Race Relations with Abolition in the 1700s
- Thread starter Tjakari
- Start date
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Probably better, because it's not so entrenched. Of course the details might play out in all manner of permutation.
The Great Enlightenment [Great Awakening]* in the 1730(?), and the idea that an African-American who has converted to Christianity or perhaps was raised as a Christian from his or her youth should be treated with equal respect. And just maybe this idea extends to someone who might convert in the future. I mean, what kind of witness is it if you treat someone with less than equal respect or less than equal fairness?
* what I'm remembering is the First Great Awakening
The Great Enlightenment [Great Awakening]* in the 1730(?), and the idea that an African-American who has converted to Christianity or perhaps was raised as a Christian from his or her youth should be treated with equal respect. And just maybe this idea extends to someone who might convert in the future. I mean, what kind of witness is it if you treat someone with less than equal respect or less than equal fairness?
* what I'm remembering is the First Great Awakening
Last edited:
Definitively better. One of the primary reasons for the Civil Rights Movement in the US was that enough generations had passed since slavery that there was a large black middle class that wanted what the whites had. In Du Bois's day it wasn't yet a talented tenth but more like a talented few percent; by the 1950s, there were lawyers and preachers and doctors and teachers.
That said, details depend on why slavery was abolished in the ATL. Abolition due to British victory in the Rebellion of 1776 is probably the likeliest, but that would lead to white American animosity toward blacks; blacks might even receive preferential treatment as a favored minority whose status depends on the colonial power, much like Tamils in Sri Lanka, Tutsis in Rwanda and Burundi, etc. But if anti-British animosity dies down and the Americans resume perceiving themselves as British North Americans, then race relations are likely to be very positive. Race relations with indigenous people are likely to be positive as well: not only was the US more genocidal toward indigenous people than the UK and Canada, but also the stuff that Canada did to indigenous people often came out of a desire to compete with the US for the Wild West.
That said, details depend on why slavery was abolished in the ATL. Abolition due to British victory in the Rebellion of 1776 is probably the likeliest, but that would lead to white American animosity toward blacks; blacks might even receive preferential treatment as a favored minority whose status depends on the colonial power, much like Tamils in Sri Lanka, Tutsis in Rwanda and Burundi, etc. But if anti-British animosity dies down and the Americans resume perceiving themselves as British North Americans, then race relations are likely to be very positive. Race relations with indigenous people are likely to be positive as well: not only was the US more genocidal toward indigenous people than the UK and Canada, but also the stuff that Canada did to indigenous people often came out of a desire to compete with the US for the Wild West.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
You may have heard said in the 1970s and even 80s that, Sunday morning is the most segregated time in American society. Meaning that even late into the 20th Century, not too many black persons attended 'white' churches and not too many white persons attended 'black' churches."
So, what if the First Great Awakening slightly pre-dates and anticipates a pretty quick abolition? And religious leaders of both majority and minority groups make a point of inviting each other to attend services.
So, what if the First Great Awakening slightly pre-dates and anticipates a pretty quick abolition? And religious leaders of both majority and minority groups make a point of inviting each other to attend services.
There were free black churches in Philly in the 1780s and 1790s, and I think some free blacks formed churches in the South earlier than that. In parts of the south there were slave churches before 1800. It really wasn't until Nat Turner's revolt in the 1830s that the white preacher rule came into play (he was a Baptist minister himself).
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
In the book Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia*, I remember that following "Bacon's Rebellion" in 1676, the power structure was damned scared that indentured servants would join with slaves in future rebellions. And so, they loosened up on indentured servants and passed ever more restrictive laws on slaves.
Probably are exceptions, for this is a generalization of messy reality. But I can really see this general trend, especially since those in slavery had no one to speak up for politically, to state the obvious!
By the way, I'm of the view that Nathaniel Bacon was a bum. He was a hostage taker, an ally attacker, and mainly just interested in his own military commission. What he has going for him is the cool name of the rebellion and the date that by luck was a nice, neat hundred years before the American Revolution.
* This is an award winning book, but . . . it's written with academic formality. Not near as exciting as the title might lead you to think.
Probably are exceptions, for this is a generalization of messy reality. But I can really see this general trend, especially since those in slavery had no one to speak up for politically, to state the obvious!
By the way, I'm of the view that Nathaniel Bacon was a bum. He was a hostage taker, an ally attacker, and mainly just interested in his own military commission. What he has going for him is the cool name of the rebellion and the date that by luck was a nice, neat hundred years before the American Revolution.
* This is an award winning book, but . . . it's written with academic formality. Not near as exciting as the title might lead you to think.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
So, slavery relatively quickly phased out in the 1740s ? ? ?
