Why Did Britain Abolish Slavery in 1833? (Pt 1)

Documentary series exploring the abolition of Slavery in the British Dominions in 1833.
In Episode 1 of this two-part documentary series, Luke Tomes explores the rebirth of an abolition movement in Britain with the formation of the Anti-Slavery Society in 1823, driven by the ambitious goal of ending the institution of slavery in British Dominions.
Also introduced is the fierce opposition facing the abolitionists, the West India Interest, a political lobby comprised of wealthy merchants, proprietors and influential Members of Parliament - all of whom held vested interests in opposing emancipation at all costs.
Presented by Luke Tomes. Featuring Dr Christer Petley, lecturer at the University of Southampton.
#historyhit #abolition #slavery
00:00 Introduction
05:05 West India Dock
07:08 William Wilberforce
11:35 Anti-Slavery Society
14:10 Slave Testimony (Olaudah Equiano)
16:11 West India Interest Opposition
22:12 Gradual or Immediate Abolition?
29:21 A Change in Momentum

[@airliebird58]

I'm from Hull (where Wilberforce was born and was its MP) His Hull home is now a museum, and when I was at school, a long time ago, they had a room with a mock-up of part of a slave ship, it was dark and you could hear groans. It was something that made a big impression on me as a kid, and it did the same to many others I've talked to about it. It has been removed now as it was deemed to be too 'scary' Thank you for this video.

[@bongfonder]

I’m also from Hull and like you remember seeing this room… it was horrific, dark and loud, the sound of the ship, chains and the moans of the men.

[@frontier_conflict]

Idiots that removed it 🙄 it being scary was probably a good thing

[@bongfonder]

@@frontier_conflict I took my children to see it, everyone should have seen it… it captured a moment in time that was truly horrific.

[@leeholt1820]

Yea, things have gone way too fluffy these days. Things like that should be kept open. I never saw that as I grew up in Manchester, but I remember there was a room done up in the same way in the Albert docks shipping museum in Liverpool that we used to get taken to see when we were in school. Surely education should be factual, not made less scary or offensive?

[@airliebird58]

@@leeholt1820 We can never know how the slaves suffered as we didn't go through it ourselves. But something like that connects you to the humans in a way a picture can't.

[@tomtom21194]

Don't know if you mention it later on but I think a bit of historical context would be good at the beginning to really show how extraordinary this was. Slavery was the norm the world over pretty much as far back as we can tell, England was weird that William the Conqueror made it illegal to sell his subjects away from British shores without paying him a hefty fee effectively making it illegal. The transatlantic slave trade was extraordinary in its scale and institutionalised cruelty but to this point, slave trading of conquered people was the norm and until the abolishionists nobody really saw it as wrong. That fact makes abolition a bloody miracle

[@tuckwatsellers]

Except France, Denmark ,Haiti and the Northern United States had already abolished the slave trade and some cases abolished slavery altogether. This was chattel slavery. Slavery elsewhere could be far more benign . For instance one ruler of the Mali empire was a former slave.

[@tuckwatsellers]

@@Wittynametag Yes I know but the point is Britain wasn't the first to abolish the slave trade and enact emancipation.

[@Jamie95326]

@@tuckwatsellers Haiti didn't abolish the slave trade. They had a bloody revolution to over throw the French control.

[@tuckwatsellers]

@@Jamie95326 Haiti might not have done it with men wearing wigs going here here and refering to right honourable members, but they did in effect stop slavery and the slave trade when they declared independence. The British parliament was so corrupt before 1832 with rotten boroughs being bought for money by the slave interest. I hope this series makes more mention of the slave revolts and Haiti's part in scaring the British into abolishing slavery and the slave trade.

[@ChrisPBacon21]

@@tuckwatsellers You definitely don't sound like you've got an agenda whatsoever.

