil settlements, everything really goes awry. Presuming few people in a settlement had it as a child, they all contract it more or less at the same time. As a result, everyone is weak and feverish. No one can farm or do any other work very well for months at a time. People begin going hungry, and then fall prey to other diseases. Even though the base mortality is pretty low, the secondary mortality can be frighteningly high - which is why settlements like Scottish Darien often failed.

Malaria and Yellow Fever are not endemic in most parts of Tropical Latin America nowadays.

That's because modern states have eliminated them. I don't see how that is relevant, because no one at the time even understood they were mosquito-borne.

Also, it didn't stop, for instance, Brazil, a country 100% tropical/sub-tropical, to get a large number of European settlers in the end of the 19th century, even more than Canada if I remember correctly.

Two things. One, quinine was being used as a prophylactic against Malaria as early as 1850 on a large scale. Second, many segments of far Southern Brazil, which saw the most non-Portuguese white settlement, didn't even have any mosquito species which malaria could use as a vector.

As for the American South, Slave-based plantation society is just a matter of Economics in its simplest view: it was just more profitable. To avoid it you should just change the economical logic behind slavery. I can see only two options:

1) Make its possibles cultures (cotton, tobacco, what else?) less profitable to its coloniser (England?) and the region would probably follow the settlement pattern of Northern US, or;

Supply and demand. If cash crops are less profitable, slaves will be cheaper. But as long as they aren't so cheap it isn't worthless to ship them overseas (and it won't be, given they are healthier in tropical and subtropical climates), some economic niche will be found for them.

 

[Admiral Matt]

(the death rate of the white crew on slave ships was typically higher than that of the Africans being transported)

Whoa. Do you have a source you can point me to for this?

I suppose they mostly died during the time spent in African ports?

 

[BlondieBC]

Whoa. Do you have a source you can point me to for this?

I suppose they mostly died during the time spent in African ports?

I have seen this in multiple sources. It is really quite simple to explain. Disease is not respecter of persons. While traveling in quite tiny ships with human feces all over them and easily in infection range of anything airborne, the whites had a death rate similar to the slaves. Slightly lower, but not by a huge amount.

But this was made up for by the tropical disease. The ships would spend around 60 days buying slaves, anchored in river delta, A.K.A malarial swamps. There would be a large spike of deaths here.

 

[Faeelin]

I found out recently that the Arabs tended to pay higher-than-normal wages for work on sugar plantations, as it was onerous and they couldn't figure out how else to get anyone to do it.

I wonder how the Chinese managed it.

 

[Horatius Cocles]

But when it comes to setting up virgin-soil settlements, everything really goes awry. Presuming few people in a settlement had it as a child, they all contract it more or less at the same time. As a result, everyone is weak and feverish. No one can farm or do any other work very well for months at a time. People begin going hungry, and then fall prey to other diseases. Even though the base mortality is pretty low, the secondary mortality can be frighteningly high - which is why settlements like Scottish Darien often failed.

That's because modern states have eliminated them. I don't see how that is relevant, because no one at the time even understood they were mosquito-borne.

Two things. One, quinine was being used as a prophylactic against Malaria as early as 1850 on a large scale. Second, many segments of far Southern Brazil, which saw the most non-Portuguese white settlement, didn't even have any mosquito species which malaria could use as a vector.

It's also true that all parts of Latin America, tropical and non-tropical, experienced constant and masssive Iberian immigration in all its colonial history. Spanish and Portuguese people makes up a large number of the total population of some tropical areas on which there was virtually no immigration in 19th Century and in the early 1900s: they are 30% of Northeast Brazil, 30% of the Dominican Republic, 20% of Colombia and Venezuela, etc. All these regions have much worse climates than the South.

American South climate is somehow more related to Southern Brazil and Argentina, regions settled mostly by European small landholders and artisans. In absolut numbers, however, most of the Brazilian immigrantion went to the State of São Paulo not to only populate the place, but to replace African labor at the subtropical coffee plantantions.

My point is that the very nature of settlement was as related to the cultural aspects of the colonizing country as to the economical and geographical features of the colonized area.

Supply and demand. If cash crops are less profitable, slaves will be cheaper. But as long as they aren't so cheap it isn't worthless to ship them overseas (and it won't be, given they are healthier in tropical and subtropical climates), some economic niche will be found for them.

It's true that the slave price will goes down if we think about a short term crisis of profitability, but if we assume a long term unviability of these crops, slavers would just turn to the Caribbean and to Latin America. In addition, besides the rice production, I don't actually see any other use of slave labor in the American South without cash crops. Lumbering and cattle hearding never were compatible with Slavery.

