WI no black slavery?

Thande

Donor
What is it with damn colonials and the Irish, anyway?... :p
I could understand it if they idolised Ulster Protestants: lots of Americans genuinely are descended from them, and some of their earliest presidents were almost visibly Ulstermen.

But their current thing about idolising the southern Catholics (and indeed thinking all Irish are Catholic :confused: ) makes about as much sense as the Quebecois thinking they're descended from the Dutch :rolleyes:

But anyway--back to the subject of the thread.

The possibility of Amerindian slavery continuing in Spanish and Portguese America, as Gonzaga suggests, might be one catalyst for avoiding this, though you certainly need changes in Africa too.
 
Not with the Mughal emperors in change. Might as well try to use the Huguenot-Catholic split to get slaves from 17th-century France.

Probably a silly thought, might a Hindu-ruled India export it's surplus Untouchables? (surplus = above the necessary minimum to pick up the poop and so on).

Bruce
 
I think this PoD would require, prehaps, a stronger and more successful West-African kingdoms. Kingdoms which were somehow able to resist pressure from Arab incursions from the north, and simultaneous extend their influence further south and inland than they did historically.

I don't think you can get rid of African slavery completely without major ancient PoD's, but a lucky turn here, and the early death of an incompetent king there, might leave you with the Europeans finding an African coast in which the inhabitants are considered subjects of a core state, and slaves are mostly being shipped in from the interior...but travel cost making their price a bit too high to be that interesting at first.

I.E., you could possibly raise the costs of African slaves to the point that Europeans wouldn't be too interested in paying it.


I'd think that more succesful, larger African kingdoms would make the problem worse not better.
 
The main problem with that is the Amerinds kept dieing from all of the diseases that the Europeans brought with them.
Using them as slaves/serfs were only really possible where there were a lot of them, i.e. in Mexico and Peru (Aztecs and Incas respectively).
Secondary problem was the Indians getting loose and massacring all Europeans they could, before escaping back into the Forest.
Not the best for Labor relations.

After realizing that the Indian Slaves wouldn't work Large scale [thro there were Indian slaves as late as the 1800's in Canada] Europe turned to it's prisons.
It is said that King James ran one of the only prison systems to make a profit.
The Dutch in New Amsterdam tried turning it's transportees into Serfs.
It wasn't till 1848 that New York Repealed the Serf Laws, Thro the practice had died long before.

The main problem was it was illegal to main, someone, as a ID, So the Transportees would escape westward, and claim to be recent immigrants.
If they got far enuff away, their "Owners" had no way of ID-ing and compelling their return.

Negros OTOH had a built in ID marker.

There is also the problem that the Africans brought with them Knowledge about, certain Crops.
It was slaves from East Africa for example that taught the English in the Carolina's how, to grow Rice.
Without this, some crops would be much less likely to be developed in the Americas.

Whe also have the Fact that in the early 1500's most African Slaves were imported into Europe, to replace the vanishing Serfs.
Without this whe have much less wealthy Portugal, with associated Butterflies.

So whe need a POD before the 1450's, and need this to continue till the 1800's, and the industrial revolution.
 
Top