Bicentenary of 1807 Slave Trade Act:

Opposing Disinformation on Enslavement and Abolition

Settling Scores with the Old Conscience – End the Racist System of Modern-Day Slavery

Opposing Disinformation on Enslavement and Abolition

Large-scale commemorative events have been planned in Britain to mark the bicentenary of the Parliamentary Act to abolish the trans-Atlantic slave trade, an anniversary which fell on March 25, although the Act came into force on May 1, 1807. Indeed, it is difficult to avoid this unprecedented commemoration of a historical event, in which the government itself is playing a leading role. Events include a service in Westminster Abbey, the issuing of postage stamps, media frenzy, speeches by politicians, meetings and exhibitions throughout the country and the release of a new film Amazing Grace, made with the active support of the government, and promoting the well-established myth that abolition was largely due to the efforts of William Wilberforce, the MP for Hull.

            It might be hoped that in the course of these events, and owing to the vast amount of coverage by the government, in the media and through academic institutions and charitable trusts, everyone would be disabused of such views. One might hope that people would be enabled to place both the so-called abolition and the centuries of trafficking of human flesh from Africa into historical perspective. The commemorative events certainly provide the opportunity for broad and in-depth discussion of Britain’s history and the crimes against humanity committed over many centuries. But within this, the fact is that a variety of disinformation is being spread, so as to prevent people understanding the magnitude of these crimes and drawing the appropriate lessons from the past.

            One of the greatest of the crimes in history was the so-called trans-Atlantic slave trade, in which British ships carried about 3.5 million kidnapped and enslaved Africans across the Atlantic, using the most barbaric methods. In total, this “trade” led to the forced removal of some 15 million Africans, transported to the colonies of the European powers in the Americas. Many millions more were killed in the process of enslavement and transportation, so that historians now estimate that Africa’s population actually declined over four centuries or remained stagnant until the early 20th century.

            Britain was involved in the trafficking of kidnapped and enslaved Africans from the mid 16th century when this enterprise was pioneered by John Hawkins and Elizabeth Tudor until the early 1930s when legislation was still being passed outlawing slavery in Britain’s African colonies. In the 18th century Britain was the world’s leading slave trading power, transporting about half of all enslaved Africans not only to its own colonies but also to those of other major powers such as the Spanish and French. In 1713 the British government, having developed the Bank of England and the National Debt for this purpose, was militarily victorious against its rivals in Europe and by the Treaty of Utrecht (the same treaty by which Britain lays claim to Gibraltar) it gained the lucrative contract to supply Spain’s American colonies with enslaved Africans. The government promptly sold the contract for £7.3 million to the South Sea company, whose first governor happened to also be the Chancellor. Indeed the trafficking of Africans was the business of the rich and powerful from the outset. The monarchy was a zealous supporter and beneficiary as was the Church of England.

            The “slave trade” was Britain’s trade in the 18th century. The British Prime Minister William Pitt declared that 80% of all British trade was generated in this way. It contributed to the development of banking and insurance, shipbuilding and several manufacturing industries. Most of the inhabitants of Manchester were engaged in producing goods to be exchanged for enslaved Africans and their trafficking led to the development of the major ports of London, Bristol and Liverpool. Today it is difficult to find any major stately home or major cultural or financial institution which is not connected with the profits generated by this “trade” and the luxury items associated with it such as sugar, tobacco and coffee.

            It might be wondered therefore why an enterprise that was so economically important to the rich and powerful in Britain in the 18th century should be ended in the first decade of the 19th century? The answer to this question requires the shattering of various myths and disinformation peddled from the 19th century to the present. One such myth is that abolition was largely the work of one man – William Wilberforce – and carried out largely for humanitarian reasons. The aim of such disinformation is not only to obscure the truth but also to make it impossible to draw the appropriate lessons from history. In particular, such myths ignore both the role of the masses of the people in Britain and elsewhere in the shaping of history. They also disregard who was represented in Parliament in 1807 and what their interests were.

