The Post Graduate School

Department of History & International Studies.

Faculty of Arts

University of Ilorin

Course: [Economic History of West Africa]

HIS 807

TOPIC: Assess the factors responsible for the abolition of the Trans-
Atlantic Slave trade and justify the scramble for and eventual
partitioning of African Land.

1. OGUNDIWIN, TAOFEEK AYINDE.

Matric NO: 12/15CA135.

2. ADEDIRAN, NAFIU ADEDOLAPO

Matric No: 13/68DA006.

3. AKANMBI, SHOLA AHMED.

Matric NO: 12/15CA201.

Lecture - In- Charge.

Dr. Bashir O. Ibrahim.

1|Page
 INTRODUCTION:

The trans- Atlantic slave trade began around the early fifteenth century, 1440 to be
precise when three slaves were captured off the coast of West Africa around the
Senegambia region and were subsequently presented to the Portuguese Prince, Henry the
Navigator by his sailors. When they saw how hard working, strong and physically productive
they were, the stimulus for the trade in African Slaves was born. Hence, the beginning of the
Trans-Atlantic slave trade which caught on like wild fire.

However, African societies that practiced slavery usually traded slaves. Export of
slaves from black Africa had roots that preceded the Atlantic slave trade. Peoples in western
Africa had been selling slaves across the Sahara to North Africa before AD 700, a trade that
continued to the beginning of the 20th century. Between 8 and 10 million slaves crossed the
desert in this trans-Saharan trade. Central Africans sold slaves eastward to the Indian Ocean
for the same length of time.

When the Atlantic slave trade began, institutions already were in place to provide
slaves in exchange for commodities. Only the European shippers and the American
destination were different in the beginning. What proved novel about the Atlantic slave
trade was its scale: No other exporting of slaves matched the massive, involuntary
movement of people out of western and west central Africa between 1440 and 1880.
Although the trans-Saharan trade transported nearly as many slaves, the Atlantic slave trade
took place over a much larger scale. The Atlantic slave trade began because a great demand
for labour developed on plantations spread about the Atlantic, especially in the tropics of
the Western Hemisphere. Most of the plantations produced sugarcane for Europe, but
planters eventually grew such other products as coffee, cocoa, rice, indigo, tobacco, and
cotton. The Atlantic slave trade became an integral part of an international trading system.

Portuguese sailors who ventured into the Atlantic in the 15th century enabled
plantation agriculture to spread to such tropical Atlantic islands as Madeira, the Canary
Islands, and Sao Tome, all of which emerged as major sugar producers. The nearest labour
force for these plantations was Africa’s western coast. Eventually plantation agriculture
spread to the Americas: After 1550, northeast Brazil became the leading sugar-producing
area, and after 1640 the leading position passed to the Caribbean. Eventually, the British
colonies of mainland North America imported slaves to grow tobacco, rice, and indigo.
Extensive cotton production based on slave labour did not begin in the southern United
States until the beginning of the 19th century.

New World plantation owners sought labour that was abundant and inexpensive.
Native Americans were the obvious choice, but they died rapidly from such diseases as

2|Page
smallpox, mumps, and measles, which the Europeans introduced into the region and to which
the Native Americans lacked immunity. They also could run away with ease: Their homes
were usually close by, they were familiar with the land, and they knew how to survive on
indigenous plants and animals. European indentured servants—criminals sentenced to labour
or men obligated to work for a set time in exchange for ocean passage—also fell victim to
diseases, mostly tropical malaria and yellow fever. They could also escape and easily blend in
as members of the colony’s white ruling class.

But Africans were different: They came from an environment where those
who survived into adolescence acquired some immunity to such “Old World”
diseases as smallpox, mumps, and measles, as well as to such tropical maladies as
malaria and yellow fever. This meant they lived three to five times longer than white
labourers under the difficult conditions on plantations, and longer still than Native
Americans. Also, when Africans ran away they could neither go home nor be
mistaken for members of the planters’ society. Through most of the years of the
Atlantic trade, prices for Africans remained favourable in relation to the price of the
crops they produced. They were, thus, the best economic solution for plantation
owners seeking inexpensive labour.

Factors Responsible for the Abolition of Slave Trade:

In popular Afrocentric views, the emergence of the industrial revolution which

began in Britain in the mid-17th century and rapidly spread to the whole of Western
Europe with the attendant positive economic ramifications. These, made working in
the plantations and emerging industries quite stress free and no longer labour
intensive. The machines could do in days or weeks far more than what a horde of
slaves could achieve in a season. These led to redundancies on most plantations
across Europe and the Americas [the new world].

