USA that never had slavery

In the 1850's the British did import, thousands of Ceylonese for their new Tea Plantations in the Carolinas.
However just as the plantations began to produce around 1860, Other events prevented there development.
 
The Pilgrim fathers didn't have slaves and there were not a lot in New England where farmers and fishermen were too poor to own slaves. They came to the British Colonies by the Southern States in 1619 to Virigina as indentured servants. However considerable number of political prisoners were sent as slaves by Britain. Spain had already begun importing slaves as the indigenous people were too vulnerable to diseases to be enslaved. Without the importantation of slaves, the Southern economy wouldn't have developed and maybe Spain would have siezed them.

If Indians were treated as equals, there would have been little white sttlement as it was largely at the expense of the Indian nations and probably no revolution as one of the complaints of the white settlers was the licensing of settlements East of the Appalachians. Should a revolutionary war have taken place the declerations of the founding fathers would have been genuine about all men being free.

America would not have developed as a populous industrial nation. Sad but alas true
 
America would not have developed as a populous industrial nation. Sad but alas true

Is that in reference to an *America that treated the natives as equals, or to an *America that never had slavery? If the latter, what is your reasoning?
 
The colonies would be much poorer then, or at least the southern ones. If those colonies did eventually decide to rebel, England might not care as much.

You need to change the US climate in a way that you can't grow cash crops. That way US would be poor and not have slavery.

America would not have developed as a populous industrial nation. Sad but alas true
Why do you all seem to think that Northern colonies would be significantly poorer without Southern slavery? Is Canada poor, agrarian nation? Or was it poor nation even during agrarian phase of its economic development? As far as I know, North-South trade wasn't vital for the Northern economic progress - fishermen sold fish to Britain, sugar Caribbean islands and South; American wheat was welcomed by all major markets; furs were bought by nobles and nouveau riches all over the world. North did well enough without Southern markets in 1861-1865.
Of course, without slavery you wouldn't have prosperous planters with hundreds of field hands and luxurious villas. But instead there would be hundreds of thousands of small farmers, growing cotton and sugar (or cereals, flax and sugarbeets - if ASBs would change South's climate, as yourworstnightmare proposes) . They would be worse off than planters from OTL, but at the same time much, much better off than slaves.
 
Last edited:
Why do you all seem to think that Northern colonies would be significantly poorer without Southern slavery? Is Canada poor, agrarian nation? Or was it poor nation even during agrarian phase of its economic development? As far as I know, North-South trade wasn't vital for the Northern economic progress - fishermen sold fish to Britain, sugar Caribbean islands and South; American wheat was welcomed by all major markets; furs were bought by nobles and nouveau riches all over the world. North did well enough without Southern markets in 1861-1865.
Of course, without slavery you wouldn't have prosperous planters with hundreds of field hands and luxurious villas. But instead there would be hundreds of thousands of small farmers, growing cotton and sugar (or cereals, flax and sugarbeets - if ASBs would change South's climate, as yourworstnightmare proposes) . They would be worse off than planters from OTL, but at the same time much, much better off than slaves.
While the North has much to offer there is the question of cotton. A lot of the industrialization of the North was due to the fabric and garment industries. If cotton is more expensive to produce because you have to pay above subsistence wages to 20 farm hands instead of providing a subsistence level of supplies to 20 slaves how will this effect Northern industry? It may hurt it; the owners now having less money to invest in innovation. On the other hand it may help it by creating a market for Northern manufactured goods including labor saving equipment like cotton pickers.
 

Stephen

Banned
In 1596 Queen Elizabeth the 1st had a recent influx of negars, and moors deported. So for a POD how about you have her set up a lasting ban and bounty on all foriegn races within England and all her colonies. Preventing slavery in Virgina getting started. Instead you could have more crimes punished by deportation and indentured servitude.
 
Is that in reference to an *America that treated the natives as equals, or to an *America that never had slavery? If the latter, what is your reasoning?

It has to be the former in that the settlers would not be able to expand without encroaching on Indian land and the economic system of the Indians depended heavily on hunting which would not have been able to support a large population also the resources needed for industry would have been outside the control of settlers.

On the other issue without slavery in the South, the Northermn states would probably have progressed much as they did until sometime in the nineteenth century when they would have leapt ahead. However the absence of slavery may have had some efferct on the British economy resulting in the industrial revolution occuring at a slower pace based on wool and in Yorkshire rather than cotton and Lancashire
 
Top