[@rockflowerful]

While living in Aden in the 60s as young woman, on trips away from the coast into the back country, I was startled and amazed to come into contact with slaves. My husband was a doctor and was called upon to take vaccination etc into the remote areas. Many slaves worked in the fields but then their were collections of women that were called wives, often very young girls that lived in enclosed compounds. They belonged to the local leaders, never went out of the compound. It was explained to me by one of these leaders, that it was better to be a slave, as your owner had some interest in feeding his slaves , keeping them in some degree of health. Poor people…..well who cared? There was trade of slaves between local districts and once or twice a year traders from the North brought down fresh slaves for sale. I never witnessed a sale of slaves…. This traffic was done in the shadows, what was noticeable was that many slaves were African or African/Arabic features but there some with light coloured hair, blue and grey eyes? The truth is that slavery is as old as humans. I bet that in pre history , hunting gathering groups raided other groups and took slaves. It is still going on albeit it somewhat hidden. Even in highly developed countries were anything approaching slavery is unthinkable, now and again. There will be criminal cases come to light we’re small groups of vulnerable people are held in ‘slave’ situations. It is still here the dark side of humanity. Given the need, given a way to excuse the control of others, humans will take it.

[@jfkt9467]

Slaves in 1960??

[@tmuxor]

​@@jfkt9467 saudi arabia only abolished slavery in 1962. So you can imagine that people in nearby countries might have still had slaves illegally or unofficially after that period.

[@rafeeali8307]

@@tmuxorthe slaves of Saudi Arabia are much much more different then the slaves of America. To compare the two would be disingenuous

[@rafeeali8307]

Were*

[@tmuxor]

@@rafeeali8307 yes slavery was different. Fundamentally you still own a person though. I hope you're not about to argue that slavery in Islam was kind and just. That only applies if the master actually followed the rules. It's still slavery in the end. Which is bad, I'd hope by now you'd agree.

[@HistorySkills]

Great stuff. Can't wait to see Part 2.

[@1996nickm]

Brilliant video! Can’t wait for part 2 !

[@viceversa3875]

I'm really glad I found this channel. After watching this I realised I knew more about the slave trade in the US than I did bout the slave trade which occurred here in my own country. Thanks to this video that's soon changed. Looking forward to part two!

[@johncashrocks221]

The two systems are closely tied, the US slave trade was simply a continuation of the British colonial system by mostly private institutions

[@michaelogorman3944]

Hollywood has brainwashed both the Americans and Brits into thinking that the two countries are the same just because we are made up of white English speakers. As such, you were taught about a violent and bloody war in America rather than a series of political rallies and elections in Britain.

[@johncashrocks221]

@@michaelogorman3944 I don’t think Hollywood has put anything out with an agenda like that🤨At the time slavery was a thing in the Atlantic world, Americans and Brits were indeed extremely similar, primarily bc most Americans were still only a few generations removed from their Anglo/Irish/Scot forbears at that time. It’s also propaganda to claim that language and skin color were the only things connecting them in that era.

[@Jamie-Z]

@@johncashrocks221 Not really any similarity between colonialism (partership) and slavery (ownership) and no similarity between a country where slavery was legal and a country where it was not. The main thing that the US did do that was similar to Britain was to fight against slavery and to see them as human. When Britain ended most of the slave trade the US liberated its slaves whereas most slaves in the Ottoman Empire (far more than the US) and Brazil were simply killed, you never see a black man in Turkey or Brazil but they bought far more African slaves. Today the US suffers for its kindness in much the same way as Britain.

[@johncashrocks221]

@@Jamie-Z “you never see a black man in Brazil” lmfao what the fuck are you on about

[@craigthompson3739]

Slavery is as old as civilization. To put it in perspective, a world without slavery is a very recent and modern phenomenon.

[@nascar0509]

Not even today as an estimated ten million are slaves in India alone.

[@Perroden]

Muslims still have slaves and then there's China who has no labor laws

[@grassisgreenerotos]

there are more people in slavery today than in any other moment of history

[@Jamie-Z]

@@nascar0509 The only open slave markets that I know of are in Africa (Mauritania and Northern Nigeria). South East Asia has a lot of slavery with most fish boats being crewed by slaves who, generally, cannot swim. China still has a lot but it is still a closed market as is Thailand. There are around 27 million people in slavery today, far more than talked about in the time of the trans Atlantic slave trade but thank you Britain for you brave work and determination.

