Does anyone know the date of abolition of slavery inside England? JR
Hughes says that it took place in 1772--that's when slavery was found to
be not recognized as part of the English constitution. Is that the right
date? Someone else suggested 1714. Also, if abolition took place in the
18th century, why didn't emancipation take place
until the 19th century? In other words, what's the difference between
abolition and emancipation?
Thanks,
David B. Levenstam
University of Iowa
Topic No. 4
Abolition is usually used to refer to the abolition of the slave trade, while
emancipation is used to refer to the ending of slavery itself. In every case
of which I am aware, the abolition of slave trading was not considered to imply
emancipation. Britain abolished the trade in 1807, and the US sometime in the
1820's, I think. Some of those who favored abolition also favored eventual
emancipation, but not all. For example, some planters in Jamaica and Barbados
favored abolition in 1807. They had their slaves, and didn't want to face the
competition that a planter regime in the newly aquired Trinidad would provide.
As far as I know, the decision by Lord Mansfield in 1772 spelled the end of
legal slavery inside Britain itself. The language there is fairly unequivocal:
something to the effect that a slave is free the moment he breathes the air
of England. I believe this would automatically have extended to Scotland and
Wales at this point (I'm not sure, though), but perhaps not to Ireland. I know
that there were some attempts by slave-owners from the colonies to challenge
the law, but never successfully. It was made very clear, however, that this
decision applied to Britain, not to her colonies. Since there was relatively
little slavery in Britain itself (formally, at least) this decision didn't have
very immediate effects. In fact, if I remember correctly, the case Mansfield
was ruling on had to do with a colonial resident who had brought a slave along
on a trip to England. The slave ran and there was a legal dispute over whether
the slave owner could recover him.
Hope this helps
Gerald Bosch
Department of History
University of Iowa
Topic No. 12
It was my understanding that slavery was illegal in England after
the middle ages -- please correct me, because it's a standard rap
when discussing the introduction of slave codes in Virginia in the
1600s (borrowing from Barbados, borrowing from the nearby French and
Dutch colonies, because it wasn't in British law).
It is my understanding that slavery was abolished in the British
EMPIRE in either 1802 or 1812, can't remember which -- it makes an
interesting coda to a discussion of whether there would have been a
Revolution if the British had backed off the economic legislation
in the 1770s -- South Carlina would definitely have kicked off the
traces when the Brits abolished slavery.
In America, at least, the difference between emancipation and
abolition can be seen in a typical state law -- Pennsylvania's, the
first antislavery law in the U.S., in the 1780s -- the law made it
illegal to PURCHASE slaves, but did not immediately free those slaves
in current bondage. It set a date (two decades hence, I think) by
which CURRENT slaves would be free, and then those born into slavery
in the future would be bound until their majority, at which time
they would be freed. So the antislavery law did not immediately
free the slaves -- it just set a timetable by which they would
eventually be freed. I imagine that's the difference in the law you
are looking at.
-- Mary Schweitzer
Topic No. 13
Gerald Bosch wrote:
>Britain abolished the trade in 1807, and the US sometime in the
>1820's, I think.
My old version of Scheiber, Vatter, and Faulkner (1976, 93) notes that
for the U.S. the "Constitution included a ban on importation of slaves after
1807...."
Best, Chris
**********************************************************************
Christopher Grandy Grandy@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Topic No. 14
My old version of the U.S. Constitution confirms Chris' reading of
Scheiber, et al..
---------------------------------------
Richard W. Roehl
Associate Dean
College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters
University of Michigan
Dearborn, MI 48128-1491
Topic No. 15
A minor correction to Chris Grandy's correction on the timing of
the end of the slave trade. The U.S. Constitution stated that Congress
COULD end the slave trade after 1807. That it actually DID so is a matter
of some interest to those who study the political economy of slavery. I
think Gavin Wright is the best source for this -- he noted the tug of
war of interests between those wanting a continuation of cheap slaves
and those already owning slaves who wanted to maintain prices. In the
end the latter group joined with the anti-slave forces outside the
South to pass a ban on the slave trade.
Of further interest on this point is that the Confederate States
also banned the external slave trade in their constitution.
Roger Ransom
UC Riverside
Topic No. 16
Let's get the dates straight: the British abolished their slave trade in
1807, and they abolished slavery in their empire in 1833. The legal
situation regarding slaves in Britain itself was far from clearcut. When
the "Somerset" decision was rendered in 1772, there were about 15,000
black slaves living in Britain.
D. Deal
History/SUNY-Oswego
End of ECONHIST Digest 166
**************************