slavery
- Thread starter ellie
- Start date
smalltalk
monkey business
William Wilberforce? The actions of the royal navy?
Sorry, you may call me undereducated now, but would you please elaborate who or what these were, so I can follow this thread?
Thanks.
smalltalk
Sorry, you may call me undereducated now, but would you please elaborate who or what these were, so I can follow this thread?
Thanks.
smalltalk
Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,204
William Wilberforce- Nice man who campaigned for end of slavery in Britain. A bit tubby. Nice line in wigs. Suffered gout.
Royal Navy- Britain's ship collection. Attacked and impounded slave ships (and just about anyone else they felt like) under the honourable old code of "We've got more guns than you have".
Royal Navy- Britain's ship collection. Attacked and impounded slave ships (and just about anyone else they felt like) under the honourable old code of "We've got more guns than you have".
Peri
Vote early and vote often
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,261
The British Empire was responsible for a large slice of the slave trade. When it was abolished the Royal navy became the main instrument of enforcing this law. Therefore the navy was key in supressing the illegal trade in slaves.
Wilberforce was only a small cog in a large machine.
I am very much a bottom up kinda guy
regarding history so I would say he played a signifficant part but he was not decisive. Without widespread influential support the law would never have been passed.
Wilberforce was only a small cog in a large machine.
I am very much a bottom up kinda guy
regarding history so I would say he played a signifficant part but he was not decisive. Without widespread influential support the law would never have been passed.
Well put Peri.
There were also internal political reasons that drove the abolition of slavery in the British Empire (and beyond), stemming from economic tensions from older established British merchant families enriched by the sugar trade in the Carribbean (who relied on slave labor).
It was though definitely the British, in particular the Royal Navy, that put the proverbial nail in the coffin of the African slave trade for Europe and America.
There were also internal political reasons that drove the abolition of slavery in the British Empire (and beyond), stemming from economic tensions from older established British merchant families enriched by the sugar trade in the Carribbean (who relied on slave labor).
It was though definitely the British, in particular the Royal Navy, that put the proverbial nail in the coffin of the African slave trade for Europe and America.
Siegmund
King
Let's see... this Royal Navy would belong to the same Britain that founded those colonies from Virginia to Jamaica? The biggest consumer of the rum "corner" of the Triangle Trade? The source of a great many of the blockade-runners supporting the South's cause in the Civil War? (How close they came to actually entering on the side of the confederacy is kinda fuzzy.. I suppose that's a topic for another thread.)
Offhand I'd be more inclined to characterize British seafaring as a driving force behind the trade, than a driving force behind its elimination.
Can't speak as to the details of what this Wilberforce fellow may have done, or as to how actively the RN suppressed the slave trade in the very last years of its existence.
Offhand I'd be more inclined to characterize British seafaring as a driving force behind the trade, than a driving force behind its elimination.
Can't speak as to the details of what this Wilberforce fellow may have done, or as to how actively the RN suppressed the slave trade in the very last years of its existence.
@siegmund, indeed all europeans engaged in the slave trade.
When britain decided it was to be illegal though the royal navy was used to enforce it. Just done some research on it
____
As a first step, Britain outlawed slavery for its own flag vessels in 1807. As a consequence, during the Napoleonic Wars, slave ships from enemy states were captured. Slaves on these ships were set free, usually in Sierra Leone. By 1815, Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States had agreed to prohibit the transatlantic slave trade.
In 1817, Spain also agreed to abolish the slave trade north of the equator and, in 1820, to abolish it completely. These were conventions that reflected the preferences of rulers in the signatory states. H owever, despite these commitments, the slave trade was so lucrative that large numbers of Africans continued to be transported across the Atlantic.
The major effort to enforce the ban on slaving was undertaken by Britain. Between 1818 and 1820, Britain signed treaties with a number of European countries that gave British warships the right to search and seize vessels suspected of engaging in the slave trade.
Brazil and Portugal were the most recalcitrant slave-trading countries. Brazilian agriculture was heavily dependent on slave labor. Immediately after abolishing the slave trade for British shipping in 1807, Britain began to put pressure on Portugal, whose colonies in Africa and South America were both a major source of and point of sale for slaves.
Portugal at first rejected British initiatives. However, when France invaded Portugal in late 1807, the Portuguese royal family was forced to flee to Brazil under British protection. In 1810, Portugal signed a commercial treaty with Britain that provided in part that Portugal would cooperate in gradually abolishing the slave trade.
