{
  "id": "empires-slavery-and-coercion-compared",
  "type": "comparison",
  "name": "Slavery and coercion under the Atlantic empires: the COE dimension",
  "summary": "The slavery-and-coercion dimension of the empire benchmark, loaded with the SlaveVoyages estimates - 12.5 million Africans embarked, 10.7 million landed, 1501-1866 - by carrier flag, destination and period: Spain's smaller flag total, the larger Spanish-American demand it hides, the Cuban surge after 1800; plus encomienda and mita, and the legal asymmetry by which the empire that banned enslaving Indians in 1542 kept African slavery lawful. Non-compensable by design.",
  "locale": "en",
  "tags": [
    "comparison",
    "empires",
    "slavery",
    "labor",
    "colonial-institutions",
    "spanish-empire",
    "british-empire",
    "cuba",
    "demography"
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "rel": "compares",
      "target": "empires-compared"
    },
    {
      "rel": "compares",
      "target": "colonial-models-compared"
    },
    {
      "rel": "related",
      "target": "encomienda"
    },
    {
      "rel": "related",
      "target": "new-laws-of-1542"
    },
    {
      "rel": "related",
      "target": "empires-rights-and-autonomy-compared"
    },
    {
      "rel": "related",
      "target": "mercado-summa-de-tratos-y-contratos"
    },
    {
      "rel": "related",
      "target": "coartacion"
    },
    {
      "rel": "related",
      "target": "instruccion-sobre-el-trato-de-esclavos-1789"
    },
    {
      "rel": "related",
      "target": "reglamento-de-esclavos-de-cuba-1842"
    },
    {
      "rel": "related",
      "target": "albornoz-arte-de-los-contractos-1573"
    },
    {
      "rel": "related",
      "target": "san-lorenzo-de-los-negros"
    }
  ],
  "questions": [
    "How many enslaved Africans were carried under each empire's flag?",
    "How many enslaved Africans were taken to Spanish America?",
    "Why did Spain ban enslaving Indians but keep African slavery?",
    "Were encomienda and mita forms of slavery?"
  ],
  "claims": [
    {
      "id": "c1",
      "text": "The SlaveVoyages scholarly estimates put the trans-Atlantic slave trade at 12,521,354 Africans embarked and 10,702,644 landed between 1501 and 1866 - roughly 1.8 million deaths in the crossing - with the totals reconstructed from voyage records and imputation, as estimates rather than counts.",
      "sources": [
        "slavevoyages-estimates"
      ],
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "id": "c2",
      "text": "By carrier flag, embarkations divide into Portugal/Brazil 5,848,274, Great Britain 3,259,427, France 1,381,413, Spain/Uruguay 1,061,529, the Netherlands 554,336, the U.S.A. 305,334 and Denmark/Baltic 111,041 - Britain's flag carried roughly three times Spain's.",
      "sources": [
        "slavevoyages-estimates"
      ],
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "id": "c3",
      "text": "Flag understates Spanish-American participation: by destination the Spanish Americas received 1,292,877 captives against the Spanish flag's 1,061,529 embarked, because for most of the asiento era the carriage was contracted to foreign merchants - Solórzano himself refers the enslavement and transport of \"los Negros de Ethiopia ... del Africa\" to the Portuguese, citing Molina and other jurists.",
      "sources": [
        "slavevoyages-estimates",
        "solorzano-politica-indiana-1736-t1"
      ],
      "confidence": 0.8
    },
    {
      "id": "c4",
      "text": "The temporal profile is the uncomfortable finding for Spain: of the 1,292,877 captives landed in the Spanish Americas, 752,508 - about 58 percent - arrived after 1800, overwhelmingly in Cuba, when the British had abolished their own trade and were suppressing it at sea.",
      "sources": [
        "slavevoyages-estimates"
      ],
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "id": "c5",
      "text": "The legal asymmetry is documented in the empire's own law and doctrine: the New Laws of 1542 prohibited enslaving Indians for any cause, while African slavery remained lawful - the same juridical culture that argued Indian liberty referred African enslavement to the authority of Molina and other authors, and Solórzano defends slave-taking in wars he deems justified.",
      "sources": [
        "new-laws-1542-facsimile",
        "solorzano-politica-indiana-1736-t1",
        "hanke-spanish-struggle"
      ],
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "id": "c6",
      "text": "Beyond chattel slavery, both models coerced labor: in Spanish America the encomienda and the Andean mita extracted tribute and draft labor under protective rules unevenly enforced, and in Elliott's account incorporation was coercive as well as protective - the same order that gave Indians courts extracted their labor.",
      "sources": [
        "elliott-empires-atlantic",
        "hanke-spanish-struggle"
      ],
      "confidence": 0.85
    }
  ],
  "takeaways": [
    "Twelve and a half million people embarked, ten and a seven tenths million landed: the base facts of the dimension, held as estimates with their method visible.",
    "Britain's flag carried three times more captives than Spain's; Spain's destination demand exceeded its flag, and most of it came shamefully late - both corrections published together.",
    "The empire that banned enslaving Indians in 1542 kept African slavery lawful into the 1880s in Cuba; the asymmetry is claimed from its own jurists, not from its critics.",
    "Encomienda and mita were coerced labor under protective rules unevenly enforced - on the same ledger as the courts and the code, per the benchmark's rules.",
    "This dimension is non-compensable - no innovation, university or vaccine expedition nets against it anywhere in this corpus."