[@lioneljaftha3473]

You could be correct. The point to me made about the slavery in this video is this slavery was practised by so called Christians for financial enrichment. The Universal Christian Church (the church that preaches the love of a Preferential God (a God that it would seem, favoured white people and black people were considered sub human)Therefore slavery was NOT a sin since black people were not sentient beings. Don't try to confuse the numerous ways that unfortunates were enslaved. Slavery in any form is evil. As a Christian by birth I could never understand why my parents could belong to such an abhorrent religion that was so obviously Antichrist. No matter what reasons are forwarded as justification of such gross evil , Slavery should never be forgotten

[@Maliothemaster]

I'd just like to point out, that at 14:39 the painting of 'Olaudah Equiano', is now actually thought to be a painting of a man by the name of Ignatio Sanchez. The painting is held by a museum in the south west of england named the Royal Albert Memorial Museum.

[@joecorrigansarmpit]

Well researched and very interesting! Looking forward to part 2!

[@Otto72ish]

When mentioning the various groups that benefitted from the slave trade, it's important that you don't leave out the African slavers who hunted, captured and sold people to Europeans.

[@Ingens_Scherz]

Exactly. This is a mindless (American, actually) view of Britain's destruction of slavery in the Western hemisphere. The seed of the abolitionist movement in Britain was planted in 1066 - by accident. That's one of the things that makes England/Britain so utterly unique in the wider world.

[@AlxndrHQ]

Absolutely

[@dominickroberts4653]

Thank you very much. Someone understands.

[@mabroukatis]

You must be proud of European slavers too who sold their own to Oriental kingdoms. Or the Caucasian slavers who sold their own too. Because your tone shows that only African slavers are at fault, but not the European ones who capture white slaves. Maybe when Chinese historians "rewrite" history someone will stop being a racist and single out one race for vices

[@sirphineasluciusambercromb9114]

@@Ingens_Scherz Britain banned Jewry in 1290 under Edward the Longshanks. They're not this utopia that you think they are.

[@marcusalford1750]

Hey congrats on hitting 100k subs well deserved 👏👏👏

[@HistoryHit]

🎉

[@Gorilla2412]

Thanks for the top quality history documentaries. Keep it up

[@tracesprite6078]

Enslaving people is a disgusting practice. It is also awful how we enslave animals. We make horses run races, we do medical experiments on monkeys and mice, we keep birds in cages, etc.

[@tracesprite6078]

An encouraging thought is that we are extending the world's National Parks so that some animals can live in freedom, no longer enslaved by humans.

[@realmenofengland7534]

Will you do a piece on the Arabs taking of slaves?

[@johnharris3335]

Nope they will never because brown men can’t take slaves that goes against white man bad narrative

[@realmenofengland7534]

@@johnharris3335 Oh aye yeah, silly me.

[@jameshosler6925]

>history channel where almost all of the videos are about European history >reee why aren't you talking about the middle east

[@MrBannystar]

@@jameshosler6925 *"history channel where the almost all of the videos"* So, NOT ALL, then? This channel is called History Hit, not European Only History Hit.

[@jameshosler6925]

@@MrBannystar yeah but it's still a channel that focuses principally on Europe and mostly on England. So while covering slavery in England is in line with most of their content covering Arab slavery would be an exception. I guess my point is that the point of this video isn't to demonize whites. Which "real men of England" seems to think it is

[@redfire20003]

The sad thing is that slavery or at least indentured labour is still practiced today in Saudi Arabia.

[@ETS186]

Most, if not all, gulf countries

[@heinrichjanevanrensburg1900]

Nice 👍.

