What if the African Slave Trade Never Occurred?

[Roma_Victrix]

...or at the very least, was greatly diminished or insignificant compared to what actually happened over the course of four centuries?

Using wage labor and indentured servitude of people mostly of European descent (with some Africans and Native Amerindian peoples), how would this have affected the immediate economies of the colonies established by the Kingdom of England (later as the United Kingdom of Great Britain), the Crown of Castile (later as Habsburg and then Bourbon Spain), the Kingdom of Portugal, the Kingdom of France (later as the French Republic), and the Dutch Republic (or better yet, the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)? Would resources like sugar cane and cotton have been as profitable and their industries as widespread as they became without black slaves?

How would this affect the culture of the United States, whose African American community has been responsible for so many cultural innovations such as the inventions of jazz, blues, rock n' roll, and soul music?

There would arguably be no president called Barack Obama. For that matter, the ethnic minorities of various people of African descent would probably represent a much smaller portion of the population today. They would also probably have firmer roots and family ties back home with the African nations they came from, much like some African immigrants to the United States today.

Without the Atlantic Slave Trade, would the European powers have colonized Africa to the extent that they did, as well? Of course they would colonize to the extent that small settlements in the interior would be built for the purpose of extracting precious resources like diamonds. However, if Africa remained largely undeveloped (minus Berber North Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia of course), would the African nations we see today have even come into being?

I give the floor to you, ladies and gentlemen.

[Derpy Hooves]

The African slave trade didn't begin with European initiative, but was already there when the Europeans joined the market. The consumers before the Europeans were other Africans, Turks, and Arabs. One if the biggest reasons the Europeans got into it was sugar cane, which was very labor intensive. Sugar was very profitable, but unless you obtained a large labor supply that had cheap upkeep, you couldn't really make a whole lot. The Native Americans weren't a viable choice since they were all dying off. So my guess would be that sugar and other labor intensive crops would have remained very expensive until machines could be invented to reduce the amount of labor needed.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Western Capitalism would not have got off on the same foot. Slavery is argued by some to have paved the way for western industrialisation by the accumulation of primitive capital. Sugar, spice and similar luxury goods could be sold lucratively in European markets, thus the new merchant class that would later lead the world into the Age of Steam emerged by gaining the neccesary capital to spark the industrial revolution. The link is clear - once the industrial revolution took foot abolishion of the slave trade took of across the western world. So it is likley Western industrialisation would at least have been delayed - for how long is harder to tell.
Certianly the Caribbean would be a different place, likley inhabited by smaller communities of Europeans. Many European and American cities - I know for sure Bristol - would not be as large or developed as they are today. I suspect racism would be less of a problem as there are those who see a link between racism and slavery. There are many medieval paintings that include Africans in them, often in favourable light, at least not a prejudicial one- I recall one where a Saint is depicted as African, and another image depiticing Venice shows a gondola piloted by a black man, with no stigma attached (Healing of the Madman, Vittore Carpaccio).
The conflicts between the major European powers over the Carribean are likley to have still happened, as in any event they provided a vast sum of material goods or at least had the potential to do so. As for the general European wars of the time - I don't see them abaiting. Spain seems to have clung on to slavery to the dear end - a testimony to the backwardness slavery ultimatley produces if not converted into wage labour and industry - just look at the southern states in antebellum, so they may still have a chance to be a major power in a non-slave world.
However Slavery in the Western World was likey inevitable. There seems to have a shortage of labour, Europe simply could not supply the numbers needed for the luxury market production, they needed labour somewhere. A large recruitment of wage labourers seems unlikley - where from? So slavery of one form or another - and of one group or another - was almost inevitable it seems to me. European expansion seems likley to have carried on regardless, however it seems to me less likey that natives of European colonies would be transported to other areas, they were needed where they were, so an uncolonised source of human labour was required in some form or another.

[Condottiere 40K]

The situation repeated itself in China, the Europeans needed goods to exchange in the colonies for their products, and it turned out the demand for labour was the easiest to satisfy.

I think the only other three recruiting pools would be India, China and Europe.

[Roma_Victrix]

The situation repeated itself in China, the Europeans needed goods to exchange in the colonies for their products, and it turned out the demand for labour was the easiest to satisfy.

I think the only other three recruiting pools would be India, China and Europe.

Chinese migrant workers in 19th-century America and Australia, called "Coolies," often worked in rather shoddy and dangerous conditions. For instance, the many Chinese who worked on the railroads in the United States. However, their living conditions and rights as free men (even if they hadn't yet been granted citizenship) were eons ahead of how black African slaves were treated before every country abolished slavery. Some ambitious Chinese immigrants even became well-to-do entrepreneurs in Western countries like the US in the 19th century. The same could be said for Indians, who did work as lowly wage workers for the British in places as far afield as South Africa, some were also well-to-do. Take Mahatma Gandhi for instance, who arrived in South Africa at the end of the 19th century to work as a lawyer.