Ending the Atlantic slave trade was a long process that involved changing
economic circumstances and rising humanitarian concerns. In the late 18th century,
European economies began to shift from agriculture to industry. Plantations
remained profitable, but Europeans had promising new areas for investment. The
slave-operated American plantations had to compete for capital and preferential
laws with textile mills and other industries that hired free labourers. Also, the need
for the slave trade lessened as American slave societies approached the point where
they could reproduce enough offspring to meet labour needs.

Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807, as did the United States in 1808. The
Netherlands followed in 1814, France in 1815, Spain in 1820. It remained for the

3|Page
British, who controlled the world’s most powerful fleet, to enforce anti-slavery trade
laws, and that was difficult. The Atlantic slave trade continued, with declining
numbers, through most of the 19th century. The movement of African slaves across
the Atlantic did not end until slavery was outlawed everywhere in the Americas.
Cuba was the last to outlaw slavery, in 1888.

Furthermore, the movement of people away from agriculture and into industrial
cities brought great stresses to many people in the labour force. Women in
households who had earned income from spinning found the new factories taking
away their source of income. Traditional handloom weavers could no longer
compete with the mechanized production of cloth. Skilled labourers most times lost
their jobs as new machines replaced them. The slave trade finally came to an end
due to a variety of factors, including the protests of millions of ordinary people in
Europe and the United States. Its abolition was also brought about by millions of
Africans who continually resisted enslavement and rebelled against slavery in order
to be free.

Resistance started in Africa, continued during the so-called Middle Passage and
broke out again throughout the Americas. The most significant of all these acts of
resistance and self-liberation was the revolution in the French colony of St
Domingue, now Haiti, in 1791. It remains the only successful slave revolution in
history and led to the creation of the first modern black republic. Haiti's constitution
was the first to recognise the human rights of all its citizens.

The end of the slave trade:

First country in Europe to abolish and make the trade illegal was Denmark in 1803,
and Britain in 1807, and then other countries in Europe and the Americas abolished
the transatlantic slave trade for a variety of reasons including changes in their
economic requirements. However, an illegal trade continued for many years, and
slavery itself was not abolished in some countries until the 1880s. In Brazil for
example, slavery continued to be legal until 1888.

In the factories, people had to work long hours under harsh conditions, often
with few rewards. Factory owners and managers paid the minimum amount
necessary for a work force, often recruiting women and children to tend the

4|Page
machines because they could be hired for very low wages. Soon critics attacked this
exploitation, particularly the use of child labour.

The nature of work changed as a result of division of labour, an idea important

to the Industrial Revolution that called for dividing the production process into basic,
individual tasks. Each worker would then perform one task, rather than a single
worker doing the entire job. Such division of labour greatly improved productivity,
but many of the simplified factory jobs were repetitive and boring. Workers also had
to labour for many hours, often more than 12 hours a day, sometimes more than 14
hours, and people worked six days a week. Factory workers faced strict rules and
close supervision by managers and overseers. The clock ruled life in the mills.

Besides, to keep the industries in Europe running, there arose the insatiable
need for the constant and uninterrupted supply of raw materials mainly from Africa.
These raw materials, came in the form of both cash and food crops like palm oil,
kernels, cocoa, coffee, tea leafs, groundnut etc. also needed, were solid and precious
metals and stones like gold, tin, silver, platinum etc. there were needs to have skilled
but cheat miners to mine and make these resources readily available for the
European industries. Hence, the need to totally abolish the slave trade in all
ramifications and its entirety.

Scramble for and Eventual Partitioning of African Land:

The "Scramble for Africa" was the occupation, division, and colonisation of African
territory by European powers during the period of New Imperialism, between 1881
and 1914. It is also called the Partition of Africa and by some the Conquest of Africa.
In 1870, only 10 percent of Africa was under European control; by 1914 it had
increased to almost 90 percent of the continent, with only Ethiopia (Abyssinia), the
Dervish state (a portion of present-day Somalia)[1] and Liberia still being
independent.

The Berlin Conference November,1884 to February 1885, which was called by the
German Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck to avert war amongst the Major European
Powers. It was meant to divide the territories of Africa amongst them and each
nation would have its areas of political, economic and social hegemony. The final
agreements reached at the conference, regulated European colonisation and trade in
Africa, and are usually referred to as the starting point of the scramble for Africa.

