Southern Africa Becomes A Source Of Slaves In The Americas?

Is it possible for the Southern African region to be a source of salves during the trans-Atlantic Slave trade? Assuming it still gets settled during the beginning of colonialism then is it possible that a colony based on exporting slaves would develop?
 
Is it possible for the Southern African region to be a source of salves during the trans-Atlantic Slave trade? Assuming it still gets settled during the beginning of colonialism then is it possible that a colony based on exporting slaves would develop?
The problem of Southern Africa is that it is simply further away from the America's than Western Africa is. So it is more efficient to use western Africa.
Also the Cape colony was founded by the VOC, which did not participate in the transatlantic slave trade (that was the WIC for the Netherlands), so you need another coloniser.
That said, if you count Angola as Southern Africa, I think the Portuguese did use Angola for their slavetrade.
 
The problem of Southern Africa is that it is simply further away from the America's than Western Africa is. So it is more efficient to use western Africa.
Also the Cape colony was founded by the VOC, which did not participate in the transatlantic slave trade (that was the WIC for the Netherlands), so you need another coloniser.
That said, if you count Angola as Southern Africa, I think the Portuguese did use Angola for their slavetrade.

Angola sort of counts but I was thinking about OTL South Africa and it’s OTL neighbors.

Also South America is closer to Southern Africa than North America, so the slaves could go to South America.
 
Also South America is closer to Southern Africa than North America, so the slaves could go to South America.
Yeah, but western Africa is far closer to the Carribean and Brasil, the places most slaves were sent to. So it is far easier to use Western Africa as the source of slaves.
 
What is southern Africa? if you mean below Angola then the demographics, geography and lifestyle/experiences of the local Khoisan populations would make them bad slaves, given Europeans would probably also have to capture themselves given the political situation there compared to the north which was more organized.

Well Eastern South Africa coudl work better but even there the population there was not comparable to Nigeria or to the religiously divided West African region or Central Africa where the kingdom of Congo and the Congo basin could be used as vector for slave gathering and shipments.
 
What is southern Africa? if you mean below Angola then the demographics, geography and lifestyle/experiences of the local Khoisan populations would make them bad slaves, given Europeans would probably also have to capture themselves given the political situation there compared to the north which was more organized.

Well Eastern South Africa coudl work better but even there the population there was not comparable to Nigeria or to the religiously divided West African region or Central Africa where the kingdom of Congo and the Congo basin could be used as vector for slave gathering and shipments.
This doesn't mean they can't become a source of slaves, just that it would be tertiary or 4th to Nigeria, Kongo and probably also rest of West Africa in that order.
 
What is southern Africa? if you mean below Angola then the demographics, geography and lifestyle/experiences of the local Khoisan populations would make them bad slaves, given Europeans would probably also have to capture themselves given the political situation there compared to the north which was more organized.

Well Eastern South Africa coudl work better but even there the population there was not comparable to Nigeria or to the religiously divided West African region or Central Africa where the kingdom of Congo and the Congo basin could be used as vector for slave gathering and shipments.

I would imagine in this case it'd be more difficult. Though they could just simply cooperate with rival tribes in the region just like did in elsewhere.
 
Is it possible for the Southern African region to be a source of salves during the trans-Atlantic Slave trade? Assuming it still gets settled during the beginning of colonialism then is it possible that a colony based on exporting slaves would develop?
The Bantu peoples were quite late arrivals in Southern Africa. with late comers like the Zulus only arriving too late for the tranatlantic trade, Bushmen and other earlier inhabitants prior to the later stages of the Mcfarcame would have made for a porr trade..
 
The Bantu peoples were quite late arrivals in Southern Africa. with late comers like the Zulus only arriving too late for the tranatlantic trade, Bushmen and other earlier inhabitants prior to the later stages of the Mcfarcame would have made for a porr trade..
Not true, Bantus arrived in South Africa by 500 CE, so a millennium prior. We also have genetic evidence suggesting they were at least in North Botswana by 600-800 CE.
 
Last edited:
Southern Africa was far too sparsely populated, Mozambique is in Southeast Africa and did become a major source of slaves during the last quarter of the XVIII century, especially as Angola was becoming depopulated. Almost 275,000 arriving in Brazil alone came from Mozambique. Another 74,000 were sent to the other major market of Cuba, most of these after 1800 as well. Slaves from East Africa and Madagascar were also used in Mauritius, Reunion, the Seychelles and Cape Colony, though in smaller numbers.
 
