Abolitionists, such as William Wilberforce among others, had no interest in the emancipation of the African slaves. Notwithstanding the fact that the abolitionists opposed the slave trade, more than any action taken by them, the vast accumulation of wealth from the European slave trade and attached slavery was more instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade and the emancipation of the slaves. In other words, the abolition of the slave trade and freedom for the slaves primarily resulted from their own hard work and not from the self-serving efforts of the abolitionists.

The abolitionists opposed the slave trade because of:

i) England’s higher cost for slaves compared to their competitors;

ii) the competitors’ lower cost for sugar;

iii) England’s surplus of slaves (resulting from the drop in sale of sugar);

iv) the fact that England eventually saw more profit in colonial imperialism than in the slave trade and slavery;

v) the advent of the Industrial Revolution and its derivative, mechanisation (brought about by the successful labour of the slaves themselves).

In 1787, British Prime Minister William Pitt and abolitionist Wilberforce campaigned for the abolition of the slave trade, but this was in no way a humanitarian gesture. It was more a matter of envy. They coveted the efficiency and success of Britain’s other European rivals in the lucrative slave industry. (Note: Britain already had a surplus of slaves in the Caribbean.

Hypocritically, they were simultaneously supplying their rivals with slaves from Britain’s oversupply in the West Indies while ‘campaigning’ for the abolition of the slave trade! With the abolition of the slave trade Britain could continue to provide its rivals with the slaves they needed, thus making a hefty profit with no competition to boot.)

Ruo Myes resides in New York, USA. Send comments to the Observer or legtrap@outlook.com.

The abolitionists were also demonstrably opposed to the emancipation of the slaves. Wilberforce and other abolitionists opposed a Bill that was introduced in parliament to abolish slavery. Further, in 1814, Wilberforce opposed a suggestion that all slaves illicitly imported into the British dominions should be immediately declared free. His response was, “Our object and our universal language was and is, to produce by abolition a disposition to breed (slaves in the colonies) instead of buying.”

Even though sugar could be obtained at a lower price in Brazil, Hispaniola, Cuba, India, the USA, and other countries, the British Parliament would only allow the sugar brought in by the British slave holders. Other British businessmen, desirous of ending the British slave holders’ sugar monopoly in Britain, and at the same time sharing in the huge profits, in the name of “free trade”, lobbied parliament to allow the importation of cheaper sugar from other slave-holding colonies. The ‘humanitarian’ abolitionists in Britain attached no objections to the importation of sugar produced by the blood, sweat and tears of slaves in non-British slave colonies as this would allow them to purchase sugar at a lower price.

It is ironic that what many slave revolts failed to achieve was effected by the hard work of the slaves and the resulting vast accumulation of wealth. Mechanisation (and paid labour) displaced slavery because slave labour proved to be less efficient and more expensive. The slaves, not the abolitions, freed themselves!