WI : William the Conqueror fully banned slavery in England

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

One of the lesser known points about William is that he wrote laws regarding the slave trade, more specifically that the sale of people outside the lands under English Law or Protection

What if this was expanded to no sale of anyone, or purchase - and the expected liberation of all slaves in holding. To give somewhat lenient terms (and not require the purchase of slaves by the Crown) - all slave holders may continue to own their slaves for three years more, or if younger than 15, until their 18th birthday.

IOTL William required freed slaves to be granted arms - specifically a sword (and/or) lance. What if we stated that slave-owners did not have to provide the sword, instead the Crown would provide a weapon (sword, war-pick, etc).

What would the impacts of all this be, since this would be that in 19 years (to include pregnant slaves and their children), there would be no legal slaves in the UK? Since I've included lands under protection, if we see colonisation of North America, would the slave trade be reduced?

 

[Ciniad]

he would be killed in his sleep.
Not the Uk he had no authority over wales/Ireland and Scotland if you bann slavery you will a stronger servage.

 

[Avrorrange]

Parliament legislates a Slavery of Africans act eventually.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

he would be killed in his sleep.
Not the Uk he had no authority over wales/Ireland and Scotland if you bann slavery you will a stronger servage.

Interesting, is this because of the financial losses? In which case, would the purchase of slaves to free them (akin to the Australian Compulsory Gun-Purchase) circumvent that? Or perhaps letting landowners pay their taxes in slaves rather than cash, whilst making the enslavement of new slaves still illegal.

I'm currently assuming that it doesn't have much of an impact on the formation of the UK. Perhaps overly butterfly netted, but I can't see why, unless he was directly overthrown.

Parliament legislates a Slavery of Africans act eventually.

Oh, so cynical! OTL anti-slavery laws were never rolled back, I can't see why they would here short of a hunger for manpower, which can be acquired by other means. The first time AFAIK that slavery was caused/made lawful in the USA was 1640. Plus, this law doesn't make the transport of slaves between two non-British territories illegal. Therefore British sailors can partake in shipping slaves, just never on British soil. Alternatively, if anti-slavery is maintained, it could lead to runaway slaves, and slave revolts moving to British territories as laborers. Or, as is my favorite, Britain can create Jeffersons America - rather than large Plantations run by slaves, an increased chance to get land could create more settlement of lands by the British, establishing more, but smaller, cotton farms rather than Plantations - making a less wealthy Colonial Upper Class, instead a larger (which might well help in the case of a revolutionary war ITTL). In fact, if it was maintained, then I imagine there would be more time until pressure built to go beyond the Appalachians, which may certainly help.

 

[Avrorrange]

Interesting, is this because of the financial losses? In which case, would the purchase of slaves to free them (akin to the Australian Compulsory Gun-Purchase) circumvent that? Or perhaps letting landowners pay their taxes in slaves rather than cash, whilst making the enslavement of new slaves still illegal.

I'm currently assuming that it doesn't have much of an impact on the formation of the UK. Perhaps overly butterfly netted, but I can't see why, unless he was directly overthrown.



Oh, so cynical! OTL anti-slavery laws were never rolled back, I can't see why they would here short of a hunger for manpower, which can be acquired by other means. The first time AFAIK that slavery was caused/made lawful in the USA was 1640. Plus, this law doesn't make the transport of slaves between two non-British territories illegal. Therefore British sailors can partake in shipping slaves, just never on British soil. Alternatively, if anti-slavery is maintained, it could lead to runaway slaves, and slave revolts moving to British territories as laborers. Or, as is my favorite, Britain can create Jeffersons America - rather than large Plantations run by slaves, an increased chance to get land could create more settlement of lands by the British, establishing more, but smaller, cotton farms rather than Plantations - making a less wealthy Colonial Upper Class, instead a larger (which might well help in the case of a revolutionary war ITTL). In fact, if it was maintained, then I imagine there would be more time until pressure built to go beyond the Appalachians, which may certainly help.

More sugar makes plantation owners,merchants and the British government happy.....Not being able to out-compete the French,the Portuguese,the Dutch and the Spanish in sugar production makes plantation owners,British government and British merchants not happy.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

More sugar makes plantation owners and the British government happy....

