American Reacts to the British Crusade Against Slavery
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2024
- Hello! I'm an American on a quest to learn more about history, geography and the universe in general. In this video I learn about Britain's role in the slave trade for the first time - at least part of it. It's not taught how they utilized their navy to abolish slavery around the world, though this video doesn't mention how they interacted with America during this forceful abolition. So there are still some questions lingering for me. If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe!
00:00 - Intro
02:03 - Reaction
33:28 - Outro
Link to original video: • Video
Follow me on social media:
Instagram: / sogal.yt
Twitter: / sogal_yt
Facebook Page: / sogal-104043461744742
Facebook Group: / 238616921241608
Link to Discord: / discord
If you want to send any snail mail:
SoGal
P.O. Box 34913
Memphis, TN 38184
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
#Slavery #SlaveTrade #BritishEmpire #HistoryReaction
As a biracial person, I hired a geneologist to figure out my family's heritage. Like most African Americans (or, you know, half-African Americans), I expected that sooner or later it would turn out that one of my ancestors was a slave. Turns out, my mother's family is from Norway and Sweden, while my father's family is from Mali and Nigeria.
And yes, we found a slave in my background.
Thing is, it wasn't on my father's side of the family. Turns out that the first of my African ancestors to live in what would become America was a working sailor on a British cargo ship who, when he had made his purse and decided to retire, bought a house in Boston and moved his family to North America. Neither he, nor his wife, nor any of their descendants all the way down to me were ever enslaved. Its quite ironic. The side of the family you expect to find slaves in never had a single one. My Norwegian family, on the other hand, all descend from a married couple who, in the early 1500s, were enslaved to the Ordforer (mayor, in other words) of the town of Tysvaer.
None of my black ancestors were ever enslaved, but several of my white ancestors were. Came as quite a shock.
That’s crazy. Not what you’d have expected based on what we’re told in history classes..
God that's really interesting,you ought to get your story out there 👍
Slavery in the time of William the Conqueror was all white slavery (the UK didn't acquire a significant non white population until after WWII). However Britain did have a problem with being raided FOR slaves, mainly by Barbary Pirates. The Irish coast, and the coast of South West England was particularly badly hit, even into the 17th Century. If you ever go to Morocco you will see a lot of blue eyed Arabs, the descendants of these English and Irish slaves.
Couldn't put it any better,spot on.
St Patrick was not Irish. He was Welsh and stolen by marauding Irish as a boy. He was brought up as a slave tending pigs!
The slavery that William abolished was primarily Vikings and their "thralls". It was another way of ending the Vikings belief that England was "there's" and another way of stamping his authority. We still talk of people being "enthralled"
They just changed the name from slav to surf, tide man, indentured servant etc. And yes all white. Yes Vikings called their slaves from Slavic country's by another name.
The workers of the cotton mills during the American civil war went on strike for over a year in favour of the enslaved cotton pickers as they felt they were treated as badly as the slaves
@@davidcook7887 He definitely was not Irish, he also may have been Scots
You have to realize that no European country had State involvement in the slave trade. No nation was buying slaves and trading them with tax money. Nor was the British navy transporting them or the British army guarding them. These were private individuals trading.
So placing blame on a nation for trading in slaves is a little nonsensical. Particularly when everyone else was doing it. However the nation did act with tax money to stop slavery. That is why, I believe, there are no valid counter arguments.
I've just written pretty near exactly the same thing, then found this. I will add though that the wealth necessary for these private individuals to participate in the exploitation of Africans was acquired through the (ongoing) exploitation of generations of Britons - 'my people'.
@@otterspocket2826 Well no - the only participation Britain had was transporting slaves. All that required was a ship, hardly acquired by exploiting anyone.
@@TheToledoTrumpton - How many ships do you own? They're apparently quite expensive to buy, and to crew, and to operate - you'll also need a substantial 'float' to buy slaves, or buy goods to trade for them, before anybody sets foot onboard to be transported.
Do you imagine these people were lottery winners or saved up their wages from the cotton mill?
@@otterspocket2826 No, I imagine that they were largely plantation owners.
Historians have estimated that the total profits from the slave trade and of West Indian plantations amounted to about 1-5% of the British economy, over the Industrial Revolution.
The plantations owners were the people profiting most. They were the ones setting up the companies that shipped both slaves and their product, back to Europe.
Why would you put all that effort and risk into building and running plantations, and then give it all away to someone else for transporting your product and your captive workforce?
You have to realize that this "Blame Europe" idea is all about Americans trying to shift blame onto Europeans. The reality is that the blame is mostly on the Americans, West Indians and the Africans. The only thing Europeans did was buy the sugar, tobacco, and cotton.
Maybe at the outset, the original people running the Triangle route were privateers, but once things got established, the vast majority of the profits went to the plantations. Sure the traders made a good wage, but they were not rich.
@@TheToledoTrumpton - So you see plantation owners buying ships and sailing them personally across the Atlantic to buy their slaves themselves? I always imagined they bought them from the well documented slave markets throughout the New World.
I don't think I can be arsed continue this discussion - which I started by agreeing with you - with somebody who can't make up more convincing crap than that.
I as an Englishman can truthfully say I helped pay to end the slave trade. The debt we accrued to end it was still being payed until only recently. It's mad when you think about it people from the past were only freed due to the actions of people that hadn't been born yet.
This is what it’s now come too, now Britain is the hero of the slave trade - that’s like saying Jimmy Savile was a great man because of the charity work he did, let’s just ignore the fact he molested loads of young girls. The problem with videos like this is that they paint a single narrative, which people like to jump on because it’s warm, acceptable and palatable. The truth is far more complex than what is presented here - I can comfortably say that after 40 years of reading on the subject.
@@rufdymond ok mate, I'll consider your opinion when you personally are responsible for or have contributed to ending a slave trade, like me and the rest of my countrymen.
Furthermore it's nothing alike, your just one of them types that wants to pretend the British empire was evil through and through rather than accepting it left the world far better off than any other empire that's existed in human history, because no doubt it fits your political bias to believe so.
And in regards to the single narrative, unless you noticed it's a video in direct response concerning a very specific issue, of course it's painting a single narrative because that's the narrative it's addressing. Hardly relevant to start talking about Indian farmers if the subject at hand is the Atlantic slave trade now is it.
Also your Jimmy saville analogy is dumb since he wasn't a sex trafficer he was a active pedophile. Britain sold slaves it didn't use them. Bit of a difference.
Finally it's actually not that complex. England spent her blood treasure and sons to end the slave trade, you exist in a world where slavery is universally condemned thanks to that. Britain ended the slave trade, it's one narrative and it's also the true narrative.
@@rufdymond are you denying that Britain outlawed the trans Atlantic slave trade and the Arabian slave trade and spent a vast amount of treasure stamping it out, not to mention the lives of the sailors and marines sacrificed in doing so? Was that in upgrades '40 years of reading'?
I suggest you fornicate back off to the Guardian, you revisionist, racist pillock, with the rest of the sanctimonious traitors.
@@rufdymond Its like youre unaware/Ignoring that other countries moved even MORE slaves than the UK, however none of those other countries actually ended slavery... WE DID.
I've personally never owned a slave and neither have you i doubt but only one of us has literally paid reparations for the sins of their ancestors out of their literal pocket...
Wind your neck in mate.
Wow looks like I triggered something - I’m laughing so hard my belly hurts……
A few points...
1) You don't have to apologize for slavery because you had nothing to do with it.
2) If you're going to insist on being/allow yourself to be held responsible for slavery, you have to also be held equally responsible for ending it.
3) You're absolutely correct. When you judge yesterday with today's sensibilities you'll end up chasing your own tail.
@Tab Ford The point the video is making is that the UK changed the mentality towards slavery, from normalcy to something that still exist but is underground in few country and not anymore morally accettable. That is thanks to the UK. Now there are still pockets here and there of underground slavery because untill poverty will be used to make easy money with minimum salary and maxumum labour hours slavery will still exist, but at list now is now it is considered unaccettable accross the board.