[@katherinecollins4685]

Very interesting

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

As in most ancient societies, slavery was very widespread throughout the Roman Empire: there were African and Mediterranean slaves, Asiatic and European ones, Celtic and Germanic, Thracian and Iberian, Greek, and even native Italian Roman slaves. There were domestic and agricultural slaves, highly educated and otherwise skilled slaves who served in positions of influence; and of course, there was the vast majority, who were charged with the drudgery of carrying out the most menial, hardest, and most physically punishing tasks. There were private and State-owned slaves, and those most unfortunate souls who were condemned and cruelly worked to death in the mines and galleys. By all accounts, by far the worst slaves from the Roman perspective appear to have been the Greeks. They had a reputation for being notoriously disobedient, arrogant, impudent, demanding, obstreperous, and...bossy towards their own masters. Still, despite these shortcomings and fearsome reputation, they also seemed to be universally prized among the Roman patrician class. The Romans had a curse which they reserved for their bitterest enemies: “May your path be strewn with scorpions, your bedding crawling with fleas, and your household filled with Greeks.” ADDENDUM (edit.) Makes one wonder if they were much worth the trouble having...

[@Kefuddle]

Interesting piece of Brick Lane. I remember as a motorcycle courier in the 80's, that Brick Lane was deserted, the occupied buildings were just sweat shops, many of the buildings actually had barbed wire around them...I always assumed to stop the poor people working within from escaping.

[@robertjohnsontaylor3187]

Actually William the conqueror outlawed the sale and purchasing of people I think circa 1068.

[@user-kl9sr4ry6s]

Great!

[@patrickmahony8641]

Not taking from the mentioned slave trade but when will you mention about the vast slave trade within Africa by the Arabs for thousand pf years.. its well documented by good black african historians ..

[@nunceccemortiferiscultu7826]

That doesn't fit "the narritive"

[@vincewhite5087]

Wonder if you will do a show on the Black African empires that supplied ALL the Euro & Americas with the slaves?

[@darylwayne5307]

It appears as though the point is being missed on the abolition of chattel slavery, this simply allowed the British to change their business model from colonial governance and slave labor into the new business model of wage slavery. Indenturing the populations through government debt to the international banking scheme that went onto subsume the world we presently inhabit. This was originally marketed and branded as Free Trade and Free Market economics. For further research on your own accord, see "The Hazard Circular" and "Bankers Manifesto".

[@elizner]

When is part 2 releasing

[@jaycool5978]

Finally real history being taught.

[@michelej9496]

"Each one teach one." -African Proverb

[@user-uy3nl1ds5s]

Thanks you Britain and all other for the fight against slavery.

[@richardmoss5934]

4.50, did it in fact only decimate the slave trade as he says or destroy it?

[@hudsonfrank1121]

In rooms that echo you may want to consider a mic.

[@film8ker1684]

Good video TERRIBLE audio when sitting in the chair in the echo chamber. So bad it made it hard to pay attention to what you were saying. Buy a lavaliere microphone or reshoot the scene if you forgot to turn it on.

[@OATMEALCMC]

Yet slavery is alive and well in Africa, Asia and the West Indies today. But nobody ever wants to talk about that. Nobody wants to have to give up their sugar, chocolate or any Apple product. "Activist" "empathy" simply doesn't extend that far. Not if it means actual sacrifice to help people. Much easier to winge over wrongs of long ago; in an attempt to frame oneself as a "good person." Heck, there's not even attempt to learn from those past wrongs. Nope, label it as evil so you don't have to confront those lessons. 🙈🙉🙊

[@natenae8635]

Slavery is not alive in the Caribbean/West Indies your talking trash.

[@OATMEALCMC]

@@natenae8635 the sugar plantations in the Dominicana Republic. Go ahead and dig. You'll find it.

[@natenae8635]

@@OATMEALCMC I see I stand corrected. But still don’t say the Caribbean. Say the DR. The Caribbean has more territories and countries than Europe put together.

[@Perroden]

And don't forget China and Muslim countries

[@joshuataylor3550]

Why do you see this as a zero sum game? You can very easily 'whinge' about slavery of the past but still condemn modern day slavery. In fact that's very easy to do.