 

[trajen777]

To make slavery of low importance - move invention of the cotton Gin from 1793 to 1870 -- this was the major source of the growth of slavery
The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of the Southern economy.[13] While it took a single slave about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day.[14] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850.[15] By 1860, the Southern states were providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, and up to 80% of the crucial British market.[16] The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe's first agricultural powerhouse, and – according to many historians – was the start of the Industrial Revolution".[17]


So if you take this moving forward the econ dependence on cotton - slave economy is diminished --Atl - Bhm - Richmond manf would have grown at the same rate - perhaps fruit - veggies - etc shipping north as railways became more viable

 

[eschaton]

But this was made up for by the tropical disease. The ships would spend around 60 days buying slaves, anchored in river delta, A.K.A malarial swamps. There would be a large spike of deaths here.

In the 19th century, British troops stationed in Africa had a 48%-67% annual mortality rate! African troops had a 3% annual mortality rate.

During the same period the British reported that white troops in the Caribbean had about a 300% chance of dying in a given year compared to black troops. Not every island was highly malarial during this period, however, so mortality may have been much higher in localized areas.

It's also true that all parts of Latin America, tropical and non-tropical, experienced constant and masssive Iberian immigration in all its colonial history. Spanish and Portuguese people makes up a large number of the total population of some tropical areas on which there was virtually no immigration in 19th Century and in the early 1900s: they are 30% of Northeast Brazil, 30% of the Dominican Republic, 20% of Colombia and Venezuela, etc. All these regions have much worse climates than the South.

I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.

Wiki has some figures for Brazil. From founding through the 17th century, around 100,000 Portuguese settled. In the 18th century, another 400,000 did, due to the gold rush. Most of this was concentrated in the uplands of Minas Gerais, which is not an unhealthy area for Europeans, along with points further south (which were also, generally speaking, either not malarial or only barely so). In addition, since Brazil never had an issue with race mixing, most "whites" who aren't from 19th century stock are actually partially (10%-15%) black or so, thus they might have the Duffy antigen to protect against malaria).

As to Latin America, it's harder to say, because either the Spanish didn't keep statistics as well as the Portuguese, or these haven't made it into common sources. I do know, however, that Cuba experienced a big racial turnover due to Spanish Immigration in the late 19th century. In 1841 Cuba was only around 41% white and 59% non-white, but by 1877 it had become 67% white and 32% non-white. Columbia received very little immigration in the late 19th century, but Venezuela did to some degree. And virtually everyone in the Dominican Republic is mixed race (most would pass as black in the U.S. sense, even if they are predominantly white by genetics).

American South climate is somehow more related to Southern Brazil and Argentina, regions settled mostly by European small landholders and artisans. In absolute numbers, however, most of the Brazilian immigration went to the State of São Paulo not to only populate the place, but to replace African labor at the subtropical coffee plantations.

While this might be true in terms of overall climate, the genus of mosquitoes which is the vector for malaria was absent from Argentina and far southern Brazil. Malaria couldn't infect the native mosquitoes, which were not closely related.

As a result, in South America, it was more the presence/absence of the mosquito vector which mattered, but in the north, it was more the average temperature, as the African form of malaria needs a few consecutive weeks of temperatures above 66 degrees Fahrenheit to propagate successfully.

As an aside, Argentina did have lots of slaves imported - somewhere between 220,000 and 330,000 between settlement and the abolition of slavery. But similar to New England, they didn't have any vital economic sector that free labor was competed out of, so slavery left no mark on the nation.

My point is that the very nature of settlement was as related to the cultural aspects of the colonizing country as to the economical and geographical features of the colonized area.

Culture matters little to none. There were many attempts for Europeans to form new cities in tropical lowlands New World, and almost all of them failed miserably. In contrast, whites settled quite well into the highlands and high latitudes. It's why most Spanish settlers in the 17th century moved to Mexico or Ecuador.

It's true that the slave price will goes down if we think about a short term crisis of profitability, but if we assume a long term unviability of these crops, slavers would just turn to the Caribbean and to Latin America. In addition, besides the rice production, I don't actually see any other use of slave labor in the American South without cash crops. Lumbering and cattle hearding never were compatible with Slavery.

The Dominican Republic managed to get slavery to work with cattle ranching. Nonetheless, you have a point.

Still, my main point is not that slavery was inevitable in these areas, it's only that without African labor, large portions of the coastal lowlands and Missisippi bottom-lands will be viewed as marginal if not useless lands. I see it developing without slavery sort of similar to the Amazon (albeit to a lesser degree), which has always had many valuable resources, but was such an unhealthy climate for whites up until the 20th century it was left to Indians and the decedents of runaway slaves.

 

[Horatius Cocles]

I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.