@Tab Ford You should try to understand my post and not assuming people talk without knowledge. I live in UK and I lived here for more than 20 years. Anyway what I mean for “underground”, is that slavery in the classical sense is not consider anymore normalcy, it is not anymore consider legal, it is not anymore consider morally acceptable, and the fact that still exist doesn't detract from the fact that wherever is traced down, it persecuted, we are talking about human trafficking and child labour. But as I explained, it is far less obvious in term of minimum ridiculous wages and absurd amount of working hours, that to me is still a form of slavery because it is an exploitation of people poverty, kept poor to be exploited. That is way more mainstream and still going, especially in USA with zero State Healthcare system, where they don't have paid holidays, no paid sick day, no paid maternity leave, and the amount of hours requested in certain jobs are insane and still reeks of slavery. So before going around with an attitude "I understand things better than you, whom ever you are" try not to assume that you knowing better on principal might not always the case, “Mr. I-know-it-all”. 🙄
@Tab Ford said the person that with a passive aggresive manner said the absolutly nothing of consequence, but just stated with no explanation whatsoever (prbably because you don't have any) that I am ignorant on the matter...yeah right! Your bitterness of being exposed in your arrogant ignorance continue to show in the vacuity of your inexistant arguments consintant only in saying that I am the one with a chip on the shoulder...you are a laugh! Don't apply your sortcomings on others, dear, you haven't proven any point, of any kind apart from showing to everybody your petty immature behaviour and you inability to say anything rational, sustantial or intelligent. I rest my case.
@Tab Ford people today are still involved in slavery due to consumerism, for example leather tanning industry uses slave labor to tan the leather fir the whole globe, Indonesias or Malaysias fishing industry uses slave labor to plunder the ocean of fish
@Tab Ford which you may already know
Taxes collected to pay for the costs of reparations to ensure the freeing of slaves. Extended until 2014. technically people who paid tax in the UK before 2015 actively paid to end the slave trade.
They actively paid to compensate the slavers different thing.
@@MrNathanDJNGGiles Same ends !
They paid the slave owners, to free their slaves, and end slavery...
@@MrNathanDJNGGiles you think a violent end would have been better?
The West African Nation of Mauretania abolished slavery 1980, but made slavery a punishable crime as late as 2007.
As a proud englishman 56 years old I can say that I have paid taxes that went to the debt of paying off slavery abolition.... so many times we have stood on principle and done the right thing. I'm thinking in particular of September 1939
Slavery ended way before then. Also britains crimes are endless
I love that you are the first person I have heard say (on the internet) the correct quote "the love of money is the root of all evil" when most people just say money is the root of all evil.
The differance was William's law affected only England, while the 1833 law afected the Empire.
You are confused. Slavery didn’t exist in England. William the Conqueror made it expensive so it died out.
But the situation was put to the test in 1772 when Lord Mansfield confirmed that slavery couldn’t exist in England.
Then in 1807 The British started the fight against the slave trade. That was followed in 1833 to end slavery in the empire.
@@oldman1734 it did occur in Britain though
@@thomasferguson5478 it occured pre 1100s, there was a large slave trading economy in Ireland during the Viking period sadly.
@@thegeneralmitch it occurred everywhere, still occured in Scotland, Ireland, Wales after 11th century. Dublin was the biggest slave port in West Europe at one point, slavery was just a part of life in they days. Life as a peasant in the Middle Ages wasn’t much better than slavery and indentured slavery ran on for centuries
@@thomasferguson5478. Scotland approved the Lord Mansfield ruling (or if the Scots prefer) outlawed slavery in 1773.
Those court rulings against slavery in Britain in the 1760s and early 1770s were a major reason the slave holding colonies supported the revolution. They saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to free their slaves.
Perversely, one of the drivers for British Imperialism in Africa was the desire to end the slave trade.
Proud to be British 🇬🇧
Part of my annual tax was still going to pay off our war debt in 2006 and our slave debt in 2016
So don’t think so bad of us Brits we have done our bit , while other countries have done pretty well out of us over the years
Campaign against slavery in Africa, included interventions in The Sudan, including Lt Winston Churchill participating in a famous cavalry charge at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898.
To answer your question at 28:00
1086 - Slave trading illegal in England
1772 - Confirmed by the judiciary that no one could be a slave on British soil
1807 - Act of Parliament to ban the trading of slaves within the Empire
1833 - Act of Parliament to ban the practice of slavery within the Empire, and all slaves in the Empire were freemen
No 1086 Selling English people abroad is illegal. Read the damn text that was in the screen, you can sell your kid to your neighbour legally in 1087 you can also buy and Irish person, you just can't sell your kid to an Irish person. the first blanket ban of slavery is 1136 in Sweden.
And even then slavery was essentially no longer aroudn when that law was passed, slavery died out before it was made illegal.
Although slavery was abolished in the Indian subcontinent by 1843, and properly abolished it in 1860
But aside from that, all you say is true
@@DaDunge in 1086 I don't think it was selling English people abroad. I think the law was made to prevent noble men taken in battle being sold into slavery after their family failed to pay a ransom for their safe return.
mmm left out 'convicts' which were slaves 2 take ovr n build upon au 4 v uk in v 1800s
@@The_Honourable_Company though they reinvented slavery that very year and rebranded it "indentureship"
Often misunderstood the line from the song Rule Britannia"'Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" is there not because of nationalistic jingoism but because the British navy was able to put a stop to the 300 year old trade of Barbary pirates raiding British coastal towns and taking slaves for the Arab slave markets in North Africa. Its estimated there are over 30 million slaves in the world today mostly women and children involved in the sex trade in Africa, Asia and South America but lets blame the British for everything.
In deed, this was was done by Stephen Decatur, an American.
That song is much older than the British Abolishonist Movement much less the West Africa Squadron.
smh
Just looked it up. The poem was written in 1740. It was set to music the same year.
@doodah How is stating how old the song is, an indication of the song?
@@markstuber4731 You've misunderstood what @Sham Teal said. The Royal Navy put an end to raiding from North Africans raiding the Uk for slaves, which prompted the line in Rule Britannia, not the later blockade of Africa
From what I understand, Britain, at one point, purchessed the freedom of slaves at great expens. That debt was only paid off recently. Also, England is not Britain, it's just part of it and the British Empire is Britains territory around the world on which the sun never sets, such was it's size and scope. I'm British, I live in the North West of England, We wern't really taught about this but when we had to make the choce between history and geography I went with the latter, so maybe I missed out on a few things. Regardless, some of us pick up a few things here and there but only in the last decade or so have I formed a better understanding of my nation and it's history. It seems that too often we focus on the bad and not the good. Shame that.
It's definitely worth reacting to a video or reading further about the West Africa Squadron. While British ministers did order the blockade, they had some concerns about the cost and the impact on international relations. But the people of the country were very enthusiastic, and the sailors of the squadron felt even more strongly, having seen the trade up-close. They went as far as defying direct orders so they could take more and more action, which the government ended up retroactively endorsing because the whole country wanted it.
At one point, the squadron's remit was to stop any ship, flying any flag, that was believed to be profiting from the slave trade, and to travel up and down the coast, burning down trading posts and other infrastructure of the slave trade.
You mean like Drachinifels "Anti-Slavery Patrols - The West Africa Squadron"?
@@joshthomas-moore2656 Drachinfel strikes again! yes definately a good vid albeit focussed directly on the naval aspecs of the African blockade (not unsurprising given Drach is a naval history channel).
My 3x Great Uncle was Involved in freeing Slaves in the Mediterranean in the 1830's and freed many slaves, one account says that whilst taking slaves to safety after seizing them from a slave ship, the slave traders tried to get the slaves back again whilst ashore and the crew had to fight them to stop them taking them back.
And this is why I’m so proud to be British
The country with the bad history
The colonizers
Africans weren't enslaving "Their own people" (6:25) that's just it, they were enslaving the people of rival tribes who had been defeated in war and conquest. They never considered them as 'their people' just as the Romans never considered Gauls or ancient Brits as their people. Having the same skin colour doesn't make you the same people.
Africans is a geographical term, like British is a geographical term, so if the Scots enslaved English people (hypothetically)they would be enslaving there own. So yes they did enslaved there own.
Europeans enslaved each other for thousands of years.
Africans enslaved there own
Asians enslaved there own
I’m not sure what your point is.
@@billnoel What a pathetic and completely nonsensical answer. One wonders why you even bothered to type it.
@@shoutinghorse LOL you serious? my post was an differing opinion and it sounds like you have no answer other than an attack.
Tell me this question and i'll use your own words for this "What a pathetic and completely nonsensical answer. One wonders why you even bothered to type it"?