Therefore, I don't think Indians, Chinese, and especially other Europeans would have faced the same treatment or social contracts that African slaves had. Sure there would have been indentured servitude, which was very common even up until the late 18th century. For instance, the young Benjamin Franklin served as an indentured apprentice for his brother for years by contract.

Napoleonic Bonipartism makes a great point about the rise of industrialization, though. It's questionable if the continental United States would have been developed beyond the eastern seaboard (dominated by England) and the Caribbean region (dominated by France and Spain). If the colonies weren't backed by free labor provided by the slaves, how could they possibly have found enough capital to pay everyone the necessary wages to build entire towns and establish cropland for farms to support them? Speaking of India and China: would Great Britain have been able to dominate India as it eventually did by the end of the 18th century with its annexation of entire kingdoms by British military might? Would it have been able to challenge the Qing Dynasty of China in the Opium Wars of the 19th century?

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Speaking of India and China: would Great Britain have been able to dominate India as it eventually did by the end of the 18th century with its annexation of entire kingdoms by British military might? Would it have been able to challenge the Qing Dynasty of China in the Opium Wars of the 19th century?

If we go by the assumption that industrialisation is at least stalled by the inability to use African slaves it really becomes a question of the comparitive military mights of the Britain as opposed to China and India. In regards to China I am not overly schooled in the effects industrialisation had on the armies of Europe post 1815, but I imagine it helped a great deal in the production of the cannons etc. that would lay seige to Chinese cities.
However we must ask would the Opium War have happened in the first place? Would British Capital be sufficently an influence on foreign policy as to warrant the invasion of such a country in defence of trade? The same goes for India. British Colonialism may have been much more limited. In the 17th century the English presence in India was tiny, representing the smaller needs to a smaller trade community. British colonialism expanded in proportion to the Capitalists of Britains presence in the nations affairs. Thus if we assume slavery greatly stimulated Capital, and in this world that did not occour, it is less likley those wars would need to be fought. Spanish colonialism was less about the interests of trade than filling the Kings coffers, although slavery played a key part - however intitally it was the local populations who where enslaved. Only in Britain, France and the Netherlands was colonialism led by private companies, such as the Dutch East India Company, the British East India Company etc. But these companies may not have had the chance to develope where it not for slavery. So perhaps we would see Spanish style government backed colonialism, with merchants nipping at the sides rather than more of the reverse which was seen in reality. Colonialism may have been much smaller scale, as the small buisness class would have smaller needs, and would have bowed to fuedal authority.

[Condottiere 40K]

On the other hand, without an abundance of labour, the incentive to develop more efficient means of production must surely have increased, however incrementally.

And if the British do go through the process of creating the Raj, they're sitting on a substantial manpower reserve.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

On the other hand, without an abundance of labour, the incentive to develop more efficient means of production must surely have increased, however incrementally.

And if the British do go through the process of creating the Raj, they're sitting on a substantial manpower reserve.

True it could have led to an earlier industrial revolution, but the incentive to develop more means of production would probably have been lessened due to the relative ease of gaining foreign labour. As I said before what the British and Europe generally wanted was the ability to access more labour without the liability of administering large amounts of territory (they are already short of home-born labour) thus stealing labourers from some large supply was the most obvious solution. It seems to me that slavery of some kind or another of some people or another was bound to happen under the circumstances.

[hellheaven1987]

Without slavery we would not have the awesome military units such as Mameluke or Janissary; on the other hand who ever open the can of worms called slavery would just lead to mass scale of it, because that is how economy worked (note modern economists still considering you, the human, as another resource not much different than cattle in economy).

[Aymer de Valence]

We wouldn't have this liberal anti-white apologist garbage being taught in our schools

[Cyclops]

I agree the Artlantic triangle was the engine that powered the second wave of Europena colonial and commercial development, but Spain and Portugal kicked off the European expansion without massive slave holdings.

I think if slaves from Africa were unavailable the sugar plantations of the Carribean and Portugal (the real crux of the slave market, and ridiculously profitable for a good centry there at least) would be a much smaller concern and the basis for Holland France and England to challenge Spain in the western hemisphere might be much less. I mean there'd be pitrates after the treasure fleets but the highly profitable little island colonies that boosted the Dutch and English economies so amazingly would be out of the question.

England's colonial efforts were in part based on their Irish experience, IIRC many of the colonial leaders in N America were plantation men from Ulster or Dublin. Likewise revolting Netherlanders would have an incentive to attack Iberian holdings, but without cheap sugar to peddle into Europe the incentive is less.

I expect a slower cycle of colonial developement might occur, and (depending on the reason African slaves are not avaialable) we might sea an African Atlantic/Indian oceasn economy develop.

I think the slave trade did rip up a lot of African societies, with Romans, Muslioms and then maritime Europeans paying for bodies which encouraged war for profit. Maybe a less fractured Benin or Congo (I'm plucking names from dimly remembered EU2 campaigns here) might get involved in the India trade (another profitable enterprise) and partner or compete with the Portugeuse.