Britain conceded to Portugal the right to continue slave trading within its African territories. In 1815, Portugal signed an agreement with Britain agreeing to stop slave trading north of the equator. This commitment, though, was only of limited consequence since most of Portugal's trade between Africa and Brazil was south of the equator.
In 1839, Britain unilaterally authorized its navy to board and seize suspected slavers that were flying the Portuguese flag. This came after long and unsuccessful efforts to sign a bilateral treaty with Portugal authorizing such seizures. The slaves were to be released in the nearest British port. The disposition of the ships was to be decided by British admiralty courts and the crews of such ships were to be returned to their own countries for trial.
By 1815 Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States had agreed to prohibit the transatlantic slave trade.
Subsequently, Britain focused its attention on Brazil after its independence in 1822. In exchange for recognition by Britain in 1826, Brazil agreed to abolish the slave trade by 1830 despite strong opposition from many members of its parliament.
The treaty stipulated that the slave trade would be treated as piracy after that date, providing Britain with legal grounds for seizing slave ships on the high seas. Despite the agreement, slave trading continued between Brazil and Africa, even growing in the 1830s beyond what it had been before the treaty was signed.
Confronted with the continuation of the slave trade some 20 years after it should have been abolished under the 1826 treaty, Britain acted unilaterally. Slaving had already been declared piracy, giving British ships the right to hoard and seize suspected vessels on the high seas.
In 1850, British warships entered Brazilian ports and seized and burned a number of ships that were suspected of engaging in the transport of slaves. During these operations the British were fired upon from Brazilian forts. It is difficult to imagine a less ambiguous violation of the norm of non-intervention.
These pressures were effective. Confronted with British naval power and the antipathy of other advanced states, Brazil passed and enforced legislation to end the slave trade.
Brazil and Portugal were the most recalcitrant slave-trading countries. Portugal's colonies were both a major source of and point of sale for slaves.
One Brazilian leader speaking to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies in 1850 recognized that Brazil was the only country actively resisting the antislave regime. He stated that:
"With the whole of the civilized world now opposed to the slave trade, and with a powerful nation like Britain intent on ending it once and for all, Can we resist the torrent? I think not."
The abolition of the slave trade was a triumph for human rights and freedom made possible in large measure by the commitment and power of Great Britain. Britain took the lead in initiating a series of international treaties in the early part of the 19th century that committed states to abolishing the slave trade.
Brazil was the most important defector from this system, failing to enforce its own treaty obligations. Britain used naval power including entry into Brazilian territorial waters and the destruction of Brazilian ships to compel Brazil to change its policies. .
_______
When britain decided it was to be illegal though the royal navy was used to enforce it. Just done some research on it
____
As a first step, Britain outlawed slavery for its own flag vessels in 1807. As a consequence, during the Napoleonic Wars, slave ships from enemy states were captured. Slaves on these ships were set free, usually in Sierra Leone. By 1815, Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States had agreed to prohibit the transatlantic slave trade.
In 1817, Spain also agreed to abolish the slave trade north of the equator and, in 1820, to abolish it completely. These were conventions that reflected the preferences of rulers in the signatory states. H owever, despite these commitments, the slave trade was so lucrative that large numbers of Africans continued to be transported across the Atlantic.
The major effort to enforce the ban on slaving was undertaken by Britain. Between 1818 and 1820, Britain signed treaties with a number of European countries that gave British warships the right to search and seize vessels suspected of engaging in the slave trade.
Brazil and Portugal were the most recalcitrant slave-trading countries. Brazilian agriculture was heavily dependent on slave labor. Immediately after abolishing the slave trade for British shipping in 1807, Britain began to put pressure on Portugal, whose colonies in Africa and South America were both a major source of and point of sale for slaves.
Portugal at first rejected British initiatives. However, when France invaded Portugal in late 1807, the Portuguese royal family was forced to flee to Brazil under British protection. In 1810, Portugal signed a commercial treaty with Britain that provided in part that Portugal would cooperate in gradually abolishing the slave trade.
Britain conceded to Portugal the right to continue slave trading within its African territories. In 1815, Portugal signed an agreement with Britain agreeing to stop slave trading north of the equator. This commitment, though, was only of limited consequence since most of Portugal's trade between Africa and Brazil was south of the equator.
In 1839, Britain unilaterally authorized its navy to board and seize suspected slavers that were flying the Portuguese flag. This came after long and unsuccessful efforts to sign a bilateral treaty with Portugal authorizing such seizures. The slaves were to be released in the nearest British port. The disposition of the ships was to be decided by British admiralty courts and the crews of such ships were to be returned to their own countries for trial.
