Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine
The class of free people of color appeared in the French colonies not because it served any purpose, but it just appeared organically, as mixed children were freed, and also as some former slaves were freed (France abolished slavery during the French Revolution, then Napoleon reinstated it, then it was abolished for good in 1848, but already between 1815 and 1848 a significant number of slaves were freed in various waves, so by 1848 there was already a significant part of the colored population that was free, with the decree of 1848 freeing all the rest).
|
Well yeah, but my point is that France just tended to be less interested in sending settlers to its colonies (and those that came often didn't being along wives) meaning the tier below the planters had to be comprised of the mixed-race children of the planters, rather than some farmers imported from Normandy or something.
It's a bit more complicated, of course, because climate also plays a role. The Caribbean was deadly awful for white folks once Malaria and Yellow fever were introduced. Places like Barbados were originally majority white as colonies, but the white migrants died off at such a rapid rate that they drifted into heavily black plantation states over time.
Somewhere like the U.S. south was intermediate. Most white people would get malaria, but survive. This was awful for new migrants (that needed six months to "season" before real work), but the kids of locals would get sick during childhood and then be fine. And in the Northern U.S. (or Quebec) there really wasn't a use for plantation agriculture, and European-descended populations could take off on their own.
Regardless, in British North America, the mixed-race children of white planters could be kept in slavery (or if not, in very subservient conditions) because there were always more white people coming who could do the job. After Bacon's Rebellion, a pretty strict color line was set up as well.
Threaded Mode