            It is a matter of historical fact that the struggle to end the enslavement and trafficking of Africans was initiated and pursued primarily by Africans themselves. The facts speak of a two-centuries-long war of resistance in the Caribbean. But this resistance struggle also took place throughout the American continent, wherever enslaved Africans were to be found. There were also significant acts of resistance within Africa and on many ships engaged in the human trafficking, most famously on the Amistad. Such acts of resistance also took place in Britain, where enslaved Africans who liberated themselves were the subjects of court cases contesting the legality of slavery in the country throughout the 18th century. It was as a result of this self-liberation of Africans that some leading abolitionists, such as Granville Sharp, were drawn into the abolitionist movement in the late 18th century, while the resistance acts of Africans culminated in the famous legal judgment of 1772 which declared illegal the re-enslavement of self-liberated Africans in Britain, to be taken out of the country against their will.

            African resistance to enslavement and kidnapping contributed to growing public support and opposition to slave trafficking in Britain and elsewhere. In Britain, a popular movement in opposition to “the trade” began in the 1780s and soon became a broad mass movement of enormous proportions, possibly the biggest, certainly one of the first, mass political movements in Britain’s history, and one conveniently ignored in most historical accounts. This abolitionist movement coincided with a more general concern with and struggle for the “Rights of Man”, and its more advanced elements consciously promoted the view that the rights of Africans were indeed part of this struggle and that therefore what was required was a struggle for and defence of the rights of all. Africans themselves played a leading role in this movement both as propagandist and activists, the most notable being Olaudah Equiano , formerly enslaved, whose autobiography became a best-seller.

            But African resistance in the Caribbean and elsewhere was an even more important factor in the abolitionist struggle, since it had the tendency to make slavery both less profitable and more dangerous for the slave owners. Uprisings by enslaved Africans threatened not just the profits of individual owners but also the control of entire colonies and the fate of Europe’s economies. The most important of these liberation struggles, the revolution in St Domingue, the largest and most prosperous French colony in the Caribbean, broke out in 1791 not long after the revolution in France.

            In Britain, the popular mass abolitionist movement coincided with wider demands for political change, at a time when the vast majority were denied the vote. It also coincided with crucial economic changes, the industrial revolution and the emergence of the working class, but at a time when the bourgeoisie was consolidating its economic and political domination. Mass petitioning of Parliament against “the trade”, the only means open to the disenfranchised, was often strong in manufacturing towns such as Manchester, where perhaps a third of the entire population signed, and was viewed with alarm by the ruling class. However, their representatives, such as the Prime Minister William Pitt, recognised that popular sentiment might be used to persuade Parliament to abolish Britain’s exports of enslaved Africans to its main economic rival, France. It was Pitt who encouraged Wilberforce to bring an abolition Bill before Parliament.

            Wilberforce’s Bill was first introduced in 1791 and was defeated as were several similar Bills during the next 15 years. But during this period several significant changes took place. First, the French Revolution and Britain’s declaration of war against revolutionary France allowed the suppression of the political activity of the people at home. The revolutionaries in St Domingue successfully defended their revolution against the French army and then against invasions by both Spain and Britain. In 1804 St Domingue declared its independence and was renamed Haiti. The revolution in Haiti contributed to other major insurrections across the Caribbean and severely threatened the entire colonial system. Toussaint L’Ouverture and some of the other leaders of the revolution became nationally known figures in Britain. Abolition came to be viewed by some as both a means to press home a naval and economic advantage over France and its allies, as well as a means to limit the numbers of Africans imported into British colonies and thereby prevent the likelihood of further revolutions and maintain the slave system.

