Slavery in Britain
Moderator's note: these messages are extracted from the digest of the list econhist sent to me by H-Net. I've held them back them back slightly to edit them, preserving only the matter relating to slavery in Britain. I've left the digest header and one section with details of the return path for those who may wish to subscribe to econhist. I apologise to those with net provider accounts that this is so long. There was no way to reduce it any further and yet retain information which might have been of wider interest.
ECONHIST Digest 166
Topics covered in this issue include:
- Re: Levenstam, markets, and democracy
by "D. Levenstam" <dlevenst@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
- Re: Gender stereotypes and market categories
by "D. Levenstam" <dlevenst@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
- Abolition of Slavery in Britain
by "D. Levenstam" <dlevenst@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
- RE: Abolition of Slavery in Britain
- Re: capitalism--the true meaning; McCloskey roused.
- Re: Levenstam, markets, and democracy
by duguid@garnet.berkeley.edu (Paul Duguid)
- Re: capitalism -- true meaning McCloskey roused
- Re: Gender stereotypes and market categories
- Announcing the Global.Change list.
by "Samuel H. Williamson" <sam@cs.muohio.edu>
- Re: Levenstam, markets, and democracy
11) Re: Gender stereotypes and market categories
by SCHWEITZ@UCIS.VILL.EDU
12) RE: Abolition of Slavery in Britain
by SCHWEITZ@UCIS.VILL.EDU
13) RE: Abolition of Slavery in Britain
by grandy@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Chris Grandy) 14) RE: Abolition of Slavery in Britain
by "Richard Roehl" <RROEHL@um-f1.umd.umich.edu> 15) RE: Abolition of Slavery in Britain
by RANSOM@ucrac1.ucr.edu
16) RE: Abolition of Slavery in Britain
by "J. Douglas Deal" <deal@oswego.Oswego.EDU>
- FOOTER TO ECONHIST POSTING ============
- To post a message to this list, send it to ECONHIST@cs.muohio.edu.
- To get all the messages posted to this list only once a day, send the
message "set ECONHIST mail digest" to lists@cs.muohio.edu.
- To view past posting to this list, look in the directory "List Archive"
in the Cliometric Society Server. The address is: cs.muohio.edu.
- For more information and instructions, send the message
"info ECONHIST" to lists@cs.muohio.edu.
Topic No. 3
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
The following message was received on H-Albion.
The critical case in Scotland was Knight's Case (1778) with a ruling similar to Somerset's Case (1772).
Sean Farrell Moran
History/Oakland Univ.
moran@vela.acs.oakland.edu
Humanities & Social
Sciences Online