By 1815 Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States had agreed to prohibit the transatlantic slave trade.
Subsequently, Britain focused its attention on Brazil after its independence in 1822. In exchange for recognition by Britain in 1826, Brazil agreed to abolish the slave trade by 1830 despite strong opposition from many members of its parliament.
The treaty stipulated that the slave trade would be treated as piracy after that date, providing Britain with legal grounds for seizing slave ships on the high seas. Despite the agreement, slave trading continued between Brazil and Africa, even growing in the 1830s beyond what it had been before the treaty was signed.
Confronted with the continuation of the slave trade some 20 years after it should have been abolished under the 1826 treaty, Britain acted unilaterally. Slaving had already been declared piracy, giving British ships the right to hoard and seize suspected vessels on the high seas.
In 1850, British warships entered Brazilian ports and seized and burned a number of ships that were suspected of engaging in the transport of slaves. During these operations the British were fired upon from Brazilian forts. It is difficult to imagine a less ambiguous violation of the norm of non-intervention.
These pressures were effective. Confronted with British naval power and the antipathy of other advanced states, Brazil passed and enforced legislation to end the slave trade.
Brazil and Portugal were the most recalcitrant slave-trading countries. Portugal's colonies were both a major source of and point of sale for slaves.
One Brazilian leader speaking to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies in 1850 recognized that Brazil was the only country actively resisting the antislave regime. He stated that:
"With the whole of the civilized world now opposed to the slave trade, and with a powerful nation like Britain intent on ending it once and for all, Can we resist the torrent? I think not."
The abolition of the slave trade was a triumph for human rights and freedom made possible in large measure by the commitment and power of Great Britain. Britain took the lead in initiating a series of international treaties in the early part of the 19th century that committed states to abolishing the slave trade.
Brazil was the most important defector from this system, failing to enforce its own treaty obligations. Britain used naval power including entry into Brazilian territorial waters and the destruction of Brazilian ships to compel Brazil to change its policies. .
_______
I was reading Kevin Phillip's The Cousins' Wars last year that touched on the underlying moralism in Anglo-American policies. Not morality per se, but moralism.
It never would have occurred to a Continental European power to attempt to ban the slave trade, even if they found it repugnant.
It never would have occurred to a Continental European power to attempt to ban the slave trade, even if they found it repugnant.
test_specimen
hope lost
- Joined
- May 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,200
What difference did it make for NAmerica, where slavery was abolished much later? Maybe prices rose, but I don't see where this would have helped North American slaves gain independance.
Were there many slaves used in GB? If not, it seems that this was more something like legalized piracy not some humanitarian mission. And IIRC they did not boycott goods produced by slaves.
What really would have helped some minority was the border line between the North American British colonies and the native americans. (Another reason for the civil war, the restriction was negated after US independance).
Were there many slaves used in GB? If not, it seems that this was more something like legalized piracy not some humanitarian mission. And IIRC they did not boycott goods produced by slaves.
What really would have helped some minority was the border line between the North American British colonies and the native americans. (Another reason for the civil war, the restriction was negated after US independance).
EdwardTking
Deity
There were many slaves in England and Wales when Britain was ruled by the Romans. The Romans built Hadrian's wall partly to keep the Scots out; but also to prevent the slaves escaping to Scotland.
Slavery was never legal in GB since GB became christian.
A few score black slaves were imported as a sort of fashion
accessory for the wealthy to have black house slaves and look posher than their neighbours who just had ordinary englih servants etc; but the english never accepted slavery in england.
When the blacks ran away the wealthy people had to claim that they had stolen the collars around their necks because the GB magistracy did not recognise slavery.
test_specimen
hope lost
- Joined
- May 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,200
I wonder why it was not accepted. After all, GB has no constitution proclaiming equal rights (correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps native British population provided enough cheap workforce when suppressed.
And what was the reason for abolishing slavery, when you had no slaves? (Piracy, as I mentioned before, but that can't be the only one.)
And what was the reason for abolishing slavery, when you had no slaves? (Piracy, as I mentioned before, but that can't be the only one.)
There were slaves in the uk, a lot of camapigners such as wilberforce. They highlighted the life of slaves, causing much public concern which put pressure on the goverment.
The first act banned british subjects from trading in them (1807)
The anti-slavery society was formed in 1823
then the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners.
As to the use of the royal navy in enforcing it well it could be called slavery..but id not call it that
The first act banned british subjects from trading in them (1807)
The anti-slavery society was formed in 1823
then the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners.
