The Bridge | Page 9

Do We Need Slaves

3

•The trade was necessary to the success and wealth of Britain. The merchants and planters warned that abolition would mean ruin for Britain, as the whole economy would collapse. This argument was put forward many times, for example, in 1749, when a pamphlet was written outlining these agruments.

If Britain did not engage in the trade then others would. If Britain ceased to trade in slaves with Africa, our commercial rivals, the French and the Dutch, would soon fill the gap and the Africans would be in a much worse situation. This was an argument used in a speech to parliament in 1777.

Africa was already involved in slavery. They stated that Africans enslaved each other. Indeed, Britain was engaged in a moral trade because they were helping people, captured in African wars, who may otherwise be executed.

Taking Africans from their homeland actually benefited them. They argued that African societies and cultures were unskilled, uneducated and savage. For example, Michael

Renwick Sergant, a merchant from Liverpool claimed: ‘We ought to consider whether the negroes in a well regulated plantation, under the protection of a kind master, do not enjoy as great, nay, even greater advantages than when under their own despotic governments'.

The enslaved people were unfit for other work. Many people were very prejudiced in their beliefs. Many ordinary people in Britain were uneducated and travelled little further than their own village, making it easier for those involved in the trade to influence public opinion.

The enslaved people were not ill-treated unless rebellious. Conditions on the slave ships were acceptable. Several of those involved in the trade, merchants, ships' captains and plantation owners, provided evidence to parliament regarding this.

why Slavery MUST stay

By Lord Norris African Expert