"You included an argument that the religious based anti-slavery movement wasn't so important as the institution was dying for economic reasons. There isn't much merit for that argument and if you're dropping it thats wise."
No. YOU culled that "argument" out of a long essay I posted concerning our central discussion. Long essays often include tangential material that you seem to be overly fascinated by. Again, I disagree profoundly that "there isn't much merit for that argument". You are simply wrong. Economics WAS a MAJOR factor in the ending of slave trading. Many factors combined to bring slavery to an end in spite of steadfast Christian resistance which was at long last broken in a bloody civil war.
“Despite the brutality and inhumanity involved, the morality of the slave trade and slavery did not begin to be questioned by substantial numbers of Europeans and people of European descent until the end of the eighteenth century. With the enslaved people themselves this was a different matter, of course, and there had been many rebellions and revolts, as well as other smaller scale, more frequent acts of resistance, since the sixteenth century. Although white abolitionists were important in the various campaigns that eventually resulted in the abolition of the slave trade and slavery during the nineteenth century, the role of people of African descent cannot be underestimated. Equiano's narrative (1789), for instance, was an anti-slavery bestseller, and its account of the horrors involved furthered the campaign of those who sought to end the slave trade and slavery.”
amazon.co.uk
"Eventually, slave action was to make the entire slave trade untenable, as the cost of keeping slaves under control became greater than any potential commercial benefit. As famous revolts inspired further revolts and protests, in an age where international communication allowed slaves to hear rumours of other rebellions, a snowball effect was feared by rulers."
(Vexen Crabtree)
“The slaves themselves had begun to play an obvious and undeniable role in the debate about their own future. This proved to be the turning point in the story of British abolition.”
amazon.co.uk
"The economic costs of keeping, shipping and securing slaves were astronomical. Slave revolts, facilitated by the human will to survive, and organized by powerful leaders some of whom were also underground Voodoo leaders, were uncontrollable and random expenses. The increasing success and strength of such revolts made keeping large populations of slaves under control economically unviable. "1776, Adam Smith's study in economics The Wealth of Nations concluded that slavery was uneconomic due to the costs involved in keeping slaves under control"
Everette, Susanne
"The History of Slavery"
"This remarkable story raises a simple but crucial question: why did the British turn against slavery and the slave trade? Part of the reason is undoubtedly the rise of compassionate humanitarianism, particularly amongst an increasingly leisured middle class. Scholars also point to the influence of Nonconformist religion, on the one hand, and Evangelical Protestantism, on the other. But of greater significance was a shift in economic thought. In the British case slavery flourished because West Indian planters were effectively subsidised by the British taxpayer. By the late 1820s, when many Britons began to see the benefits of a world economy untrammelled by restrictions and controls, such privileges seemed outmoded and frankly unwarranted. Indeed, it is probably true to say that the British slave system was 'not so much rendered unprofitable, but by-passed by the changing economic and social order in Britain'.""
Dr. John Oldfield
bbc.co.uk |