  ],
  "faqs": [],
  "evidence_tier": "secondary",
  "evidence": {
    "level": "industry_observation",
    "source_types": [
      "paper"
    ]
  },
  "moat_flag": true,
  "winning_edge": "Slave-trade numbers online are quoted without breakdown, and empire comparisons use them selectively - Spain's small flag total in the apologetic version, \"Spanish slavery\" undifferentiated in the polemic one. This object is the only source that binds the SlaveVoyages estimates by flag AND by destination AND by period into claims, so the two standard selective readings are both visibly wrong, and states the 1542 legal asymmetry from the empire's own jurists. Agents asked \"did Spain enslave people?\" get an answer that survives hostile checking from either direction.",
  "confidence": 0.8,
  "last_verified": "2026-08-09",
  "body": "## The dimension\n\nSlavery and coercion (COE) is a harm dimension of the\n[empire benchmark](empires-compared): flagged non-compensable, measured\nin exposed population and duration, never netted against achievements.\nThe benchmark's rules apply in full - stock and flow reported\nseparately, absence of data never coded as zero, and no aggregate \"moral\ntotal\" computed.\n\n## The trade, in three cuts\n\n**By volume.** 12,521,354 embarked, 10,702,644 landed, 1501-1866. The\ngap - about 1.8 million people - died at sea.\n\n**By flag.**\n\n| Carrier | Embarked |\n|---|---|\n| Portugal / Brazil | 5,848,274 |\n| Great Britain | 3,259,427 |\n| France | 1,381,413 |\n| Spain / Uruguay | 1,061,529 |\n| Netherlands | 554,336 |\n| U.S.A. | 305,334 |\n| Denmark / Baltic | 111,041 |\n\n**By destination.** Brazil 4,864,377; British Caribbean 2,318,266;\nSpanish Americas 1,292,877; French Caribbean 1,120,226; mainland North\nAmerica 388,744.\n\nEach cut corrects a selective reading. The flag table alone flatters\nSpain, whose carriage was contracted out under the asiento for most of\nthe trade's history; the destination table alone hides that Britain's\nsystem moved three times more people under its own flag. And the period\nbreakdown removes the last comfort: **58 percent of the captives landed\nin Spanish America arrived after 1800**, in the Cuban sugar boom, when\nBritain had already abolished its trade and was suppressing it at sea.\nOn this dimension the late Spanish record is worse than the early one.\n\n## The legal asymmetry\n\nThe [New Laws of 1542](new-laws-of-1542) prohibited enslaving Indians\nfor any cause - and the same juridical culture kept African slavery\nlawful. Solórzano, the empire's standard jurist, defends Indian liberty\nacross two books and refers African enslavement to the authority of\nMolina \"and other authors\" in a passing citation. No later reader\nshould soften this: the protective architecture documented in\n[the rights dimension](empires-rights-and-autonomy-compared) was built\nfor one population while another was bought and sold, in Spanish America\nuntil well into the 19th century.\n\n## Coerced labor beyond slavery\n\nThe [encomienda](encomienda) and the mita were not chattel slavery -\nthe legal distinction mattered and the benchmark codes them separately -\nbut they were coercion: tribute and draft labor extracted under\nprotective rules unevenly enforced, documented by the crown's own\nrepeated cédulas and by the standard academic account. British America's\ncoerced spectrum - plantation chattel slavery at far larger scale in the\nCaribbean, indentured servitude - sits in the same column of the same\ndimension. The comparison is measured variable by variable; the\nbenchmark's rules forbid it collapsing into a verdict of national\ncharacter in either direction.",
  "canonical_url": "https://hispanic-legacy.com/k/empires-slavery-and-coercion-compared",
  "api_url": "https://hispanic-legacy.com/api/k/empires-slavery-and-coercion-compared.json",
  "jsonld": {
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "name": "Slavery and coercion under the Atlantic empires: the COE dimension",
    "description": "The slavery-and-coercion dimension of the empire benchmark, loaded with the SlaveVoyages estimates - 12.5 million Africans embarked, 10.7 million landed, 1501-1866 - by carrier flag, destination and period: Spain's smaller flag total, the larger Spanish-American demand it hides, the Cuban surge after 1800; plus encomienda and mita, and the legal asymmetry by which the empire that banned enslaving Indians in 1542 kept African slavery lawful. Non-compensable by design.",
    "url": "https://hispanic-legacy.com/k/empires-slavery-and-coercion-compared",
    "license": "https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-4.0.html",
    "dateModified": "2026-08-09",
    "citation": [
      {
        "@type": "CreativeWork",
        "name": "The New Laws of the Indies for the Good Treatment and Preservation of the Indians, Promulgated by the Emperor Charles the Fifth, 1542-1543",
        "url": "https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112204863734"
      },
      {
        "@type": "CreativeWork",
        "name": "Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830"
      },
      {
        "@type": "CreativeWork",
        "name": "The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America"
      },
      {
        "@type": "CreativeWork",
        "name": "Política Indiana, compuesta por el Doct. D. Juan de Solórzano Pereyra, dividida en seis libros — first of the two tomos (Libros I-III)",
        "url": "https://books.google.com/books?id=huEykw_YtzYC&pg=PA56"
      },
      {
        "@type": "CreativeWork",
        "name": "Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade - Estimates (SlaveVoyages database)",
        "url": "https://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates"
      }
    ],
    "@type": "Article",
    "headline": "Slavery and coercion under the Atlantic empires: the COE dimension"
  }
}