Breaking The Chains

What really happened in 1807? - Adisa Folarin

For those of you who don't know, on the 25 March 1807 the Slave Trade Bill was passed by royal decree. It prohibited British vessels engaging in the slave trade by law? People keep asking me 'What are you doing for 2007'? A fair question, as I do after all, work with a heritage organisation. I respond with a question of my own, 'what really did happen in 1807'? In this article I will take a brief look at what happened and then put it into historical context.

Both past and contemporary British propaganda surrounding this period of history focuses on the idea of a shift in moral values. What is promoted is the idea of a change in thinking surrounding the high profit enterprise of slavery. We are asked to believe that the works of white British men like William Wilberforce and Granville Sharpe were 'instrumental' in the dismantling of the slave trade. I beg to differ, and think that belief in these notions only highlights the lack of a realistic historical prospective that most people have concerning these matters.

Firstly, let's take a look at what this law didn't mean. It didn't mean the end of slavery in British colonies. It didn't make a single slave free. It didn't mean anything more than a fine for ships found to be transporting kidnapped Africans into bondage after 1807 (encouraging captains in fear of fines to throw their captures over board). It's interesting that the 1807 Slave Trade Bill didn't make a single slave free, yet groups all over the country are commemorating this date as if it meant freedom for African captives.

There are, of course, other factors that have been conveniently over looked regarding this period of history. For instance, the indefatigable work of black abolitionists was a key factor in spreading the message of the abolition movement across the world. Their prospective on human rights also differed much from many of their white male, so-called liberal, counterparts.

We must not lose sight of the fact that slavery was BIG business and unlike her colonial rivals, Britain had access to a massive cheap labour pool in its largest colony, India. This meant that unlike her colonial rivals Britain could cease trading in slaves and eventually replace the manpower with indentured Indian servants; or should I say indentured servitude, because most Indians that moved to the Caribbean as workers received similar treatment to that of the African slaves.

However, I propose that one thing above all else was crucial in the process (and 1807 was only one part of the process) of the stopping the slave trade; the revolt of slaves all across the new world, from the inception of slavery, right up until its end. By 1803 the island that we now called Haiti dealt a severe psychological blow to British Imperialists. They staged a successful slave lead revolution that defeated the British, the Spanish and some of Napoleon's best generals. This meant victory and freedom for Africans in Haiti and the execution of thousands of Plantation owners for crimes against the former slaves.

I suggest that Africans fought slavery and European imperialism in Africa and the Caribbean from its inception. These revolts were harder and harder to suppress and became more frequent. Escaped slaves (Maroons) created there own societies all across the so-called new world. In Palmares Brazil, escaped Africans created a society that was estimated to be 30,000 strong and covered an area half the size of Portugal. According the parliamentary papers of the time this was a real concern to the ruling class.

There are many misconceptions regarding slavery and the response the captive Africans to their situation. The same goes for the factors that influence the end of the trade in African children (average age of captives was 14). The truth is out there, what we need is a re-evaluation of the facts. So I ask again, 'What really happened in 1807'

By Adisa Folarin.

Next Article