THE ABOLITION OF
BRITISH SLAVERY
2
The Atlantic Slave Trade
Table of Contents
1
Introduction..............................................................................................3
2
A Short Survey of the History of the Atlantic Slave Trade ....................4
3
The European Side of the Trade..............................................................6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4
Slave Traders.................................………….…6
The Ship and the Crew..................…………….8
The Cargo......................................…………….9
The Selling Procedures in the Americas..........10
The African Side of the Trade ............................................................... 12
4.1
4.2
The Strong Trading Position of the Africans.....12
Sources of Slaves...............................................13
3
4.3
5
The Purchase of Slaves in Africa.......................15
The Middle Passage................................................................................16
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6
Export Figures.................................16
Boarding..........................................17
Conditions on Board........................18
Mortality..........................................20
Conclusion..............................................................................................24
Bibliography.......................................................................................................25
1 Introduction
The institution of slavery has been common to nearly all civilisations we know of.
However, with the transportation of African slaves to the New World, it reached a new
dimension: The Atlantic slave trade constituted “the largest transoceanic migration in
history up to that time”1. The question as to how many Africans exactly were shipped
across the ocean has not been answered with certainty yet. While some historians
suggest that about 8 million slaves were taken to the New World, others estimate a
total number of 20 millions and more.2 It seems, however, that a number of about 10 to
12 million exported Africans is probably most likely.
New World slavery relied solely on African slaves. Therefore, the Atlantic
slave trade constituted the backbone of New World slavery since it secured the
transport of slaves from the West African coast to the European colonies in the
Americas. For most merchants, it was a lucrative enterprise, and even non-merchants
gained considerable profits by investing much capital in slaving voyages. As a
1
H. KLEIN (1999), The Atlantic Slave Trade, Cambridge: CUP, p. 74.
Cf. P. D. CURTIN (1969), The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census, Wisconsin: The University of
Wisconsin Press, pp. 3-13.
2
4
consequence, the slave trade was “one of the most important sources of European
wealth in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries”3.
This holds especially true for Great Britain, which transported up to 1807 more
slaves across the ocean than all other nations put together.4 Often it is even claimed
that the Atlantic slave trade had a decisive impact on the development of the English
economic system, and that it also triggered the beginnings of the industrialisation.5
Thus, the British involvement in the slave trade, which will be the main topic of this
paper, marked an important stage in its (economic) history and in its development
towards a global power.
2 A Short Survey of the History of the Atlantic Slave Trade
Considering the Europeans’ dominant position in their colonies, the question arises
why they turned to the more complicated and expensive importation of African slaves
instead of enslaving the native Indian population.6 In fact, the Portuguese and Spanish,
who were the first to establish settlements in the Americas, did turn to native Indians
in order to work their mines, factories and farms. However, they soon had to realise
that the exploitation of the Indian population was limited: European diseases, as well
as slaving raids, depopulated whole areas. Furthermore, the Portuguese found that the
Indians’ “constitution and temperament were ill-adapted to the rigors of plantation
slavery”7. Eventually, the Spanish government even prohibited the enslavement of
American Indians for cultural and religious reasons.
Poor farmers and labourers in European countries were not at their disposal
either, as in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries nearly all of Europe witnessed a
major economic expansion, which created a large labour demand. Therefore, it was no
3
Cf. J. H. FRANKLIN / A. A. MOSS Jr. (eds.) (1994), From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African
Americans, 7th edition, New York: Alfred E. Knopf, pp. 37ff.
4
Cf. D. RICHARDSON, “The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807”, in: The Oxford
History of the British Empire (1998), Vol.2, ed. P. J. MARSHALL, Oxford: OUP, p. 440.
5
Cf. J. H. FRANKLIN / A. A. MOSS Jr. (eds.) (1994), From Slavery to Freedom, p. 35.
6
For the following, cf. H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, pp. 17ff.
7
E. WILLIAMS, “Economic, not Racism, as the Root of Slavery”, in: D. NORTHRUP (ed.) (1994), The
Atlantic Slave Trade, Lexington: Heath and Company, p. 4.
5
attractive option for European peasants or poor urban population to migrate to the
Americas, and the Iberians had to turn to other sources of cheap labour force:
Africans.
Since the Spanish and Portuguese had grown quite rich within the first decades
of their settlements in the New World, they “could afford to experiment with the
importation of African slaves to fill in the regions abandoned by Amerindian
laborers.”8 The main advantage of African slaves was that they usually arrived
separated from their families, which made them absolutely mobile. They had no
relations or connections, they did not feel more bound to one strip of earth than to
another, since every place was strange to them, and so they could be easily moved to
wherever they were needed. Furthermore, Africans often had to adapt to European
norms of behaviour, especially because they had to use the European languages as a
common basis of communication, their own languages often being unintelligible to
one another. All these factors made African slaves a desired labour force for Spaniards
and Portuguese.
As for the other European countries, they first turned to their own population,
especially in the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth centuries when work in
Europe was rare and wages low. Usually, peasants and other poor folk would enter
indentured servitude to pay for their crossing, and indentured servants constituted the
major part of the first British and French New World settlements. Yet, as soon as the
economic conditions in northern Europe improved at the end of the seventeenth
century, indentured labourers became too expensive; and as an inevitable
consequence, the English and French turned to African slaves as well. The fact that an
intracontinental slave trade already existed in Africa made it relatively easy to
establish the large-scale trade of the following centuries.
In the earliest years of the Atlantic slave trade, i.e. in the sixteenth century, the
Spanish were the first to import slaves from Africa, mainly to Mexico and Peru. By
1650, however, these colonies lost significance as labour demand in Portuguese
America, especially Brazil, and in the Iberian Caribbean grew. Up to 1700, more than
500,000 slaves landed in Brazil. The demand of slave labour was further intensified
when the English and French Caribbean settlements, which had been founded in the
first half of the seventeenth century, specialised on sugar production, which heavily
relied on slaves. The change to sugar had only been possible with credit provided by
8
H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 20.
