Climate Prevents African Slavery in Northern States and Areas?

No, non-African populations lived and still live in the region since the first slaves from Africa were brought there, they didn't start magically appearing in the 19th century.

Also please read before responding, I wasn't contesting that there are differences, only that they were not the main reason for the usage of black slaves.

I am a bit confused. Very few white people lived in West Africa before modern medical tech, the European outposts there were always tiny. It isn't random chance that South Africa, out of the malarial zone, was one of the few white settler colonies.

As for slave use....just compare and contrast a climate map with slave usage. Areas with lots of yellow fever mean lots of slaves. In the USA south, for example, they tried white indentured servants but they died at too fast a rate. It was only after exhausting that (and local Indians) they turned to blacks.
 
I am a bit confused. Very few white people lived in West Africa before modern medical tech, the European outposts there were always tiny. It isn't random chance that South Africa, out of the malarial zone, was one of the few white settler colonies.

As for slave use....just compare and contrast a climate map with slave usage. Areas with lots of yellow fever mean lots of slaves. In the USA south, for example, they tried white indentured servants but they died at too fast a rate. It was only after exhausting that (and local Indians) they turned to blacks.
South Africa probably was simply more geographically accessible and advantegeous to settle, plus it had a smaller population than either West Africa or the Congo Basin.

Yellow fever was brought with Africans to begin with, plus it would be ridiculous to think that the areas were slave labor is needed to grow specific crops and malaria/yellow fever exposed region are the same.
Indentured slaves are not good when you are trying to create a permanent slave population because that's outside the nature of the indentured servitude, it doesn't seem economically as advantegous to continuously import people, not only because death rates, but also because the end of contracts and on top of that face stiff resistance from various groups in the home country.

Also, again, my point is not that there is no difference in survival rates, but the thing is that we cannot ignore the fact that non-African populations did survive in relevant and even large numbers even before the industrial era, so the reasons for the usage of African slaves are many and different.

Perihelion was always in January, and Southern Hemisphere has less land, thus less dust in the air, so UV levels were higher already before industrial era.
But how much? I see conflicting data on the matter, a lot of maps show New Zealand and southern Australia to be not much different from the Mediterranean region(on average at least), maybe the problem is more the yearly extremes.
 
I've data in my book about mortality of British troops caused by disease from first half of 19th century: yearly 10 per 1000 soldiers were dying from diseases among those stationing in Cape, 13 per 1000 were dying from diseases in Gibraltar and British Isles, for those stationing on Carribean Islands and India it was 75-80 per 1000, while in Sierra Leone it was 480 per 1000. That means Tropical Africa was almost 50 times more deadly than Cape of Good Hope.
 
I will also point out that it's not as if European slaves weren't used by the European powers; in many cases, a combination of penal/debt slaves and Slavs captured by the Tatars were used in galley fleets and the like. That these slaves weren't sent to the Caribbean en masse, even after the functional end of the galley fleet, says something.
 
I will also point out that it's not as if European slaves weren't used by the European powers; in many cases, a combination of penal/debt slaves and Slavs captured by the Tatars were used in galley fleets and the like. That these slaves weren't sent to the Caribbean en masse, even after the functional end of the galley fleet, says something.
Not really, did they even try using them? Or were they already disease experts(especially considering that some diseases existed only because African slaves had those within them)?

I've data in my book about mortality of British troops caused by disease from first half of 19th century: yearly 10 per 1000 soldiers were dying from diseases among those stationing in Cape, 13 per 1000 were dying from diseases in Gibraltar and British Isles, for those stationing on Carribean Islands and India it was 75-80 per 1000, while in Sierra Leone it was 480 per 1000. That means Tropical Africa was almost 50 times more deadly than Cape of Good Hope.
Died of disease within what kind time frame?
 
Not really, did they even try using them? Or were they already disease experts(especially considering that some diseases existed only because African slaves had those within them)?

I believe there were a few instances where penal slaves were deported to the colonies officially, and in England at least it wasn't uncommon for a magistrate to allow a convicted felon to "voluntarily" accept indenture in the Caribbean to escape the gallows. I'd assume it was similar in France.
 

DougM

Donor
Slavery does not work as well when the slave needs “skills”. Or has to be more accurate. This is one of the reasons that the use of slaves in factories and such is not as common as it is in agriculture, And frankly from a financial point of view it does not take all that much to move slavery from profitable to non profitable when compared to low paid workers.
If you think about it slaves are not free. You have the initial purchase price, then effectively you have to cover all living expenses from birth to death and for more then a few of those years on both ends you don’t get much work. Then on top of this you have to pay for security and over site. So you pretty much have all the expenses (and a few more) that you have with a low cost work force, But if I hire someone then my expenses are more limited. I don’t HAVE to pay him any more then he (or she) is willing to work for. Because if they can’t afford to feed themselves and thier families that is thier problem, if they get sick that is thier problem not mine. As an employer I don’t have to pay for them while they are sick or get them medical I can just let them die and replace them with the next guy. But a Soave I need to feed and fetch a doctor for as I have money invested in them and besides I don’t want to push the slaves TOO far as thier are a LOTof them. But I couldn’t care less if a worker gets injured.
If I am smart I (or at least my friends and relatives) own the houses/apartments as well as the stores that get all the money from my workers. You see this most blatantly with the coal mines company stores and houses.
If you think about it in many ways the “company store” situation was all but slavery. Yes they could leave and such and did not get beat half to death (or worse) but from an economic point of view they realy were often not much better off. And in some ways worse. As pretty much all the money that they were paid went back to the company for rent food clothing and what have you. And if the father got sick and could not work... out the family went.
So from an economic point of view until that advent of powerful unions and or government rules cheep labor is almost as good economically and a lot “simpler” then slavery. And you get to sit back and justify your actions with “well if they are so bad off the don’t HAVE to work for me” BS vs getting labeled as an EVIL slave owner.
Actually in early factories or other industrial jobs workers had one other HUGE economic advantage over slaves. The number of workers that got injured or permanently maimed on machines ranging from factory machines to trains was truly staggering and with a slave that is your expensive property that was just damaged and you have to still take care of his family that mayto old or to young to work much but with a worker you send the injured guy home and kick his family out if they can’t pay the rent.
Thier were reasons why slavery was not seen as much in these positions.
 
Top