AHC and WI: Maintaining the slave trade for another decade

What would happen if the British didn't ban the slave trade until ten years later? What might cause such a change? How much larger would the slave population in the Americas end up? What effect would this have on the price of slaves and their extension into other crops?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
If Britain is slower in abolishing the trade, everyone else (of the European powers) would be slower too. The thing is for the slave population in the Americas to really grow, there has to be a larger demand for female slaves. Usually a tenth of every slave shipped over was female, because the Plantations didn't really need so many of them, since the slaves didn't need to reproduce. But if for example everyone would know the slave trade would end a certain date, they could stock female slaves to be prepared for the change (similar to OTL), and if the period they have to prepare is longer, the more slaves of both genders they can stock. But for this to be succesful the slave traders and slave owners must KNOW that the trade is going to end, otherwise they'll just keep going on like before.
 
How likely would it be, given the larger U.S. slave population that would result from this slower anti-slavery effort :mad:, that successful slave revolts begin happening during the early 1850s? Also, if said revolts came to pass, would they spark a national debate about slavery, cause the system to crack, bring about a Federal response? There must come a point where enough slaves, despite being browbeaten, dispirited and subjegated, will realize that they have strength of numbers, know-how and brawn.
 
How likely would it be, given the larger U.S. slave population that would result from this slower anti-slavery effort :mad:, that successful slave revolts begin happening during the early 1850s? Also, if said revolts came to pass, would they spark a national debate about slavery, cause the system to crack, bring about a Federal response? There must come a point where enough slaves, despite being browbeaten, dispirited and subjegated, will realize that they have strength of numbers, know-how and brawn.

We really need to know the rate of increase of slaves that came from the slave trade rather than from natural growth to get some numbers on this. Certainly if slave populations were 65%+ of some places I can see Caribbean style slave revolts.
 
We really need to know the rate of increase of slaves that came from the slave trade rather than from natural growth to get some numbers on this. Certainly if slave populations were 65%+ of some places I can see Caribbean style slave revolts.

Unlikely. Some areas of Georgia and Mississippi were over three quarters slave before the civil war. They never revolted, the best they could manage was the attempt to escape. The propensity of American slaves to revolt in the Antebellum South seems to have been much more dependent upon education, or the presence of a inspiring leaders with the ability to travel freely.

I don't think allowing a couple of hundred thousand more slaves into the US would have seriously effected the outbreak of the civil war, or abolitionism. A fresher influx of slaves would mean that there would be a greater amount of surviving African culture amongst the slaves, meaning that more of them would retain at least some of their native languages and religions. This would make them seem more "alien" to northern abolitionists, but since few of those abolitionists really knew much about slaves to begin with, I don't think it would really effect their attitudes.

An interesting effect would be lowering the price of slaves for a time, making it more likely that a larger number of white southerners would have the opportunity to own slaves, and establish plantations, both in the "Old" South and in the Louisiana and annexed Mexican territories.
 
Obviously, for the US the big question is whether the British refusing to bar the slave trade would stop America from doing so. IIRC, both laws were passed at almost exactly the same time (though the US one didn't come into effect until 1808 due to the constitutional requirement that the slave trade remain legal for 20 years post ratification). If the US still bars the slave trade itself, changes within the US will not be as marked.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Obviously, for the US the big question is whether the British refusing to bar the slave trade would stop America from doing so. IIRC, both laws were passed at almost exactly the same time (though the US one didn't come into effect until 1808 due to the constitutional requirement that the slave trade remain legal for 20 years post ratification). If the US still bars the slave trade itself, changes within the US will not be as marked.
But the US was influenced by Britain's decision. If Britain postpone, so will the US.
 
But the US was influenced by Britain's decision. If Britain postpone, so will the US.

Not likely, considering the US passed it's abolition of the slave trade act more than three weeks before the British did (March 2, 1807 vs. March 25, 1807).

Of course, without British help enforcement would be quite problematic at best.
 
Unlikely. Some areas of Georgia and Mississippi were over three quarters slave before the civil war. They never revolted, the best they could manage was the attempt to escape. The propensity of American slaves to revolt in the Antebellum South seems to have been much more dependent upon education, or the presence of a inspiring leaders with the ability to travel freely.

How come the Caribbean slaves had better education or more inspiring leaders??