5|Page
Consequent to the political and economic rivalries among the European empires in
the last quarter of the 19th century, the partitioning, or splitting up of Africa was
how the Europeans avoided warring amongst themselves over Africa. The later years
of the 19th century saw the transition from "informal imperialism" (hegemony), by
military influence and economic dominance, to direct rule, bringing about colonial
imperialism.

The scramble for and the eventual partitioning of African land could also be termed
as Imperialism. This is the practice by which powerful nations or peoples seek to
extend and maintain control or influence over weaker nations or peoples. Scholars
frequently use the term more restrictively: Some associate imperialism solely with
the economic expansion of capitalist states; others reserve it for European expansion
after 1870. Although imperialism is similar in meaning to colonialism, and the two
terms are sometimes used interchangeably, they should be distinguished.
Colonialism usually implies formal political control, involving territorial annexation
and loss of sovereignty. Imperialism refers; more broadly, to control or influence that
is exercised either formally or informally, directly or indirectly, politically or
economically. In the case of Africa, both terms are accurate, in the sense that
between the 1860s and early 1960s and in some cases 70s, Africa was wholly
dominated and controlled by European powers in all ramifications.

However, various motives were adduced or given for the scramble and eventual
partitioning of African territories amongst European powers. Historically, states have
been motivated to pursue imperialism for a variety of reasons, which may be
classified broadly as economic, political, and ideological. Theories of imperialism
break down similarly, according to which motive or motives are viewed as primary.

Economic Motives:

Economic explanations of imperialism are the most common. Proponents of

this view hold that states are motivated to dominate others by the need to expand
their economies, to acquire raw materials and additional sources of labour, or to find
outlets for surplus capital and markets for surplus goods. The most prominent
economic theories, linking imperialism with capitalism, are derived from those of Karl
Marx. Lenin, for example, explained the European expansion of the late 19th century
as the inevitable outcome of the need for the European capitalist economies to
export their surplus capital. Similarly, contemporary Marxists explain the post-war
expansion of the U.S. into the Third World in terms of economic imperatives. As
earlier stated, the need for raw materials to fuel their industries and also the ready
market for the finished goods made it more pressing to own and control territories in
Africa.

6|Page
Political Motives:

Alternatively, some stress the political determinants of imperialism,

contending that states are motivated to expand primarily by the desire for power,
prestige, security, and diplomatic advantages vis-à-vis other states. In this view, late
19th-century French imperialism was intended to restore France's international
prestige after its humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. Similarly, Soviet
expansion into Eastern Europe after 1945 can be understood in terms of security
needs, specifically the need to protect the nation from another invasion across its
western border. Also, the facts of having external and wealthy territories, made
countries like Britain more more secured in the world of international trade and
commerce as well as militarily. For they had at their disposal, vast resources to build
the world’s most powerful naval fleet with which they conquered two third of the
world terrestrial and maritime boundaries.

Ideological Motives:

A third set of explanations focuses on ideological or moral motives. According

to this perspective, political, cultural, or religious beliefs forces European states into
imperialism as a “missionary activity.” Britain's colonial empire was motivated at
least in part by the idea that it was the “white man's burden” to civilize “backward”
peoples. Germany's expansion under Hitler was based in large measure on a belief in
the inherent superiority of German national culture. The desire of the U.S. to
“protect the free world” and of the former Soviet Union to “liberate” the peoples of
Eastern Europe and the Third World are also examples of imperialism driven by
moral and ideological concerns.

Finally, some explanations of imperialism focus not on the motives of powerful states
but rather on the political circumstances in weaker states. The argument holds that
powerful states may not intend to expand, but may be forced to by instability on the
periphery; new imperial actions result from past imperial commitments. The British
conquest of India and was seen as reactionary to stabilize the decentralized,
independent Princely states. The same could be said of their conquest of Egypt.
Which they argued was to protect and guarantee free trade and commerce and
general shipping traffic along the Suez Canal sea route seen as the life blood of
British trade, commerce and industry since it shortens sea voyages from Britain to
India, Malaysia, Singapore and other realms in Asia to just two weeks, rather than
the six months it normally takes through the Cape of Go```od Hope at the Southern
tip of Africa [South Africa]. The British saw the imperativeness of taking control of
and colonizing Egypt.

7|Page
 In conclusion, Disagreement arises between those who believe that
imperialism implies exploitation and is responsible for the underdevelopment and
economic stagnation of the poor nations, and those who argue that although the rich
nations benefit from imperialism, the poor nations also benefit, at least in the long
run.