[@3DSgeek]

People seem to forget this happened and that many British people died and money expended policing other European countries. Modern slavery is a far bigger problem than the Atlantic slave trade and the overwhelming amount of slavers historically and presently are "PoC".

[@enochpowel4580]

from what countries do we have modern day slave trade..?

[@jarofdirt8708]

@@enochpowel4580 Not so much a slave trade. But there are an estimated 40 million slaves in the world currently. With a large proportion in India.

[@enochpowel4580]

@@jarofdirt8708 anyone putting sanctions on them....?

[@jarofdirt8708]

@@enochpowel4580 no clue, look it up

[@enochpowel4580]

@@jarofdirt8708 the answers no, you will find these slaves also in african countries.. the very people who claim everyone else is racist, except them. any sanctions?

[@azzking9305]

They basically used petty criminals as slaves here in the early days of Australia, tho the reasons Britain used its own people is very rarely mentioned

[@RighAlban]

Misconstrued the first few words, actually associated Britain with all 13 million, have a look at what percentage of them actually went to the Carribbean and North America, have a look at the percentage that went to what was Louisiana, now pass the buck to Spain, France and Portugal and also the largest suppliers and ship owners from Newport where the oldest religious building of theirs is. It's all on record, all of it receipts and all.

[@brucegibbins3792]

Barbados was the centre of the British slave trade from the sixteenth century. From there, after being sold, captured, then imported black Africans were distributed to other islands in the Caribbean where several European countries held labor intensive commercial interests. Like any business, cost management was, as it still is important. Keeping Slaves meant that labor cost could be kept low and could be banked as profits. While slavery was outlawed in the British Isles, it was still part of horticulture and manufacturing in territories and states where the British traded. Cotton fields in the American South relied on slave labor to operate and the British benefitted by the importation of American cotton to supply the raw material for its factories. Just to appease any British people who may read this and default to the position of finger pointing to similar egregious behaviors by other European powers, yes, it wasn't only your antecedents but those in other countries too have blood on their hands. Even as late as the early 1930s, the imperial Japan enslaved people in the country's they invaded along with captured military personnel serving in the forces sent to push them back to their home islands.

[@nunceccemortiferiscultu7826]

@Bruce Gibbins and parts of africa and some arab states still practice it.

[@andypandy9013]

Both sides of my family are from Hull. The people of Hull are as proud as Punch of William Wilberforce and what he did to help end the odious trade in Human Beings.

[@mazzoanV2]

What makes me so sick about that country is that they want credit for ending it after benefitting from it for centuries. If i make rubber and a company takes that rubber to make tyres for a car does that make me part of the automobile industry?

[@TheNazradin]

This video could do with out the menacing background music.

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

TheNazradin - Maybe it was produced by Greeks...the ‘muzak’ is notoriously loud in all Greek historical documentaries - so much so, one never knows in what language they are narrated.

[@dicklong6479]

Olaudah Equiano also wrote about the African slave trade.

[@finleyquayemusic]

Olaudah Gustava Equiano

[@dpop8378]

Because it wasn't profitable anymore. The industrial revolution made it an expensive and risky business.

[@davidatkinson5858]

So if it was about profit why did they spend more than half the accumulated wealth of the biggest empire in human history immediately and five generations of their descendents hard earned tax money to eradicate slavery worldwide then?

[@elernion]

Why did it pursue it on a massive scale in the first place?

[@vincewhite5087]

Wilberforce gave his whole life to doing it & Mr Newton

[@vincewhite5087]

Was also churches that went against it, ie evangelicals. Like Wilberforce.

[@davidedbrooke9324]

Why? Morality. How, our money, Navy, people.

[@altcoin5631]

freaking background music ruins this documentary

[@liamkelly1312]

Wilberforce was a preacher at the Holy Trinity Church, Clapham Common which bears a blue plaque boasting it's 'Clapham Sect' heritage- 200 yrs later a young "Windrush" commonwealth citizen went to the same church and after the service was politely asked by the vicar not to come back.