Slaves from East Africa and Madagascar were also used in Mauritius, Reunion, the Seychelles and Cape Colony, though in smaller numbers.
The disadvantage of all these areas is that it is all too far away from the Americas to be realy viable, unless the better options are out.

Basicly I would say that the key for southern African slaves is make sure that western Africa* is unavailable for slaves. Either because it is depopulated, occupied by other powers or simply to strong to want to sell slaves to the Europeans, while able to hold of the Europeans, if they wanted to forcefuly take slaves themselves.


*and lets for the sake of this thread include western Africa up to Angola in that since Angola is on the west coast
 
It is important to remember that the length of slave voyages were not the main determinant of where slaves were imported from. Slaves were not all equal in value in the eyes of the traders. Mozambique Island to Rio de Janeiro in a slave ship during the XVIII century took around an average of 75 days which is 5 to 6 days fewer than Cabinda or Luanda to Charleston. However, despite the distance, the number of slaves disembarked in what is now the U.S. arriving from Angola/Congo was almost equal in number to those from Senegambia, with both regions comprising around half of all slaves disembarked. The distance from Congo/Angola to the West Indies was also over 70 days but slaves from Congo/Angola formed the largest group of those disembarked, being nearly one-fourth of those who stepped ashore.

Literature from the period is filled with stereotypes and preferences for those coming from certain regions of Africa. Additionally, African slave traders in West Africa had begun demanding more for their slaves by the XVIII century, making those from further south less costly. These two factors seemed to account for the discrepancy in prices. Below are just some of the often read attributes from the period.

Senegambians commanded the highest prices in the New World as they were considered the "most intelligent" and in the Carolinas and later in Northern Brazil, they were able to cultivate rice as it was already cultivated in Senegambia. After Senegambia, the Windward Coast and Gold Coast slaves fetched the highest prices, but slaves from these regions were also considered prone to rebellion. In the French colonies they were also considered to be prone to suicide.

In Jamaica, "Calabars" coming from modern Nigeria were also prized as they were considered to be more robust for work in the sugar fields. The same was true in Cuba and New Spain as they had a preference for Yoruba slaves from that region. Those from Biafra were considered to be "vicious" and as a result, sold for less. Slaves from neighboring Gran Popo (Bight of Benin) were thought of as unintelligent however and fetched lower prices.

Slaves from the Congo were known to die far too early and therefore not as valuable. Angolans were the most abundant in number and were considered docile and adaptable to plantation agriculture, but they were not as prized as West Africans from further north and fetched lower prices. Slaves from Madagascar also had a reputation for rebellion and were shunned in preference for Mozambique slaves as the latter were considered docile. However, they were also not as valuable as they were considered to be "lacking in intelligence".
 
It is important to remember that the length of slave voyages were not the main determinant of where slaves were imported from. Slaves were not all equal in value in the eyes of the traders. Mozambique Island to Rio de Janeiro in a slave ship during the XVIII century took around an average of 75 days which is 5 to 6 days fewer than Cabinda or Luanda to Charleston. However, despite the distance, the number of slaves disembarked in what is now the U.S. arriving from Angola/Congo was almost equal in number to those from Senegambia, with both regions comprising around half of all slaves disembarked. The distance from Congo/Angola to the West Indies was also over 70 days but slaves from Congo/Angola formed the largest group of those disembarked, being nearly one-fourth of those who stepped ashore.
To pull a bit from my Trans-Pacific Slave trade thread:
Death rates on the middle passage were not nearly as effected by voyage length as people seem to think, and rarely were a deciding factor in the number of deaths onboard. [1,2] Of note is that the 19th century coolie trade which averaged around 120 days in transit had a death rate on average of 12%, which is fairly comparable to Middle Passage numbers. [Which in general we around 12% mortality rates.]

1. David Eltis, “Mortality and Voyage Length in the Middle Passage: New Evidence from the Nineteenth Century,” The Journal of Economic History 4, no. 2 1984): 301-308, accessed May 11, 2020, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2120707?seq=1.

