[jeraveike]

The slave-owning cultures that immediately come to mind - prewar America and ancient Rome - don't seem to have many parallels in other regards. Rome's imperial transition was certainly made possible only through widespread slave labor and the latifundia system, which together made the "rustic citizen farmer" obsolete and the old method of raising legions obsolete with it. One could say in a very general way that widespread slavery contributed to Roman decline in this way, since the ever-increasing professional army was arguably the prime mover behind the crisis of the third century.

The American South, in contrast, was held back by slavery in different ways. Primarily, a dependence on plantation agriculture precluded industrial development; slave labor was essentially a subsidy for the plantations, discouraging landowners from pursuing the industries that were developing in the North (and which would eventually win the Civil War).

I suppose a loose parallel does develop; the profitability of slave agriculture causes important military/industrial/social changes that lead to an "ultimate downfall" in both cases. The ways in which slave-based agriculture led to those downfalls, however, are quite different. Rome's slavery prompted the consolidation of estates and the creation of a military complex that was too dangerous to control and too important to discard, while the South's slavery hobbled its development and led to a cripplingly large gap vis-a-vis the North in terms of railroads, factories, armaments, and everything else that the South would have needed parity in to win the war.

I can't really comment on other slave societies. As far as I am aware, slaves in the Islamic world tended to be servants and soldiers rather than agricultural workers, which would presumably lead to an entirely different dynamic.

[geniusxs81]

im reading Hugh Thomas, any my impression is you guys are ignoring how widespread slavery was around the world prior to the enlightenment.

Pre 1200 or so, EVERY civ above neolithic or so had slavery. China and India too, though I suppose not so many. Greece AND Rome had massive numbers of slaves. As did the Islamic world. "Dark ages" europe did as well.

Chattel slavery declined in the high middle ages in northern europe, but that wasnt a great rush to human freedom, it was a shift to serfdom as the predominant form of humna bondage, in those highly feudalized societies.

slavery survived in the Med, in Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France.

When the Portugese started stealing/buying black slaves in west africa, it was no biggie, cause Iberia was already used to having "white" (muslim) slaves, as well as being raided by the muslims for slaves. Black slavery flowed rather seamlessly into general Med slavery. There continued to be Moorish slaves in Iberia and Italy for some time. (of course the absence of slavery in northern Europe didnt stop the north europeans from entering into the slave trade with a vengeance)

Black slaves were apparently sold as far away as China, IIRC.

The Spanish and Portugese empires in America used African slaves heavily (esp after indian slavery went into decline)

The heavy identification of slavery with the US south, and Rome, misses something, to me.

[brorwargy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
im reading Hugh Thomas, any my impression is you guys are ignoring how widespread slavery was around the world prior to the enlightenment.

Pre 1200 or so, EVERY civ above neolithic or so had slavery.
That's not being disputed. What we're looking at are cultures with very high proportions of slaves in the populace.

[chechokancho]

Especially since you live there

[GlictStiply]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



That's not being disputed. What we're looking at are cultures with very high proportions of slaves in the populace. while thats fewer than all the societies I mentioned, its more than Rome and the US south. It would certainly include much of ancient Greece, and many parts of the Islamic world. And large areas of Spanish and Portugese America. And some areas of Africa - one of the interesting things in Thomas, is that the Portugese made money carrying black slaves to other africans - the gold mines in Ghana were worked by slaves, and there were not nearly enough locally. Many other areas, the data simply isnt all that good.

[kvitacencia]

Cuba had widespread agricultural slavery AND Spanish rule from about 1500 to after the US Civil War. Ditto Puerto Rico. Brazil, where slavery was more widespread than other major country in South America, was also the most stable country in South America.

OTOH some heavily slave dominated areas in the Islamic world were quite unstable. It really depended on the era, political context, and the rest of the social system. No linear relationship either way, I think.

[Preorbtat]

How was the American South unstable pre Civil War? The poor masses of the urban North caused far more problems than slaves did in the South.

And lack of industry in the South had little to do with where the labor came from. Slaves work just as well in factories as they do in fields (see China). Geography made the difference though advances in technology were already changing this.

[Narcodran]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Cuba had widespread agricultural slavery AND Spanish rule from about 1500 to after the US Civil War. Ditto Puerto Rico. Brazil, where slavery was more widespread than other major country in South America, was also the most stable country in South America.