[@captainhindsight8779]

People often forget this when they’re slating the British empire.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Mae Payne, Slavery was worldwide for thousands of years. The British didn't start it, nor were they the biggest participants in it but they were the first to end it and put money and effort into stopping others from doing it. The Romans, Vikings, Moors etc enslaved Britons. Slavery was a normal human practice. It was abnormal to abolish it, which Britain did. The British abolishing slavery was a huge deal, and of enormous benefit to millions of people.

[@EagerChurros-bm7du]

​​@@lyndoncmp5751no haitans were the first one to ban slavery after britain ban African slavery they introduce Indian chattel slavery to enslave indians

[@Ostsol]

I actually wonder if the mistreatment of slaves lessened to some degree when the Transatlantic trade was abolished. After all, if you work your slaves to death and have no ability to replace them, you're just ruined yourself. There's local trade, but with the incoming supply gone, the prices will skyrocket. Slaves become more valuable and there is an incentive to not kill, maim, or otherwise do anything to harm productivity unless absolutely necessary (like in the event of a revolt). This isn't to say that emancipation wasn't necessary, but it might be a mistake to say that nothing changed prior to it. Again, the fundamental issue remained, but the conditions within that issue certainly changed.

[@Ostsol]

@Chris Certainly true, though I expect that forcing the issue was by far less common in the US than simply encouraging marriage. After all, happy, healthy workers, whether free or slaves, are always more productive than the physically and emotionally broken. Severe mistreatment is only viable when one expects to have a steady, cheap supply available. Such was the case especially in pre-Blockade Brazil, Nazi Germany, and in the Soviet Gulags.

[@Ostsol]

@Chris Perhaps a limited selection, often where it is mentioned ancillary to the main subject of my reading, but by no means "watered down."

[@AlxndrHQ]

🇺🇸 American here: I’m unsure of the British colonies, but in America it just turned into US based “slave breeding farms” primarily in Maryland and Virginia. There were also instances of illegal importation. Additionally, African born importation was still allowed into Cuba and Brazil.

[@Ostsol]

@@AlxndrHQ Not so much "allowed" as they defied the blockade. In the case of Brazil, the British Navy ended up operating in Brazilian waters to force them to stop.

[@uzairazhar2564]

@Chris the “Transatlantic” slave traded ended in 1807.

[@peterkalyabe7553]

This kind of slavery is the darkest betrayal humanity has ever inflicted on its own kind. It was extremely brutal.

[@sirphineasluciusambercromb9114]

When was the Ferris Wheel over the Thames built?

[@neanderthaloutdoors9202]

Yeah and we only just finished paying reperation money in the 90's.

[@nigelsheppard625]

The interest on the debt was paid in 2014.

[@YesItsMeGuys68]

it's so mind boggling to even think of a time where one person could actually Own another human being as property .... society was such an animalistic nature

[@TheDCbiz]

It is still happening to this day

[@mikie156]

One thing i have to say is that how much influence did the founding fathers of america had on slavery. all MEN are created equal

[@wiggluededgessnatched]

Yet Mauritania just abolished slavery in 2007 and half still depends on their former masters in forms of cheap labor for shelter, security and food. And in the rich gulf nations and Saudi they still have secret slaves.... 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

[@magistrumartium]

14:45 I wish you explained how a slave (unpaid worker) could purchase his freedom.

[@whatcouldiputhere]

Use the term enslaved people not slaves as it gives them their humanity back

[@granitesevan6243]

Ridiculous comment

[@davehoward22]

public opinion turning against it helped

[@Jebeom_Platon]

Hi

[@beau4170]

no - why is it still happening

[@robnewman6101]

Wow.

[@Eric-the-Bold]

The subject of slavery seems to concentrate on slavery aspects that relate to Africans that were enslaved and transported to the Americas. No mention who enslaved them in the first place. Ie the start of the process, just the end result. I have been going though Church records for Souldern Oxfordshire regarding family history. At the bottom of the register there were lots of money collected for various relief funds. I found one dated 19th April 1692 the collection re relief for freed slaves. Captives in Sally [Argiers] and Barbary. Another on 8th August 1700.The Question is what were Africa American slaves doing there? Oh wait a minute. Or just other enslaved Christian folk from Great Britain. Ie Devon or Cornwall.

