Slavery: Why wasn't the Mexicans and Central Americans not involved?

Yôḥānān

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
3,888
Portugal
Ok, but in my previous post, I was specifically referring to the thirteen colonies of North America. In Latin America, racial hierarchy was more complex and nuanced, but still, race was the most important factor in how society was organized. Now let me respond to every single point you made:



Indentured servitude is not the same thing as chattel slavery. Indentured servitude is temporary, and more importantly, it's not hereditary. An Indentured servant could buy his own freedom somewhere in life, could climb the social ladder and his children would not inherit the status of slave.
That's fundamentally different than being a black slave in the plantations of the Americas - totally different institutions, and by the 18th century European indentured servants in the Americas were very few when compared to the millions of black slaves that worked in the fields.
It was slaves who could purchase their freedom, indentured servants already had their time of service previously stipulated by the contract, and what they were doing was technically paying for the expenses the employer had incurred in bringing them.

As a note work for food and shelter only always existed, and it was still occuring in Portugal at the beginning of the 20th century, and servants even if not slaves were also exposed to corporal punishmen also in Europet, and actually indentured servants received a trip for their work, the problem here is the conditions they were exposed to were not different from slaves and sometimes the way they were recruited.


Alexandre Dumas is a 19th century French native. He was born and bred in France. I'm talking about society in colonial and post-colonial Americas. Continental France didn't had the same kind of views on race as Americans (I mean the people from the continent) had.
Actualy Alexandre Dumas' grandfather was living in Haiti.
 
Last edited:

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,173
Lisbon, Portugal
It was slaves who could purchase their freedom, indentured servants already had their time of service previously stipulated by the contract, and what they were doing was technically paying for the expenses the employer had incurred in bringing them.

As a note work for food and shelter only always existed, and it was still occuring in Portugal at the beginning of the 20th century, and servants even if not slaves were also exposed to corporal punishmen also in Europet, and actually indentured servants received a trip for their work, the problem here is the conditions they were exposed to were not different from slaves and sometimes the way they were recruited.
Conditions were the same indeed, but their legal status, and their status in society, differed.

Actualy Alexandre Dumas' grandfather was living in Haiti.
But his grandfather brought his mixed-race children and raised them in Metropolitan France, where there was no slavery or legal racial barriers.
 
Oct 2016
1,162
Merryland
Spanish and Portugese overlords tended to use natives as in-place farm labor, similar to the feudal system, as noted above. much of Central/South America was settled in urban and village environments.

North American Natives 1) were decimated by diseases, and 2) were psychologically unsuited to bondage.
Native Americans in the US Southeast especially were killed or driven off.
Imported Africans were used to bondage (most of them were 'purchased' from native owners) and inured to physical labor, especially agriculture (rice, e.g.).
also; Native Americans were familiar with the land and could escape easily. Africans had no knowledge of the new territory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robto

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,676
Cornwall
Spanish and Portugese overlords

North American Natives 1) were decimated by diseases, and 2) were psychologically unsuited to bondage.
Native Americans in the US Southeast especially were killed or driven off.
Imported Africans were used to bondage (most of them were 'purchased' from native owners) and inured to physical labor, especially agriculture (rice, e.g.).
also; Native Americans were familiar with the land and could escape easily. Africans had no knowledge of the new territory.
I don't recognise any of this. If you read this book (it's in Spanish) you might get a different view of the coexistence between the Spanish Empire and the native tribes of the far south of present-day USA - eg Pueblo Indians, Apaches, Cammanches etc. One main problem was that nobody wanted to move there from the comfort of Spain or Mexico, which is partly why it was always the orders of monks building all those missions and farms out there - but they are there and they did often work. It was only when the United States expanded that things changed about people being 'killed and driven off'. The green, working farms that did exist had then often turned to dust over decades of Spanish neglect.

https://www.amazon.es/Banderas-Lejanas-Clio-Crónicas-Historia/dp/8441421196
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mando
Nov 2017
24
Houston, TX
they did. Though you have your story a bit wrong.

Once the Spanish and Portuguese reached the Americas, they saw the resources, and worked the natives as slaves, to access the gold, silver, and other resources.

They simultaneously had reached Africa, and had made contact with trading kingdoms who had accessible slave markets.

As the native Americans were dying from being overworked, they noted that Africans were more adapted to hard labour and had more experience in growing crops en masse. So with the demand for workers, and much spare land, they founded plantations in the Americas. If it were not for native Americans handling the conditions well, then the transatlantic slave trade may not have happened to the degree it did.

What about the Mexicans in Mexico? Mexico is right under the USA and the Mexicans weren't dragged into slavery.
 
Nov 2017
24
Houston, TX
It is also true that Mexico did not agree with slavery when they freed themselves from Spain right? So they would not sell their OWN people to America for slavey labor. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,879
Portugal
What about the Mexicans in Mexico? Mexico is right under the USA and the Mexicans weren't dragged into slavery.
It is also true that Mexico did not agree with slavery when they freed themselves from Spain right? So they would not sell their OWN people to America for slavey labor. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Not sure if you read my post #6. Anyway, you are wrong or confused in some things.

Slavery existed in Mexico, probably since the beginning of times. Even if you can say that after the arrival of the Spanish, Mexico wasn’t one of the primary markets of the African/Atlantic slave trade.

If you want to read an article about the fate of the slavery in Mexico, by the 19th century: The Decline of Slavery in Mexico on JSTOR
 
Apr 2019
80
U.S.A.
Look up the presidio santa cruz de terrenante, look up yuma massacre 1781. The fact is that the so called “spanish” in the US southwest was not conquering brutes enslaving everybody. Even out to the coast the natives were indeed paid to work outside of the mission chores. The presidio de Tubac in today’s souther Arizona was once manned not by Spaniards but by O’odham natives!!
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,741
But his grandfather brought his mixed-race children and raised them in Metropolitan France, where there was no slavery or legal racial barriers.
Unfortunately it was a fair bit nastier than that. :(

Alexandre Dumas' (père) grandfather, the Marquis, sold his slave wife and his two daughter and son, to raise the necessary cash to return to France and claim his title. He DID however retain a buy-back option for the boy. That one he later used to bring his son, Charles Dumas (as he later called himself, taking his slave mother's name), to France. His slave wife and daughters remained in Saint Domingue (Haiti) as slaves however.

Young Charles otoh was given the best education a young French nobleman could get.