French enslavement of Algerians

Following the French conquest of Algeria, Could a large portion of the Algerian population be taken as slaves

How would this impact French abolitionist movements
 
Following the French conquest of Algeria, Could a large portion of the Algerian population be taken as slaves

How would this impact French abolitionist movements

Even after the decision to re establish slavery by Napoléon, the institution was heavily criticized in France. The slave trade was forbidden in 1815. In the 1830', the July monarchy took very timid steps toward an abolition, so I definitively not see the Algerians being reduced into slavery. The french OTL colonial policy was turning a blind eye on local slavery where it existed, eventually crushing down the owners who went too far with their "captives", but not taking official slaves. The tirailleurs (local infantry) were for example recruited among former slaves.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Yes, slavery was still allowed. "Rebelious elements" could be enslaved en-masse and sent to the killing fields of the sugar plantations in the Carribbean or Reunion. Or exported to Brazil, maybe to Dutch and Spanish holdings. British reaction? Depends on how the French spin it - they can truthfully claim that they are NOT involved in "Negro slave traffic".
 
According to Wikipedia, half a million to a full million out of three million Algerians were died in the first thirty years of the conquest, though we would need to look at their sources in greater detail. Might be the whole article is slanted, as just a couple paragraphs done it claims the Unites States provoked the Barbary Wars in order to stop attacks on Christian shipping. Anyways, the Barbary States had a system going where they took protection money, attacked ships (and if they ship looked very valuable the Corsairs ignored the people paid protection, and just went to another port afterwards), and held people hostage. Not sure if they sold many sailors, but they would have had a decent neough market with the Size of the Ottoman Empire. At this point in time the French would have no one to sell them to. And if you try shipping them far away I am betting their are enough people trained in sailing ships that they overtake their captors and hijack the ship.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Yes, slavery was still allowed. "Rebelious elements" could be enslaved en-masse and sent to the killing fields of the sugar plantations in the Carribbean or Reunion. Or exported to Brazil, maybe to Dutch and Spanish holdings. British reaction? Depends on how the French spin it - they can truthfully claim that they are NOT involved in "Negro slave traffic".

The French could just adopted the institution of 'transportation' as a sentence which the British used in Australia and thereby use Algerian rebels as bonded labour in the plantations of the Carribbean and Reunion ;)
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
At this point in time the French would have no one to sell them to. And if you try shipping them far away I am betting their are enough people trained in sailing ships that they overtake their captors and hijack the ship.
Any slaves the French ship to the Americas would be snapped up like hot buns from Baltimore down to Porto Alegre.
I'd not be that optimistic about slave revolts onboard - the slavers were not born yesterday ...
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Any slaves the French ship to the Americas would be snapped up like hot buns from Baltimore down to Porto Alegre.
I'd not be that optimistic about slave revolts onboard - the slavers were not born yesterday ...

If it full of people deemed criminals and sentenced to transportation, then they would not be considered as slaves. It would be pretty much the same as British ships full of convicts which went to Australia.
 
Yes, slavery was still allowed. "Rebelious elements" could be enslaved en-masse and sent to the killing fields of the sugar plantations in the Carribbean or Reunion. Or exported to Brazil, maybe to Dutch and Spanish holdings. British reaction? Depends on how the French spin it - they can truthfully claim that they are NOT involved in "Negro slave traffic".
All the Spanish had left was Puerto Rico and Cuba and I highly doubt they would want a swarm of Muslims dumped there. I doubt Brazil would want them as well, especially given how they would likely have reputations as being vicious or basically looking the same as Spaniards and Portuguese if they were clean shaven. Plus the moment the French sell them the Algerians move from being conscripted laborers or a group resettled far from Europe and become slaves. And given how many Algerians they would need to move in a short amount of time? It would basically be cramming people into ships.
 
Any slaves the French ship to the Americas would be snapped up like hot buns from Baltimore down to Porto Alegre.
I'd not be that optimistic about slave revolts onboard - the slavers were not born yesterday ...
The importation of slaves was banned in the United States starting in 1808. Besides, they would be far too light skinned and far too united.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
All the Spanish had left was Puerto Rico and Cuba and I highly doubt they would want a swarm of Muslims dumped there. I doubt Brazil would want them as well, especially given how they would likely have reputations as being vicious or basically looking the same as Spaniards and Portuguese if they were clean shaven. Plus the moment the French sell them the Algerians move from being conscripted laborers or a group resettled far from Europe and become slaves. And given how many Algerians they would need to move in a short amount of time? It would basically be cramming people into ships.

I doubt the French would enslave the Algerians, however rebels and other people deemed troublesome to the French authorities (such as Islamic Qadi's or Judges who challenged French authority) could have been sentenced to transportation most likely to other French Colonies and used as bonded labour. If that was to occur, then Reunion and the French Caribbean islands would have a large minority or even majority Muslim population descended from these people 'transported' there by the French.

The Dutch East Indian company deported Qadi's in Java who challenged their authority to the Cape Colony in OTL. The British also transported Irish Rebels and English Chartists to Australia as well.
 