6
the Dutch, who were then in control of most trading routes across the Atlantic9, i.e.
they were the main suppliers of African slaves to the New World.
The establishment of sugar plantations changed the Caribbean islands
profoundly. On Barbados, for instance, the slave population grew from 5,680 slaves in
1645 to 38,000 slaves in 1680. By the end of the century, already 50,000 slaves lived
on this tiny island, while the white population declined. This development was similar
on most French and English islands. On Jamaica, the ratio was even more impressive:
by 1760, it contained 173,000 slaves and just about 10,000 whites.
By the end of the seventeenth century, the leading position of the Dutch
declined, and was eventually replaced by English and French slave traders. After the
France had been forced to cede some of its Caribbean islands to Great Britain,
England’s dominant role in the slave trade was strengthened. Between 1700 and 1808,
more than 3 million10 Africans were shipped across the Atlantic in British vessels.
In 1808, the slave trade was banned by the United States and England. Yet,
slave imports into Cuba, Puerto Rico and Brazil went on for at least another four
decades until they finally came to an end in the 1860s.
3 The European Side of the Slave Trade
3.1 Slave Traders
Many aspects of the organisation of the slave trade changed over the course of the
centuries. In the beginning of the slave trade, most European countries, starting with
Portugal, had monopoly contracts with big trading companies, which were often also
subsidised by the state in order to get the trade going: “Given the high entry costs to
trading, and the initial lack of detailed knowledge of the various African and American
markets, the earliest period of the slave trade was one in which the state played a
major role.”11 Interestingly enough, it was not slaves that most trading companies
came to Africa for in the seventeenth century but ivory and gold. Slaves were only of
secondary interest. It was not before 1700 that slave exports would exceed those of
gold and ivory.
9
Cf. J. H. FRANKLIN / A. A. MOSS Jr., From Slavery to Freedom, p. 33.
Cf. D. RICHARDSON, The British Empire and The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 442.
10
11
H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 74. - Cf. ibid. pp. 75ff. also for the following.
7
In England, which lacked somewhat behind other European countries such as
Portugal or the Netherlands, the first monopoly of English trade to Africa was given to
the Company of Royal Adventurers by King Charles in 1660. It was intended for one
thousand years but as early as 1672 the company was taken over by the Royal African
Company, one of the last major companies established in the seventeenth century. The
main reason for the establishment of English trade companies was the expansion into
the Caribbean Islands, first of all Jamaica in the 1650s, which produced a heavy
demand for slaves.
Although the monopoly trade failed in the end, its achievements for the slave
trade in the following centuries were absolutely essential. All European trading
companies built fortified forts along the African coast in order to establish a
continuous trade with certain African regions, and they set standards of how slave
trading should best be carried out. Thus, “these companies bore the costs of opening
the trade and creating the contacts, credit, and shipping practices that would eventually
be the norm for all free traders who followed them.”12
Their large investments in building and maintaining forts were one reason for
their failure. Another was the fierce competition from private traders. The slave trade
and trade in general with Africa was of course very lucrative, and so it is not surprising
that many private merchants were not happy with the monopoly of the big trading
companies. As a consequence, they started trading illegally: they became so called
interlopers.13 Interloping was one reason why Parliament withdrew the monopoly of
African trade in 1698 and opened it to all merchants in the British Empire. Until 1712,
however, a 10% duty was payable on all exports to Africa. Nonetheless, also this
restriction was dropped in 1712. The new free traders had the advantage of wellestablished routes and trading practices: as a consequence, they needed much less
capital when they entered the trade, which also increased their profits of course.
Outside the big trading companies, the slave trade was usually organised by
groups of merchants, tradesmen, and seafarers, usually about two to five of them.
There were only few individuals, in most cases from London, who could afford trading
on their own. Partnerships were necessary in order to share risks and costs of the
enterprise, which were quite high. By the eighteenth century, merchants had to invest
8,000 pounds or more for one slaving voyage, which was a considerable amount of
money at that time: a contemporary pointed out that you could buy a large fashionable
12
Ibid., p. 78.
8
house for that money14. Furthermore, since it took up to seven years until a slaving
voyage was finally brought to an end, merchants had to wait quite a long time before
they could expect any profits. Also, the slave trade was a risky affair: slave mortality
on the ships was high, and storms and pirates could destroy the valuable fright. Taking
all these aspects into account, forming partnerships with other slave traders was the
most sensible thing to do. Often, merchants spread their capital across several voyages,
which was another way of limiting the risks involved. Non-merchants would usually
invest their money in slaving voyages but leave the organisation of the trade to others.
While in the early period of English slave trading the major port of departure
was London, it soon lost its significance to Liverpool, which, by the end of the
seventeenth century had more clearances than all other English ports put together. It is
not yet fully understood why this shift from London to Liverpool occurred. There are
several suggestions, all of which probably constitute a part of the explanation:15 first of
all, wages were apparently lower than in London; also, cotton textile industry was
close at hand, which put Liverpool at an advantage considering the high African
demand for textiles; furthermore, ships departing from Liverpool could avoid pirates
roaming in the English Channel as well as European rivals in wartime. Yet, even
though London’s significance as a sending port of slavers declined, its importance as a
financial centre should not be neglected: in fact, very many slaving voyages departing
from Liverpool were still financed with money from the capital.
3.2 The Ship and the Crew
After having raised the necessary funds, the ship and the cargo had to be purchased,
and a crew had to be hired. All this, together with the arrangements for insurance, took
about four to six months.
A typical slave ship had an average tonnage between 100 and 200 tons, and
was about 30 metres long and 8 metres wide.16 In theory, these ships could have been
much larger but since they had to go up rivers and along the African coast for many
months, a smaller ship size was more appropriate. In fact, the ships were often only
half the size of a normal cargo ship of that time.17 Naturally, the shape of the ships
changed in the course of the centuries: in the seventeenth century, there would often be
13
Cf. D. RICHARDSON, The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, pp. 444f.
H. THOMAS (1997), The Slave Trade, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 293.
15
Cf. D. RICHARDSON, The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 448.