2. Herbert S. Klein, "Transoceanic Mortality: The Slave Trade in Comparative Perspective," William & Mary Quarterly, LVIII, no. 1 (January 2001), pp. 93-118, accessed May 11, 2020, https://web.stanford.edu/~hklein/Klein_etal_Mortality_ST_WMQ-2001.pdf.
Time on land before reaching slave ships was the biggest reason for death rates, and if I recall Congolese slaves were often coming from deeper in the interior than elsewhere. I don't think its entirely unreasonable to suggest slave traders roaming further into East Africa than they did.
 
Not true, Bantus arrived in South Africa by 500 CE, so a millennium prior. We also have genetic evidence suggesting they were at least in North Botswana by 600-800 CE.
Depends how tightly we are defining Southern Africa i suppose. Sources do vary but it is generally agreed that the northern parts of what could loosely be described as Southern Africa. were inhabited by Bantu or proto Bantu Groups from possibly as early as 200 CE. The movement of peoples into South afroica narrowly defined is again disputed but generally agreed to reach its principal end in 1700-1740 CE. With late comers arriving up to the early 1800;s because of various pressures. Khosian peoples were present from a very early date.
 
Benguela was the third largest slave trading port in the early 19th century and is about as south you can get on the western coast of Africa without having a desert on the coast.....

Otherwise,make Portugal lose Angola but still succeed in kicking out the Dutch from Natal (the Brazilian one) , then have the Portuguese establish some forts on the Natal (the south african one) or southern Mozambique coast as an alternative and have them import slaves from there to Brazil.
 
It is important to remember that the length of slave voyages were not the main determinant of where slaves were imported from. Slaves were not all equal in value in the eyes of the traders. Mozambique Island to Rio de Janeiro in a slave ship during the XVIII century took around an average of 75 days which is 5 to 6 days fewer than Cabinda or Luanda to Charleston. However, despite the distance, the number of slaves disembarked in what is now the U.S. arriving from Angola/Congo was almost equal in number to those from Senegambia, with both regions comprising around half of all slaves disembarked. The distance from Congo/Angola to the West Indies was also over 70 days but slaves from Congo/Angola formed the largest group of those disembarked, being nearly one-fourth of those who stepped ashore.

Literature from the period is filled with stereotypes and preferences for those coming from certain regions of Africa. Additionally, African slave traders in West Africa had begun demanding more for their slaves by the XVIII century, making those from further south less costly. These two factors seemed to account for the discrepancy in prices. Below are just some of the often read attributes from the period.

Senegambians commanded the highest prices in the New World as they were considered the "most intelligent" and in the Carolinas and later in Northern Brazil, they were able to cultivate rice as it was already cultivated in Senegambia. After Senegambia, the Windward Coast and Gold Coast slaves fetched the highest prices, but slaves from these regions were also considered prone to rebellion. In the French colonies they were also considered to be prone to suicide.

In Jamaica, "Calabars" coming from modern Nigeria were also prized as they were considered to be more robust for work in the sugar fields. The same was true in Cuba and New Spain as they had a preference for Yoruba slaves from that region. Those from Biafra were considered to be "vicious" and as a result, sold for less. Slaves from neighboring Gran Popo (Bight of Benin) were thought of as unintelligent however and fetched lower prices.

Slaves from the Congo were known to die far too early and therefore not as valuable. Angolans were the most abundant in number and were considered docile and adaptable to plantation agriculture, but they were not as prized as West Africans from further north and fetched lower prices. Slaves from Madagascar also had a reputation for rebellion and were shunned in preference for Mozambique slaves as the latter were considered docile. However, they were also not as valuable as they were considered to be "lacking in intelligence".

Says a lot about the racism of the time. What did they say about southern Africans like those in OTL South Africa?
 
Says a lot about the racism of the time. What did they say about southern Africans like those in OTL South Africa?

This was the most complete description I could find by Theodore Edward Jones in 1772 in:

"A New and Universal Geographical Grammar Or, a Complete System of Geography, Containing the Ancient and Present State of All the Empires, Kingdoms, States, and Republics, in the Known World ..."

"The inhabitants of Caffraria, known by the name of Hottentots, are of a middling nature, with small limbs, but very seldom deformed. They esteem a flat nose as one of the essential parts of beauty, and as s soon as a child is born, they break the gristle of its nose. Their eyebrows are large, their eyes are black, their lips thick, their hair short, black and curled, like that of Negroes, their teeth remarkably white, and their complexion rather tawny than black; but, in order to darken it, they besmear their bodies all over with grease and soot, which gives them a very nauseous smell. They wear shells on their heads, and a mantle of sheep-skin, with the wooly side outwards, on their bodies."