OTOH some heavily slave dominated areas in the Islamic world were quite unstable. It really depended on the era, political context, and the rest of the social system. No linear relationship either way, I think. Spain and England were pretty much equal in their use of Slaves, in the continental spanish america Mexico, Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, Viceroyalty of Peru, of the River Plate and Chile combined, which was a territory much much bigger than the 13 colonies, you had only slightly more blacks than the proto-USA



It was the caribbean islands which were filled with blacks (Cuba, Puerto Rico, spanish half of hispaniola), but that is something which also happened with English and French caribbean colonies (jamaica, barbados, haiti, guadaloupe etc)

Portugal was the real great slave trader, over 5 million blacks were sent to Brazil, and independent Brazil kept buying african slaves for much of the XIX century

[thierabess]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im assuming "stable" means political stability, like number of coups, etc. By that measure Brazil, was much more stable than the Spanish speaking republics of Latin America in the 19th century. But unlike the Spanish speaking republics in South America, Portuguese speaking Brazil imported the Portuguese Empire's royal family and established an empire of Brazil.

That I think aided stability somewhat.

I think I also read in Geoffrey Parker's 'Empire, War, and Faith in Early Modern Europe' that the Brazilian colony was not as well integrated administratively/bureaucratically into the Portuguese Empire as were the Spanish colonies into the Spanish Empire in South America.

So presumably the class or groups of people who were more likely to rebel and who had experience of government were never in such great numbers in Brazil.

[evarekataVame]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I'm merely saying that any theory that slavery LEADS to instability (as Ive read "instability") has a number of hurdles to overcome.
Well, Brazil wouldn't have had those slave revolts in the period from 1800-1840 without a slave population, so...

...and the greater stability does seem to kick in with the arrival of the Portugese Royal family and their supporters.

Also (as mentioned in Fernandez Armesto's 'Millennium') the city and area around Sao Paulo seems to have been a state within a state, such was the inability of the Portuguese to exact control over it:

In the 17th century, São Paulo became a center for the so-called bandeiras expeditions. These armed expeditions were composed of Paulistas (inhabitants of the state of São Paulo), Mamluks (cross between Portuguese and Indian) and allied Indians who had the mission to find precious metals and stones and / or to capture Indian slaves. The leaders of bandeiras were called bandeirantes. There is controversy about the image of these expeditions. For some, the bandeirantes were very brave men, who spent month and sometimes years away from their home and their families, exploring routes to the interior of the country and by that were responsible for Brazil´s economic development. For others they are considered some of the biggest mass murders in history.

Some of the most famous bandeirantes were Bartolomeu Bueno da Silva, Fernao Dias Pais, Antonio Rodrigues Arzao, Antonio Pires de Campos and Bartolomeu Bueno de Siqueira. Antônio Raposo Tavares (1598 - 1658), probably one of the boldest bandeirantes was leading in 1624 a bandeira composed of 2.000 Indians, 900 Mamluks and 69 Paulistanos. Only this expedition was responsible for the destruction of most of the Spanish Jesuit missions in the region and the capture of over 60.000 Indians. From 1648 to 1652, Tavares also lead one of the longest known expeditions from São Paulo to the mouth of the Amazon river, covering a distance of more than 10.000 km. From the 1200 men who left São Paulo, only 60 reached the final destination. Only few years after this expedition, Tavares died in São Paulo.

Almost three centuries and during three economic periods (the brazilwood logging from 1500 to 1550, the sugar era from 1530 to 1650 and the gold and diamonds era from 1690 to 1750), São Paulo remained a village of Mestizo, Gold digger, Bandeirantes and slaves, counting less than 20.000 inhabitants in the early 19th century. With the fourth economic period, the coffee cycle from 1820 to 1920, everything changed. It began in the mountains behind Rio de Janeiro, moved along the Rio Paraíba Valley to the west across São Paulo State and out into Paraná. Coffee powered the rise of São Paulo and its port of Santos.
http://www.brazadv.com/sao_paulo/sao_paulo_e.asp

[RsQhyZyR]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Well, Brazil wouldn't have had those slave revolts in the period from 1800-1840 without a slave population, so...
So what? A. In the paragraph you quoted, I was speaking of stability in terms of governnmental stability. Are you saying there were changes in government due specifically to the slave revolts?

B. Lets ignore the above, and assume stability refers to labor revolts. Obviously with no slave population, there are no slave revolts. Instead there are peasant revolts, workers revolts, etc. Do slave societies have fewer labor rebellions than non-slave societies at a similar level of development? Maybe, but I dont see the evidence.


If you define "stability" as the absense of slave revolts, obviously then, non-slave societies have NO instability whatsoever.