Moron!
It's contextual. In the context of race based slavery, "Own people" means same race or culture. I do get your point, but it's not incorrect to state they enslaved their own people.
@@billnoel we can even say that on the mankind level, humans enslaved humans, but that's not how people see themselves. Africans natives didn't feel they were all equal Africans, even today they don't, their primary identity is tribal, even today, so if an African tribe beat a rival African tribe, they don't consider them as "own people" but as "other tribe", so they aren't enslaving their own if they are from a different tribe.
The 10% of slaves amongst the English population in 1086 were the indigenous English themselves within society, the poor owned by the rich who were often used as ploughmen. Also, during the several hundred years prior that date, the English were often taken as slaves by others such as the Vikings and the Romans. These English slaves were taken overseas, which is probably why William tried to stop the export of his 'possessions'. 20 years after conquering, William's reason for conducting the Doomsday book survey was as a massive tax assessment and a way to determine how to carve up the country and allocate portions to his fellow Norman nobles and assign feudal rights, and basically enslave the entire English population as 'serfs' to the Norman nobility. It would be interesting if you were to delve into how English society was totally restructured following the Norman conquest and the implementation of serfdom, and how the whole country (land, belongings, animals and people) were taken into the possession of the ruling Norman elite. It is no wonder he was called 'William the B****' for many reasons. I reckon this is when the competitiveness between the English and French began.
William's Mum and Dad weren't married when he was born, that's why he was called "...the Bastard". Duke Robert, his Dad, named him for his dead uncle. BTW, Will didn't like to be reminded of his beginnings and there's talk of an entire town being put to the torch for taunting him.
You are missing out the collaborators. There were plenty of landowners in England that accepted William's claim to the English throne. Fun fact: of the lands "gifted" by William to his cronies and collaborators, 75% of it is still in the hands of their descendants. That tells you why our genes carry no trace of Romans, Vikings, Danes or Normans. The English aristocracy have always "married in", they don't "marry out". That, and "never sell the land" being their anthem.
There was some cooperation between the Royal Navy and the United States Navy in blockading Africa, which ended in 1859. However the two navies had different objectives. The RN objective was to end the slave trade - full stop. The USN objective was to stop the import of fresh slaves into the US so as to maintain the value of slaves already there, a rather less altruistic motive.
"cooperation", every nervy cooperated eventually lol
Co operation or making sure slave ship got though to unpatrolled stretchs of coast
www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/african-squadron.html
@@richardcook9794 Africa Squadron (USA) is not the West Africa Squadron (British Empire), you're confusing a Squadron that took 19 slave ships and one that took 1600+
The British motive for ending the slave trade was not altruistic anyway. Plantation and slave owners feared competition, who had ties with high ranking British officers and politicians. Britain also still had it's colonies; those did not require slavery to keep control over, having puppet governments convincing a population to not rise up was more effective.
@@dropit7694
But it was!
watch the video FFS.
The United Kingdom was the First Nation on the planet to say "slavery is wrong, no matter the wealth it can accrue."
The United Kingdom spent its own wealth on forcing others to stop the trade. It was an enlightenment in human thinking.
The British abolished slavery in the western hemisphere. and nobody can deny the truth.
Sadly the narrator in the original video doesn't say it alloud, but the source he is reading from reports that 6 out of every 10 of the African slaves castrated by the Arabs bled to death (timestamp: 11:15). Also it is worth mentioning the British fight against slavery forced the UK to take out a loan, with they were still paying off until 2015!
I'm so proud of my country 😇
The first law was only pertaining to England the law of 1833 was the whole empire
Mostly the whole Empire. There were a few exceptions where abolition came later. In particular, the territories held by the Honourable East India Company (India).
I think the 1807 law did apply to the whole empire but it only pertained to the slave 'trade', not slavery itself, which was the 1833 law.
That's in the Vid dude
@@zarabada6125
Slavery (in actual and different forms) is still present in India, and many other places, mainly Islam which is riddled by slavery.
BTW: did you know you can buy a slave in Libya ?
Many will do that for organ harvesting (done by vivisection - anesthetic cost money )
the first law only forbade selling English people abroad actually.
Hi SoGal,
If you haven't already done so, it might be worth you researching the Barbary slave trade in which North Africans sailed around the Mediterranean and up the Atlantic coastline, attacking and raiding small towns and villages capturing people to sell into slavery, along the coasts including England, Ireland, and once even got as far north as Iceland. They'd been doing this for centuries before the western nations finally managed to put a stop to it.
@@sim5361 The Turks and the North Africans took about the same number of white slaves over a period of three centuries but other whites didn't hand them over like African tribes did.
Thomas Jefferson versus the muslim pirates. Chapter 3 of Christopher Hitchens' "Arguably" It's on UA-cam somewhere. Not sure if SoGal allows links.
The Barbary slavers even raided Iceland I believe.
You didn’t see it to the end where he is talking about the ongoing cost………As English this is the first time I have heard about this crusade of the Navy. I had heard of the court cases of the 18th century. As for this being a part of the Domesday Book and William the Conqueror. This is very new……We are having a lot of Empire bashing at the moment. It is so good to hear this….I must find out more
Thomas Sowell. The real history of slavery. There's even an audio book on here of it.
Quite amazing.
20,000+ Royal Navy personnel died conducting their patrols for slave ships too.
@@aardvaark11 Yes everyone seems to ignore the cost in human lives. Politics are more important.
This is kind of mind boggling to me that I've been a fan of Sargon since before this video came out, and now so many people are finally finding this video and learning about all this.
Keep in mind that the 19th century Royal Navy was THE most powerful navy in world history. It was set up and designed to be able to defeat not only one but the next two biggest powers simultaneously. At its peak, the West Africa Squadron was actually the second strongest navy in the world, after the RN itself.
"At its peak, the West Africa Squadron was actually the second strongest navy in the world, after the RN itself" but.....it is the RN, how can it be after the RN?
@@billnoel it can be if you count it like that.
West African squadron is the RN
@@martyngray48 deja vu...
@@tSp289 oh missed this.
Yeah it still doesn’t make sense. That’s like saying the Scotland regiment is the second biggest army after UK army. No there one and the same regardless how you count it.
What your saying was completely arbitrary.
The British tax payer was still paying for this until 2015.
Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation in 1862 ,well into the civil war. One of the reasons may have been to ensure Britain would not enter the war. The principal of slavery trumped the cotton trade. Britain would not enter a war on the side of slave owners.
The South thought the cotton trade was essential to world commerce and especially to British manufacturers. they used it as a point of propaganda that the British elite and the cotton merchants would cause the British empire to join with their cause.
The British empires merchants couldn't give a plugged nickle for the southern cotton trade, they were making too much money selling guns, cannons and ammunition to the North although a minority did sell to the south. Even the southern sympathetic cotton trade quickly switched suppliers to Egypt and India.
@@voiceofraisin3778 The lack of American cotton caused a depression in the North of England. British merchants and industrialist lost big time. North English workers became destitute. The British textile industry did find alternative supplies from India and Egypt but this took time. Meanwhile the economic damage to the North of England was massive.
@@alvanrigby6361 And the people of England, including the north, hated slavery so much that this was a price they were happy to pay.
I've always found the DS9 quote "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" to be particularly applicable when looking at morality and standards throughout history
nice trip through the wormhole - thx for that 🫶🏻
Just a point I'd like to make the US has been doing the whole do what we say or get destroyed since the end of world war 2. The difference is the British were trying to protect people. The US does it for Oil. There's the difference. Also the 1833 law outlawed slavery in the entire British Empire. That's the difference
Explain the treatment and subjegation of the the Irish ,Indians etc
Lolol you sound like Britain was an "empire of good" and the US are just greedy, google opium wars, see how Britain wants to protect others. They just wanted money, and used their military power to get that. Looks like British didn't like slave trade, but being a world drugs dealer is ok.
@@helderferreira4461 Britain spent 40% of its national budget in the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. It was extremely costly and this debt wasnt paid off until 2014, 200 years later... So if you think Britain did this for money, think again.
Kindly educate yourself.
