I know this is borderline ASB, but let's say in this timeline, Portugal is slightly less of a quiet little sociopath and says "nah" when they're offered African Slaves, and after that, the Atlantic Slave Trade and European enslavement of Africans never really gets off the ground. Colonialism and imperialism still exist, and, for the sake of this scenario, Africa still gets scrombled in the late 1800s, but slavery's not really a thingy, y'know?
What's this world gonna be like? How is agriculture effected? How is the world different TTL? How are places like the American South different TTL?
Though Portugal did start the AST, it's too simplistic to just see early modern portuguese society, even if only figuratively, as pathologic. In fact, instead of a sudden turn that may have been relatively easily prevented, the AST was a gradual process that eventually culminated in the importation of millions of africans to the Americas. Portugal was already trading slaves in North Africa and Guinea for more than half a century before Columbus's voyage. It was a profitable business already by then, and it would only become more lucrative as soon as Europeans realized that they couldn't rely on native labor to grow their cash crops in America, which in turn made even more money.
In short, to prevent the Atlantic Slave Trade is to prevento or at least severely curb European expansion and profiteering, which was kickstarted by Portugal and caused by a number of factors prior to the discovery of the Americas. You could prevent or do this process in a number of ways, it depends on which POD we're talking about. However, once certain factors come into play, I think it's hard to assume it wouldn't happen out of good will or another simple alternative.
ITTL, European settlements in non-temperate regions in the Americas might take a lot more time. I guess Mexico and the Andes would be the exception, given the possibility of quick enrichment with Gold and silver, aside from the availability of native labor through something close to the Encomienda system. Assuming the conquest of the native empires goes as OTL. Aside from that, the rest would be to unrecognizable to even speculate about.
I tend to agree that African societies would be stronger without the AST being such a huge factor in African history, and they may have been able to to stand up to Europeans in a stronger way. Maybe some of the stronger coastal states could even start New World colonies of their own given the right conditions/motivation.
Coastal kingdoms and statelets would be more robust without the wars and internal conflict that intensified with the demand of slaves from European traders, but once firearms, medicine and transportation evolves to the point we observe in the end of the 19th century IOTL, africans can only, unfortunately, put up a good fight.
Also, African colonization of the Americas is simply not happening, unless we're talking about a POD way farther back than what was previously suggested by OP.
Why?
Not to mention, in what way?
Ignoring that both Asia and Africa are huge heterogeneous continents and that talking about Asian states
and African states as blocks is close to meaningless, the "generic African state" and the "generic Asian
state" wasn't exactly comparable at the point when the Atlantic Slave Trade began.
Also, the Arab Slave Trade - also removed or allowed to continue unabated?
Also also, does this mean that the Portugese also does not engage in Asian slave trade.
Good question. Arab slave trade most probably stays the same, at least observing how it preceded the AST and continued to exist during and after it ended. Given Portuguese experience with slave trade prior to the discovery of the Americas, I would say it's safe to assume that, in an ATL where Portugal is simply not involved in the new world, they would still engage to some extent in Asian slave commerce.
Debateable the economy of most of the Colonies were not dependent on plantation agriculture, and even those that were would probably have developed quite differently had slavery not been an option.
Still, no slavery means no recognizable colonization of the Americas, including English colonization.
Emphasis mine; THANK YOU for pointing this out in the OP. I have nothing personal against the Lusophere or it's people in particular, but it's disgusting how often Portugal is portrayed as being pillars of cultural and racial tolerance in historiography (which is thoroughly undeserved) when they STARTED most of the AST to begin with.
To contribute to the OP, I agree that this would have great benefits to West and Central Africa in particular, though probably not much more of the continent ( IIRC very few slaves came to America from those areas). And while it's debatable whether the U.S. would still exist or not, I think a near analogue could still spring up. The difference stems from economic development sans slavery (likely continued indentured servitude/neo-feudalism), not to mention cultural and demographic changes.
Granted, no one here is trying to support Salazar's Lusotropicalism, but it was still the most racially tolerant European empire, which is no small feat. That doesn't mean no discrimination of course, but it would be wrong to readily dismiss this characteristic of the Portuguese colonial mindset, and how it helped to prevent much of the institutionalized racism found in former English colonies and colonial Spanish America, to some extent.
Also, racism toward africans has its origins before the Portuguese and other Europeans became involved in the AST, mainly within the process of the Reconquista, and by extension the middle-east crusades too.