"They are without exception the nastiest and most indolent people in the world; yet, as such as confine themselves to a natural diet of their country, live to a great age: but many of them drink prodigious quantities of brandy, and other spirituous liquors, unknown till introduced by the Dutch"
 
This was the most complete description I could find by Theodore Edward Jones in 1772 in:

"A New and Universal Geographical Grammar Or, a Complete System of Geography, Containing the Ancient and Present State of All the Empires, Kingdoms, States, and Republics, in the Known World ..."

"The inhabitants of Caffraria, known by the name of Hottentots, are of a middling nature, with small limbs, but very seldom deformed. They esteem a flat nose as one of the essential parts of beauty, and as s soon as a child is born, they break the gristle of its nose. Their eyebrows are large, their eyes are black, their lips thick, their hair short, black and curled, like that of Negroes, their teeth remarkably white, and their complexion rather tawny than black; but, in order to darken it, they besmear their bodies all over with grease and soot, which gives them a very nauseous smell. They wear shells on their heads, and a mantle of sheep-skin, with the wooly side outwards, on their bodies."

"They are without exception the nastiest and most indolent people in the world; yet, as such as confine themselves to a natural diet of their country, live to a great age: but many of them drink prodigious quantities of brandy, and other spirituous liquors, unknown till introduced by the Dutch"

Yikes. Talk about racist ignorance.

They could be possibly be sold as"cheap" slaves (cheap in quotations because that's not how I view it that's how a racist would view it).
 
Yikes. Talk about racist ignorance.

They could be possibly be sold as"cheap" slaves (cheap in quotations because that's not how I view it that's how a racist would view it).

I'm not too familiar on the social structure of the Khoisan people at the time nor the Xhosa, but usually most slaves were bartered with African leaders whom would sell captives from enemy tribes. Perhaps they were seen in such a light that they were not worth trading, compared with say the Dutch Gold Coast. It appears that the Khoisan who were enslaved tended to remain in the Cape.

The population in present-day South Africa very low, perhaps no more than 200,000 south of the Orange River when the Dutch first settled there. Additionally, the Khoisan were devastated by waves of smallpox epidemics, further reducing their population. The VOC resorted to importing Malagasy and Malay slaves in additions to some from Mozambique and Guinea. It does seem that the Khoisan were able to acquire goods from the Dutch such as tobacco, alcohol etc. in return for cattle, so they probably saw no need to sell captives to the Europeans.

Looking through period texts it seems that the perception was that the Khoisan (Hottentots) were completely incapable of being slaves. For one they were thought to be too small in stature (unlike Bantu peoples). Another major criticism was that they were thought to be incapable of farming, with most being engaged in pastoralism or hunter gatherers. The single most important qualification when acquiring slaves (besides their physical strength) was the ability to engage in plantation agriculture.

Here are some more quotes I found including one from 1727 on the "Hottentots" "they are so brutal and indocile, they know the Value of Liberty, and will by no means be Slaves". Another from 1728 calling them the "lowest rung of the human ladder". Finally another says that they are completely incapable of "husbandry" (farming).
 
Perhaps they were seen in such a light that they were not worth trading, compared with say the Dutch Gold Coast. It appears that the Khoisan who were enslaved tended to remain in the Cape.
I think on of the major reasons they were not shipped to the Americas was because the Cape colony was a VOC (Dutch east India company) colony and the VOC did not participate in the trans atlantic slave trade. The VOC was solely focused on Asia. It was not allowed to trade with the Americas. That was the area of the WIC (Dutch West India Company). Basicly the Dutch government gave the VOC the monopoly to trade in the east and the WIC the monopoly to trade in the west. The Dutch Gold Coast were WIC colonies, so the WIC got their slaves from the Dutch Gold Coast, not South Africa.

If you want (well for certain values of "want", since I doubt anyone here realy wants slaves), you need to make sure the Cape area does not turn into a VOC colony. Or get rid of the VOC. Or possibly get rid of the monopolies (although the monopoly idea was basicly the core of the company model of business).
 
Top