16
If not stated otherwise, all the following facts are taken from H. THOMAS, The Slave Trade, p. 304.
17
Cf. H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 132.
14
9
a so called flute ship, i.e. a half-armed ship of war, while in the eighteenth century
most ships had three masts and two to three decks. Often, slave ships were provided
with additional platforms below the main deck and above the second deck. The height
between two decks was usually 4 feet, four inches (about one and a half metre). If
there were additional platforms within one deck, the height was even more reduced.
As for the space available to each slave, a sample of eighteenth-century English slave
ships has shown that most ships carried on average 1.6 slaves per ton. In relation to the
size of the ship, the average space available to one slave lay therefore between 5 and 6
square feet, which is only little more than half a square metre.
The crew of a slave ship depended on the size of the ship, of course. But on
average-sized ships there would be 30 men crew, officers and the captain, a carpenter,
a cooper and usually also a doctor. The doctor did not only try to maintain good health
on board, he was also always present when the slaves were purchased in order to
choose only the strong and healthy ones. Captains were usually in their thirties while
crew members were in their twenties. The pay was relatively low with about 5 pounds
a month for the captain and 2 pounds a month for trained members of the crew.
Captains, however, often received two to five percent of the sale of all slaves they
delivered, which was usually so much that they did not need to make another sailing
but often became merchants themselves.18
To be a sailor on a slave ship was nothing desirable, considering the risks of
African diseases, the low wage, and the harsh conditions on board. That is why it was
often not easy to find young men who would be willing to join a slaving voyage, and
therefore, merchants sometimes employed rather objectionable methods, as a carpenter
in Liverpool witnessed: “The method at Liverpool [to obtain sailors] is by the
merchants’ clerks going from public house to public house, giving them liquors to get
them into a state of intoxication and, by that, getting them very often on board.”19
Another way was to get these young men into debts, so that they would not have a
choice but joining the crew. In contrast to other ship voyages at that time, the number
of sailors needed on slave ships was relatively high, sometimes even twice the number
of a ship with comparable tonnage. This was of course mainly due to the fact that the
18
H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 83. Captains and officers also could earn a considerable amount
of money by selling their ‘personal’ slaves. Captains were often allowed to keep two to five slaves,
depending on how many slaves they delivered healthy and alive. Often, however, officers and also captains
bought African slaves on their own in order to sell them in the Americas (cf. H. THOMAS, The Slave Trade,
p. 417).
19
H. THOMAS, The Slave Trade, p. 310.
10
caring for and guarding of the slaves demanded many more men as if the freight had
merely consisted of lifeless objects such as sugar or cotton.
Being a captain on a slave vessel was a demanding job: he had to negotiate
with African merchants and kings, and he often had to deal with difficult crews,
pirates, slave rebellions and bad weather conditions. Also, he had to answer for losses
to their merchants. Most captains hoped to become merchants themselves, a goal
which many of them did in fact achieve. It is interesting to note that many slave
captains can hardly be called specialists in slave trading: only few captains went to
Africa more than three or four times. This was in most cases due to the fact that they
had become merchants themselves by then, or that they had fallen victim to the high
mortality rate on these voyages.
3.3 The Cargo
Many abolitionists claimed that the slave trade was so lucrative because Europeans
could purchase them very cheaply or just collect them for nothing. This is far from
true. As will become clear in the following chapter, the slave trade was well organised
by Africans, and they demanded high-quality goods in exchange for slaves. Many of
these items had to be imported by the Europeans, which made the cargo very
expensive: between 55 and 65 percent of the total cost of a slaving voyage was needed
to purchase the cargo. The ship and its crew accounted merely for one third of the total
costs.20
The most desired goods but also the most expensive ones were East Indian
textiles. They had a good reputation for their quality as well as their brilliant colours,
which did not wear out in the hot African climate. On the whole, textiles made up 50
percent of the total value of imports into Africa. Other items were cowry shells,
produced in the Maldive archipelago, and Swedish-produced iron bars; furthermore,
“knives, axes, swords, jewellery, gunpowder, and various nationally and colonially
produced rums, brandies, and other liquors were also consumed along with Braziliangrown tobacco.”
21
Although the majority of cloths came from East India, Africans
also bought large quantities of textiles that had been produced in Europe. As
mentioned above, this could be one reason for Liverpool’s rise as major English slave
port.
20
For this and the following, cf. H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, pp. 86ff.
11
3.4 The Selling Procedures in the Americas
Having reached the Americas, the slaves were immediately sold to local planters.22
The captains often used a local agent who received a commission on all sales. The
selling took place either on board or on a special market on land. Depending on their
health condition, slaves were usually sold within the first two weeks; weak or ill slaves
would sometimes not sell for weeks.
The terms of sale were rather complicated:
Once agreeing on the price, usually only about 25 percent down payment was made and the rest
was to be paid for in eighteen to twenty-four months. Moreover, even when payment was made
it was often in colonial goods and not in cash […]. Also, collecting on these promissory notes
was very difficult and involved endless conflict between the merchants and the purchasers. 23
If possible, the ship took colonial cargo back to Europe. Yet, this was rather the
exception than the rule. It did not pay to wait for the availability of American goods,
and everybody was interested in a quick return. This means that the extremely
effective triangular trade, where the ships would never sail without cargo, has not
existed in that way. Apart from the fact that slave ships did not wait until cargo was
available, they were also not as suitable as ordinary cargo ships, which were
specifically designed for that purpose and much larger than slave ships, often even
twice as large.
Back in Europe, the colonial goods with which the slaves had been paid for were
sold immediately, and the crew was given its wages. It usually took another three or
even more years for the merchant to obtain all the remaining payments for the credit
sales of the slaves. As before, many of the American planters paid their bills in
colonial goods, and the merchant had to arrange the selling of this constantly arriving
stream of colonial cargo. By the end of six years, most bills were paid, and it was
between the third and the sixth year that the actual profit was made.