Source from UK Govt. Freedom of information request (copy and paste the whole link): assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/680456/FOI2018-00186__-Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833-__pdf_for_disclosure_log__003_.pdf
@@lordbossharrow didn't said that, in the slavery subject Britain was doint the correct thing. I just point that just like the USA today with oil, Britain also did some imperial stuff, the UK didn't do only good deeds, the opium wars against China, and others places, Africa, India, etc, just have to look other centuries for stuff that Britain was envolved, or for 1950s Egipt, Iran, some places that come to my mind
@@helderferreira4461 East India Trading Company, 😵😵😵
I'm always amazed by the way all of history seems to be counted as "Ancient" and not modern by Americans. 1086 is pretty modern history. A couple of miles down the road from me the "Venta Icenorum" Roman Town ruins are, laid down in about the year 200. But even Romans lived in towns, had politics, methods of transport, high streets and really weren't than different to us....
I love near Colchester. Britains oldest recorded town and original capital.
@@Trebor74 I swear they pretend the natives never existed. Its literally the vast majority of American history.
1086 is significantly closer to ancient history (which, by most definitions, ended around 500 AD, usually with the "fall" of the Western Roman Empire in 476), than it is to us. Modern history on the other hand is usually defined as beginning with the Enlightenment or even with the Industrial Revolution. So 1086 is either smack in the middle of the no man's land therebetween or even closer to Ancient history than Modern history. Then again, Ancient history contains a vast timespan, so 1086 is nowhere near the middle of Ancient history, whereas it's just roughly 700-900 years from the middle of Modern history (based on prior definitions).
Americans, regardless of when they got there, have adopted a new culture and with it a new sense of history. Then again, most of them don't know how the Revolutionary war was won, or what European documents and philosophers influenced their Bill of Rights and Constitution. I suppose in a way it makes sense for them to keep such knowledge obscured as it creates a sense of mystery that most other nations have around their formation, and they can focus on getting 20th century history wrong instead. 😉
Me and the wife walk this place quite often, the area around caistor St Edmund has plenty of History around it, especially the Saxon Gravesite that overlooks the old Town,
Remember a quote explaining the difference between the UK and USA;
In the UK they think 200 miles is a long journey, in the USA they think 200 years is a long time
An important point to remember is that fighting for the abolition of slavery cost Britain such an astronomical amount of money that the debt for this was not finally paid off until around 2014.
fighting for the abolition of slavery was covered in the normal expenditure it was the the compensation paid to the British slave owners when it become illegal that cost so much.
for reference the UK also paid compensation to handgun owners when handguns were outlawed in recent history
@@graveperil2169 not just britain we also paid off the european countries to stop trading in slaves like spain, portugal and the netherlands. You seem to have forgotten that.
@@captvimes we also paid the US $1,204,960 after the 1812 war when we refused to return their slaves to them that escaped to Canada and become free
When you say "we" ended slavery and they ask what you did,you can tell them we paid for it.....
@@Trebor74 I did help pay for it :)
It's important for a nation to be taught about the bad parts of their history, but I did think it's also important to be taught about the good parts.
We have an issue with pride in Britain, and I believe it's largely because we're constantly being taught and told we should be ashamed of our history, by both our own education and media from other countries, something Hollywood certainly doesn't help with by constantly making Britain out to be the bad guys. It's sad when there's so much to be proud of.
You can't really profit from a slave trade to power and empire that colonised other peoples, which wasn't abolished, and then say you take pride in the fact you paid your own wealthy elite back for their losses in a highly competitive trade. It's not as simple as firing back with your own emotionalism to deal with the cognitive dissonance of an amoral past.
@@dropit7694 The first part of your comment is hard to understand, but empires used slaves for centuries with plenty of success. Don't forget it wasn't even considered Amoral for the majority of history. As pointed out in the video, Britain was changing the norm when they ended it across their kingdom.
You turned it into a bit of a strawman at the end, as I never said that, But yes, they bought the freedom of all slaves in the kingdom which involved paying the slave owners. Unfortunately life isn't as simple as just telling people to stop doing something that for centuries was perfectly legal and not even seen as immoral. They had to follow legal process for the freedom of slaves that up until that point where legally purchased and owned or risk civil war and the undoing of all progress being made.
You can't just remove context to suit your agenda. This is why it's important that things are taught fairly and objectively, both the good and the bad, to prevent such misinformation being used.
@@MrEsphoenix Britain participated in the slavetrade for more than 300 years
Britain has an apalng histry with rspect to saavery
@@larrybuchannan186 All nations did, and all nations do. Thank god Britain ended it.
The Somersett case was one of the key turning points in the lead-up to the American revolution. His owner, Charles Stewart, had been the chief customs officer of Boston, Massachusetts, so the news of the case was widely reported in the colonies. This galvanized the slave-owners to call for independence, to sever ties with Britain before the Abolitionist movement mounted legal challenges which would have affected the colonial economy: there is a reason that two thirds of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were slave-owners.
That is the benefit of having the biggest baddest navy. What we said went when it came to the high seas. A great film to watch is Amistrad. 1833 was Empire wide
amistrad, I didn’t realise Alan Sugar’s company was that old!
@@rickb.4168 Amstrad😄
Brave choice of historical commentary lass, I applaud you! I have some thoughts for you;
1:10 Slaves have not been legal on British soil since the Norman conquest. Indentured servititude was though, which is arguably not dissimilar. In British colonies, however, there was no legislation that prevented it, so it happened up until the Abolition Acts (1807 and 1833). EDIT: You got this from the video at 19:00 onwards haha.
6:10 Correct. It's an inconvenient truth for these Black-Armband "historians" that Africans sold their own into slavery.
7:30 It's fundamentally wrong to view history through the lens of Modern mores. It is an inherent bias that prevents you from ever being able to understand historical events.
10:50 I know you need to be careful on UA-cam (Mama Susan is always watching) but don't apologise for objective historical commentary. See my point above haha.
23:25 British MERCHANTS were involved with it. There was no formal legislation outlawing the trade until 1807, but slaves most certainly were not allowed to be kept on British soil.
24:02 I think the video host's position that it was most likely to raise money for William's heavily depleted coffers is closer to the truth here. From such pragmatic motives and origins, however, can virtues arise. Law has a history of becoming fashionable.
27:30 It's worth mentioning that although the moral imperative was present in the British enforcement of the 1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade act, there would undoubtedly have been an economic aspect at work here aimed at French Merchants (and anyone else who might challenge Britain). Also worth understanding that in the first decade of the 1800s, the British Empire wasn't even as big as it had been after the Seven Years' War half a century earlier, which makes this enforcement all the more impressive.
28:15 The law of William the Conqueror was well and truly out of date (it was 800 years earlier) and muddled by almost a millenia of subsequent legislation and practice. England had also evolved from a Norman Duchy to a United Kingdom and Empire, so the scope of William's Law needed to be expanded upon. Finally, the Somersett case and the 1807 Act didn't explicitly ban the owning of slaves outside Britain.
31:22 The ignorance of people to history is why we are doomed to repeat it. In particular the BLM crowd and those attempting to make those of the Anglosphere feel constant "White Guilt" for our historical role and influence on the world should feel ashamed of their dishonesty.
33:19 Hear hear! Well said, that man.
35:09 A lot has been left out of this video. He didn't go into the British paying an approximate total of £20 million in compensation to slave owners to discourage and end the use of slaves. If you want to examine the issue of British and US diplomacy surrounding slaves, that's a topic in its own right and delves into a whole heap of other issues including International Freedom of Navigation, International Flag Signals, the extent of US sovereignty etc etc. Suffice to say it took a long time before the British and the US came to an agreement on slaves but there was constant communication on this issue (with a brief disruption 1812-1814) and your first official diplomatic victory is the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 which, among a whole heap of other issues between the British Empire and the US, calls for the end of the Slave Trade. There is no doubt, however, that no nation on Earth did as much as Great Britain to end the trade of slaves at a time when it was considered the norm and hugely profitable.
Some notes on this, because there are some common misconceptions.
