"Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade"

In 1102 the Catholic Council of London decreed: "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals."

It didn't go anywhere. But how can we get the mentality behind it to be picked up by the English and other European monarchs so that slavery (of all men) is illegal by the time the Americas are discovered?

If the slave trade is abolished, what would replace it? I imagine indentured servitude would replace it, but would European settlers really be happy to have all the extra free blacks about as they have to release them after seven years? Would poor central and eastern Europeans be used instead?
 
The problem with using Europeans is that they'll die of malaria or other diseases far too quickly to be of use; this was one of the problems with indentured servants in the American south.
 
In 1102 the Catholic Council of London decreed: "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals."

It didn't go anywhere. But how can we get the mentality behind it to be picked up by the English and other European monarchs so that slavery (of all men) is illegal by the time the Americas are discovered?

If the slave trade is abolished, what would replace it? I imagine indentured servitude would replace it, but would European settlers really be happy to have all the extra free blacks about as they have to release them after seven years? Would poor central and eastern Europeans be used instead?

In otl Irish, Breton and Hungenots were used as Indentured labour. They were also treated much worse that slaves (nobody really cared if the labourer died, you only had his labour for a few years). No the reason they stopped was that African slaves handled the heat better as well as the malaria.
 
In otl Irish, Breton and Hungenots were used as Indentured labour. They were also treated much worse that slaves (nobody really cared if the labourer died, you only had his labour for a few years). No the reason they stopped was that African slaves handled the heat better as well as the malaria.

OK, sure. But what if Europe had legally and morally turned against slavery by the 1400s, and looked down on others for using it? I could imagine indentured servitude occurring as a loophole. So would they have to bring in Africans in the deep south? Would they quickly reach a sufficiently high number of black freedmen they get a moral panic about being outnumbered and ban more imports from Africa? What would happen then?
 
The changes would be earlier than that, no? Slavery was profitable and used in Latin America before the 17th and 18th century.
 
There's a big difference on the "No one shall be slave within the kingdom in Europe" that was the basical stance in Western Europe (except Spain and Portugal) and "No one shall be slave in colonies".

Admittedly, no conquest in Americas by Spain and Portugal that kept slavery in Europe(but rather far from the antic and modern slavery system, much more close than what you found in Arabo-Islamic world and Byzantine Empire, aka integrated in a clientelist system rather than mass labor force), you'll have more chance to not have formal slaves.

Still, you'll have to resolve the question of development of lands deserted because of biological shock, critically in equatorial/tropical regions. Probably non-slave forced labor that will change little.
 
OK, sure. But what if Europe had legally and morally turned against slavery by the 1400s, and looked down on others for using it? I could imagine indentured servitude occurring as a loophole. So would they have to bring in Africans in the deep south? Would they quickly reach a sufficiently high number of black freedmen they get a moral panic about being outnumbered and ban more imports from Africa? What would happen then?

I am guessing they would have continued using European indentured labour and some form of native serf system if they can`t use black slaves. If you look at how they treated those European`s that survived their indeture, that does not bod well for any treatment of Blacks. Convicts, heretics, prisoners of war, workhouse inmates etc. Loads of people that aren't technically slaves. Not as effective, and the death toll will be massive, (look at the numbers for the west Indies, the mortality rates for settler whom ran the plantations were massive). Still sugar and tobacco (later coffee) was so profitable that the higher cost can be sustained.
 
There's a big difference on the "No one shall be slave within the kingdom in Europe" that was the basical stance in Western Europe (except Spain and Portugal) and "No one shall be slave in colonies".

I hear you, but let's just assume the changed moral names means slavery is looked down upon as a savage thing that white Christians don't engage with. That results in colonial slavery also being banned.
 
I hear you, but let's just assume the changed moral names means slavery is looked down upon as a savage thing that white Christians don't engage with. That results in colonial slavery also being banned.

Necessity makes law. Good principes don't last very long when there's clear economical and political interests.

Furthermore, it wasn't much more slavery that was looked down, than slave market. It was a way to limit the raids in christian lands (or in their zone of influence) that ultimatly were an issue for Christianity's states.
As long it was Christian slaves, you have an issue...If not...Well, who cares?

Then maybe you'll end to less evangelization among slave-like workforce in the New World. But I doubt this, as it was a stabilizating factor ultimatly, or at the very last a control tool on theses for western administrations.
 
Necessity makes law. Good principes don't last very long when there's clear economical and political interests.

Furthermore, it wasn't much more slavery that was looked down, than slave market. It was a way to limit the raids in christian lands (or in their zone of influence) that ultimatly were an issue for Christianity's states.
As long it was Christian slaves, you have an issue...If not...Well, who cares?

Then maybe you'll end to less evangelization among slave-like workforce in the New World. But I doubt this, as it was a stabilizating factor ultimatly, or at the very last a control tool on theses for western administrations.

Several countries later banned slavery at great economical cost to themselves. I appreciate when economics and principles conflict, economics often wins, but not always. Given that we have four centuries to work with before contact, and given that this will be a period of great intellectual forment, I don't think it's impossible that there could be a strong enough cultural shift to oppose slavery, even among non-Christians in the colonies.
 
Several countries later banned slavery at great economical cost to themselves. I appreciate when economics and principles conflict, economics often wins, but not always. Given that we have four centuries to work with before contact, and given that this will be a period of great intellectual forment, I don't think it's impossible that there could be a strong enough cultural shift to oppose slavery, even among non-Christians in the colonies.

It's a MUCH bigger problem than just opposing slavery - it is acknowledging that all men have equal rights.

As has been noted the critical distinction in the Middle Ages was religion - for both Christian and Muslim it was acceptable to enslave others not afforded the protection of your religion.

To extend this protection to all men would effectively been recognising all mean as equal (not only those in your cult / tribe / nation/ faith).

You'd have to butterfly the Crusades and the Muslim conquest of Europe for this to take hold.
 
It's a MUCH bigger problem than just opposing slavery - it is acknowledging that all men have equal rights.

As has been noted the critical distinction in the Middle Ages was religion - for both Christian and Muslim it was acceptable to enslave others not afforded the protection of your religion.

To extend this protection to all men would effectively been recognising all mean as equal (not only those in your cult / tribe / nation/ faith).

You'd have to butterfly the Crusades and the Muslim conquest of Europe for this to take hold.

I don't think this is true. Plenty of places have banned slavery and continued to think other races and religions are inferior. You don't even have to accept the concept of "rights". You just need to believe that God sees human bondage as an abomination.
 
Top