The profit generated by the slave trade was not as extraordinary high as some
abolitionists may have claimed. It lay by about 10 percent, which was not significantly
more than what other contemporary investments yielded. Nevertheless, given the high
entry costs and the long period needed to close the books on a slaving voyage, it seems
that only a limited number of merchants could afford entering the trade.
It has been suggested by some historians that the slave trade indirectly financed
the earliest beginnings of the English industrialisation. “It is likely, however, that the
21
Ibid., p. 87.
For this and the following, cf. ibid. pp. 95ff.
23
Ibid., p. 96.
22
12
contribution of profits from the slave trade to capital investment in Britain and New
England had been exaggerated. [...] Profits from the slave trade [...] probably
contributed under 1 per cent of total domestic investment in Britain at this time.”24 It
cannot be denied, however, that the African demand for European and colonial goods
played an essential role for the European market and the development of its external
trade, which, as consequence, will also have had an impact on early industrial
developments.
4 The African Side of the Slave Trade
4.1 The Strong Trading Position of the Africans
In contrast to many popular beliefs, the Africans were by no means passive
participants in the slave trade.25 They knew the principles of the market economy, and
since international slave trading had long been established before the Europeans
arrived, the Africans had an extensive knowledge of international markets as well as of
European or Asian goods. Thus, trading with Africans meant, on the whole, business
with equal partners. Especially the existence of slave markets prior to the arrival of the
Europeans explains why the Africans were able to respond so quickly and efficiently
to the European demand of slaves.
African merchants knew very well that competition between European traders
kept prices up. As a consequence, they did everything to avoid a nation’s monopoly in
a certain region, and they always favoured new nations entering the trade in order to
undermine attempts of monopolisation. Furthermore, “there are cases not only of local
kings forcing traders to remain neutral while their mother countries were at war, but
also of their engaging in international diplomacy”26, mostly in order to encourage a
nation’s entrance into local slave trade.
24
D. RICHARDSON, The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 461.
For this and the following, cf. H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, pp. 103ff.
26
Ibid., pp. 110f.
25
13
Moreover, African traders did not accept any goods offered to them but had very
specific demands, which again depended on local markets. This demonstrates that the
African market, such as any market, was liable to fluctuations concerning taste or
abundance of certain items. If Europeans wanted to keep the trade up, they had to
respond to these changing demands and introduce new goods if they wanted to keep
up good trading conditions. Consequently, the Africans decided whether and on what
terms they wanted to participate in the European slave trade. On the other hand,
Europeans always had the choice to trade somewhere else along the coast if they did
not want to accept African demands.
There are other fields where the strong trading position of the Africans
becomes apparent. Afraid of African diseases and the military power of many African
coastal states, early European traders quickly stopped raiding slaves on their own. As a
consequence, they were totally dependent on African merchants for the delivery of
slaves to the coast. European buyers had to accept the fact that only peaceful trading
proved efficient. Furthermore, nearly all European traders had to pay local taxes if
they wanted to buy slaves. They also depended on local merchants for the purchase of
water and other supplies needed for the crossing. All this should be sufficient proof
that the Africans were everything but inexperienced and unprofessional merchants that
could be easily cheated by the Europeans: on the contrary, European traders often had
adapt to their local customs and demands in order to keep the slave trade going.
4.2 Sources Of Slaves
Apart from the very beginning, when some Europeans tried to get hold of Africans by
kidnapping them, nearly all slaves were obtained by purchase or negotiation with local
merchants and rulers. These Africans that traded directly with the Europeans obtained
the slaves from other African slave traders who constituted a link between coastal
slave markets and those that were further inland. In the beginning of the European
slave trade, it seems that most slaves arrived from areas close to the sea. “But it is
assumed that slaves were coming from much further inland by the second half of the
eighteenth century as the trade expanded and intensified.”27
There were different ways of obtaining slaves. One that probably yielded most
slaves was the selling of war captives into slavery. Since there were constant conflicts
among the African states, this was a steady source of slaves. It is more than likely that
14
there had been wars before the arrival of the Europeans, and often local disagreements
caused such military conflicts. However, the ever-rising demand for slaves made wars
even more attractive, and war captives became an ever more welcome by-product of
warfare. It is even suggested that wars were merely undertaken for the sake of
obtaining slaves.28 It is impossible to estimate if the prospect of war captives was the
main incentive to wars. Yet, even if other factors generated armed conflict, the fact
that war captives could be sold into slavery had certainly at least a stimulating impact
on the waging of wars.
Sometimes, Europeans were even asked for help in local conflicts in exchange
for war captives. One of these instances is described by John Hawkins, a slaver
captain:
There came to us a Negro, sent from a king, oppressed by other kings, his neighbors,
desiring our aid, with [the] promise that as many Negroes as by these wars might be
obtained, [...] should be at our pleasure.29
Kidnapping was another way of procuring slaves, and it was practised by both
groups of people and individuals. Since kidnapping was a serious crime, which was in
most cases punished with enslavement, such raiding expeditions could only take place
on the frontiers of larger states or “in more amorphous states where central authority
was only lightly exercised at the local level”30. Also, kidnapping did usually not occur
on a major scale, because before long local people started defending themselves or
moved away. Nevertheless, raiding among neighbouring villages or tribes was a
common source of slaves.
Many Africans were enslaved as a punishment for crimes, such as theft,
adultery, kidnapping, blasphemy, and witchcraft. In most states, these slaves were to
be used as domestic slaves only. However, this regulation was often neglected, and
many of these judicially created slaves were sold to European traders. Indebtedness
was another reason why Africans were enslaved. Poverty sometimes drove parents to
27
Ibid., pp. 115f.
H. THOMAS, The Slave Trade, pp. 373ff.
29
M. J. HAWKINS, “The third troublesome voyage [...] to the parts of Guinea, and the West Indies, in the
yeeres 1567 and 1568 by M. John Hawkins”, in: R. HAKLUYT (ed.) (1928), The Principal Navigations,
Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation, New York, pp. 53-55, cited in: D. NORTHRUP,
The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 70.
30
H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 119.