It'd be easier to petition for more indentured servitude (oh loopholes) as punishment for crimes in the UK, perhaps combined with a ban on return (perhaps signified by a branding of some sort on your hand). The British Government no longer has to deal with Criminals, and anyone with that brand who does come back, gets another stint on the plantations. Not pleasant, but at least you aren't owned for life.

Heh, another idea, an alternative to OTL piracy - "Indentured Freedom" - Rogue sailors go and steal slaves from other colonies, inform them that they are free, if they can pay a debt - which somehow magically always comes up to two years worth of indentured servitude - that debt it sold to a plantation owner, who works them hard for two years - and then pays them if they stay. Admittedly somewhat illegal, but not only does it solve the plantation owners desire for labor, but it also satisfies the moderate anti-slavery folks, as slaves are technically being liberated.

In fact, there is nothing I'm suggesting that stops the purchase of slaves, then whilst in transit, freeing them on the condition of indentured servitude, and selling the debt as per above. Quick and clever way to circumvent the law. Admittedly the "Debtors Bank" would replace the slave market, and the Debtors Bank may well have significant lands of their own - but such a system could even stimulate financial systems in the New World. After all, if you can sell the debt of someone who is indentured to pay it, why not buy other forms of debt. Boom, modern debt purchasing 300+ years early. Admittedly this is a bit of a reach however.

 

[Minty_Fresh]

Anti-slavery acts on the part of William could be conveniently used as a way to further dispossess Saxon and Danish landholders in England. This is going to likely be done during the Harrying of the North if at all.

 

[Avrorrange]

It'd be easier to petition for more indentured servitude (oh loopholes) as punishment for crimes in the UK, perhaps combined with a ban on return (perhaps signified by a branding of some sort on your hand). The British Government no longer has to deal with Criminals, and anyone with that brand who does come back, gets another stint on the plantations. Not pleasant, but at least you aren't owned for life.

Heh, another idea, an alternative to OTL piracy - "Indentured Freedom" - Rogue sailors go and steal slaves from other colonies, inform them that they are free, if they can pay a debt - which somehow magically always comes up to two years worth of indentured servitude - that debt it sold to a plantation owner, who works them hard for two years - and then pays them if they stay. Admittedly somewhat illegal, but not only does it solve the plantation owners desire for labor, but it also satisfies the moderate anti-slavery folks, as slaves are technically being liberated.

In fact, there is nothing I'm suggesting that stops the purchase of slaves, then whilst in transit, freeing them on the condition of indentured servitude, and selling the debt as per above. Quick and clever way to circumvent the law. Admittedly the "Debtors Bank" would replace the slave market, and the Debtors Bank may well have significant lands of their own - but such a system could even stimulate financial systems in the New World. After all, if you can sell the debt of someone who is indentured to pay it, why not buy other forms of debt. Boom, modern debt purchasing 300+ years early. Admittedly this is a bit of a reach however.

The English and by extension the British are highly schizophrenic in this regard.Sometimes they were highly encouraging of sending settlers out but at times,they were afraid it would damage English/British economy.

Indentured slavery and sending convicts over doesn't satisfy the labor demand to compete with the Portuguese,French,Dutch and Spanish who are using slavery.You obviously can't work your fellow English/British to death,convict or no convict.The Europeans of this time were practically working the slaves to death and buying new slaves was apparently more 'efficient' than working the slaves more humanely.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

The English and by extension the British are highly schizophrenic in this regard.Sometimes they were highly encouraging of sending settlers out but at times,they were afraid it would damage English/British economy.

Indentured slavery and sending convicts over doesn't satisfy the labor demand to compete with the Portuguese,French,Dutch and Spanish who are using slavery.You obviously can't work your fellow English/British to death,convict or no convict.The Europeans of this time were practically working the slaves to death and buying new slaves was apparently more 'efficient' than working the slaves more humanely.