Wiki has some figures for Brazil. From founding through the 17th century, around 100,000 Portuguese settled. In the 18th century, another 400,000 did, due to the gold rush. Most of this was concentrated in the uplands of Minas Gerais, which is not an unhealthy area for Europeans, along with points further south (which were also, generally speaking, either not malarial or only barely so). In addition, since Brazil never had an issue with race mixing, most "whites" who aren't from 19th century stock are actually partially (10%-15%) black or so, thus they might have the Duffy antigen to protect against malaria).

Well, according to Brazilian 2009 census, White Brazilians make up 28,8% of the population of Northeastern Brazil, the very centre of the sugar industry that profited from virtualy no immigration (besides African) after Brazilian independence.

As you brought that up, Brazil got about 400,000 Portuguese and a half a million in the 18th century, mostly attracted by the gold rush of Minas Gerais, a region of tropical highlands of about 1,000 m above sea level, somehow similar to, let's say, Uganda. Its good to compare as well that the 13 Colonies got about 950,000 immigrants through out ALL its colonial history, including the 300,000 African slaves.

Culture matters little to none. There were many attempts for Europeans to form new cities in tropical lowlands New World, and almost all of them failed miserably. In contrast, whites settled quite well into the highlands and high latitudes. It's why most Spanish settlers in the 17th century moved to Mexico or Ecuador.

Cartagena de Indias, La Habana, Portobello, Nombre de Díos, Veracruz, Santo Domingo, New Orleans (that always had a considerable French White population), Recife, Salvador and, at last, but not at least, Rio de Janeiro. The seat of the Portuguese Empire between 1808 and 1821 that served as home to 15,000 nobles from Portugal when they ran from Napoleon.

As for the mosquito issue, I just found this online:

So, with your deterministic logic that Malaria stops development, all Midwest and the California Central Valley, the most productive agricultural areas in the US, would be just backwards places faded to uselessness.

Still, my main point is not that slavery was inevitable in these areas, it's only that without African labor, large portions of the coastal lowlands and Missisippi bottom-lands will be viewed as marginal if not useless lands. I see it developing without slavery sort of similar to the Amazon (albeit to a lesser degree), which has always had many valuable resources, but was such an unhealthy climate for whites up until the 20th century it was left to Indians and the decedents of runaway slaves.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that the coastal lowlands of the South are a unhealthy region and it would be hardly settled, but mostly because it doesn't have a profitable economical activity.

 

[eschaton]

Well, according to Brazilian 2009 census, White Brazilians make up 28,8% of the population of Northeastern Brazil, the very centre of the sugar industry that profited from virtualy no immigration (besides African) after Brazilian independence.

Again, you should not generalize from the present to the past. Genetic studies have shown virtually all "white" Brazilians have significant black and indigenous DNA, and there have been recent domestic migrations in Brazil, as various governments have attempted to develop the more under-populated regions. Virtually no one who wasn't Indigenous or from a Quilombo lived in the Amazon up until fifty years ago, for example.

As you brought that up, Brazil got about 400,000 Portuguese and a half a million in the 18th century, mostly attracted by the gold rush of Minas Gerais, a region of tropical highlands of about 1,000 m above sea level, somehow similar to, let's say, Uganda. Its good to compare as well that the 13 Colonies got about 950,000 immigrants through out ALL its colonial history, including the 300,000 African slaves.

Brazil was both founded earlier and let go of later than the Thirteen Colonies, so I don't think it's a fair comparison.

In addition, the figures I've seen on slave importation pre-1776 were nearly 600,000.

Cartagena de Indias, La Habana, Portobello, Nombre de Díos, Veracruz, Santo Domingo, New Orleans (that always had a considerable French White population), Recife, Salvador and, at last, but not at least, Rio de Janeiro. The seat of the Portuguese Empire between 1808 and 1821 that served as home to 15,000 nobles from Portugal when they ran from Napoleon.

Even the tropical lowlands of Latin America aren't as unhealthy of an environment for whites as Sub-Saharan Africa. But the migrants from Iberia to the New World tended to be either nobles (who could attempt to avoid areas of bad climate), or the impoverished (who didn't have much choice but to risk death).

The crucial question, however, is how effectively white smallholders could settle a given area. The answer varies depending upon the local climatic factors, but there simply were many places where only the foolhardy would try to form a settlement.

So, with your deterministic logic that Malaria stops development, all Midwest and the California Central Valley, the most productive agricultural areas in the US, would be just backwards places faded to uselessness.

A few things.

1. The California Central Valley was largely unproductive land (due to seasonal flooding) up until Great Depression era water-management projects which turned it into an agricultural wonder.