There's still the India/East India trade to drive Spanish and Dutch development but I think much of the English success in India is built on the West Indies, so that might not happen.

So my take is: Spanish dominate N America with small English and French establishments, say Canada and New England only. No England in India, or just a couple of outposts a la Goa and Pondicherry, and angry isolationist Moghuls or Mahratta overlords falling apart periodically (not unlike the Chinese Empire). Spaiun and Portugal retain more power OS but the Dutch sneak into the East Indies (being such awesome pirates).

This means Spain has less overseas entanglements and can destroy more heretics like the Swedes. And as Aymer says "We wouldn't have this liberal anti-white apologist garbage being taught in our schools" because English schools such as Philip I university or Medina Sidonia college would be teaching a Catholic curriculum in Latin.

[Hobbes]

We wouldn't have this liberal anti-white apologist garbage being taught in our schools

What?

[saxdude]

ignore him lol.

[Roma_Victrix]

India was basically the Crown Jewel of the British Empire, but, if not for Africa, would the British have been able to establish colonies outside the continental United States? Cyclops assumes this would only include New England. I suppose without the African and Indian possessions the British wouldn't have bothered establishing Australia and New Zealand, would they have? Imagine if that hadn't happened, how today those places would have been inhabited still by the indigenous peoples, or dotted with Malaysian and Chinese trade and merchant settlements along the coast like much of Southeast Asia had been historically settled (mirroring present times, e.g. Singapore). The world today would be far less developed, although with the absence of slaves I'd assume the drive and incentive to compensate with better technologies would lead to technological revolutions that match or even surpass present-day levels of advancement.

Well, I think I've reaffirmed one thing from this thread: the modern world was built largely on the backs of slaves!

[SLN445]

Had the Brits not colonized Australia and New Zealand then likely it would've been claimed by one of the other European nations exploiting trade opportunities in Asia, Australia particularly is a relatively easy colonial area if you get past the climate.
Though on second thoughts, you may see an Independent New Zealand without the British, im not sure whether another European nation would put the amount of Military effort required to control the area.

In terms of America, South America would of defiantly been set back by a big degree in terms of colonization without the slave trade, the Caribbean may of been alright though probably not the wealth producing area as it was.
I think the development of North America may of been slowed but in the end it would follow a similar position, its lands are very suitable for European colonization.

[Condottiere 40K]

America becomes the new Australia, or remains the old America, and their national dish will be shrimp on the barbie.

[Roma_Victrix]

Had the Brits not colonized Australia and New Zealand then likely it would've been claimed by one of the other European nations exploiting trade opportunities in Asia, Australia particularly is a relatively easy colonial area if you get past the climate.
Though on second thoughts, you may see an Independent New Zealand without the British, im not sure whether another European nation would put the amount of Military effort required to control the area.

So we're looking at a Spanish or Portuguese Australia and New Zealand, then? To be honest, even Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the globe would be limited compared to the vast empires they created. It is true, they did not rely as much on black slaves as the English, French, and Dutch, but they still needed them for laboring on the sugar cane plantations and other vital services. Perhaps the Spaniards and Portuguese would have colonized Australia and New Zealand a bit with a few outposts, but these could certainly have been neighbored or even challenged by Chinese and Malaysian mercantile expansion that already existed in Southeast Asia.

[SLN445]

So we're looking at a Spanish or Portuguese Australia and New Zealand, then? To be honest, even Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the globe would be limited compared to the vast empires they created. It is true, they did not rely as much on black slaves as the English, French, and Dutch, but they still needed them for laboring on the sugar cane plantations and other vital services. Perhaps the Spaniards and Portuguese would have colonized Australia and New Zealand a bit with a few outposts, but these could certainly have been neighbored or even challenged by Chinese and Malaysian mercantile expansion that already existed in Southeast Asia.

It would be interesting if China or South East Asia colonized parts of Australia.
Though the biggest issue of course is that the arguably best areas for colonies are in the south and east of the landmass, areas that require some exploration around the Continent to find and exploration isn't something those nations in Asia where committed too, especially China.

With the Europeans, the Dutch, Portuguese and French explored the region at one point or another, Portugal fairly early on in the colonization era.
Even slapping a few trade posts would be enough to claim the country at a later date when its resources would be useful for the industrial revolution, it didn't have the Kingdoms, nations or Empires to resist like the Americas, Africa and Asia so slapping a claim on the region is just a matter of telling the other Europeans to bugger off .

Excuse me if im Rambling a bit.

[hellheaven1987]

Blah, German Empire would just grab it anyway.

[Condottiere 40K]

Expansion into the Asia-Pacific by the British was partially an attempt to see if they can circumvent the Dutch and either take over their holding or get a hold of some profitable spice islands they may have missed.