1:10 - Slavery HAS and was legal in England itself way into the 18th century. London had thousands of house-slaves, at one point having the highest population of slaves of any city in Europe. The misconception many people (including Sargon who references a church decree which had no binding legal power) is that slavery was illegal in England itself. It wasn't - It was simply never made legal. If something isn't made illegal, it's legal by effect, and that was certainly the case in England. The issue was not ruled upon, so owning slaves was permitted de facto, and it shows, there's a lot of history regarding slavery in London and other major port cities. The Yorke-Talbot ruling officially stated that slavery of Africans was lawful in England in 1729. This ruling was disputed by some judges, importantly Lord Henley who's known for his "as soon as a man steps on english soil, he is free" quote, but importantly laws were never passed which made slavery functionally illegal. This remained the case up until abolitionism in the 1800s. There were court cases as late as 1772 that made it illegal to transport a slave from England without their will, but nothing forbade owning a slave in England itself.This misconception is dangerous in my opinion, it specifically disregards the tens of thousands of slaves who lived in England as non-existant.
There are many great sources on the matter, a simple search of any well documented museum will have something regarding this (Liverpool museum has some excellent pages on English slavery)
@@calum5975 Sorry mate, but I have to disagree with you and it has a lot to do with the complicated, evolutionary, devolved nature of English/British law and historical circumstances. Suffice to say that your contention that the absence of a law makes it inherently legal is nonsense (as it is based on the becoming-more-common Americanised version of law which is that the Letter of the Law is the final say of what is right and wrong) and that for every example of a court ruling in England which seems to allow slavery, I can show you one that disallows it (the 1701 Holt Ruling, for instance). I acknowledged in my answer that while slavery has not been legal or perhaps more accurately to the way Common Law worked in those days, "morally/justifiably allowable", Indentured Servitude was long a thing in Great Britain and is not dissimilar to slavery in some ways. And of course there were always people who simply ignored the authorities, the primitive policing system of the day and simply did as they pleased, which is not the same as saying it is legal. That's just my interpretation of the history and the facts my lad! You don't need to agree and I appreciate the discussion.
@Jo SM Wow, amazing understanding of the nuance of common law.
It's almost as if the whole debate in the first place regarding abolitionism was whether or not under common law slavery was a natural state of being, which if so would make it legal by proxy of not being illegal. It's no different than you walking in town being legal, there's no law which says you can, but it's legal because there is no law which says you can't, and right to passage is a natural law under common law. (This is a horrible analogy but I cannot think of anything remotely equivelant so, just disregard all of that). Slavery was considered natural too. Those court cases like Summerset, Gold and opinions like Yorke-Talbot are all about this. The argument that slavery was not a natural under common law won out eventually, yes, but for hundreds of years one could own another person under common law as an innate right under it.
You're only saying 'slavery is illegal unless made legal' because you're living under a legal system that has now determined slavery is not a natural state of law. That wasn't the case until the abolitionists won in the 1800s. Kidnapping didn't apply to slaves because they weren't people but property.
@@tobiusgregory2805 Indeed, I worded that original comment poorly. The issue comes down to the lack of any defined judgement by British parliament and the legal system until abolitionism finally succeeded in 1833. Before that many judges ruled in favour of slavery in England on the basis of slavery being a natural state of existence under common law. The confusion caused by this allowed slavery to exist, in a legally grey area, but exist nonetheless. There is no debating the fact that slaves lived and worked in England throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, theres simply far too much evidence to confirm that they did. (Not a huge amount compared to the colonies, but their existence disproves the notion that slavery was never an institution within England itself)
Even if it was later deemed illegal all along as common law forbade any one man owning another, this wasn't the consensus for hundreds of years. The constant back and forth between judges made enforcement effectively impossible either way, apart from a few very high profile court cases where the slave won freedom, the fact they had to take it to court and struggle against the system just shows that the system was by default willing to accept their status as slaves - they had to actively get their status overturned. Even if we can settle and say that technically slavery was forbidden all along, that doesn't change the fact that the authorities let slaves be owned within England, and there were slaves. If the law says slavery is illegal but no one followed this law and still imported and owned slaves, the law's not much of a law.
I have no trouble in admitting that many judges ruled the other way, and there were many high profile cases stating that slavery had no place in Britain and was morally unjust and incompatible with english common law, but these never answered the question fully. Sure, they built up the abolitionist cause and ultimately led to slavery being outright banned in the Act of 1833, but the fact there was a struggle to achieve this, that so many judges had the need to rule against slavery merely points to the fact that for a long time in England, this wasn't the legal consensus.
Arguing that slavery has been outlawed in England since the Norman era is therefore disingenuous and stretching the meaning of the law a little. It existed as an institution, slaves were kept in England, even if the law was sceptical and unsure on this. It was unenforced in many cases, and the few times slaves were freed were through court cases going against the perceived legal norm of the time. Slavery had no legal basis, except it did, except it didn't - that's the problem with all this. The country couldn't decide for a few centuries, and by the time it did slavery had already been operating throughout England.
Anyhow, I thank you for the civil response. Not everyone is so willing to share that basic act of humanity.
@Jo SM Slavery by definition is an institution of law, because without a laws stating that one can own another, in is merely captivity.
Lanfranc was William the Conqueror's teacher and mentor, back in Normandy. He was against slavery and got William to start the process of outlawing slavery. William made Lanfranc ( a priest ) the first norman archbishop of canterbury. He also taught his successor as archbishop of canterbury, Anselm who outlawed slavery completely in 1102. Both Lanfranc and Anselm were Italian.
I've been watching many reactions and yours is the only one that expresses my unease, Brit btw.
Don't know if it's already been said, but to clarify, the 1807 Act abolished the slave trade between Africa and the British Empire, so after 1807 no more Africans could be transported to the Americas, but the slaves already in the Empire remained slaves until the 1833 Act which abolished slavery itself, freeing the slaves in the Empire.
And although officially freed in 1834, when the Act actually passed, slaves still had to work another 4 years for their ‘masters’, to give them time to adjust.
@@jchatoyer Yeah, there's no sugar coating that, that was just fricked up.
@@jchatoyer yes that’s right, but of course even today you can’t get everyone to stick to the law, but at least that was a start, and it started in Britain.
Its worth clarifying that 1833 was only for the colonies whereas the earlier 1102 was only for england itself. It's the same for many other European countries. Slavery was often abolished first in the home nation before being extended to colonies years if not centuries later. One thing he was wrong about is the uk was hardly the only country abolishing slavery I'm the 12th century. Scandinavia also abolished it then.
Your 100% correct you can't judge the past by today's standards.
Unless you are a 16 year old with no sense of history.
A mistake made by so many today, the barbarism of the past should be learned and fully understood to prevent its recurrence not deleted from history in frenzied metaphorical book burning which seems to be the fashion these days.
@@paulround8501 yes and it's a mistake most frequently adopted by this interested in revolution over reform, if history never makes the grade then there is no progress without revolution.
@@timothymartin5538 It is the mindset of the left who always seem to want to run away from problems rather than actually fixing them.
@Jo SM And now thanks to this generation that progress has been knocked back several hundred years.
Just came across your work. Well done, I hope you are still doing it. I particularly like your approach.
Brittan had what was called a 2 power navy meaning that it was big enough to beat the next 2 biggest navy's combined
What he means by that is the English word for slave came from that reference. Obviously every culture had slaves since the beginning of human history and have their own words for them. It's merely pointing out that the modern English word came around for this reason that so many were taken that it just became a byword for someone who gets displaced from their lands to work under someone as their property. Much like the word vandalism which roots back to the Germanic Vandal tribes who looted and pillaged Rome and caused destruction of many of their arts after which such acts were seemed as acting 'like the Vandals' or 'Vandalism'
But yeah totally agree with your thoughts mate
Quite so, Rafid. "Sclavus" replaced "servus" as the Latin word for a servant/slave in the 6th/7th century (and similarly in Greek as well), precisely because of the sheer numbers of Slavonic peoples traded at the time.
I think he's also trying to point out that to associate the word "slave" with having non-white skin, as so many people do, is to adopt a very limited view of history. Taking history as a whole, slavery has been, very much, an "equal opportunity" situation.
@@sirderam1 yep. like he says in the video singling out one group just to make another group feel guilty with themselves
It’s an uncomfortable subject and I’m not proud of our history in the slave trade during the empire. But I am proud that we banned it, took out a massive loan than we only stopped paying back in 2016 and used the Royal Navy to actively stop other countries’ slave ships.
I saw a video about an island off the coast of Georgia that the Carnegies once owned, before they had it, the island was a cotton plantation with 100’s of slaves. During the war of 1812 the Royal Navy landed on the island and freed the slaves and took them back with them and dropped them off free in the Caribbean
I doubt that you could find one single country on the planet that could honestly say that they were proud of their entire history, the pride should be taken from the lessons that they learned and the actions that were taken after they realised how bad the bad bits were.