2. All malarial areas are not equal. For one, outside of the south, only the less fatal Malaria vivax could survive, not Malaria falciparum. Two, in progressively colder climates, the malarial seasion was shorter, leading to less likelihood of transmission. This paper is helpful, as it estimates incidence rates in 1850, which were present, but generally low, across the Midwest. It mentions at the end the 1880 map is probably wrong, because a lot of the wetlands in the Midwest had already been drained and turned into good cropland.

I'm going to take out a long quote here:

As is well known, the availability of suitable sources of surface water for vector breeding is a prerequisite for malaria transmission. Frequent floods and heavy rains would convert flat areas near rivers into swamps and wetlands in the mid-nineteenth century, when draining technology was insufficient. Consequently, settlement in these regions was also inhibited by the presence of endemic fevers, which continued to plague residents until the drainage movement of the late nineteenth century. However, contrary to the effect of draining, water resource developments for agriculture, such as irrigation and canals could unintentionally provide new mosquito breeding sites. Finally, some potential vectors breed in fresh and saltwater marshes, but most species that are abundant in the United States commonly lay their eggs in stagnant fresh water. Thus, there exists the possibility that regions adjacent to oceans are exposed to a lower level of malaria risk.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that the coastal lowlands of the South are a unhealthy region and it would be hardly settled, but mostly because it doesn't have a profitable economical activity.

It would be interesting, because without slavery, it's entirely possible that the "wealthy" portions of the South would be the uplands, and the poor portions would be the lowlands.

 

[Horatius Cocles]

Again, you should not generalize from the present to the past. Genetic studies have shown virtually all "white" Brazilians have significant black and indigenous DNA, and there have been recent domestic migrations in Brazil, as various governments have attempted to develop the more under-populated regions. Virtually no one who wasn't Indigenous or from a Quilombo lived in the Amazon up until fifty years ago, for example.

I think you're confusing Northeastern Brazil with Northern Brazil. Northeastern Brazil was the first part of Brazil colonizated, mostly semi-arid and very far away from the Amazon. The only internal migrations that we had in the last 200 years was a massive emmigration of Northeasterns to the Southeast (mainly São Paulo and Rio) and to the North (the Amazon). Most of the Northeastern population are native from their region and can trace their origins back to the early colonization in the 16th and 17th century, specially because of Nordeste decaying economy ever since. I'm a Northeastern Brazilian myself, so, if you can read some Portuguese, I can show you some studies about it.

Of course, Brazilian racial identification is just the extreme opposite of the American One-drop rule. However, this is easily sociologically, economically explained (also naturally to an extent), just read The Masters and the Slaves of Gilberto Freyre, an amazing classic that help us to understand racial relations and slavery in Brazil and in Latin America.

Brazil was both founded earlier and let go of later than the Thirteen Colonies, so I don't think it's a fair comparison.

In addition, the figures I've seen on slave importation pre-1776 were nearly 600,000.

As I said, 400,000 is the number of Portuguese immigrants that came to Brazil from the very first gold vein found (1693 if I remember correctly) until the end of the 18th century. Therefore, about half of the number of Whites that colonized in present day US (including South) settled in "Uganda" though out the 1700s. The assumption that whites would just settle in temperate climates is 19th century-ish and doesn't take into consideration all Latin American history.

Even the tropical lowlands of Latin America aren't as unhealthy of an environment for whites as Sub-Saharan Africa. But the migrants from Iberia to the New World tended to be either nobles (who could attempt to avoid areas of bad climate), or the impoverished (who didn't have much choice but to risk death).

The crucial question, however, is how effectively white smallholders could settle a given area. The answer varies depending upon the local climatic factors, but there simply were many places where only the foolhardy would try to form a settlement.

Again, you should read Freyre's work that explains how a sugar manor, an engenho, works. Even if most of the work was done by the slaves, that's undeniable, there was a large number of free labor as well, mostly craftsmen and artisans. In less fertile areas, there was also a large number of small landholders producing staple crops (mostly manioc) or herding cattle. In Brazil, African slave labor and free White labor were not exclusive but a symbiotic.

A few things.

1. The California Central Valley was largely unproductive land (due to seasonal flooding) up until Great Depression era water-management projects which turned it into an agricultural wonder.

2. All malarial areas are not equal. For one, outside of the south, only the less fatal Malaria vivax could survive, not Malaria falciparum. Two, in progressively colder climates, the malarial seasion was shorter, leading to less likelihood of transmission. This paper is helpful, as it estimates incidence rates in 1850, which were present, but generally low, across the Midwest. It mentions at the end the 1880 map is probably wrong, because a lot of the wetlands in the Midwest had already been drained and turned into good cropland.

Was all South just a big wetland? All these sanitation mesures couldn't be done in the South?