Whilst this is true, at least in North America, the conditions of many slaves were better than elsewhere, after all, 300,000 imports to the 13 colonies, compared to 4 million for Brazil - the USA bough relatively few slaves if figured at to be believed. This does suggest that the demand for labour is MUCH lower, at least in North America. Outside of N.America, it does seem that it was the largest.

I don't know if I concur with your claim that 'indentured slavery' (not a bad term for it to be honest) wouldn't do the trick - you've got all the slave purchasing, admittedly for 2 years you have them as effectively slaves - when most outside of N.America would only last 7-9, but I would expect a side effect of being free (but dirt poor) would be the rapid growth of population - poor communities historically grow rapidly. This one side may lead to a longer-lasting population, which could make up for the shortfall in imports. People who are poor, like these, also commit more crime/get arrested for more crimes - which a clever governor could use to essentially re-indenture them, sell their debt to a debtors bank, and they are back in the system for two years (with a nice tidy sum for the government to boot). Sure this means 'indentured slavery' is not as profitable as OTL slavery, but almost certainly more survivable.

 

[Avrorrange]

Whilst this is true, at least in North America, the conditions of many slaves were better than elsewhere, after all, 300,000 imports to the 13 colonies, compared to 4 million for Brazil - the USA bough relatively few slaves if figured at to be believed. This does suggest that the demand for labour is MUCH lower, at least in North America. Outside of N.America, it does seem that it was the largest.

I don't know if I concur with your claim that 'indentured slavery' (not a bad term for it to be honest) wouldn't do the trick - you've got all the slave purchasing, admittedly for 2 years you have them as effectively slaves - when most outside of N.America would only last 7-9, but I would expect a side effect of being free (but dirt poor) would be the rapid growth of population - poor communities historically grow rapidly. This one side may lead to a longer-lasting population, which could make up for the shortfall in imports. People who are poor, like these, also commit more crime/get arrested for more crimes - which a clever governor could use to essentially re-indenture them, sell their debt to a debtors bank, and they are back in the system for two years (with a nice tidy sum for the government to boot). Sure this means 'indentured slavery' is not as profitable as OTL slavery, but almost certainly more survivable.

Conditions in North America is mainly irrelevant.The main reason why slavery is even popular in the Americas was because they have required to operate mines and to grow cash crops,the most important of which is sugar.The most profitable British colonies were the Caribbean colonies,not the territories in North America.To be as profitable,they would need to compete with the Dutch,French,Spanish and Portuguese.First off,you can't work indentured servants to death.Secondly,there's probably not enough indentured servants to supply the labor demand.Growing sugar cane and distilling sugar is an extremely labor demanding and dangerous work.IIRC,there's also the problem that the whites don't perform that well in the Carribeans due to tropical diseases which IIRC the slaves have some immunity against.

 

[Sir Omega]

While William could probably impose that law with little opposition from the Saxons, who says another king couldn't repel it? Or pressed into repelling it?
Short term though, while England did have some slaves, there really weren't that many compared to Muslim countries, Byzantines or the Norse. They simply had serfs, who practically fulfilled the same role in providing labour. Prisoners of war could also be a source of forced heavy labour, but not considered de jure slaves. So, not many differences from OTL.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Conditions in North America is mainly irrelevant.The main reason why slavery is even popular in the Americas was because they have required to operate mines and to grow cash crops,the most important of which is sugar.The most profitable British colonies were the Caribbean colonies,not the territories in North America.To be as profitable,they would need to compete with the Dutch,French,Spanish and Portuguese.First off,you can't work indentured servants to death.Secondly,there's probably not enough indentured servants to supply the labor demand.Growing sugar cane and distilling sugar is an extremely labor demanding and dangerous work.