The truth has been difficult to ascertain for at least two reasons:

1.No consensus has been reached on the meaning of exploitation, and

2. It is frequently difficult to disentangle the domestic causes of poverty from those

that are possibly international. What is apparent is that the impact of imperialism or
European colonialism on Africa, is uneven: Some poor nations have enjoyed greater
economic benefits from contact with the rich than have others. India, Brazil, and
other developing nations have even begun to compete economically with their
former colonial powers.

Thus, it is prudent to examine the economic impact of imperialism on a case-by-case

basis.

End Notes & References:

Brantlinger, Patrick "Victorians and Africans: The Genealogy of the Myth of the
Dark Continent". Critical Inquiry. (1985). 12 (1): 166–203. doi:10.1086/448326.
JSTOR 1343467.

R. Robinson, J. Gallagher and A. Denny, Africa and the Victorians, London,

1965, p. 175.

Kevin Shillington, History of Africa. Revised second edition (New York:

Macmillian Publishers Limited, 2005), 301.

Compare: Killingray, David (1998). "7: The War in Africa". In Strachan, Hew. The
Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War: New Edition (2 ed.). Oxford:
Oxfors University Press (published 2014). p. 101. ISBN 9780191640407.
Retrieved 2017-02-21. "In 1914 the only independent states in Africa were
Liberia and Abyssinia."

Lynn Hunt, The Making of the West: volume C, Bedford: St. Martin, 2009.

8|Page
Easterly, William (September 17, 2009). "The Imperial Origins of State-Led
Development". New York University Blogs. Retrieved 2009-09-23.

Langer, William A; Bureau of International Research of Harvard University and

Radcliffe College (1935). The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890-1902. 1. New
York and London: Alfred A Knopf.

Robinson, Ronald; Gallagher, John; Denny, Alice (1961). Africa and the
Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism. The University of California:
Macmillan.

Darwin, John. "Imperialism and the Victorians: The dynamics of territorial

expansion." English Historical Review (1997) 112#447 pp: 614–642.
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/CXII/447/614.full.pdf+html

Gjersø, Jonas Fossli (2015). "The Scramble for East Africa: British Motives
Reconsidered, 1884-95". Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History.
Taylor & Francis. 43 (5): 831–60. doi:10.1080/03086534.2015.1026131.
Retrieved 4 March 2016.

H. R. Cowie, Imperialism and Race Relations. Revised edition, Nelson

Publishing, Vol. 5, 1982.

Thomas Pakenham, The Scramble for Africa: White Man's Conquest of the Dark
Continent from 1876 to 1912 (1991).

Robert Aldrich, Greater France: A history of French overseas expansion (1996).

German colonial imperialism: a late and short-term phenomenon (PDF) by

Bernard Poloni, in "Imperialism, hegemony, leadership", 26 March 2004
Conference in the Sorbonne University, Paris (in French).

Alfred von Tirpitz, Erinnerungen (1919), quoted by Hannah Arendt, The Origins
of Totalitarianism, section on Imperialism, chapter I, part 3.

Ullendorff, Edward. The Ethiopians: An Introduction to Country and People 2nd

ed., p. 90. Oxford University Press (London), 1965. ISBN 0-19-285061-X.

Wikisource-logo.svg Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Eritrea". Encyclopædia

Britannica. 9 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 747.

9|Page
Enrico Corradini, Report to the First Nationalist Congress, Florence, 3
December 1919.

Bourne, Henry Richard Fox (1903). Civilisation in Congoland: A Story of

International Wrong-doing. London: P. S. King & Son. p. 253. Retrieved 2007-
09-26.

Forbath, Peter (1977). The River Congo: The Discovery, Exploration and
Exploitation of the World's Most Dramatic Rivers. [Harper & Row]. p. 374. ISBN
0-06-122490-1.

Michiko Kakutani (30 August 1998). ""King Leopold's Ghost": Genocide With
Spin Control". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 10,
2009. Retrieved 2 February 2012.

Hochschild 2006, pp. 226–32.

John D. Fage, The Cambridge History of Africa: From the earliest times to c. 500
BC, Cambridge University Press, 1982, p. 748. ISBN 0-521-22803-4

"Report of the British Consul, Roger Casement, on the Administration of the

Congo Free State".

Rubinstein, W. D. (2004). Genocide: a history. Pearson Education. pp. 98–99.

ISBN 0-582-50601-8

10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e