Suppose there had never been a slave trade to the Americas--what would have the result have been?

No Blues, no NBA, no Rock and Roll, no peanut butter. No civil war. And since slavery was essential to the economy of the South, hmmmm. Perhaps fewer Southern states?

The American South is weak and without influence due to its rural economy. Cuban sugar exports are significantly lower, so very few Americans settle on the island, meaning no Spanish-American War. America does not become a world power. Everything is completely different.

No Bob Marley.
It would be hell.

no USA...just confederate states un-united...french territory, spanish territory...english territory

No Civil War. So that means no Abe Lincoln, no Ulysses Grant, no Rutherford Hayes, no James Garfield, no Chester Arthur, no Benjamin Harrison, no William McKinley. So that pretty much wipes out all of the gilded age presidents - Lincoln wouldve been a nondescript average boring prez. Grant and Hayes and Garfield were war heroes. Harrison and McKinley fought in the Civil War too. And Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't have been a rough rider. So that pretty much directly rids us of every president for half a century.

Suppose there had never been a slave trade to the Americas--what would have the result have been?

Very little would have changed. The slave trade in America was quite limited, so they had little impact on the American economy as a whole. Things would have rocked along pretty much the same.

Baron Max

Very little would have changed. The slave trade in America was quite limited, so they had little impact on the American economy as a whole. Things would have rocked along pretty much the same.

Baron MaxThat's a bold statement. What about the South? Could they have prospered without slaves to pick the cotton? I honestly don't know. Was cotton grown in other parts of the world without the use of slave labor? I've heard that Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin prevented slavery from dying out much earlier. Prior to that, there just wasn't much use for the slaves anymore. But once Eli invented the cotton gin, the South suddenly had a huge demand for slave labor.

The ironic thing is that while Eli Whitney pretty much gave birth to the South as we know it (giant cotton plantations, slaves, etc); he also was instrumental in its demise. In addition to the cotton gin, he invented the idea of mass production and the standardization of parts. His first major sale using this technique was to the US government (that is, the north) so they could produce better and more guns. There's a famous story where he made a presentation to the government in which he took the pieces of a gun from one of many piles of parts. No matter which piles you choose the parts from, the gun still worked! The US government was amazed and immediately ordered a shitload of the guns.

That's a bold statement. What about the South? Could they have prospered without slaves to pick the cotton? I honestly don't know.

I think you're putting to much emphasis on cotton in the south. There was a helluva lot more to the south than just cotton. And check out some history of the south, and you'll soon discover that there weren't all that many "plantations" where cotton was a big deal.

But slaves could be, and were, used for lots of things in the south AND in the north. So be careful of putting so much emphasis on cotton.

Baron Max

I was thinking also that there would've been a lot less disruption of the African empires that existed at the time (obviously) and also (had the empires been able to negotiate treaties from positions of strength) they would have been much more able to control access to their territories, and Africa would not have been carved up (at least not so much) by the European powers.

I was thinking also that there would've been a lot less disruption of the African empires that existed at the time ....., and Africa would not have been carved up (at least not so much) by the European powers.

Europeans didn't "carve up" Africa. Africa was carved up by the tens of thousands of little tribal groups for gazillions of years.

In fact, that very tribal system was what made slave trading such a lucrative business ....slavers paid tribes to steal men from their rival tribes!

And as to "African empires", there were very few, and even then they were very regional ....just large tribal groups.

Baron Max