            It was with these aims in mind that Parliament passed the Foreign Slave Act in 1806, banning the export of enslaved Africans to Britain’s economic rivals, a measure that effectively ended around 60% of Britain’s trafficking, but which is now hardly remembered and certainly not commemorated. The following year Parliament was persuaded to pass the Abolition Act, partly on the grounds that most of “the trade” had ended already, partly on the basis that limiting the importation of enslaved Africans would tend to preserve slavery throughout the Caribbean colonies, and partly it seems because it was seen as a way of diverting attention away from an unpopular war against France and its allies and persuading the people that such a war was being fought in the interests of abolition. Even some of the major established Caribbean planters were in favour of abolition since this worked against the interests of their commercial rivals, both foreigners as well as those who acquired newly captured territory from Britain’s enemies. They reasoned that this might be especially advantageous if abolition could be forced upon other countries as a consequence of Britain’s military and naval supremacy. Other representatives of the bourgeoisie supported the measure as a means to limit the economic and political power of those who had hitherto retarded the development of industrial capitalism and prevented its representatives dominating Parliament.

            The 1807 Act was subsequently used as the representatives of the rich envisaged, not least as a means of interfering in shipping across the Atlantic. But it did not end British citizens’ involvement in the trafficking of Africans nor slavery itself. Indeed following other major insurrections in the Caribbean and similar economic and political forces, slavery was only made illegal in 1838, but continued in some areas of the British empire for another century. The trafficking of Africans in general increased during the 19th century and many British slavers sailed under foreign flags of convenience. Nor did the 1807 Act end Britain’s dependence on slave-produced goods such as cotton, the mainstay of the industrial revolution. Even the so-called “legitimate commerce” subsequently developed with Africa, such as the extraction of palm oil, was largely produced with slave labour. The Act increased rather than diminished Britain’s interference in Africa which culminated in the so-called “scramble” for Africa at the end of the 19th century and the imposition of colonial rule. Britain’s first colony in Africa, Sierra Leone, established allegedly as a haven for liberated Africans, has been under Britain’s domination for the last 200 years, much of that time occupied by British troops. Today the government is demanding that even its basic utilities, such as water, should be privatised for the benefit of British multinationals, and Britain’s interference has produced a country that manages to be one of the world’s poorest and at the same time the world’s leading producer of diamonds.

            The trafficking of Africans over many centuries was one of the greatest crimes against humanity. The current commemorative events, which are organised for all kinds of purposes, provide the opportunity for widespread discussion. What is vital is that myths are shattered and disinformation is combated. The people themselves must draw the appropriate lessons from history and organise themselves to become the decision-makers, and ensure that reparation is made for slavery, colonialism and all crimes against humanity.

Settling Scores with the Old Conscience – End the Racist System of Modern-Day Slavery

One of the key messages presented by the government during the commemorative events held to mark the bicentenary of the passing of the Parliamentary Act to abolish the trans-Atlantic slave trade, has been how different society is today than it was in 1807. We should "rejoice at the different and better times we live in today", according to the Prime Minister, as if there were no legacy of the great crimes against humanity committed by the rich and their governments and no continuation of those crimes today.

For the government it is as if these different and better times almost began in 1807, or shortly thereafter, as if the slate had been wiped clean and the Abolition Act ended all the crimes committed by the rich and their governments and ushered in a rosy new dawn for humanity. But the fact is that the 1807 Act did not end the enslavement and trafficking of Africans. The conquest, oppression and exploitation of Africa, Asia and other parts of the world increased during the 19th century, leading to the time when British governments could boast that they ruled over an empire on which the sun never set, something which the present Prime Minister refers to as a "remarkable achievement". What is more this colonial exploitation underpinned and accompanied the exploitation and oppression of the majority of people in Britain too. Wage slavery, that more efficient system of exploitation preferred by the bourgeoisie in Britain, replaced the chattel slavery that had existed in the Caribbean and elsewhere but this has never been accompanied by mass rejoicing. The working people of Britain, as well as other countries were compelled to redouble their efforts, to attempt to throw of this yoke of the new slavery and the political system which maintained it. That system of representative democracy, with the addition of elections and an extended franchise, was increasingly presented as "democratic", indeed as the most democratic that all should aspire too, even though the people are excluded from the decision-making process. The system remained more or less as rotten, corrupt and undemocratic as it had been in 1807 and before, and the institutions and processes appropriate only to the rule of white men of property.