And then, the idea that former slaves need to be treated fairly in government and business, but beyond that, the attitudes we're all familiar with come about two centuries early:
most people are proud they don't discriminate on race,
some people take the view, some of my best friends are black, but [whatever stereotype],
some people are against political correctness by whatever phase used in the 1700s, and
the interesting view that if a British person is going to be rude, he or she is likely to be rude in a British way. The ethnic background provides the template as far as how the person is rude, but not the reason the person is rude. And this type of reasoning can be applied to whatever stereotype a person attributes to a particular ethnic group.
If we're very lucky, all this may take place during and after the American Revolution with the feeling that we're building a new nation and growing an economy and don't have time for racial discrimination. To do this, we might need to adjust the above 1740s date and/or the dates for the Revolution.
And then, the idea that former slaves need to be treated fairly in government and business, but beyond that, the attitudes we're all familiar with come about two centuries early:
most people are proud they don't discriminate on race,
some people take the view, some of my best friends are black, but [whatever stereotype],
some people are against political correctness by whatever phase used in the 1700s, and
the interesting view that if a British person is going to be rude, he or she is likely to be rude in a British way. The ethnic background provides the template as far as how the person is rude, but not the reason the person is rude. And this type of reasoning can be applied to whatever stereotype a person attributes to a particular ethnic group.
If we're very lucky, all this may take place during and after the American Revolution with the feeling that we're building a new nation and growing an economy and don't have time for racial discrimination. To do this, we might need to adjust the above 1740s date and/or the dates for the Revolution.
Last edited:
Faeelin
Banned
In Loyalist Nova Scotia, traveling black ministers apparently annoyed whites because they'd draw crowds of whites to listen to them. Not sure how this played out in the south.
Wouldn´t the mixing between E- and A-Americans make already present A-Americans more European genetically?(more than the 20% IOTL anyway).
I hear that in the future(our future) there would be a big(ger) Mixed racial group in the USA. What I´m trying to say is that in this TL we would see this by 1900 maybe.
I hear that in the future(our future) there would be a big(ger) Mixed racial group in the USA. What I´m trying to say is that in this TL we would see this by 1900 maybe.
Most likely, mixing would just eliminate the ethnic distinction within a few generations. In 1500, Lisbon was 10% black. Those blacks largely did not go elsewhere - they were slaves, but they were manumitted rather than shipped to the colonies, and eventually assimilated. Once in a while you read about some historic figure who had black ancestry because of that and later Early Modern black migration waves into Europe (I think Pushkin was like 1/4 black).
And abolition in the early 1700s would mean 60 or 70 less years of slaves imported, plus their descendants not being in the US. Less slavery would also mean higher wages for free labour, meaning more (white) immigrants to the south. We will likely have a US that is 90%+ white identity in the 1800s.
But the black population was already 16.6% in 1740. The big increase was in the decades around 1700; in the mid-18c, there was still an increase, to a peak of 21.4% in 1770, but then there was steady decline. It wasn't even a matter of white immigration diluting black slaves - slavery just increased mortality rates. Without any significant black migration, and with a very large amount of non-black migration, the US black population is the same percentage of the population today that it was in 1870, purely because of rebound in birth rates.
It would be better especially if it is banned and the slaves were made citizens before American revolution than it is not an issue in establishing the constitution and since blacks enter the start of the nation as citizens the only entity they can blame for past servitude is the Colonial Powers.
The decline you mention was as a rate, not as an absolute level. Here the differential growth in the black and white populations will be much larger. Slavery increased mortality rates, but not by enough to make up for the additional imported slaves. "Better to buy than to breed" was much more of a Caribbean sugar thing than a Deep South cotton thing.
In addition, you'll likely have more intermarriage at a much earlier stage here, so even with the same percentage of 'black' DNA, it will be spread out among a lot of people who have mostly 'white' DNA and will identify as white.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Oh jeez, "Canada treats minorities better". No they didn't and no they don't. Ask the Chinese during the 19th and early 20th, the Japanese around WWII, the immigratin policy of Canada has always been more strict and racist than the US. There's plenty of Black stereotyping today, racism, and such; but when you're only 3% of the entire nation, and a small nation at that, then the racism isn't as noticeable. There are more Jews in the US than there are Blacks in Canada. How Canada treats their minorities compared to the US is not comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing potatoes to sheep.
Napoleonrules
Banned
I was saying that comparing the US and Canada regarding race relations is not comparing apples to apples, and that in fact you can't even say apples to oranges because that's still not a fair comparison. In reality it's like comparing fruit to an animal. Does that make more sense? I'm bad at analogies.
No, it was specifically the use of sheep that lost me, everything else made sense, but......."sheep"? Why not a kangaroo or a daffodil or some other fanciful creature?