Last edited:

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
You could carry 400-600 slaves per ship. Ten ships, two journeys per year, that's ten thousand people already ...
The importation of slaves was banned in the United States starting in 1808. Besides, they would be far too light skinned and far too united.
Smuggling continued up to the ACW, with sales advertised in local media ...
 
I doubt the French would enslave the Algerians, however rebels and other people deemed troublesome to the French authorities (such as Islamic Qadi's or Judges who challenged French authority) could have been sentenced to transportation most likely to other French Colonies and used as bonded labour.

The Dutch East Indian company deported Qadi's in Java who challenged their authority to the Cape Colony in OTL.
Indeed, indeed. If we don't just count chattel slavery, as the OP with mentoin of the abolition movement and the locals being taken as slaves, then we open up a variety of forms of Less Than Volunary Labor. I think one of the problems here is going to be who the French manage to capture, and what their actual goal is. The warriors and rebels may fight to the death, especially if their fate is known, while the women and children... yah, this thing opens up a lot fo questions.

You could carry 400-600 slaves per ship. Ten ships, two journeys per year, that's ten thousand people already ...

Smuggling continued up to the ACW, with sales advertised in local media ...
Going to be pretty hard to pass up Arabs and Berbers as slaves, especially if shipping them directly in Baltimore. They tended to ship people in from Cuba, pretending they got lost and where moving slaves between states.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Indeed, indeed. If we don't just count chattel slavery, as the OP with mention of the abolition movement and the locals being taken as slaves, then we open up a variety of forms of Less Than Voluntary Labor. I think one of the problems here is going to be who the French manage to capture, and what their actual goal is. The warriors and rebels may fight to the death, especially if their fate is known, while the women and children... yah, this thing opens up a lot of questions.

I suspect the French intention would be to send a message to anybody daring to challenge their authority with the warning that deportation to Reunion and the Caribbean Islands would be the punishment. The punishment could extend to their entire communities as well.
 
The French could just adopted the institution of 'transportation' as a sentence which the British used in Australia and thereby use Algerian rebels as bonded labour in the plantations of the Carribbean and Reunion ;)

The French did have a "transportation" (déportation in French) as a sentence, but, prior to 1848, they not did use them, as there was no convenient colonial prison. After 1848, they used Algeria, New Caledonia and Guyana. during the Algerian conquest, they did not bother with legal sentences : until 1870, Algeria was under military administration. The first official transportations of Algerians to New Caledonia was in 1867 and the last in 1921, with a total of 2,166 transportations. The French did target the leaders, with no idea of massive transportations ; even the wife and children were not transported with the condemned.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
The French did have a "transportation" (déportation in French) as a sentence, but, prior to 1848, they not did use them, as there was no convenient colonial prison. After 1848, they used Algeria, New Caledonia and Guyana. during the Algerian conquest, they did not bother with legal sentences : until 1870, Algeria was under military administration. The first official transportations of Algerians to New Caledonia was in 1867 and the last in 1921, with a total of 2,166 transportations. The French did target the leaders, with no idea of massive transportations ; even the wife and children were not transported with the condemned.

I did not know that, all the French would need to do is to implement it on a much more massive scale.
 
I did not know that, all the French would need to do is to implement it on a much more massive scale.
It is rather less effective to remove the leadership of groups who ar snot loyal to you if you also send tens or hundreds of thousands of their countrymen with them. I feel we need to look over share-croppin and serfdom and see if we can consider that as light slavery for the question of this. It is rather easier to do the stuff with slavery in Sub-Saharan African due to them having different property laws, different economies, and how it was often prisoners and captives brought in from far, far away away that were being traded. Going to be impossible to find collaborators for the French here. On that note, Egypt and Morocco will not give a single inch of influence if they think the French are trying to come after them. I see the Egyptians mvoign much closer to the ottomans, while Morocco might try to get in bed with the British. If the French want to seem better in the eyes of Europeans (not saying this is makes any of this good, but they might spin it with propaganda) but they might try claiming they are converting hundreds of thousands of people or trading the Algerians with other states to get Christian hostages. Not going to work of course and just going to inflame tensions but- huh. I just thought of something. Maybe a populatoin exchange with the Ottomans?

Though I doubt it would be taken. The Ottomans liked the wealth they got from all the Christian subjects in the Balkans while the French might not be thrilled with a bunch of Greek Orthodoxs being brought into Algeria after they tried opening it for themselves. I expect in scenarios like this the Ottomans would pack up everyone remotely Catholic in the Levant and ship them over. Not that the Christians there were exactly thrilled about Europeans. I recall reading in a book series called Politicslly Incorrect History (it showed some good examples, but omitted the full story) about how when Saladin conquered Jerusalem he enslaved those who couldn't pay ransom. What it leave says out was how the bishops and noblemen were ransacking the treasury and seizing every relic or speck of gold in Churches, and refusing to pay for the local Christians or the poor civilians or crusaders. I think there maaaay still have been some long going resentment of the Crusades, where every group and religion was at each other's throats, and non single Groupon a story unified.
 
Last edited:
Top