Opinions on the slave trade abolitionists

[Invader Zim]

I was wondering what peoples opinion is upon the abolition of the slave trade. As in do people take the line of individuals such as Eric Williams, that it was the changing nature of capitalism that rendered the slave trade profitless that caused abolition and eventual emancipation; the view of Hugh Thomas that fear of insurrection was equal if not greater motive than philanthropy; the view that emancipation was the result of radical ideals of revolutionary France and the later stages of the enlightenment, specifically an extention of the ideals outlined in Paine's Rights of Man; the view that emancipation was the result of a vast and well constructed public opinion machine constructed by radicals and philanthrophists; or finally the more traditional view (pre-war) that it was the result of the tireless efforts of evangelical Christian (and Quaker) individuals such as Wilberforce, Wesley, Clarkson, Moore, etc?

[RNK]

Several of those theories appear to have atleast some basis in reality. The goings-on in Europe certainly must have had some effect; and we can't discount the impact of hundreds of thousands of newly-freed slaves suddenly entering the consumer market.

Interesting to me is the parallels between land-owning slavemasters, the industrializing bourgeoisie, and peasants. For all intents and purposes, slaved only served a materialistic benefit to their immediate slaveowners, who themselves were more involved in the ownership of agricultural land than ownership of the means of industrial production. Slaves did not benefit the bourgeoisie directly; for the most part, slaves did not work in factories and took no part in the production of commodities, and could not themselves purchase commodities.

An arguement against radical influence from France is that even when freed, Africans were not granted full rights of citizenship, and slavery was replaced with deep segregation. It is a step up, I suppose, though.

Very interesting topic, anyway.

[Dros]

John Brown is my hero.:wub:

Very very religious but I can get over that in this case...:D

[Invader Zim]

John Brown is my hero.:wub:

Very very religious but I can get over that in this case...:D

Are you capable of making constructive contributions?


For all intents and purposes, slaved only served a materialistic benefit to their immediate slaveowners, who themselves were more involved in the ownership of agricultural land than ownership of the means of industrial production. Slaves did not benefit the bourgeoisie directly; for the most part, slaves did not work in factories and took no part in the production of commodities, and could not themselves purchase commodities.

That is quite a two dimentional view of the situation, while slaves wee not necessarily involved in the industrial process to such a degree, they did provide the raw materials which were utilised in industrial production. One of the key industries in Britain was of course cloathing and some of the enduring images of the period are of workers toiling in early cotton mills; slaves provided the cotton at a very low cost. This is of course the case for many industries and many studies have shown that the slave trade was at its perhaps most lucrative in the 1780s-90s when industrial capitalism in Britain was making early headway.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

William Wilberforce, from my city, actually owned many of the infamous 19th century workhouses that treated the workers (many of whom where children) no better than slaves. A little contradictory if you ask me, as he was one of the founders of the abolitionist movement.

However that issue aside, I still have a tremendous amount of respect for these guys, who challenged an extremely repressive society and achieved the (supposed) freedom of millions of enslaved people.

[Bucketmaster101]

Im confused by this (sorry kind of new) but are you saying 1 reason for the abolishment of the slave trade was the fact that "capitalism" didnt need them (i dont mean to imply capitalism directly didnt need them, but as a way of showing that the money wasn't there in the slave trade any more)?

[Invader Zim]

Im confused by this (sorry kind of new) but are you saying 1 reason for the abolishment of the slave trade was the fact that "capitalism" didnt need them (i dont mean to imply capitalism directly didnt need them, but as a way of showing that the money wasn't there in the slave trade any more)?

Well, to quote Eric Williams the guy who really first raised that idea as an issue: -

“The commercial capitalism of the eighteenth century developed the wealth of Europe by means of slavery and monopoly. But in so doing it helped to create the industrial capitalism of the nineteenth century, which turned round and destroyed the power of commercial capitalism, slavery, and all its works.”

Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery, intoduction by D. W. Brogan, (London, 1964), p. 210.



In short the idea is that the slave system was based upon protectionism and mercantile capitalism. As the 18th century gave way to the 19th century the economic foundations of capitalism had changed. Wealth was no longer in the hands of wealthy land owning elites, but had transfered into the hands of the middle classes who favoured free-market industrial capitalism. As such British wealth ceased being based upon the agriculturally based trade which was powered by slave labour; thus the empire ceased having use for the slave trade.



This theory of Williams' was first published in 1944, and has subsequently been dismantled by numerous generations of historians and is largely considered highly flawed.

[syndicat]

Eric William's theory doesn't sound very plausible. Manufacture of cloth is surely a part of industry. An industry includes its transport and its suppliers. The British textile industry depended on inexpensive cotton imported from America. Slavery kept the labor costs down. The agricultural products produced on the slave plantations in the south were commodities, traded on the world market. That's why large amounts of labor were required. It wasn't subsistence agriculture.

The emergence of labor movements in Europe in the early 1800s are a factor as they were universally opposed to the slave trade. Slave rebellions were only a matter of time. In the case of the USA, the abolitionist movement was important in terms of polarizing the country and the debate, leading the southern planter class to their attempt at secession. That also helped to change public opinion in the north where the abolitionist movement was a minority. The massive "go-slow" by the slaves themselves -- a kind of general strike -- and hundreds of thousands of slaves fleeing to the north to join or work for the union army tied down huge amounts of Confederate military. So the slaves themselves played a key role in the end of slavery, in the U.S. And it is likely that these struggles were influential on the decision to end slavery in Brazil in the 1880s.

Slavery is not inherently inconsistent with capitalism, if it is limited in scope. Every so often there are still cases of people who have enslaved, even here in the USA. There were a couple of farm labor contractors in Florida were convicted of this a few years ago. In fact there's been a book written about this phenomenon: "Nobodies."