28
15
sell their children, or some people even sold themselves if they could escape death that
way. 31
After being robbed of their freedom by one of these methods, the slaves were
taken to internal slave markets. From there, “the slaves would be marched under
guard, in coffles, of about a hundred people, to the ports. The slaves would often be
chained together in twos or threes, and sometimes they were forced to carry goods […]
or even stones on their heads in order to discourage them from trying to escape.”32
Depending on how long the march to the coast was, many slaves were terribly
weakened when they arrived. Some even died from exhaustion or diseases during and
after the march. The weakness caused by long marches also helps explaining the high
slave mortality later on during the crossing of the Atlantic.
The march from the interior to the coast demanded a great deal of organisation
as well as protection. African Merchants also needed goods to purchase slaves, or
weapons to kidnap them. This means that relatively high costs were involved in
entering the slave trade, and it seems that – very similar to the European organisation –
only wealthy individuals or groups of merchants could afford these initial investments.
4.3 The Purchase of Slaves in Africa
Slave trading took place nearly all along the West African coast. Although there were
spheres of influence due to the forts and factories established by the European trading
companies, no area was absolutely exclusive to one European nation; there was always
a certain degree of toleration of other merchants.33 The forts that existed in a great
number along the coast served merely as trading stations, and their inland activity was
limited. They were usually not used for ‘storing’ slaves, as this would have produced
additional costs. Therefore, African merchants kept the slaves in the hinterland and
used them for agricultural activities until European merchants arrived.
Slaves could usually be purchased in small numbers only from the African
sellers. This had to do with the fact that the procuring of slaves was very time
consuming and was therefore done in relatively small lots only. As a consequence,
however, European traders spent months trading along the coast until the ship’s
capacity was reached: English slavers averaged 173 days in the middle of the
eighteenth century. During this long period, many slaves died, not being allowed to
31
H. THOMAS, The Slave Trade, pp. 377ff.
Ibid., p. 382. Cf. also pp. 380ff. for the following.
33
For this and the following, cf. H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, pp. 89ff.
32
16
leave the unhygienic quarters under deck. Also, while cursing along the coast,
mutinies were frequent, and there was also the danger of natives trying to free
enslaved Africans.34 This explains why Europeans paid higher prices for the last slaves
needed to fill the ship: they simply wanted to leave as quickly as possible.
Usually, the captain left the ship in a small craft to trade inland, accompanied by
the ship’s doctor. The doctor examined every single slave for disease and good
condition before the purchase was made, and the selection was very strict:
Those that are approved as good, are set on one side; and the lave or faulty are set by as
invalids [...]: these are such are above five and thirty years old, or are maimed in the arms,
legs or feet; have lost a tooth, are grey-haired, or have films over their eyes; as well as all
those which are affected with any venereal distemper, or several other diseases .35
Prices for slaves are hard to estimate since they varied across the regions of
purchase. Also, prices differed according to the sex or health of a slave: males were
always more expensive than women and children; and men in their twenties were
again more expensive than older men. Furthermore, African merchants tended to raise
prices for slaves when a European slaver only needed a few more slaves to fill the
ship. The fact that “each purchase was made with a variety of goods of markedly
differing costs for the Europeans”36 makes an estimation of the actual price of a slave
even more difficult. Nevertheless, estimates based on ship records have been made,
and they show that prices did not remain static over the centuries but underwent a
constant growth: while one slave cost 3 pounds in the early 1680s, it was already 10
pounds by the 1730s, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century the prices were
four times those of 1700. The rise in prices was mainly due to the growing American
demand, as well as to the abundance of European goods in African markets, which
diminished their purchasing power. Consequently, even on an average slaver holding
about 300 slaves, at least 3000 pounds were needed to purchase the slaves in the
middle of the eighteenth century, when prices had by far not reached their climax. This
clearly shows that slaves were indeed a valuable item, and the merchants’ interest was
to maintain this value during the passage across the Atlantic Ocean.
Cf. M. COWLEY / D. P. MANNIX, “The Middle Passage”, in: D. NORTHRUP, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p.
101.
35
W. BOSMAN (1721), A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea, Divided into the Gold,
Slave, and the Ivory Coasts, London, pp. 339-345, cited in: D. NORTHRUP, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 72.
36
H. Klein, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 108.
34
17
5 The Middle Passage
5.1 Export figures
The number of slaves being exported from Africa in British ships varied
significantly over the centuries, ranging from 60,000 between 1662-1670 to
420,000 during the decade of 1760-1769.37 Even though this decade constituted the
climax, British ships exported Africans in huge numbers during the whole of the
eighteenth century. The numbers lay always between 200,000 and 350,000 per
decade. But there were also considerable fluctuations, which were often due to
restrictions during war times. Depending on the size of the ship, there would be 200
to 300 slaves on a British slave ship by the end of the eighteenth century38. That
means that during that period about 100 British ships crossed the Atlantic Ocean
every year in order to meet the labour demand of the New World.
The constant loss of population could not remain without consequences for
African societies, of course. Many regions had to deal with depopulation and, as a
consequence, economic shortages, since first of all young and healthy people were
deported. More than twice as many men as women were exported, which created a
surplus of women. This, as a consequence, reinforced polygamy and led to a
replacement of men by women in many fields of work. African traditions of family
structure were thus strongly affected.39 “In short, the slave trade is believed to have
caused the ‘underdevelopment’ of Africa while fertilizing industrialization in
Europe and particularly Britain, the leading slave-trading nation.”40
5.2 Boarding
Usually, the Africans were carried to the actual slave ship in canoes or other small
boats.41 It hardly needs mentioning that the slaves were everything but willing to go
on board: they often leaped out of the canoes. Not few of them drowned, trying to
37
D. RICHARDSON, The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 442.
Cf. H. THOMAS, The Slave Trade, p. 411. In the middle of the eighteenth century, many more slaves were
carried on board British ships, namely 390 on average. But two Acts of Parliament in 1788 and 1799,
respectively, limited the number of slaves on board by requiring a minimum space for each slave. Cf. H.
KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 149.
38
Cf. P. MANNING, “Social and Demographic Transformations”, in: D. NORTHRUP, The Atlantic Slave
Trade, p. 155.
40
D. RICHARDSON, The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 462.
39
18
keep underwater so as not to be saved by the sailors. Many Africans were naturally
horrified. Not only had they been moved long distances from their home under
harsh conditions, often they were also convinced that they were carried on board in
order to be eaten by the whites. The mere sight of the sea, which many Africans had
not even heard of, filled many with astonishment or even fear. Equiano, a slave
who survived all hardships and told about them later, described his first impressions
at the sea and on board as follows:
The first object which saluted my eyes was the sea, and a slave ship. […] These filled me
with astonishment, which was soon converted into terror, when I was carried on board.
[…] I was now persuaded that I had got into a world of bad spirits and that they were
going to kill me. […] When I looked round the ship and saw the large […] copper boiling
[…] I no longer doubted my fate. I fell motionless on the deck and fainted. When I
recovered, […] I asked [some black people] if we were not to be eaten by those white
men, with horrible looks, red faces and loose hair. 42
As long as the ships were in sight of land, the slaves were kept in iron fetters
to prevent them from escaping. They were chained in pairs, their right ankle being
connected to the left ankle of another slave. Depending on the slaves’ behaviour,
they were often relieved from their chains as soon as they were out of sight of
African land.
Men and women were kept apart, with the men being in the forepart of the
ship, the women behind the mast. There were usually always more men than
women on board, the average ratio being two third male and one third female
slaves.43 Women were not chained and often better treated than men. The main
reason for the separation was to keep the male slaves from seducing the women, but
also because many crews were afraid that the women would urge the men to
rebellion.
5.3 Conditions on Board
Good conditions provided, a crossing from the West African coast to the Caribbean
took two to three months. But voyages were often delayed by bad weather
conditions. One French slave ship took no less than nine months to reach the West
41
If not stated otherwise, all the following facts are taken from H. THOMAS, The Slave Trade, pp. 409-430.
O. EQUIANO, “The Interesting Narrative of The Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the
African”, in: Pioneers of the Black Atlantic: Five Slaves Narratives from the Enlightenment 1772-1815, ed.
H.L. GATES Jr. / W. L. ANDREWS, Washington: Library of Congress, 1998, pp. 217f.
42
Cf. J. E. INIKORI / S. L. ENGERMAN, „A Skeptical View of Curtin’s and Lovejoy’s Calculations“, in: D.
NORTHRUP (ed.) (1994), The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 66.
43
19
Indies. Such unexpected, long voyages deteriorated the conditions on board, and
they usually showed a higher mortality than shorter crossings.
Bearing the space available to each slave in mind (about half a square
metre), the crowdedness on board must have been tremendous. As long as the ship
was in sight of land, the slaves were not allowed on board but had to remain closely
packed and chained up in their confined spaces under deck. This produced a terrible
stench, as is described by Equiano:
The stench of the hold while we were on the coast was so intolerably loathsome that it
was dangerous to remain there for any time, and some of us had been permitted to stay
on the deck for the fresh air; but now that the whole ship’s cargo were confined
together, it became absolutely pestilential. The closeness of the place, and the heat of
the climate, added to the number in the ship, which was so crowded that each had
scarcely room to turn himself, almost suffocated us. 44
However appalling the accounts of Equiano are, it should be mentioned that they
were published by abolitionists, and that Equiano himself worked in a group of
abolitionists. So, in writing his memoirs, he knew of course that a description that
was as horrible and hideous as possible, served their cause best. This has to be
borne in mind when estimating his narrative. Nevertheless, it can surely not be
denied that slaves were tightly packed, and only in 1788, more than one hundred
years after the Portuguese, did the British Parliament lay down rules regulating
space measurements for slaves. The hygienic conditions on board must have been
atrocious too. Big tubs served as toilets, or there were places over the edge of the
sea. A Portuguese clergyman who accompanied a slave ship wrote in the late
seventeenth century that slaves often relieved themselves on the very place where
they were.45
As for the crew, they did not have much more space. They would put their
hammocks into any corner, or even sleep in gangways when the ship was
overcrowded. The captain and officers had more room, but as they often smuggled
personal slaves, whom they had to “stow away” in their cabins, their space was
limited too.
Once the slaving vessel was out of sight of land, slaves were allowed on
deck. The captain and the crew then tried to keep the slaves in good mood and to
maintain as much hygiene as possible. The slaves had to clean the ship and sing
while doing it. They were also washed once a day with seawater. Nevertheless,
44
Ibid., p. 220.
20
conditions were harsh, and violence was no exception. Often, the captain chose
some slaves as supervisors of their fellow slaves, and he even provided them with a
whip. Corporal punishment occurred frequently on the ships when slaves rebelled
or disobeyed. But the crew was not exempt from that either: captains often treated
their men harshly too. On the whole, however, everybody’s main interest was to
deliver as many live and healthy slaves as possible. Wounded and worn out slaves
would not sell after all.
The food during the voyage was often simple and not much varied. On
English vessels, it consisted mainly of maize and rice; kidney beans, coarse
bananas, yams, potatoes, limes and oranges were sometimes available. Often, the
ration per day for a slave was probably less than needed, but the crew would not
receive any better or more food than the slaves. From the second half of the
eighteenth century onwards, it was also made sure that the slaves had a mouthwash
of vinegar or lime juice every morning to avoid scurvy. There were two meals a
day, one at ten in the morning and one at five in the evening. Sometimes slaves had
to be forced to take food as some of them tried to commit suicide by self-starvation.
