WI Couronian Settler Colony

The problem is they'd most likely escape, and then unlike slaves you can't just recapture them, because they are after all good white Christians (I am basing this on the failure to use white labour on early Spanish and Portuguese plantations. The workers escaped, and unlike slaves they couldn't just go and recapture them).

One more problem is that serf, unlike a slave, had certain rights, family and property. He was obliged to work certain number of days for his master and to perform some duties but his master could not just sent him somewhere (serfdom in Russia circa XVIII was not typical for the rest of Europe).
 
Why not have courland colonize a different place altogether? It would easier to build a settler colony somewhere in the North America like New England, Pennsylvania or newfoundland, in New England the setttlers could export fur, naval supplies and fish. In newfoundland the settlers could export copious amounts of fish, and in Pennsylvania you could grow staple crops to export down to the slave colonies. They could still use Gambia for slave exports.
 
Why not have courland colonize a different place altogether? It would easier to build a settler colony somewhere in the North America like New England, Pennsylvania or newfoundland, in New England the setttlers could export fur, naval supplies and fish. In newfoundland the settlers could export copious amounts of fish, and in Pennsylvania you could grow staple crops to export down to the slave colonies. They could still use Gambia for slave exports.
Any suggestion for where the Couronians could create a settler colony?
 
One more problem is that serf, unlike a slave, had certain rights, family and property. He was obliged to work certain number of days for his master and to perform some duties but his master could not just sent him somewhere (serfdom in Russia circa XVIII was not typical for the rest of Europe).
How was serfdom in the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) compared to that of Russia?
 
Well, I have a suggestion how a Curonian colony (not SETTLERS colony) could survive. 1st, after the death of Duke Jackob the effort is being continued by his son (who, unlike OTL, is not a selfish nincompoop) and then by his successors. Tobago is not such a big prize that one of the big powers absolutely MUST get it (the Brits returned it to Courland). Situation persists into the 1730's when the duchy (while formally being vassal of Poland) becomes de-facto Russian protectorate. Taking into an account that Russia was most of that time on the good terms with the Brits, it could protect duchy's colonial interests all the way to 1795 at which time Tobago becomes Russian colony.

By the type of the local agriculture island has a plantation-based economy but it may also have a noticeable number of settlers if it becomes involved in transit trade (for example, colonial goods from the Caribbean islands are coming there to be carried to Russia - by mid-XVIII a big consumer of these items).
Could Trinidad also be a Couronian colony, or is it to big a prize?
 
Any suggestion for where the Couronians could create a settler colony?
I think Philadelphia, Baltimore, mannhatten and long island would be good places to colonize, they have decent harbors, they are surrounded by good farmland, the natives aren't too violent and they all have a temperate weather that'll be good for attracting colonists.
 
I think Philadelphia, Baltimore, mannhatten and long island would be good places to colonize, they have decent harbors, they are surrounded by good farmland, the natives aren't too violent and they all have a temperate weather that'll be good for attracting colonists.
Were not these places occupied already?
 
How was serfdom in the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) compared to that of Russia?

I wrote "Russia circa XVIII", which means well after the OTL Courlandian colonial age. By that time "Estonia" and "Latvia" (minus Courland) were included into the Russian Empire and Lithuania was a part of the PLC.

What I was talking about is that serfdom in the form established in Russia by Peter I and his successors was just a slightly improved form of a slavery: owner could do to his serfs almost anything he wanted short of an open murder (not sure if at Peter's time even this limitation existed). OTOH, in most of Europe of the mid-XVII and onward rights of the serf owners had been much more restricted and, as far as context of this discussion is involved, the owner could not just put his serf on a ship and send him overseas
 
Were not these places occupied
Well New York and by extension Long Island were colonized in the early 1630s but Philadelphia and Baltimore were settled in the early 1680s. Some other sights courland could settle but would even harder to supply and defend I thought would be good to colonize (I think) would be New Orleans, Galveston and mobile, all thee have decent harbors and with the exception of New Orleans have a hinterland that could support cash crops. Galveston was created in 1800s and the other two were settled in the early 1700s.
 
Last edited:
Top