Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's more complex than that. See what I was trying to dispel was the though that the UK abolished slavery due to the "goodness and purity of their heart".
There are a variety of reasons truth be told - economic reasons, political reasons, sociological and demographical reasons, and last and maybe least - ethical reasons.
It's more complex than that. See what I was trying to dispel was the though that the UK abolished slavery due to the "goodness and purity of their heart".
There are a variety of reasons truth be told - economic reasons, political reasons, sociological and demographical reasons, and last and maybe least - ethical reasons.
The main reason was the 1832 Parliamentary Reform Act, which saw two thirds of the MP's who supported slavery lose their Parliamentary Seats and led to a more democratic parliamentary system,
The absence of slavery in the south during the mass immigration of Irish would led to more Irish settling in the south. It would have change the North also with free labor being dispersed through out the country. Slavery was one of the the reasons not many Irish settled in the south during mass immigration to America.
The Brits brought slavery to the colonies and their empire depended on exploiting the resources to the maximum extent possible. Slavery was an integral part of that. Matter of fact, their textile industry was so dependent on cheap cotton from the American south that they even considered supporting the Confederacy during the Civil War.
The British Empire became much bigger than it had ever been after the loss of the American colonies. The idea it was slavery-dependent is a nonsense peddled by (understandably) aggrieved historians from former colonies with an agenda. The Empire had never seen such heights way after slavery was ended. It also paid huge amounts of "compensation" to end slavery in its colonies (16,500,000,000 pounds in todays terms - so about 25 billion dollars). British public sentiment had moved massively in the moral outrage direction and the abolitionist movement became too large to stop. The Royal Navy from 1808 onwards also occasionally intercepted slave ships en route to North America and had orders to free the slaves (and I'm not talking about war time). (Read up about the ironically named HMS Black Joke).
Of course slavery would have ended sooner in North America. It had ended effectively earlier in Canada under British rule through British common law decisions, and was outlawed in 1834 although by that point it was basically absent in Canada. But its not like the British Empire didn't commit plenty of non-slavery atrocities after the 1830s - it did - plenty of awful stuff.
Of course, the current PC environment means that fundamental attribution errors not only abound, they are de rigueur.
The morally privileged and righteous now dictating the narrative, .....with the morally-suspect Brits (they were at the time all white men so of course they are morally-suspect). Notwithstanding the fact that during the course of its history the British parliament has passed 100s of laws that had no pecuniary impact and sometimes a negative pecuniary impact on its economy. (Not to say it didn't pass all sorts of laws to its advanatge too, and supported crimes like turning India into a corporation, stealing land from the Irish, the aborigines and every other dismempowered peoples it came across, and plenty more).
But that's not important with the concreted modern narrative, we all know who the villains are!
The British Empire became much bigger than it had ever been after the loss of the American colonies. The idea it was slavery-dependent is a nonsense peddled by (understandably) aggrieved historians from former colonies with an agenda. The Empire had never seen such heights way after slavery was ended. It also paid huge amounts of "compensation" to end slavery in its colonies (16,500,000,000 pounds in todays terms - so about 25 billion dollars). British public sentiment had moved massively in the moral outrage direction and the abolitionist movement became too large to stop. The Royal Navy from 1808 onwards also occasionally intercepted slave ships en route to North America and had orders to free the slaves (and I'm not talking about war time). (Read up about the ironically named HMS Black Joke).
Of course slavery would have ended sooner in North America. It had ended effectively earlier in Canada under British rule through British common law decisions, and was outlawed in 1834 although by that point it was basically absent in Canada. But its not like the British Empire didn't commit plenty of non-slavery atrocities after the 1830s - it did - plenty of awful stuff.
There was an Anglo-Portuguese treaty in 1820 that allowed the Portuguese to continue the slave trade south of the equator as long as the British had access to their ports.
From what I know, the abolition movement gained traction in the second half of the 18th century, mainly among British activists. In 1834, slavery was abolished in all British colonies. This was 30-40 years before the US ended the institution of slavery. I know that some historians contend that the compromise of the newly republic was to uphold slavery. So is it fair to conclude that slavery would have ended earlier had the mainland remained in the hands of the British?
There was an Anglo-Portuguese treaty in 1820 that allowed the Portuguese to continue the slave trade south of the equator as long as the British had access to their ports.
Yup, people are giving to much credit to the British, people been listening once again to that peculiar historical affliction I commonly call BSS (british superiority syndrome) when reflecting on the British Empire of old. It should be noted that the US was the first to ban the international slave trade - during the Revolutionary Wars. Naturally that was an economic warfare element against the largest slave trader in the world - The British Empire.
After the war the slave trade was put in back into effect for a defined final period of two decades and then abolished by the US the same month as the British - 1808 (signed into law in 1807).
It should also be noted that most of the northeastern US states outlawed slavery before the British Empire got into the act
Oh and India - yup, slavery continued in British owned (actually British East Indian Company owned) colonial India. The anti-slavery decree was simply ignored. Jolly good times in India ole chaps!
I think they would have banned out right slavery as they historically did in their Carribean possessions.
But, banning outright slavery would not close the middle road: Ok, slavery is banned and the former slaves are now semi free uhmm.... bonded "contract workers"- whose contracts are very long term. Then factor in the concept of Jim Crow mixed with inherited debts to ensure that most "contracts" are passed along to the next generation of semi free contract holders.
If anybody complains to Parliament about the practices, they just answer that the U.S. south is an autonomous area and thus local laws, so long as slavery is still officially banned, are given alot of leeway.
This is the form in which slavery developed, from the first poor indentured with their mark and shipped away to America, to the last gasp where children were sent to be raised and supported by others under a bond, and as there was a bond, couldn't leave until adulthood. It would make absolute sense if slavery as direct ownership of the person was banned while the need for it continued that an older form was resurrected. Debt slavery/bondmanship never stopped, and continued past slavery.
So long as the need for a cheap, certain labor supply continued, post slavery under that name, its actual effect would be minimal in real life. At the point slavery was outlawed, the use of the bond was still practiced as a norm so it would have taken over that need.
The ebb and flow of time and events is more driven by the needs of all parties within a time over a single issue no matter how passion is poured into the issue. It should not be ignored that when slavery was ended in the US, and the war was lost by the South, the system of class remained, and other forms of 'ownership' were put into place which lasted for another century.
For the 'owners/employers', without slavery the system it gave them fewer responsibilities to their workers which is one reason why slavery was not adapted by the early manufacturing interests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
