The Economy of Enslavement in Early Colonial America

The conquest and colonization of America by European powers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was inextricably linked to the systematic exploitation of human labor. While historiography often considers the transatlantic slave trade with African prisoners as the sole source of this forced labour, a closer look at the thenMarkets a much more complex picture. In the first decades of colonization, two massive systems of enslavement existed in parallel, affecting both the indigenous population and displaced Africans. Deciding which group was exploited depended less on rigid racist ideologies and more on economic constraints, market-basedFluctuations and the constant struggle between colonial profit interests and theological-political protection efforts.

Market prices and availability

The development of prices for enslaved people in New Spain during the first half of the 16th century is evidence of the mass enslavement of the local population by the conquerors. The market values do not deceive, because an Indian slave only cost between five and ten pesos at the time. In stark contrast, the value of an African slave was about200 pesos. A century later, in 1645, the purchase price of an African slave in Barbados was already amortized within 1.5 years by his work. As the source of Native American slaves gradually dried up, the import of African prisoners became increasingly competitive and was to grow permanently from then on.

The thesis of demographic decline

An obvious explanation for this change would be that the abduction of African slaves was directly related to the decreasing availability of enslaved labor in America. Although a very large number of locals were within reach at the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade, the colonial rulers feared the completeObliteration of this population. However, historical investigations into the case of Brazil raise serious objections to this simplified explanation. Research shows that during the second quarter of the 17th century, the continental trade in Native American slaves probably reached the same level as the transatlantic trade in black Africans. This proves that thepotential opportunities of the American slave trade were still significant at the time, and the increasing enslavement of Africans was not the direct result of a lack of native populations.

Parallel systems of enslavement

Until the middle of the 17th century, the transatlantic slave trade developed in connection with and in some ways in competition with the enslavement of Indians. So there were two parallel systems, with two types of enslavement intertwined until about 1650. The decision whether to focus on the continental trade in Native American slaves or thetransatlantic trade, often fell at situational discretion. This choice depended on what seemed more profitable or safer, but also on the balance of power vis-à-vis the theological-political authorities, who acted as protectors of the Indians. Thus, in 1570, the Law on the Freedom of the Indians of Brazil came into being, prohibiting their enslavement, but this immediately led tomassive resistance from the colonists.

The Resistance of the Colonists and the Jesuits

The law of 1570, which only allowed the capture of Indians captured in a just war as well as man-eaters, provoked a storm of protests among the colonists. With a letter from the king of 1573, they achieved measures that largely emptied the law of 1570 of its meaning. The counterattack of the Jesuits, who were very influential at court, resulted inthe Convention of 1574, which was followed by numerous others that strengthened the protection of the Indians entrusted to the Jesuits. However, the so-called slave-capture troops hardly cared, so that these raids reached their peak between 1590 and 1641. The war against the Dutch, which interrupted the route from Africa to the Portuguese from 1624 to 1654, indeed caused areal shortage of African labour.

The Destruction of Jesuit Missions

Thus, a famous robbery expedition, which had been put together in 1628, succeeded in completely destroying numerous villages. This force comprised 900 colonists and mongrels, reinforced by 2,000 native warriors. They managed to completely destroy 13 of 15 Jesuit settlements in Guaira. According to historian Manuel Monteiro, 60,000 Guaranis were captured andto the estates of São Paulo or to the northeast. Only after 1650, with the resumption of a continuously flowing transatlantic slave trade, did the enslavement of Indians lose much of its importance.

Market fluctuations and political constraints

So from 1519 to at least 1650, there were two sources of supply for slaves, one Native American and one African. The choice of one or the other depended mainly on the fluctuations of the market and the constraints imposed by the theological-political authorities. An example of the market fluctuations is the mentioned shortage of African labour, asthe Dutch surpassed the Portuguese in Africa. But there was also a development in the balance of power between the conquerors and the theological-political authorities. After the promulgation of the New Laws in 1542, an arsenal of legislation that protects the locals and regulates their exploitation, violent conflicts arose in Mexico and Peru.

