history

22625 readers

47 users here now

Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.

c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting

Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).

When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.

Historical Disinformation will be removed

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why was the slave trade actually outlawed in England? (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So I'm taking the last of my undergrad history courses right now, and one of the books that my professor assigned us is Adam Hochschild's Bury the Chains. We're six chapters in, and so far, Hochschild has centered British abolitionists (primarily Thomas Clarkson) in his accounting of the outlawing of the slave trade in England (I phrase it that way because we all, I assume, know that slavery itself didn't go anywhere after 1833).

Now, I might not be the best read Marxist, but I know enough to be skeptical of any claims of significant historical events being driven by the energy and moral force of "great" individuals rather than the ebb and flow of material reality, a claim Hochschild is definitely making here. He even quotes Emerson in saying "An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man."

Well! I couldn't let that nonsense go unargued, and since lambasting my professor would do no good, I'm here to ask if anybody happens to know the actual reasons the slave trade was outlawed, beyond vagaries about the industrial revolution and wage slavery. Gimme the real nuts and bolts.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Slave revolts are expensive, especially in the Caribbean, also Americans took over the slave trade

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Others have given good reasons materially, but we shouldn't ignore that there really was a mass anti-slavery movement in Britain with an idealist base. and that those people do deserve praise.

People do decide what to do with the restrictied material options given them, and here they chose to abolish slavery, when other, more horrible, options for resolving this contradiction existed (See US Post-Reconstruction for instance, for how to somehow manage to do it worse than England's piecemeal, flawed, incomplete abolition of slavery.)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

While this was not the sole reason, it should be noted that English anti-slavery laws gave their navy a pretext to board and search vessels for "inspections". With the UK quickly becoming the world's dominant naval power, this gave them lots of power over foreign shipping and trade, especially in the Atlantic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"inspections"? why would UK ships want to have this excuse on hand?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It allowed them to intercept ships to check if they were slave trading. While they were inspecting the ship, the British officers could use the pretext to find other things wrong, ie smuggling, piracy, desertion, ect. Then they could seize your property or arrest you in some cases. Sort of like how American cops can use a busted taillight to pull you over, then arrest you if he find drugs during that.

The navy did also free a significant number of slaves this way too so it wasn't just an abuse of power, but it also signaled to everyone that Britain was the dominant naval power in Europe now.