The emphasized point is probably where I think we'd have to agree to disagree on that unless we can do some decent projections, as I would think that since I've not stated that the purchase of slaves overseas is illegal, only the attempt to keep them as slaves in British territory, the numbers could still be high, even if the purchase of debts is not as profitable as the purchase of a slave - this is probably where there will be an issue, but if demand for labour is still high, I can see this not being a problem for plantations, even if it does create incentives for acts like your Slavery Act, or abusive labor laws to keep people in indentured servitude, which may have repercussions elsewhere. (Although, again, it creates an interesting feedback loop, as creating more ways to increase the number of indentured servants would mean that if they were getting shipped overseas

Otherwise, you're completely right that the plantation growing itself is not as profitable, so Britain would have to rely on other forms of income to boost revenues, it may be a simple tax on the sale of debts. I don't know how dangerous it was to distill sugar, I'm guessing it was primitive Pot Distillation. I don't see improving the method as insurmountable, especially if the Debtors banks improve financing in the colonies. Better financing would lead to improvements in development, and tax revenues - so whilst the Plantations are less profitable, the Colonies may be more profitable. (Yay the inspecificity of economics)

While William could probably impose that law with little opposition from the Saxons, who says another king couldn't repel it? Or pressed into repelling it?
Short term though, while England did have some slaves, there really weren't that many compared to Muslim countries, Byzantines or the Norse. They simply had serfs, who practically fulfilled the same role in providing labour. Prisoners of war could also be a source of forced heavy labour, but not considered de jure slaves. So, not many differences from OTL.

As mentioned previously, it didn't happen IOTL, but I take your point, I'm being optimistic in assuming it wouldn't be. Although regarding Serfs, Scotland, and later England and Wales were the earliest countries in Europe to render serfdom obselete - Scotland ended serfdom before Russia even started it! (Heritable Juristictions aside) Would you reckon that this change in the law would be more likely to end serfdom sooner (through comparisons to slavery, already illegal), or make it longer (increasing the demand to retain it). I'd be inclined to the former, since I've posited that the former slaves would be free men - and somewhat reluctant to be slaves by another name, making it more likely to see peasants revolts on the issue.

 

[Sir Omega]

One thing jumps to mind. Would everybody be shielded by such anti-slavery laws? Would primitive black people from Africa be even considered human by the medieval people of England? African slave trade already existed (mostly in conjecture with the Muslim lands), but if deemed profitable dhows carrying slaves could easily sail north...

 

[Avrorrange]

The emphasized point is probably where I think we'd have to agree to disagree on that unless we can do some decent projections, as I would think that since I've not stated that the purchase of slaves overseas is illegal, only the attempt to keep them as slaves in British territory, the numbers could still be high, even if the purchase of debts is not as profitable as the purchase of a slave - this is probably where there will be an issue, but if demand for labour is still high, I can see this not being a problem for plantations, even if it does create incentives for acts like your Slavery Act, or abusive labor laws to keep people in indentured servitude, which may have repercussions elsewhere. (Although, again, it creates an interesting feedback loop, as creating more ways to increase the number of indentured servants would mean that if they were getting shipped overseas

Otherwise, you're completely right that the plantation growing itself is not as profitable, so Britain would have to rely on other forms of income to boost revenues, it may be a simple tax on the sale of debts. I don't know how dangerous it was to distill sugar, I'm guessing it was primitive Pot Distillation. I don't see improving the method as insurmountable, especially if the Debtors banks improve financing in the colonies. Better financing would lead to improvements in development, and tax revenues - so whilst the Plantations are less profitable, the Colonies may be more profitable. (Yay the inspecificity of economics)



As mentioned previously, it didn't happen IOTL, but I take your point, I'm being optimistic in assuming it wouldn't be. Although regarding Serfs, Scotland, and later England and Wales were the earliest countries in Europe to render serfdom obselete - Scotland ended serfdom before Russia even started it! (Heritable Juristictions aside) Would you reckon that this change in the law would be more likely to end serfdom sooner (through comparisons to slavery, already illegal), or make it longer (increasing the demand to retain it). I'd be inclined to the former, since I've posited that the former slaves would be free men - and somewhat reluctant to be slaves by another name, making it more likely to see peasants revolts on the issue.

I did some research.In 1807,the slave population in British Caribbeans was 775,000,can you get as much indentured servants?As I've mentioned,Europeans don't really do well in the Caribbeans because of tropical diseases,so you will also have to take into account of the fatality rates.

Another thing is politically,why wouldn't the British government want to create a slavery act? If their rivals are all doing it,and are actually being extremely successful because of it,it will want to duplicate their successes. It's not just distilling sugar that's dangerous.Collecting it was fairly dangerous as well,not to mention extremely labour intensive.