Civil War and the Legalization of Enslavement

In Peru, these tensions turned into a civil war when men rose up against the royal authority. Although the Crown crushed the rebellion, it had to compromise with the interests of the colonists. Under pressure from the colonists and some churchmen, the enslavement of Indians was re-legalized by an order dated May 25, 1608.of the sovereign was the same as was already formulated theoretically in earlier documents. The king stated that the main reason for the enslavement of these Indians was their refusal to obey the Church, and as long as they persistently refused, they should be handed over to slavery.

The vicious circle of just war

On this basis, the Royal Council drafted the 1608 decree that legalized slavery. This amounted to confirming a factual state as the colonists continued in their practice of capturing locals. In order to remove the obvious contradiction, the concept of just war had to be used again. The Rebellion of the Localsagainst the conquerors, who had a mandate from the Crown, made the war just and the enslavement of the prisoners consequently legitimate. As one contemporary observer noted, one of the reasons that prolonged this war in Chile was the greed for slaves, because in order not to lose the profit from their sale, the Spanish colonists continued the war.

The Slave Hunt as Motivation for War

So we are dealing with a vicious cycle in which, despite all the decrees and laws, one expedition to capture slaves followed another. This eventually drove the Indians into rebellion, which then led to war with the authority embodied by the conquerors. This war in turn legitimized the enslavement of the locals. This mechanism was already around 1570in the war against the tribes in northern Mexico. The silver mines required a multitude of manpower, and it was convenient to capture these tribes to enslave them.

War as a profitable business

These workers could be used in the country estates, not only in those of the north, but also in those in the central highlands. Some of the prisoners were taken to the south to be resold there. The border zone of mining thus became a hunting ground for slaves for all of Mexico. To secure this loot, the Spaniards did not hesitate to attack tribes thathave remained peaceful so far. Thus, the conflict kept itself alive and continued throughout the 17th century, as the Spaniards profited from it by falling into line with the slave hunt for them.

The Mutation of the War into Slave Hunting

When looking at the war against the tribes in Chile, the American sociologist relies primarily on the aforementioned study and draws the conclusion from it. In this way, the war against these tribes mutated into a veritable slave hunt that not only shaped his style, but also gave him his name. From 1519 to 1650, the conquerors drew from twoSources for the supply of slaves. Eventually, however, one cycle will finally triumph over the other and the transatlantic slave trade will completely replace the raids to capture locals. The reason for this development lies above all in the organisation and development of the markets.

Economic reasons for African trade

A Brazilian historian analyzes the whole thing from an economic point of view and finds that reasons related to the organization of markets favored trading with enslaved Africans. In the absence of a regular money cycle, the plantation owners largely bought prisoners for their crops. But without affecting the transatlantic trade withtropical fruits, the traders of Indian slaves could hardly circulate the production of the plantations. To do this, they had to use intermediaries from the motherland, who also sold African slaves. The gold industry also created a market within the colony in which the gold sellers were dominant.

The Dissolution of Indigenous Trade Networks

This market opened up new opportunities for livestock farming and arable farming. Their upswing favored the settling of the robbery expeditions and the disintegration of the networks of trade with enslaved Indians who had formed in the middle and south of the country. The trade in enslaved Africans towards Brazil had therefore increased due to already established connectionsbetween the transatlantic networks and certain local elites. The size of the African market also made it possible for the supply of black African prisoners to be more regular and flexible than that of Indians. However, it remains questionable whether these mechanisms can actually fully establish the primacy of the transatlantic slave trade.

The ratio of investments and profits

On the other hand, if you stick to a strictly economic analysis grid, it seems to be clear that the ratio between investments, risks and profits must have been attractive. In order for the colonists of the New World to supply themselves with slaves from Africa rather than those who were present locally, the profit had to outweigh the risks. The fact that in the firstDecades of the conquest, there was an extensive trade in Native American slaves, forcing us to rephrase the initial question. Some authors write that the slave deported to the colonies is always African. From this fact, they infer a racialization of the slave trade.