Some Europe powers against Slave trade?

casualcharlie

What if one or more major European power maybe England or France say no to slavery when Portugal started the slave trade? How would it effects the slave trade in Europe and by large the colonialism? And how might 21st century looks like?

Sorry for my grammar, I am not native English speaker.
 

pompejus

Apparently at the beginning of the Dutch WIC (West Indian Company) there was a discussion weather slavery was moral or not. The conclusion of the discussion was, no it wasn't moral. But the WIC actualy did participate in the slave trade and in slavery. Why would they do it, if slavery was immoral? Simply put, they were at a significant disadvantage compared to other countries/companies that did participate in slavery. Slavery was essential to make a profit out of South American and Carribean colonies. So if a country decided to oppose slavery, they would simply get outcompeted.
 

casualcharlie

What if they started war over this, maybe with the blessing of Vatican? Forcing the country that partake in slave trade to give up?
 

Tibi088

My question would be what if the church took a strong stance against salvery, or at the very least against christian slavery - excommunication and all.

I think the end result would be probably some form of identured servitude or other hidden form of slavery - but the wiggle room would be way bigger for the "slaves" and there would be more opportunity to gain their freedom. The situation I think would be better - not good but a very significant improvement on OTL.
 
Last edited:
anotherlurker

anotherlurker

In those times if you have a navy you're into overseas colonies and slavery, and if you don't have one you're not into it. But to do something against slavery in overseas colonies you need to have a navy, which would just be an incentive for yourself to get into the profitable business of overseas colonies and slavery. Only Russia and Austria could realistically declare their opposition to slavery (just ignore still existing feudal structures), though they couldn't do anything about it as they can't reach the places where slavery is practiced.
 

Oda

casualcharlie said:
What if one or more major European power maybe England or France say no to slavery when Portugal started the slave trade? How would it effects the slave trade in Europe and by large the colonialism? And how might 21st century looks like?

Sorry for my grammar, I am not native English speaker.
Click to expand...
Why should they? Most European countries are aware slavery is an immoral practise yet the economic incentive is too strong for them not to practise it.
 

Tibi088

Oda said:
Why should they? Most European countries are aware slavery is an immoral practise yet the economic incentive is too strong for them not to practise it.
Click to expand...
There could be many reasons - lets say a GP in question is not a slave holder (probably because of lack of opportunity), but his main rival is - so taking a moral stance is a good opportunity. Lets say Austria could have taken such a moral high ground against France. But as I said the most important and effective could and would have been the church taking a strong stence against it early on.

IMO as I have written the probability of some form of hidden slavery is very likely. But the specific form of slavery that became prevalent in OTL in the british Caribbean and North America was one of the worst forms of it possible. AFAIK the form of slavery in british North America practiced before the mid 17th centur was - though still horrible - mush less so, than what came after. Retaining that or it evolving to a different system would be a significant change.
 
Last edited:

DJ03

You could work w/ some early changes of papal bulls. Dum Diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455), both by Nicholas V, authorized the enslavement of muslims and pagans to protect christendom
w/o said bulls maybe there can be some butterflies at the Valladolid debate, say Las Casas doesn't advocate for african slavery to substitute native one, say maybe Sublimis Deus (1537) condemns the enslavement also of pagan natives, say this impacts CV's new laws enough that PII/PIII feel like using slavery as a propaganda tool against the dutch and other protestants
Could lead to spain-portugal slowly taking tougher stances on mistreatment of slaves and slavery of non-muslims over the course of the XVII century
catholic arguments against slavery (mainly by jesuits) appear and start circulating more and more and during the thirty years war, at the height of catholic v. protestant tensions, some german state, maybe austria, pressed between the muslim and protestant worlds, bans it out of spite. So, later, Leopold I can use it as an additional justification in fighting the turks
Over time slavery becomes associated w/ protestantism in popular conscience (even though many catholics still practice it prbbly), which could result in say the edict of fontainebleau citing it as an additional reason for the expulsion and in catholic countries banning it in their metropoles
Prbbly the whole process is accompanied by worsening conditions of serfs, similarly to what happened in russia
 
Last edited:

stephen rude

Maybe Sweden could do it if in a scenario where Denmark is much more involved in the slave trade? Let's say the Danes keep Scania, Bohuslan and Gotland too thereby making any potential Swedish colonies or involvement in the slave trade seem very risky as the Danes would be able to cut them off at any time. If they're unable to participate in the slave trade, but their main rival is making bank from it, they could maybe make at least some sort of denouncement of it? To my understanding serfdom in Denmark was also quite a bit more brutal than in Sweden, which was one of the reasons the Swedish peasantry was often in revolt against the Danish kings during the Kalmar Union, so if the Swedes are unable to participate in it themselves maybe they could end up seeing slavery as just another extention of Danish tyranny?

The issue would be that it would also hurt their relations with everyone else involved with the slave trade, so they'd probably have to specifically denounce the Danish slave trade. I guess they might not be a major power either if Denmark keeps their eastern territories, but I agree that it's just very unlikely for any power whose voice would actually matter come out against it, as they all have much more incentive to participate themselves.
 
BELFAST

BELFAST

Assuming some countries like the English banned owning slaves on moral grounds, then there is a labour shortage.
Slaves were in large part used for dangerous and unpleasant work that most settlers were not willing to do.
It could be replaced with convict labour, indentured servitude, pressganging or blackbird to replace the labour that would have been done by slaves.
How the economics of that would work I am not sure. It could put the non-slave powers at a disadvantage compared to the powers who had access to slave labour.
The morality of invading the Americas and other places and stealing land and resources would still be something very nasty all the major powers would have been doing at the time.
Morality at the time to second place to greed and profits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top