@@darrenreslis594 How good or bad our country’s morals and behaviour were, may only be seen through the lens of the principles we have now.
@@darrenreslis594 or just stop it with the pride thing altogether… all the people involved in this are long dead: heroes and villains, British and non-British, slavers and slaves. Why should any of us feel pride or shame at all for any of their actions? None of us took part.
I definitely agree that we should study and learn from history, but why should we link ourselves emotionally to the actions of these people we never knew?
@@phueal because we are proud of our ancestors.
@@Colonel_Blimp why?
We took my 9yr. old Granddaughter to the William Wiberforce Museum in Hull. The visit turned out to be very important for her. She was shocked to learn how slaves were transported and sold. However, what surprised us most was her reaction to the room which dealt with modern slavery - human trafficking. She was horrified and really distressed to think that this is happening today. For her, the slave trade had been something back in history and had been stopped. In this section of the Museum she learned that it is still happening today and was very wrong. Although the experience for her was upsetting, I'm glad we took her there, because she began to realise the importance of respecting the lives of other human beings. She is now a Doctor and her compassion and respect for others is humbling. I like to think that the visit to that Museum helped to built that respect into her character, because she remembers that visit to this day.
We stand accused of "not knowing your own history", yet I vividly remember at the age of 12 learning about the Atlantic Trade Triangle, in Geography. That engraving of slaves packed onto the decks of a ship was in one of the books we studied from. The context of it was as an instruction manual for captains to pack the slaves in in the most efficient fashion. Pack too many in, and you lose many more on the crossing.
@SoGal at 19:25 I think you are getting a little confused, in that you are assuming that the slaves in 1066 are African slaves, outlawed by William the Conqueror, the narrator is referring to Anglo Saxon slavery
Sadly, it is one of the many misconceptions surrounding this topic; that all slaves throughout history were black and came from Africa.
2015 was the year we finally finished paying the bill for ending the slave trade. The US made it more difficult to end the trade by providing clipper ships to the slavers which were faster than Royal Navy ships also we weren’t best of friends at the time.
"It seems to me like Britain like just kinda like applied that law to the rest of the world and just expected everybody to go along with it.."
Yes, actually. That's exactly right - because they COULD.
Just like the USA does in the modern day, because at the time (up until WW2) they were THE world power. At one stage they owned 1/4 of all land on the entire Earth. That's how truly powerful the British Empire was. It took 2 back to back world wars - the largest and most destructive conflicts in all of history - right on their doorstep, to deplete them enough to knock them out of the top spot for the USA, who's homeland was untouched by war because of geographical location.
For reference; the USA didn't even enter either of these wars until at least 2 years later than the other nations (WW1 officially started on June 28, 1914 with Austria-Hungary invading Serbia, after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand a month earlier - but the US entered the war on April 2, 1917.. and WW2 started 1 September 1939, when Nazi Germany, under Adolf Hitler, invaded Poland. While the USA only formerly entered WW2 after December 7, 1941 because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.) This is like joining in a football game at half time after everyone else is exhausted... And Americans claim to have solely "won the war". No British might along with all the other allied nations like france, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, rest of Europe, South East Asia and China ground both Germany and Japan to a halt. USA was the fresh manpower push to break the stalemate.
Trust me, I'm not even British and even I know that if it weren't for WW1 and 2 Britain would probably still be the dominant economic and military power centre of the entire civilised world.
And we’re still grateful to the allies and the rest of the empire for fighting by our side. Remembrance Sunday is a day to recognise all the people who fought and lost their lives regardless of where they came from.
@@pokeyswan5563 I know theres alot of americans that know that, but it really is a large chunk of US citizens are taught or told that US won the world wars, with little to no mention of the fact that they came in late or that the allies did 90% of the fighting in Europe. It's reinforced by movies and media of the west being predominantly American and thus biased to their story. Only recently have more of the allies been making higher quality films about it in their nations film industries.
@@GarlicAvenger I watched Das Boot as a teen and it gives you a different perspective. The Germans were just people too. No great monster for the most part. I strongly recommend watching it.
I really like your balanced and questioning approach in all of your videos. When you don't know the full background, you ask for explanation and clarification. You clearly have an open/learning mind and forego pre-conceptions to get to the reality/truth. Respect 👏👍
thank you SoGal from a fan of yours from Wales.
Slavery has always existed.
Slavery in the new world is a bit unique as Christian Europe had abolished slavery but when buying african slaves was so cheap and government control in the colonies poor Slavery reemerged.
We actually had a huge boycott of slave-produced items from the US. Many Brits refused to buy cotton that was produced using slave labour. Some slaves from the US escaped to Britain and began lives of freedom.
Re. Britain's attitude during the Civil War - esp. with regards to the cotton trade. Confederate agesnt and diplomats tried very hard, and repeatedly, to persuade the British government to back them - and failed. The reason? The Prime Minister of the time certainly felt sympathetic to the South, BUT he knew damn well that if he came out in favour - even if only with words - he would stir up a hornet's nest of opposition in Britain.
When the Confederacy imposed a ban on exports of cotton to England, thinking that cotton mill workers would force the government's hand, it backfired spectacularly. The mill workers held rallies in Lancashire, but NOT to demand that the government give way to Jeff Davis. On the contrary; despite the fact that thousands of them had been thrown out of work and were desperate for money, they declared they would no longer touch cotton that had been picked by slaves!
Certainly, British owned and crewed ships continued to carry slaves after the prohibition - just as modern smugglers still ship prohibited drugs around the world - but British slave traders were treated the same as any other slavers by the Royal Navy.
Finally, I grant you that the slave trade from Africa to the Middle East continues, but we no longer have the money or the manpower to stop it - and neither the African nations concerned NOR the Middle Eastern nations from which the Arab slave traders come are taking ANY effective action to stop it.
Come to that; when people of colour are abusing we English for our involvement with the slave trade, and DEMANDING reparations, do you ever hear ANY ethnic African or Arab breathe a word of apology for their nations' past OR PRESENT involvement in the slave trade?
No chance.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!!!!
The distinction between the earlier and later laws is in that they early ones abolished the trade, the later ones abolished the institution
Hi from Sunny Scotland, enjoy your videos, regarding slavery, it still goes on today but is called human trafficking with people being offered jobs and ending up locked into prostitution, the Salvation Army in the UK is working with authorities to try and rescue those trapped in this modern form of slavery.
In answer to one of your questions - the court case of 1772 set a legal precedent, making slavery illegal in the England; the Act of 1807 made the slave trade illegal for any British subject; the Act of 1833 made even the possession of slaves illegal in the whole of the British Empire.
HTH
No need to subtly justify anything. It is what it is. What is truly the best message. Is that when Britain had the power to do whatever it wanted(except reclaim the expenses in tax that it spent establishing colonies in America). It chose to put abolishing slavery at the forefront of how it wielded it. Bravo!
I notice that many US citizens aren't quite sure how places and systems existed for their forefathers to thrive. Security and rule of law established in a massive wild colony. Which had to be protected from other nations with the blood and money of the English. I think the English were kinda peeved a place that wouldn't exist without the blood and money of its citizens was forced to fight to protect the interests of hundreds of thousands of English citizens in the new world who knew exactly where their tax representation was. I'm fine with being wrong.
Can I just say I am so glad you got that love of money quote right...
Great Britain compensated every slave owner in the British Empire by buying the freedom of every slave
At a cost of £20M back then
That's about £1.25 billion today
We also did this and remember people were poor then in the uk.Lancashire mill workers, at great personal sacrifice, took a principled stand by refusing to touch raw cotton picked by US slaves
I was in the Royal Navy and one of the first things you learn when you join is the history of the Navy in defeating slavery. Therefore it was with great sorrow in recent years that I heard a journalist issue the words that Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square should be torn down.
Afua Hirsch, a journalist for Sky News, said it is time to 'look at our own landscape' following a number of campaigns to remove similar statues in the US. She said that Nelson's Column should be torn down because the 18th Century naval hero was a 'white supremacist', even though there were black sailors in Nelson's fleet as free men - and this is celebrated on the base of the column, showing the sailors who fought alongside Nelson at Trafalgar. Nelson is regarded as the greatest hero of the Royal Navy. An ordinary man with extraordinary qualities and loved by all sailors who know of his deeds. So it was extremely hurtful for a journalist to call him a white supremacist.
