John Casor declared freeman? No Civil War?

1) John Casor declared freeman [as English Common Law is decided to apply to everyone on English soil, regardless of nationality. English soil, English law. English soil, English taxes for all.]

2) No Slavery in English Colonies, only Indenture to a maximum of 11 years on a single contract. All imported non-English "slaves" would be required to serve an 11 year indenture contract. [e.g. Captured spanish slaves, African imported population]

3) Racism, while common and deep seated, leads to African-Americans being "free" but unable to vote in large numbers. African-Americans end up indentured and then as poorly paid sharecroppers.

4) Due to racism, the period of indenture, and laws designed to disenfranchise them...African-Americans don't get to vote in noticeable numbers until the 1850s due to land ownership requirements, poll taxes, and other Jim Crow-like activities. However, their impact is only felt in the Northern elections for decades as the South continues to exploit them for cheap labor and crushes opportunity for African-Americans.

5) No Civil War but rather a slow march to "Civil Rights" that doesn't resolve itself until the 40s when African-Americans are conscripted in large numbers to fight in WW2.

6) The Modern US is ultimately little changed beyond being more progressive on social issues as the "Southern Strategy" never comes to pass and the Religious Right is much weaker as result.

Does that seem like a reasonable set of events, given no ASB?
 
1) John Casor declared freeman [as English Common Law is decided to apply to everyone on English soil, regardless of nationality. English soil, English law. English soil, English taxes for all.]

2) No Slavery in English Colonies, only Indenture to a maximum of 11 years on a single contract. All imported non-English "slaves" would be required to serve an 11 year indenture contract. [e.g. Captured spanish slaves, African imported population]

3) Racism, while common and deep seated, leads to African-Americans being "free" but unable to vote in large numbers. African-Americans end up indentured and then as poorly paid sharecroppers.

4) Due to racism, the period of indenture, and laws designed to disenfranchise them...African-Americans don't get to vote in noticeable numbers until the 1850s due to land ownership requirements, poll taxes, and other Jim Crow-like activities. However, their impact is only felt in the Northern elections for decades as the South continues to exploit them for cheap labor and crushes opportunity for African-Americans.

5) No Civil War but rather a slow march to "Civil Rights" that doesn't resolve itself until the 40s when African-Americans are conscripted in large numbers to fight in WW2.

6) The Modern US is ultimately little changed beyond being more progressive on social issues as the "Southern Strategy" never comes to pass and the Religious Right is much weaker as result.

Does that seem like a reasonable set of events, given no ASB?


Not enough butterflies, WWII as we know it would be butterflied away for starters,
 
If there is no slavery in US, only indentured servitude, then it is highly unlikely there will ever be a large number of blacks brought into the colonies and segregated from the white population. Instead of there being an identifable black community/culture, separated by law, blacks will probably merge with the population of English colonists and eventually "disappear" as a separate community like how blacks brought into Portugal, Spain, and other European countries disappeared by melting into the population.

Racism developed as a result to explain the relative backwardness of African societies to Europe and to later justify the institution of slavery. Without that institution, and with free blacks being able to meld into the population post-servitude, there will be a lot less racism develop.

Depending on the number of black Africans still imported, there may be a recognizable black population in the Deep South, but it will be smaller in number and much lighter skinned, and a large number of white families in that area will have a fair amount of black ancestry as well.

This is a very different kind of British colonies than OTL. I don't think there will be a racial component of laws, although there may be social stigmatism and discrimination along the levels displayed against "white ethnics" like the Irish and later Italians. No Jim Crow laws; no sharecropping, although free blacks without land will be just as bad as poor whites without land in the South.

Of course, without large slavery, the colonization of South Carolina and Georgia may be much slower without the large plantations necessary to turn wilderness into cultivated land and provide the wealth for the plantation class. Without a dominant plantation class, there is no "democratic aristocracy" to distort politics in the south. It'd be much more like Pennsylvania and New York.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Such a ruling is going to have more impact in Britain itself and especially the West Indies. The colonial ruling is quite likely to be overruled in the Privy Council.
 
Pretty good, I think racism would be lessened even more. It was used to prop up slavery which doesn't pertain here.

If there is no slavery in US, only indentured servitude, then it is highly unlikely there will ever be a large number of blacks brought into the colonies and segregated from the white population. Instead of there being an identifable black community/culture, separated by law, blacks will probably merge with the population of English colonists and eventually "disappear" as a separate community like how blacks brought into Portugal, Spain, and other European countries disappeared by melting into the population.

Racism developed as a result to explain the relative backwardness of African societies to Europe and to later justify the institution of slavery. Without that institution, and with free blacks being able to meld into the population post-servitude, there will be a lot less racism develop.

Depending on the number of black Africans still imported, there may be a recognizable black population in the Deep South, but it will be smaller in number and much lighter skinned, and a large number of white families in that area will have a fair amount of black ancestry as well.

This is a very different kind of British colonies than OTL. I don't think there will be a racial component of laws, although there may be social stigmatism and discrimination along the levels displayed against "white ethnics" like the Irish and later Italians. No Jim Crow laws; no sharecropping, although free blacks without land will be just as bad as poor whites without land in the South.

Of course, without large slavery, the colonization of South Carolina and Georgia may be much slower without the large plantations necessary to turn wilderness into cultivated land and provide the wealth for the plantation class. Without a dominant plantation class, there is no "democratic aristocracy" to distort politics in the south. It'd be much more like Pennsylvania and New York.