 

[wietze]

You obviously can't work your fellow English/British to death,convict or no convict.The Europeans of this time were practically working the slaves to death and buying new slaves was apparently more 'efficient' than working the slaves more humanely.

serious??
Maybe you should read up what the british did to the Irish slaves, tales even more disgusting that those of the american chattel slaves.
the british have tried a few times to genocide the Irish, and all it needs is a redefinition of what constitutes english/british, and then they will not hesitate to go brutal all the way, just look at what they did in the south-african concentration camps during the boer wars

 

[Avrorrange]

serious??
Maybe you should read up what the british did to the Irish slaves, tales even more disgusting that those of the american chattel slaves.
the british have tried a few times to genocide the Irish, and all it needs is a redefinition of what constitutes english/british, and then they will not hesitate to go brutal all the way, just look at what they did in the south-african concentration camps during the boer wars

Irish,not English.They weren't really acknowledged as British later. If the British are willing to go so low as to redefine what's English/British and work their fellow countrymen to death,why wouldn't they legalize African slavery?By the way,Boers aren't English/British either.If the British were willing to do what they did to the Irish in regards to their own countrymen,the American Revolutionary War would have been a totally different story,many of the things depicted in Mel Gibson's film in regards to the British would have been true.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

One thing jumps to mind. Would everybody be shielded by such anti-slavery laws? Would primitive black people from Africa be even considered human by the medieval people of England? African slave trade already existed (mostly in conjecture with the Muslim lands), but if deemed profitable dhows carrying slaves could easily sail north...

I have written it someone universally above, but that is important nuance. I've written nothing about faith, or race. So I suppose that would be key. The rhetoric could be interesting "Are we Englishmen brutal savages like the Nomads of the Crimea, enslaving our fellow men?! Nay!" Then again, we were pretty brutal to the Irish. Everything I've read suggests that they though of Africans as inferior, not inhuman.

I did some research.In 1807,the slave population in British Caribbeans was 775,000,can you get as much indentured servants?As I've mentioned,Europeans don't really do well in the Caribbeans because of tropical diseases,so you will also have to take into account of the fatality rates.

Another thing is politically,why wouldn't the British government want to create a slavery act? If their rivals are all doing it,and are actually being extremely successful because of it,it will want to duplicate their successes. It's not just distilling sugar that's dangerous.Collecting it was fairly dangerous as well,not to mention extremely labour intensive.

Well, I'm basing my thoughts of numbers on the buying slaves to become indentured services loophole, and reindenturement. But considering that is 150 years after slave imports began, I think you've got to take into account poor labour (after all, if the mills showed anything, death on the job wasn't unheard of), alongside reindenturement.

Regarding slavery, If the British do anything, it is jiggery-pokery workarounds. Any concept of British superiority, or any rhetoric based on condemning the slavery performed by other nations would instantly undermined if this happened. After 5 centuries of being "The Land of the Free", this could be also too dangerous to do politically. (I won't lie, I'm finding the swings and roundabouts this provides really fascinating, even if I am the optimist.)

 

[Deleted member 67076]

More sugar makes plantation owners,merchants and the British government happy.....Not being able to out-compete the French,the Portuguese,the Dutch and the Spanish in sugar production makes plantation owners,British government and British merchants not happy.

This assumes Britian is destined to get in the sugar trade.

You can butterfly a large part of it away by having someone breed better sugar beets earlier than OTL and thus, still keep the place relatively slave free. The UK today is a huge producer of sugar beet, growing 7.5 million metric tons annually.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

One thing jumps to mind. Would everybody be shielded by such anti-slavery laws? Would primitive black people from Africa be even considered human by the medieval people of England? African slave trade already existed (mostly in conjecture with the Muslim lands), but if deemed profitable dhows carrying slaves could easily sail north...

Prior to the slave trade and the Moroccan invasion of Songhai which destabilized the Sahel for about a century, Europesns generally had a favorable view of Sub Saharan African, thinking of it as the place where gold flows like water and noting the relatively large cities (for the time period)