Even though the crew might have tried to get the best food for themselves, the
following scene described by Equiano seems rather unlikely and could be one
example for Equiano’s exaggerated depiction of the slave trade:
One day they had taken a number of fishes; and when they had killed and satisfied
themselves with as many as they thought fit, to our astonishment […], rather than give
any of them to us to eat, as we expected, they tossed the remaining fish into the sea
again, although we begged and prayed for some as well as we could, but in vain. 46
As for water, British ships usually carried enough water to provide each
slave with somewhat over one litre a day. Often, even a double supply of water was
shipped in order to be prepared for possible delays. However, the daily allowance
of water was by far not sufficient, since the hot weather and the crowdedness on
board produced higher perspiration. Moreover, since slaves often suffered from
dysentery, often caused by unhealthy water, they lost even more liquid.
5.4 Mortality
45
Cf. H. THOMAS, The Slave Trade, p. 412.
O. EQUIANO, “The Interesting Narrative of The Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the
African”, p. 221.
46
21
Considering the hygienic conditions and the rather insufficient provision with food
and water, high mortality rates do not seem to be surprising. However, popular
believes that captains were not interested in the welfare of their slaves and that
slaves were treated recklessly cannot be held up. Slaves were so valuable that
captains could by no means afford loosing many of them. On the contrary, they
were interested in delivering as many of them alive because only that would ensure
high profits: “a mortality rate of 15 percent could reduce trading profits by as much
as 30 percent.”47
High mortality rates were generally inherent in long distance voyages during
this period, and the best proof of that is to look at other crossings that involved nonslave passenger such as white emigrants or convicts. The little data that is available
“would seem to suggest that the eighteenth-century immigrant mortality rates were
similar to the slave mortality rates in the same period.”48 But it has to be pointed
out that slaves were usually in their best years, while there were lots of old people
and children among the immigrants who are generally at a higher risk of dying of
diseases, for instance. Nevertheless, this comparison suggests that high mortality
rates were a known evil on all types of ship voyages.
Slave mortality, as well as mortality among other passengers, was not static
over the centuries but underwent a steady decline. In the late sixteenth century,
about 20 percent of the slaves did not survive the Middle Passage, while in the late
eighteenth century this percentage declined to 10 percent, and in the nineteenth
century it dropped even further to about 6 percent. Yet, even a 6-percent-mortality
among young people in their twenties and thirties is unusually high, especially
since non-slave mortality had reached an average of only 2 percent by the
nineteenth century.
Some abolitionists claimed that slave mortality could often be attributed to
negligence of the crew or mistreatment of the slaves. There is however one strong
argument against this claim, namely the high crew mortality on board slave ships.
“158 Liverpool slave trade crews in the 1770s experienced a Middle Passage
mortality of 28 percent per month of voyage, while mortality on the African coast
was 45 percent per month.”49 That means that the death rate of crew members was
often even higher than that of slaves. A contemporary captain, John Newton,
47
H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 132. Cf. also ibid., pp. 130-160 for the following.
Ibid., p. 135.
49
Ibid., p. 152.
48
22
pointed out that “at least one-fifth part of those who go from England to the Coast
of Africa in ships which trade for slaves, never return from thence”50. This high
crew mortality was probably due to the contact with African diseases against which
they were not immune, as well as to the fact that the crew spent much more time on
board.
There is also another factors that suggests that at least some slave mortality
was inevitable: An examination of the mortality rates under twelve French captains
who completed four or more slaving voyages showed that nearly all captains had
relatively low death rates on several voyages, followed by a voyage with an
unusually high mortality rate. It would be illogical to assume that the same captain
would suddenly mistreat the slaves in a way that brought about so many deaths.
Rather, there seem to be random factors that were responsible for higher mortality
rates, one of them being the outbreak of diseases.
Diseases caused most deaths on board, especially gastrointestinal disorders
like dysentery, which was also called the “bloody flux”. These disorders were
responsible for nearly half the known deaths. Fevers like yellow fever and malaria
were frequent too. It is very likely that in many cases Africans had caught these
diseases before boarding the ships, but the poor hygienic conditions on board as
well as the crowdedness favoured their development and spreading. However, it has
to be pointed out that there seems to be no correlation between crowdedness and
mortality: even on tightly packed ships, the death rate was not significantly higher
than on less crowded voyages, simply because an epidemic, which was the most
frequent cause of deaths, would have the same impact on a more lightly packed
ship. Other common diseases were smallpox and scurvy. Both, however, were
under control by the late eighteenth century, the latter by providing slaves with
some lime juice every morning. Outbreaks of measles were especially disastrous
but were usually not due to food and water supply or hygienic conditions, i.e. it was
absolutely random whether they broke out or not.
Sometimes, there was no apparent reason for a slave’s death: even slaves
who were well-fed and kept under relatively sanitary conditions died from time to
time. It is suggested that they suffered from depressions, or the so-called ‘fixed
50
J. NEWTON (1788), Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade, pp. 98-107, London, cited in: D. NORTHRUP,
The Atlantic Slave Trade, pp. 83f.
23
melancholy’, and that they had simply lost the will to live. Nevertheless, compared
to somatic diseases, deaths due to psychological afflictions were relatively rare.51
Only unexpectedly long crossings caused a significant higher mortality, in
most cases because the ship ran out of food or water. But on the whole, the numbers
of days at sea cannot always account for a certain death rate. Far more influential,
on the other hand, seem to be the African ports of departure. In some areas, malaria
or yellow fever were more common than in others. Furthermore, political or
ecological crises could affect food production, which, in turn, weakened the slaves
before they even left Africa. In other regions, more children were sold, which
affected the mortality of the crossing too since they were not as resistant to
diseases.
Yet, deaths were not only caused by diseases. Violence and slave rebellions
contributed their share too.52 There were only few successful rebellions: most of
them were crushed brutally, many slaves being killed during the fighting. Often, the
slave leaders were publicly executed in order to deter other slaves from future
rebellions. Storms and calms could be dangerous too. Sometimes slaves had to help
out if the crew was exhausted during storms. Some ships were completely lost at
sea after a storm. Furthermore, captains had to be aware of pirates who roamed the
Atlantic Ocean. Apparently, sometimes the crew of a slave ship would turn pirates
themselves.