[infollafago]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


according to Hugh Thomas, the Spanish basically wiped out the Caribs in slaving expeditions. Afterwards they relied on the Portugese for (African) slave labor. Yes, but mainly, the spanish relied on native americans, those of the andes and mexico which had dense populations and were farmers, it was similar to serfdom.

Bandeirantes were slave hunters who raided the Jesuit missions int Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina to capture native american slaves, those natives were better than your average amazon jungle native, because they had been taught in the missions to farm and many other abilities, they even exported violins to europe.

Bandeirantes also expanded the brazilian fronteer. Mexican and Peruvian/Bolivian silver gold were the big money makers for Spain, so Spain stopped expanding, and gave a lot of room to Portugal.

edit: With Portugal, I mean Brazil, Portugal was a small country which unlike Spain couldnt have a very effective control of what was happening in the americas, the expansion was an autonomous thing of Brazil.

[PemiaGefe]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


So what? A. In the paragraph you quoted, I was speaking of stability in terms of governnmental stability. Are you saying there were changes in government due specifically to the slave revolts?
Err, no. I'm saying that slave revolts are in themselves a source of instability.

Do slave societies have fewer labor rebellions than non-slave societies at a similar level of development? Maybe, but I dont see the evidence.
Well, where is the comparative study ?

Which countries are you going to compare ?


It's pointless saying:

'Brazil had X slave revolts in the period of 18- to 18- and Austria-Hungary had X peasant revolts or X amount of labour unrest in the same period'.

[Bobobsdo]

In south america we had great revolts, but of Indians, Tupac Amaru who was a descendant of the Inca emperor was the leader.

The great-grandson of the last Incan leader Túpac Amaru, José Gabriel Condorcanqui was born in Tinta, in the province of Cusco, and received a Jesuit education at the San Francisco de Borja School. In 1760, he married Micaela Bastidas Puyucahua.

Condorcanqui inherited the caciqueship of Tungasuca and Pampamarca from his older brother, governing on behalf of the Spanish governor. But he sympathized with the plight of the native people and petitioned the Spanish government to improve conditions in the textile mills, the mines, and the villages. Unsuccessful, he adopted his great-grandfather's Incan name and a more native style of dress, and organized a rebellion, seizing and executing governor Antonio de Arriaga of Tinta in 1780.

Túpac Amaru II's rebellion was the first major uprising against the Spanish colonists in two centuries. It was suppressed after some successes like the Battle of Sangarará and he was soon captured. He was sentenced to witness the execution of his wife, his eldest son Hipólito, his uncle Francisco, his brother-in-law Antonio Bastidas, and some of his captains before his own death. He was sentenced to be tortured and put to death by dismemberment, in which four horses would have to tear apart each limb from his body, one limb tied to each horse. Unable to accomplish this execution, he was later drawn and quartered on the main plaza in Cuzco, in the same place his great-grandfather had been beheaded. When the revolt continued, the Spaniards executed the remainder of his family, except his 12-year-old son Fernando, who had been condemned to die with him, but was instead imprisoned in Spain for the rest of his life. It is not known if any members of the Inca royal family survived this final purge. At the same time, Incan clothing and cultural traditions, and self-identification as "Inca" were outlawed, along with other measures to convert the population to Spanish culture and government, until Peru's independence as a republic.


Also, the rapper Tupac Shakur was named after him, and also the tupamaros terrorists

[Olympicdreams]

The main reasons I see why slavery would lead to instability are:
- need to keep them as slaves, as in most cases slaves would revolt presented with the opportunity. This means that once a state runs into other problems causing lower stability, the fact that a large slave caste exists could and in most cases would only add to that instability probably making it fatal to said state. From the other side, states having much of the population pinned down in slavery are said to develop symptoms of instability less often probably due to fact that keeping of slaves 'content' is much more straightforward process than keeping a free citizen with some rights satisfied enough. Also, some states would lower a disloyal citizens' status to that of a slave, which is additional incentive for free citizen not to cause unrest. In other words, someone having nowhere lower to drop is more likely to cause and upkeep trouble.
- negative effect of slaves to market economy. Slave labour makes those goods which are produced by said labour much cheaper, which means that private production is discouraged, there's less of small-scale commerce and mostly less innovation too. This is also the reason roman peasantry died out - producing became unprofitable for them. This can cause more unemployment between the free people and discontent when some industry becomes dominated by slave labour.


The one thing that is rarely explored about slave labour, because it was usually abolished by the time is widespread use of slave labour in factories of industrial age. I'd expect that would be a positive thing for stability as factory workers were a common source of protesters or so called 'proletariat' during the time socialism was on the rise.