The racism that developed as a justification for the enslavement of the people of Africa, Asia and elsewhere was further developed during the two hundred years after 1807. Colonial conquest and rule were described and justified as the "civilising mission", or the "white man’s burden", which must be taken up in order to exercise a "dual mandate", to supervise and exploit the allegedly inferior peoples of the world and their resources. Indeed, modern-day slavery rests on the dehumanisation and extinguishing of Africans of that time, not to mention the aboriginal peoples that the colonialists wiped out in Australasia, North America and elsewhere, and the psychological violence and destruction to those remaining. The world and its history was presented to show that only the deeds of the colonial powers were worth recording, since nobody else had created or contributed anything of note to world civilisation. It was confidently announced that whole continents, particularly Africa, had no history, no cultures and no institutions of any significance. The British imperialists confidently asserted that the white men of property and their institutions were designed to rule the world and that the more of the world they ruled the more fortunate humanity would be.

The fact is that the arrogance, racism and hypocrisy of the 19th century imperialists is still alive and well and manifests itself in the policies and pronouncements of the government today. It is evident in the attempts to impose so-called "universal values" by military means throughout the world, by the attacks on those of Islamic faith, as well as in the government’s attempts to re-write history and shed crocodile tears during the current commemorative events. The government’s utter contempt for the peoples of Africa is openly expressed by its continuous interference in the political affairs of the African continent, the imposition of the values of neo-liberal globalisation, the forcing of governments to privatise their utilities, the utilisation of enslaving "aid", unequal trading agreements reminiscent of those enforced hundreds of years ago and a myriad of other means which have devastated the African continent and the majority of its inhabitants forced to survive on less than a dollar a day. It is difficult to see what there is here that is worth celebrating.

Two hundred years after the Act of 1807, something about which the government spreads the most blatant disinformation, it is only recently that Blair and co. have been forced to admit the trafficking of human flesh might constitute a crime against humanity, but one for which there should be no apology and no reparation. While in Britain itself, those of African and Caribbean descent, alongside other sections of the people, are still denied the recognition of their history and culture and as all the social indicators show more likely than other sections of the population to be excluded from school, harassed by the police, imprisoned and detained under the Mental Health Act. Here too it is difficult to find cause for celebration.

Rather, it must be recognised and demanded those who benefited so greatly from this crime against humanity, who built their empire and wealth on the bones of slavery, make reparations for such a crime. The movement for reparations is in essence the striving of the working class and oppressed peoples of the world to create a system built on the rejection of everything old and modern-day slavery stands for, the striving for a system without the exploitation of persons by persons in which the rights of all human beings and their collectives and nations are provided with a guarantee.

The demonstrations this week both inside and outside Westminster Abbey did more than just expose the hypocrisy of the British state, they pointed to the fact that it is the rich and their state which are the source of the crimes against humanity which have been perpetrated against the peoples of Britain and the world for many centuries. Not only that but it is those who have committed the most heinous of crimes who wish to present themselves as the greatest humanitarians, who wish to continue to prevent the people from fulfilling their historic mission. Amongst other things the demonstrators pointed to the fact 200 years after 1807, the economic and political system still serves the rich, while the people are denied the right to govern themselves and control their destiny.

Most importantly the demonstrators pointed out that rather than history being the preserve of the rich and powerful, the last few centuries have ushered in the epoch of the masses of the people not just in Britain but across the globe.

Facts show that it the end of the enslavement of Africans was brought about by the struggles of Africans themselves, as well as by millions of working people in Britain and other countries. In Britain, it was these struggles for the rights of all that produced the Chartists and other militant organisations of the working class in which those of African origin, as well as other minorities often played a leading role. The history of these struggles shows that it is the people who make and transform history, that "we are our own liberators" and that this holds true today as in the past. History shows that the people must oppose and discard the old conscience, everything connected with the oppression, racism and hypocrisy of the rich and find the means and mechanism to transform society so as to put an end to the crimes of the rich, so that society serves the people and their interests, and the people themselves become the decision-makers.

Reparations must be paid!

End the racist system of modern-day slavery!

Fight for a world in which all forms of slavery are abolished!

End the inhuman system of exploitation of persons by persons!

Defend the rights of all!