Most data concerning slave mortality covers only deaths that occurred on
board the ship. However, it should not be neglected that many slaves also died
before and after the voyage. Currently, there are no reliable estimations available as
to how many slaves perished between their capture and their final delivery to the
Europeans. As has already been mentioned above (cf. p. 14), some slaves did not
survive the long marches from the inner parts of Africa to the coast. Some mortality
also occurred while the slave ships cruised along the African coast collecting slaves
(cf. p. 15f). Those that had been taken on board first had to live under poor
conditions for many weeks until the ship could finally set sail. “Thus between 18 to
30 percent of the total mortality suffered by the Africans after being purchased by
the Europeans occurred even before they left the African coast.”53
Cf. M. COWLEY / D. P. MANNIX, “The Middle Passage”, p. 109.
Cf. H. THOMAS, The Slave Trade, pp. 424ff.
53
H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 157.
51
52
24
Further deaths occurred after the landing in America. After the straining
Middle Passage, many slaves were in poor health, so that were often quarantined.
The delay in disembarkation, however, raised mortality rates. Finally, there were
deaths following adjustment to the new environment. Here again, there is no
concrete data available as to how many slaves perished during the first months after
their arrival. But it seems plausible to assume that some slaves died, being exposed
to new disease environments and labour demands.
The slaves’ mortality from capture to delivery in the Americas can thus be
summarised as follows:
Of 100 people seized in Africa, 75 would have reached the market places in the
interior; 85 percent of them, or about 64 of the original 100, would have arrived at the
coast; after losses of 11 percent in the barracoons, 57 or so would have boarded the
ships; of those 57, 51 would have stepped onto Brazilian soil, and 48 or49 would have
lived to behold their first master in the New World. The full “seasoning” period of 3-4
years would leave only 28 or 30 of the original 100 alive and working. 54
Conclusion
The Atlantic slave trade was a huge enterprise that involved three continents,
thousands of merchants, sailors and ships, and last but not least millions of
Africans. A thorough organisation was necessary in order to guarantee a smooth
proceeding of a business of such dimensions.
Although the general perception of the slave trade may still be influenced by
early abolitionist literature, historians have sufficiently proven that many
accusations of abolitionists were exaggerated and unfounded: African merchants
were not inexperienced, helpless people who sold slaves in exchange for worthless
items; captains and crews did not neglect and mistreat the slaves and let them
cruelly starve during the passage to the Americas. On the contrary: when they
arrived in Africa, Europeans found merchants that were equal to them in their
54
J. C. MILLER, “Deaths Before the Middle Passage”, in: D. NORTHRUP, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 132.
25
ability to conduct business. And since slaves had to be purchased in exchange for
valuable goods, they were looked after as much as possible.
It cannot be denied, of course, that slaves suffered from harsh conditions
during their passage to the Americas, often leading to many deaths. “But it was not
the totally disorganized, arbitrary, and bloody experience pictured in the popular
literature.”55 Slave traders were interested in a low mortality rate - for selfish
reasons, of course. But at least they did succeed in reducing the death number
significantly.
Nevertheless, the fact that many of the abolitionists’ claims have been
corrected should not be seen as a rehabilitation of the slave trade as such: it was and
is an abominable business. And since the abolitionist movement succeeded in
putting an end to the slave trade as a major-scale business, their sometimes
historically incorrect accusations should be at least excused on the level of
morality.
Bibliography
BOSMAN, W. (1721), A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea, Divided
into the Gold, Slave, and the Ivory Coasts, London, pp. 339-345, cited in: D.
NORTHRUP, The Atlantic Slave Trade, pp. 71-74.
COWLEY, M. / D. P. MANNIX, “The Middle Passage”, in: D. NORTHRUP, The Atlantic
Slave Trade, pp. 99-112.
CURTIN, P. D. (1969), The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census, Wisconsin: The University
of Wisconsin Press.
EQUIANO, O., “The Interesting Narrative of The Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus
Vassa, the African”, in: Pioneers of the Black Atlantic: Five Slaves Narratives
from the Enlightenment 1772-1815, ed. H. L. GATES Jr. / W. L. ANDREWS,
Washington: Library of Congress.
FRANKLIN, J. H. / A. A. MOSS Jr. (eds.) (1994), From Slavery to Freedom: A History
of African Americans, 7th edition, New York: Alfred E. Knopf.
55
H. KLEIN, The Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 159.
26
HAWKINS, “M. J., The third troublesome voyage [...] to the parts of Guinea, and the West
Indies, in the yeeres 1567 and 1568 by M. John Hawkins”, in: R. HAKLUYT (ed.)
(1928), The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the
English Nation, New York, pp. 53-55, cited in: D. NORTHRUP (ed.) (1994), The
Atlantic Slave Trade, pp. 70-71.
INIKORI, J. E. / S. L. ENGERMAN, „A Skeptical View of Curtin’s and Lovejoy’s
Calculations“, in: D. NORTHRUP (ed.) (1994), The Atlantic Slave Trade, Lexington:
Heath and Company, pp. 65-66.
KLEIN, H. (1999), The Atlantic Slave Trade, Cambridge: CUP.
MANNING, P., “Social and Demographic Transformations”, in: D. NORTHRUP, The
Atlantic Slave Trade, Lexington: Heath and Company, pp. 148-160.
MILLER, J. C., “Deaths Before the Middle Passage”, in: D. NORTHRUP (ed.) (1994),
The Atlantic Slave Trade, Lexington: Heath and Company, pp. 120-132.
NEWTON, J. (1788), Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade, pp. 98-107, London, cited
in: D. NORTHRUP, The Atlantic Slave Trade, pp. 80-89.
RICHARDSON, D., “The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807”, in:
The Oxford History of the British Empire (1998), Vol.2, ed. P. J. MARSHALL,
Oxford: OUP, pp. 440-464.
THOMAS, H. (1997), The Slave Trade, New York: Simon and Schuster.
WILLIAMS, E., “Economic, not Racism, as the Root of Slavery”, in: D. NORTHRUP
(ed.) (1994), The Atlantic Slave Trade, Lexington: Heath and Company, pp. 312.
27