No Organisation has given more in blood, sweat and tears to end slavery than the Royal Navy. That's why so many blacks joined the Royal Navy as free men - because they knew that they would not only be treated and paid as equals - but because they would be freeing other black people as well.
that women is a dyed in the wool racist. she should count herself lucky she gets away with saying what she likes about Britain and our past. lucky for Afua. she lives in a democratic country. and makes a damn good living in it while she rants about how bad it is. hypocrite.
When they talk about 'they' continued with the slave trade, they are talking about private companies who, as they do today, move the slavery offshore to countries that still allow it such as China, Africa and the Middle East.
The key thing with the 1833 was the abolition of slavery as an instutition, emancipation of existing slaves and the slave trade not just on UK soil as had been the case, but across the British Empire (except for specific carve outs for the East India Company).
I have a copy of this on hard drive to show my daughter.
British schools teach that this period was a shameful example of the rapacious nature of the British empire.
I want her to take pride in the fact that although all humanity participated in slavery she is directly descended from those men and women who ended it.
Not for gain or power but simply because it was evil.
You're right - it's important to educate the next generation about the past, including both the positive and negative aspects, so that they can understand and take pride in their heritage while also acknowledging and learning from the mistakes.
The 1807 law abolished the trading of slaves, there wasn't at that time an abolishment of slavery itself. The 1833 law abolished slavery all together in all British Colonies, the same as it was in the homeland.
SoGal reminds me of Jodie Foster. ❤️. Thanks for your reactions.
Good one, liked, Glad you better. stay safe.
Hi SoGal, nice to meet you. I wanted to comment not to answer your questions, plenty of fine and thoughtful comments below have already done that and more, but rather to just say kudos to you for your quest for knowledge, enlightenment, and perhaps most importantly understanding. Best of wishes to you on your quest, I look forward to hearing about your journey.
I might have missed any reference to William Wilberforce, 1759 - 1833 , a British politician, who led the movement to abolish the slave trade. Your video was really interesting ; I have known from various sources, literature, documentary etc that slave trade had always existed throughout the world, but the video has filled a lot of gaps in my knowledge. Once again your perceptive contributions contributed to the narrative. Thanks again.
The word "slave" originates from the ,9th century. The Romans used the word "servi" which I think is the derivation of servant.
and the word serf
The origin of the concept of slavery is as old as history. But the origin of the word comes from a different origin. The most simple explanation is simple, different languages had their own word and phrases for the concept of slavery. It doesn't matter what word or phrase was used in what language, slavery is slavery. Different cultures of course had their own traditions, but it is not something I would line up to do in any culture.
As someone who's ancestors served in the West African squadron I'm very happy to see you stumble across this part of our history. I do think the video really missed the effect of the magna carta in the way the British people picked up the cause of abolishing slavery. I think it was this principle ingrained in people that made, what was normal to everyone else at the time, so offensive to the British ideals.
Yeah because the British Empire was a force for good? Every Empire in history was ruthless and done horrible things to invade and conquer and steal
I'm from Lancashire in England which was the heart of the cotton industry, somewhere on utube there is information about the Lancashire cotton workers refusing to work on cotton from America.
Yes that's correct. Also the law against slavery had to be strengthened because at the time of William the conquerer the country was ruled entirely by the monarchy. Later Parliament governed the uk.
No matter what anyone says, about the author or the video itself, always make sure you do your own research. I'm sure you shall.
Not to mention, even if the slanders about him were true, that wouldn't discredit the video
@@permets2apollox453 that's it he has done the research its out there for anyone to find if they think he's biased he hasn't made all this up yes British people where involved in the slave trade as where French Spanish Portuguese African later Americans but when the right people got in to a position of some power Britain forced the rest to follow suit and end slavery.
@@permets2apollox453 How can 'slander' be true ?
@@EaterOfBaconSandwiches What did he say about Britain's part in the abolition of the slave trade that wasn't true ?
@@jeremyhowes2399 I guess if they turned out to be true they wouldn’t be slander. I’ve followed his channels for years now and he’s not a racist from what I’ve seen.
I recommend 'Sweet Water and Bitter: The Ships that Stopped the Slave Trade' by Sian Rees for a proper historical analysis.
Can't be worse than Sargon of Akkad.
Not mentioned was in the early days of the transatlantic trade; the difference between 'British' government sanctioned behaviour and the behaviour of private companies & entrepreneurs taking advantage of the trade outside of Britain and her laws, like a modern day tax loophole, they would have opperated with a fairly autonomous ability until compelled by the Navy. Also didn't mention the Islamic trade from North Africa & the rest of the Ottoman Empire in taking European slaves (Barbary slave trade). At one point the early US gov was spending 20% of it's annual budget paying bribes and tributes to North African states to ward off attacks on its merchant ships. Loosing ships + passengers and crews to the rowing decks Ottoman Galleys, as slaves, pretty much inspired the formation of the US Navy.
Some of your confusion and the contradictions you say you don't understand, is that you need to separate the British Government and hence its vast majority of people's involvement in slavery that was to fight against it, and the actions of a few British business men who indulged in the slave trade for their own benefit outside of the UK. These people were not acting on behalf of the government so the slave trading they did was not The British slave trade but private enterprise not condoned by the rest of the British people who acted to stop it. Hope that helps.
To be added this was a moral campaign, that cost this country, financially, dearly. The debt for it was only paid off in recent years, about 10 years ago.
The compensation went to to the owners, not the slaves at the bottom of the pile. So they did rather better than the American slave owners who bore the losses in the 1860s. Where the owners and the govt overlapped, they paid themselves very well.
@@andrewclayton4181 - If the UK had not agreed to that the law would not have got passed in Parliament and slavery would not have been ended when it was. I guess the people of the day felt it was a price worth paying to get the practice outlawed.
@@andrewclayton4181 _"The compensation went to to the owners, not the slaves at the bottom of the pile. "_ - The problem with that line of thinking - and it's certainly something many many people repeat - is that it ignores that the compensation freed the slaves. It was like a ransom being paid. The UK taxpayer gave money to traders to switch what they were trading in. The money also went to compensating foreign nations for raided ships and freed slaves, and to encourage them to stop the practice. This continued well into the African colonial period. It also paid for the fleet mentioned in the video which raided slave ports and ships to free slaves. So the implication is that the money went to the wrong people is simply a modern way of deflecting from the truth, which is this: The UK taxpayer got saddled with a 200 year debt for ending most of the global slave trade when nobody else paid to end it, and most of the nations forced into ending it at British cost wanted it to continue. Yet not in Africa, not in the Middle-East - but in Britain, streets are renamed and statues are toppled. The saying "No good deed goes unpunished" springs to mind.
@@TheNightBadger I’m fairly sure that freedom itself is compensation enough for the people that actually suffered slavery. I’d like to see how those claiming otherwise would explain to an enslaved person “we could free you but I object to buying your freedom from your owner and would rather leave you in chains until we can free you another way”
Slaves were with us from ancient times but many of those slaves came from Slavic countries. The Romans for example had huge numbers of Slavic trades. Hence the name of slaves in recent times. Prior to the Romans there were slaves, you only need to look at the Old Testament to see this but they were known as bondsmen/ bondswomen or similar terms.
The English word 'serf(s)' means slave.
The point being made by the video is that Britain was the first nation to outlaw slavery on their own soil. Britain could not force other nations to do the same at the time because we lacked the power or authority to do so.
Britain did profit from the North Atlantic Slave Trade in the transportation of slaves from Africa to the West Indies and the Americas. In the settlement of the War of the Spanish Succession, Spain gave up her rights to the slave trade to Britain. The slave trade continued until the 19th century when the British people decided that it was inhuman for other nations to continue the trade. After the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812, Britain was finally in a position to end slavery through the Pax Britannica. Britain's navy ruled the waves and no slave ship could continue to operate where our ships sailed.
To summarize, Britain was the first nation to outlaw slaves within their own borders and then they used their power of Empire to end the slave trade. We could not end slavery in individual nations which is why the United States had to reach their own conclusion in a bloody civil war, but the ideals of anti-slavery were inherited by the Americans through their Anglo-Saxon heritage.
Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1807 and was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833. Our relationship with the American colonies ended with the war of Independence when the American colonies refused to comply with British pressure to end slavery throughout the Empire.
The Stadiums for the next world cup in Bahrain are being built with Slave Labour,many have died in the process!
"slave" might be a later word coming from Eastern Europe ("Slav"). "vassal", "serf", ... were from the middle ages or earlier.
You’re right to point out as Carl did. That slavery still exists today, but whose job is it to stop it now? Britain and America do trade today with countries that still have slavery. Britain did trade with the newly established untied states in which slavery was still legally practiced. However they were not transatlantic slaves as Britain would have seized the ships and freed the slaves. The untitled states slaves were born to slaves in the United States. When American dignitaries visited Britain they often brought some slaves with them. However they were reminded that their slaves were free men and woman once they set foot on British soil. Were they to abscond. They would be free to do so without, capture or repercussions and this did occur on occasion.
William the Conqueror's ban on slavery was, in my view for a few key reasons. England at that time was Anglo-Saxon, and William was French nobleman, which means William becoming king comes with a whole host of challenges. His ban on slavery within England was not only to bolster the wealth of gold available to the Crown, but also served as a measure to weaken other nobles who used slavery themselves since England was using slaves likely from Wales, Ireland or Scotland. This ensured that William the Conqueror had more money to burn should civil war break out meaning he can outlast the other nobles who had to pay a fine for owning, using or trading any slaves within or out of England.
Fast forwarding to the trans-atlantic slave trade... since slavery was banned within England, no slaves were allowed within the English border, but that didn't apply to the British Empire that held territories throughout the world. The early ban on slavery, outlawed slavery from being expanded into any newly conquered territories, followed by the abolition of slavery in 1833 across the entirety of the British Empire. This was likely only possible since England, and the United Kingdom by extension, had no slaves for over 700 years. The practice of using slaves was abnormal and unusual to the British people, so when slaves started showing up in England it was a shock because there have never been slaves in England for generations and the idea of it was horrifying since it has not been normal for England for centires. Hence the idea of extending this ban across the world became popular because it was the act of enforcing British will upon the world. It was a power play to force other countries to bend to the will of the British Empire through the banning of slavery. The British Empire used their stance as the strongest naval power in the world to dominate Spain and Portugal who were quite powerful in their own right.
Thanks great video
I find it interesting that people are going back in history from a few years to hundreds of years and explore those making comments that were exceptable then but not now . That appears illogical because it is history and this generation has no connection other than living in the country. Some people are so obsessed with a particular political system or party that it becomes the catalist to their passion to demand that which is illogical. How many years and at what point should one draw a line ,and does that line indicate that whatever went before is not worthy of judgement. Should Italy and its Roman past pay for making Britons slaves? I see more division now than ever . I even see a very violent summer to come.One can not but think we get what we deserve.
One thing this report did not mention was that in the abolition of 1833, the British tax payer who compensated the slave owners for loss of 'their property' to the tune of £20 million pounds (2.1 Billion now) and only finished paying the debt in 2015, and by the way now one penny went to a slave for reperations.
The common use of the "Slave" ( Slav) in English comes from about 1300 AD , but was first mentioned in about 600 AD in Byzantium. Before that the Norse, Saxons etc used the word 'Theow' or "Thrall". The ancient Briton`s Brythonic word was "Caeth".
I think the controversy is arising because there were no slaves in Britain but there were quite a few British who owned plantations in America and the Indies which used slave labour and the profits were sent back to Britain
and also because the author of the video and his intentions behind it.
Greetings young lady I am original from Birmingham in England and we made guns for both sides in your civil war. Birmingham's historic gun trade
Some Brummies made a lot of money during the American Civil War - selling guns to the south not so much in the north.
Yep British einfields rifles were sold to the south... Pretty good guns i heard.
@@Manu-rb6eo Also some Whitworth rifles with hexagonal bullets, the most accurate rifle at that time. The Union also bought British rifles.
Also some warships…
@@phueal Yes but not from Birmingham. This ship was made in England for the South. ua-cam.com/video/HuHpcErKksQ/v-deo.html .
The narrator didnt mention that the United States Navy assisted the West Africa Squadron, starting in 1820 with USS Cyane, which the US had captured from the Royal Navy in 1815. Initially the US contribution consisted of a few ships, which comprised the Africa Squadron after the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842. It continued to participate with the West Africa Squadron until the outbreak of the US Civil War. The USN ships were recalled to blockade the southern ports.
The guiding principle of English common law is that all things are legal unless specifically outlawed so my understanding is that British merchants still believed the international trade to be legal. On a side note, whilst the church may have been opposed to slavery it was not opposed to taking the money of slave traders and the church still uses some of that money today. Edward Colston whose statue was pulled down by rioters in Bristol last year still has his tomb in a Bristol city centre church after donating considerable funds to that church for example. On a side note he also donated considerable funds to establish schools and hospitals for the poor in Bristol which is the reason why the statues removal is a polarising and controversial action.
To be fair to the US, the land mass of the country compared to the UK is huge and the labour supply was insufficient to say the least. And its arguably market economics that drove the resistance against the end of slavery in the US. The massive over supply of land made land very cheap whilst the considerable under supply of labour made hiring workers extremely expensive. If you were a farm labourer why would you continue working for a farmer when you could buy land cheaper than the rent for your home and work for your own betterment? Yet the imbalance was a recipe for business failure and this is a large part of the reason the end of slavery was resisted for so long. I'm not saying that argument is moral just that it perhaps helps to understand its context (source being history of the US sold on Amazon Audible)
I agree with the idea that "Presentism" (judging the past by the standards of the present) is a very unsuitable way to discuss history....
As is misrepresenting the past. The Romans only had chattel slavery for the last century of the republic and the first maybe 50 years of the empire, the 1/3rd number is the highest it ever was in the republic or empire, and roman slaves had right for an example the child of a roman slave was themselves not a slave, the killing of a slave was murder and the rape of a slave rape. Comparing this to new world chattel slavery is completely wrong. New world chattel slavery was way way worse than any other case of slavery in human history.
in the viking times we called them thralls "slaves" and most of them came from what we call the UK now ! =D
And this is why you can now speak English! :-)
@@ClodiusP did u know alt of words in English come from all other places then England
@@istrysii Yes. And my comment was meant as a joke.
@@ClodiusP The definition of English by a professor was, (A low German Dialect).
To deconstruct the original video:
1 - Slave etymologically comes from the word Slav, as in the Slavic peoples. That is the word, as used in English.
2 - William the Bastard/Conqueror was in it for cash, to finance his ongoing wars...
3 - traditionally Slaves were prisoners of war, or those captured/kidnapped... their trade was financial as "livestock". They were servants of a Master, be that labourers, maids, etc.
4 - some additional terms are serf, and indentured, which was where Europeans historically used a class/caste system to control... Serfs paid a tithe to the landowner (ie. rent) for protection and "judgement", they were bound to the land. Indenture was where a "man" owed money or service to the landlord... the Landowners came in various sizes, and the ownership was rarely contiguous. It was usually Baron Kilbride owned the Town of Kilwinning and the associated farmland for about 2 mile around it, but the City of Inverneill was the Duke of Inverneill's, and the majority of Forests were the King's. So as part of many aristocratic marriage dowries there would be land exchanges, usually between three parties; the Groom, the Bride's Family (Father, Brother, Guardian), and the Bride. (The Bride got tithes of a village for her personal wealth, her previous possessions going to the Husband).
5 - Indenture was a work around for British Slavery, convicted criminals were "sold" to landowners to work off their sentence, rather than imprisonment, this includes transportation to the colonies, such as Australia. Once freed from conviction, they were able to leave and continue life, but still on the other side of the country, or world.
The United States of America still uses a form of Indentured Slavery to this day, in the prison labour and manufacturing system. The prisoner may be paid a wage to work, but there's no free will or liberty, all to keep costs competitive.
The difference between William the Conqueror and the early Normans and 1833 was that the British Empire was organised as a confederation, with the various parts of the Empire with their own laws (the way that states can have different laws although they are all under the Federal government). William the Conqueror banned slavery in England - but because the Empire was a confederation it was legal in parts of the Empire such as the Caribbean. In 1833 it was the equivalent of a Federal law that applied throughout the Empire.