I'm not sure I agree with all of that. Slavery was cheaper for the planation owners but I fully would expect that the "indenture system" would be abused to keep runaways in lifetime slavery [Before Casor, at least one indentured african servant became a "slave for life" after a runaway attempt iirc] and without the ability to understand English Common Law [as Africans weren't literate Englishmen], they'd have to rely on others for their legal defenses.

I'd highly suspect a high level of successful accusations of theft and other crimes in the South would lead to a number of "effectively enslaved" indentured servants until they were no longer profitable and then were "let go". Unlike Europe, which had a large labor pool, the colonies are labor constrained and it would be much, much easier to get away with abusing ignorant Africans than it would be a European who understood his rights under the law.

The main difference is the children of the abused African Americans would [slowly] escape the cycle of economic slavery. I don't see African's truly being "free" in significant numbers until at least a generation after the importing of labor stops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act_1965

England had race riots in the 1980s and didn't fully abolish slavery until 1843. It didn't outlaw race-based discrimination until 1965. I wouldn't call that "disappearing" into the population. It was less severe than the US issues but it was still separate and noticeable communities.

Now, I'd agree the population would be smaller but Indentured Servants went up by 60% and it was a relatively inelastic supply of Europeans willing to sell themselves for a number of years to come to the Colonies. In this context, I'd see importing African slaves from other colonies/countries as the only viable alternative. As such, I'd see the price of indentured servants rising to match the price of slaves...but in a supply too small to serve the labor needs of the growing colonies. So they'd turn to freeing slaves "in theory" after 11 years when in reality they'd work them until they were no longer cost effective [via accusations of theft, claims of stuff not covered under the contract, etc] and the simple fact that the racist whites would refuse to give them jobs at wages sufficient for them to live on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant#Decline

Such a ruling is going to have more impact in Britain itself and especially the West Indies. The colonial ruling is quite likely to be overruled in the Privy Council.

I'd expect such a ruling would be limited to the 13 colonies. It only took no action to stop slavery in its colonies.
 
Last edited:

frlmerrin

Banned
Are you sure no Colonial legal issues were referred to the Privy Council? You may be right but I would be very surprised.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Ha ha! A quick Google Fu reveals that the North American Colonies frequently appealed legal decisions to the Privy Council. Most of these appeals can be viewed on-line. The observation in my original post stands.
 
Ha ha! A quick Google Fu reveals that the North American Colonies frequently appealed legal decisions to the Privy Council. Most of these appeals can be viewed on-line. The observation in my original post stands.

Mind giving me a link?

The reason I ask is everything I find implies while it was an option, it wasn't really exercised before 1670 or so. The American Colonies didn't try to "stop it" before 1690.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2004553

Edit:

I guess I may have to go ASB for this one and include an outside element to bring about the Casor outcome & prevent Crown intervention just to be on the safe side. Killing enough Privy Council members and the vote will change.
 
Last edited:

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
Pretty much agree with Blackfox5.

Limiting the indenture to 11 years and no value in subsequent generations substantially destroys the value of the slave system. Why import belligerent Africans for 11 years when Irish or Jacobites are available? They speak English, have an understandable religion and are much less likely to kill you during the night.

The US would end up white/brown instead of white/brown/black. Any civil rights movement would have focused on Latins.
 

Stolengood

Banned
Of course, one of the great ironies of this case is that the man John Casor was indentured to, Anthony Johnson, was himself a former indentured servant and an African immigrant (specifically, from Angola) -- so that slavery in the colonies was decided over the fate of one black man owned by another black man.
 
Of course, one of the great ironies of this case is that the man John Casor was indentured to, Anthony Johnson, was himself a former indentured servant and an African immigrant (specifically, from Angola) -- so that slavery in the colonies was decided over the fate of one black man owned by another black man.

I'm aware. I just didn't want to bring that up since I didn't want to get into that part of it :p
 
The Casor case was so far back that I'm very hesitant to even agree that things would be recognizable a century out. We may very well still get an independent USA analogue, but if slavery is never introduced into the British colonies, things could get interesting.
 
The Casor case was so far back that I'm very hesitant to even agree that things would be recognizable a century out. We may very well still get an independent USA analogue, but if slavery is never introduced into the British colonies, things could get interesting.

Alright, so I think the consensus is I'm overly optimistic about how few butterflies.

Ah well.

Maybe I'll skip nanowrimo this year or just make up the dates I can do it on :p
 
Alright, so I think the consensus is I'm overly optimistic about how few butterflies.

Ah well.

Maybe I'll skip nanowrimo this year or just make up the dates I can do it on :p

Yeah, I've got to agree with the crowd and say it would be massive, massive butterflies. For one thing, work on plantations, especially early on, could be deadly just due to malaria, and the ocean crossing itself was very dangerous, so you'd likely have far, far less blacks coming to the colonies to begin with. That combined with no slavery would butterfly away most of American history.

Of course, one of the great ironies of this case is that the man John Casor was indentured to, Anthony Johnson, was himself a former indentured servant and an African immigrant (specifically, from Angola) -- so that slavery in the colonies was decided over the fate of one black man owned by another black man.

Those were the grounds it was originally justified under; that a Christian could not own another Christian, but a Pagan could have another Pagan as a slave just as he could, quote, in his own country. Of course we know where that went.
 
Top