Arguments for the Trade in Enslaved African People (SQA National 5 History): Revision Note

Summary

The abolition campaign faced powerful opposition. Many individuals, businesses and industries were making fortunes from their involvement in the trade in enslaved African people. They wanted to continue to profit. Many MPs had direct links to the trade; some were plantation owners, whilst others had business interests linked to the trade. The British Royal family had also gained significant wealth from the trade in enslaved African people. Some British Royals, including King George III's sons, opposed abolition.

People who worked in British ports were often strongly in favour of continuing the trade in enslaved people, as they believed their jobs relied upon the trade. An example of the anti-abolition feeling in Liverpool can be seen in the threatened attack on Thomas Clarkson when he visited the port.

Plantation owners, pro-slavery MPs and investors launched an anti-abolition campaign which made use of a variety of propaganda techniques. This anti-abolition campaign had some success; on several occasions, the pro-slavery lobby managed to prevent Parliament from passing abolition Bills.

Anti-abolition arguments

• Many of those involved in the anti-abolition campaign were motivated by money

  • Their arguments focused on their belief that the British economy would be damaged if Britain were to abolish the trade in enslaved African people

• Racist views were used to justify the trade

  • It was argued that Africans were ‘inferior’ and that through enslavement, Africans were ‘civilised’

  • It was claimed that Africans 'benefited' from being forcibly converted to Christianity through the trade

• Many anti-abolitionists used sections of the Bible to support their racist arguments

  • Passages like the ‘Curse of Ham’ were referred to in an attempt to justify the enslavement of people based purely on their race

• Others argued that the trade was important to help maintain the naval strength of Britain

  • It was claimed that the triangular trade journey acted as an effective training ground for sailors who could later be recruited by the British Navy

• It was also argued that Britain would miss out economically if it abolished the trade before other European nations

Owners of enslaved African people

• Enslavers campaigned against abolition

  • They produced false stories and other forms of propaganda

  • These claimed conditions on plantations and the Middle Passage were much better than abolitionists claimed

• Enslavers argued that enslaved people were their ‘property’ and that Parliament should not interfere with their rights to their ‘property’

• Enslavers, merchants and investors formed the West India Lobby in 1788

  • This group was backed by many wealthy and powerful people, including the Duke of Clarence (a son of King George III)

• The West Indian Lobby spent significant sums of money on a media campaign to explain the ‘benefits’ of the trade in enslaved people

  • Writers were employed by the Lobby to write pro-slavery letters to newspapers

  • Posters and cartoons, which gave a false impression of the realities of plantation life, were also promoted by the group

  • They produced pamphlets that falsely claimed enslaved people lived pleasant lives, which the British working classes should be jealous of

• Slave merchants gave misleading accounts to Parliamentary inquiries into the trade

  • James Penny, a Liverpool-based slave merchant, gave falsely positive accounts of the conditions during the Middle Passage

  • He claimed enslaved African people were free to play card games and were supplied with pipes and tobacco during the voyage

• Plantation owners also paid for propaganda campaigns to challenge the sugar boycott

  • Pamphlets were published falsely claiming that sugar was medically important and that humans would suffer without sugar in their diets

• Pro-slavery propaganda was also promoted through plays, which attempted to show a false, positive image of plantation life

Anti-abolition arguments from MPs

• Many Members of Parliament (MPs) had strong links to the trade in enslaved Africans

  • The West India Lobby lobbied these MPs to:

    • Ensure there was strong support for the trade in Parliament

    • Block any abolition bills

  • The Lobby were successful in gaining the support of at least 74 MPs

    • Many of these were MPs who had direct links to the trade, either as absentee plantation owners or through business interests

• The Lobby used many underhanded tactics to prevent abolition bills from passing Parliament

  • For instance, they provided some MPs with free theatre tickets to shows that clashed with scheduled votes on abolition in Parliament

  • This was designed to prevent MPs from voting in favour of abolition

• MPs from ports and cities that profited from the trade were amongst the strongest supporters of the anti-abolition campaign

• Pro-slavery MPs made deliberate attempts to delay and disrupt inquiries into the trade to lessen their impact

• In 1792, William Wilberforce introduced an abolition Bill to Parliament for a fourth time

  • Henry Dundas, the Home Secretary, added an amendment to the Bill stating that abolition would take place ‘gradually’

    • The Bill passed

    • Many MPs interpreted ‘gradual’ to mean ‘never’ and the vague wording of the Bill meant that British involvement in the trade continued

    • Wilberforce believed this was a clever ploy to delay abolition indefinitely

Anti-abolition arguments from British ports

• There were petitions against abolition from cities with obvious connections to the slave trade, such as Bristol, Liverpool and Birmingham

• For example, in 1789, the traders of Bristol signed a petition against abolition

  • The petition was based on the claim that trade with the Caribbean and Africa made up at least 60% of all trade in Bristol

• Evidence of pro-slavery feeling in British Slave Ports comes from Thomas Clarkson’s first visit to Liverpool

  • Whilst walking by the dock, he was attacked by a group of eight men who attempted to throw him into the water and drown him

• Thomas Leyland, the mayor of Liverpool, who had made his own fortune from the trade, campaigned fiercely against abolition

  • He claimed abolition would not only economically damage British ports, but would also ‘destroy the prosperity’ of the Caribbean

• Many workers whose jobs were in industries connected to the trade in enslaved people were fearful that abolition would lead to unemployment

The effect of the French Revolution

• The French Revolution was particularly damaging to the abolition movement

  • It can be argued that the events of the French Revolution from 1789 onwards delayed abolition by several years

• The French Revolution made campaigning for abolition significantly more difficult

  • The British government became concerned about the possibility of revolution at home and in the Caribbean

  • This led to a fear of instability and a resistance to change

  • Public meetings of any kind worried the government, because of its fears of revolution

    • In 1795, the government passed the Seditious Meetings Act

    • This effectively banned any public meetings of over 50 people

    • This made it harder for abolitionists to hold speaking tours or public lectures

• In 1793, the French King was executed, and Britain declared war on France

  • The government then focused most of its attention on the war, meaning there was little time or attention given to abolition

• The war with France meant Britain needed ships and sailors

  • The trade in enslaved African people was seen as an important training ground for the Royal Navy, so many felt it should continue