I don't think allowing a couple of hundred thousand more slaves into the US would have seriously effected the outbreak of the civil war, or abolitionism. A fresher influx of slaves would mean that there would be a greater amount of surviving African culture amongst the slaves, meaning that more of them would retain at least some of their native languages and religions. This would make them seem more "alien" to northern abolitionists, but since few of those abolitionists really knew much about slaves to begin with, I don't think it would really effect their attitudes.

I believe the lack of African culture among US slaves was due to cotton needing smaller gang systems than sugar. That means slave owners could mix and match slaves from different ethnic groups, forcing them to use English for communication. The larger gangs required on sugar plantations meant this was impossible. I don't see that more cotton plantations would change this.

An interesting effect would be lowering the price of slaves for a time, making it more likely that a larger number of white southerners would have the opportunity to own slaves, and establish plantations, both in the "Old" South and in the Louisiana and annexed Mexican territories.

While it would lower the barriers to entry somewhat, I think lowering the price of each slave would most benefit those who already had a lot of slaves. That could have the effect of increasing consolidation of plantations. They could run out of good cotton land quicker, and thus seek to expand into Mexico sooner. Another possibility is that slave labour becomes more viable in other crops - if it outcompetes free labour in wheat it could spread very far north.
 
How come the Caribbean slaves had better education or more inspiring leaders??
I should specify that I am referring to JUST the US. I really am not familiar with the dynamics of slave revolts in the Carribean, though there was a much higher ratio of slaves to whites, and larger plantations, which reduced the need for elaborate conspiracies that preceeded slave revolts in the US, from NY to the Carolinas. For US slave revolts to succeed, the slaves had to coordinate their actions amongst numerous households and plantations, which required writing, or at very least free travel.
I believe the lack of African culture among US slaves was due to cotton needing smaller gang systems than sugar. That means slave owners could mix and match slaves from different ethnic groups, forcing them to use English for communication. The larger gangs required on sugar plantations meant this was impossible. I don't see that more cotton plantations would change this.
Very interesting, I did not know that. I always thought it had to do with the fact that relatively few slaves were imported to the US, and relatively more of those slaves survived each generation than in the Carribean or South America. Each new generation of slaves had more cultural contact with their masters, whereas in the Carribean so many slaves died in fields that there was a constant re-infusion of African culture with each new shipment of slaves to replace the dead.

Though weren't plantations moving more towards large scale gang labor in the Deep South during the 1840's as planters and overseers tried to come up with more efficient techniques to squeeze the most labor out of their slaves?
While it would lower the barriers to entry somewhat, I think lowering the price of each slave would most benefit those who already had a lot of slaves. That could have the effect of increasing consolidation of plantations. They could run out of good cotton land quicker, and thus seek to expand into Mexico sooner. Another possibility is that slave labour becomes more viable in other crops - if it outcompetes free labour in wheat it could spread very far north.

Have to agree with you here too. I guess it depends on the "economies of scale" that you get from slaves working on larger plantations versus the utility of a few slaves to family farmers of modest means. If the big slave owners thought they were great investments, they could of course outbid smallholders for any number of slaves.
[/QUOTE]
 
Very interesting, I did not know that. I always thought it had to do with the fact that relatively few slaves were imported to the US, and relatively more of those slaves survived each generation than in the Carribean or South America. Each new generation of slaves had more cultural contact with their masters, whereas in the Carribean so many slaves died in fields that there was a constant re-infusion of African culture with each new shipment of slaves to replace the dead.

The telling example here is the rice slaves on the coasts of the Carolinas. Here, the plantation owners needed slaves who had rice growing expertise, so they had to come from just a few ethnic groups who could communicate with each other. This resulted in the continuity of African culture we see among the Gullah people who exist there today. New Orleans is another case where the Africans weren't dying off each generation, yet African culture remained.

In addition, think how African culture continued to survive in places like Brazil after the end of slavery when the mortality rates would drop. I don't think mortality rates are the big factor.

Though weren't plantations moving more towards large scale gang labor in the Deep South during the 1840's as planters and overseers tried to come up with more efficient techniques to squeeze the most labor out of their slaves?

Yes, quite possibly. I don't know whether they were getting to the huge sizes of the sugar plantations though (which had hundreds of slaves rather than dozens). Also, by this point the slave trade had ended thirty years previously, so the slaves they were buying in would already be used to speaking English without their ethnic group.
 
Top