As to the use of the royal navy in enforcing it well it could be called slavery..but id not call it that
EdwardTking
Deity
Yes; white slavery was widespread in anglo-saxon times;
but it was never generally recognised as legal; obviously the slave owners would argue that it was legal; but others; in particular the papacy and church regarded it as illegal.
The Danes and Vikings took and kept slaves in England;
but they were not Christian until later.
Yes; the difference between serfdom and slavery was often trivial (including, but not limited to "now that we are Christian we will call them serfs"); but both were different from US slavery in so much as serfs were tied to the land while anglo-saxon slaves were tied to families; whereas US slaves were bought and sold as a commodity.
A slave owner set himself up as a King/God as far as his slaves are concerned. However the real King is jealous of his perogative and resents his subjects pretending to be kings. Priests resented slave owners pretending to be God. Slavery was therefore regarded with great suspicion by monarchs and the church.
The ordinary people had some rudimentary protection provided by the jury system enshrined by Magna Carta. They saw formal slavery whereby people were regarded as chattels to be punished by their masters as a dangerous innovation, that if recognised for blacks would be applied to whites too.
Magistrates took the view that it was their role to sentence criminals; slavery would permit masters to usurp that role.
Only Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford.
Very true. And if they did not like that; they could emigrate to the Colonies.
No; Britain had plenty of slaves; the British just hypocritically kept nearly all of them overseas (eg in the Caribbean growing sugar.)
Slavery was considered immoral, over time it was considered so immoral; that it should be abolished.
Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,204
Edward- you're basing the core of your argument on a fallacy- that everything is not legal unless it is decreed to be so. The fact is that unless something (in Britain) is declared as illegal by statute or by principle of the Common Law then it's legal.
test_specimen
hope lost
- Joined
- May 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,200
Since a lot of people did not consider slaves as equal humans, or as humans, the god/king argument is not valid everywhere. They were treated more like cattle.
But you are right for times of war etc. Slaves could not be drafted, because after all they were no citicens, nor had any desire to defend what did not belong to them. As free men they could be more easily used in a war. (Though I don't know if this applies to the Britsh slavery abolishment, this might be true in other instances.) In religion the same also is obvious: the more free men, the more power, as long as they believed in christian religion.
But you are right for times of war etc. Slaves could not be drafted, because after all they were no citicens, nor had any desire to defend what did not belong to them. As free men they could be more easily used in a war. (Though I don't know if this applies to the Britsh slavery abolishment, this might be true in other instances.) In religion the same also is obvious: the more free men, the more power, as long as they believed in christian religion.
EdwardTking
Deity
During the 17th/18th century certain well to do ladies took to having expensive breeds of dogs as pets and like many dog lovers became fond of the dogs. Certain disreputable people would acquire possession of such pets and then charge the society ladies a ransom for their return.
Attempts to prosecute the dog abductors failed because the law courts would rule that, unlike farm livestock or horses for conveyance, there was no legal ownership of domestic pets and that as such the society ladies had no ownership rights to their pets than to wild birds such as sparrows. Therefore there is precedence that the failure to have legal judgement that slaves were legally owned by their claimed owners is evidence that slavery was not legal. Of course slavery was not generally illegal either; its status remained in the box like Schrodinger's cat until that famous judgement was later made.
Interestingly enough the same solution to this legal impediment was adopted by both pet and slave owners alike. They would fit the pet or slave with an identifiable silver collar. If the pet was abducted; then the abductor could be convicted for stealing the silver collar. If the slave ran away; then the slave could be convicted of stealing the silver collar.
The fact that something has not proved to be illegal; does not make it legal. It remains in a ~ state of legal uncertainty ~ sort of neither legal nor illegal state of uncertainty; until a higher judgement is made. "Not legal" is different from "illegal."
Yes; lesser courts tend to asume legality (if not proved illegal); but that assumption could apply to either party in the sense that (a) the slave owner's right is legal until ruled not legal or (b) the sense that the slave is free until ruled not free.
In this matter; I understand that baronial courts tended to support (a) slavery while courts in towns and cities, with their tradition of freedmen tended to support (b) freedom.
Lastly I understand that certain laws were specifically passed in Jamaica to make slavery legal (partly to enable slave owners to sue each other; and also so that the military would support them in apprehending runaways after some military had argued that they saw no reason to get involved in private disputes between plantation owners and their black work force). The fact that it was deemed necessary to pass such laws clearly undrepins the argument that the legality of slavery had not been previously established by the general english law.