[@angrygran763]

They never seem to mention that Africans themselves were in involved in the slave trade. Africans captured the people that would become slaves, so when they start talking about reparations they should start looking at Africa itself.

[@OATMEALCMC]

Adam Smith speaks of the economics of slavery in his book Wealth of Nations, published in 1775. It's quite edifying.

[@MrBannystar]

@@angrygran763 Shhhh don't mention that, it's wholly inconvenient to their victim narrative!

[@natenae8635]

@@MrBannystar I wouldn’t say it’s a narrative if it actually happened.

[@MrBannystar]

@@natenae8635 It absolutely IS a victimhood narrative when certain people try to exploit the horrors of slavery 150-200 years ago to excuse their failings today, or when others denounce a nation as some kind of bigoted racist hellhole.

[@chrismac2234]

We the British committed our power and influence to end what no other country before or since has tried.... The end of slavery

[@iuric.528]

Dude, Haiti ended the same kind of slavery in 1794.

[@honisoitquimalypense1316]

@@iuric.528 how did they pressure other countries to do the same, how much debt did they get in to doing it, how many men did they lose trying to free slaves from other ships?.... dude.

[@iuric.528]

@@honisoitquimalypense1316 they still supported the confederat states on the USA civil war for economic porpouses. It doen't matter If you abolish one kind of slavery, and then supports the same over seas. The Haiti abolition was literaly a slave revolt that, they died for this, their families died for this.

[@honisoitquimalypense1316]

@@iuric.528 Britain as a nation never supported the confederate States at all, private companies did, thats like saying the US didn't support Britain in ww2 because Ford supported and helped Hitler. Plus the American civil war wasn't about ending slavery, if it was then Lincoln wouldn't have said what he did. Yes Haitians fought and died for their own but not others is the point, British men died saving and freeing slaves from other nations.

[@iuric.528]

You may be right, the british crown was neutral during the USA civil war, the main source of support of the confederacy from the british was member of private companies that sliped supplies in exchange for cotton and other products. My anterior statment was highlt exageretad in this part. However simply reducing the Haiti movement as a selfish one because they didn't expend resources, that they did't have, to help the rest of the slave word, is a statment of poor taste in my personal opinion. the british at this time was one of the most powerfull and influential "countries " on the planet, and even with all this power they didn't actualy did the true game changing move that is ending slavery down right from their trading partners. The USA only ended theirs in 1865 and Brazil only in 1889, both were big american economies that the British traded with and both never really suffered enough pression to do so. And ending slave trafic never hurt most slave economies because at this point in history they had enough slaves to be self suficient. While a small and weak island nation with no economic power simple ignored every thing and did the abolition. Just walking around the problem don’t solve it, specially with slavery. The british with the amount of power they had just did the minimum.

[@lordvonmanor6915]

Why and how did Britain abolish serfdom after slavery?

[@Brewed-mi1ue]

The British Crown, Royal Family is still enjoying the riches they personally earned through the slave trade to this very day🙄😳. Forgoing the slave trade was NEVER a move for justice, or benevolence 😲🤔

[@stevenwilgus5422]

Simple answer, it was no longer profitable.

[@vonryansexpress]

I'm surprised this video hasn't been taken down . .

[@jimmillward3505]

you guys need to do a video about the horrors and abuse that the poor Irish slaves endured as well. it was horrific for them and hardly anyone talks about how they were treated worse than dogs in America.

[@jimlepeu577]

I think those horrors were the same for all slaves

[@matty6848]

By who though? Other Americans who profited off the slave trade.

[@BenDover-tj8vf]

One paddy is the same as another , no one cares .

[@finleyquayemusic]

What did your last servant die of? Hardly anyone talks about this either. Fully aware of everything

[@qf4543]

Is it true that Britain abolished slaves BEFORE free african countries did?

[@joshuataylor3550]

Well sure, the African countries were not free until the 1960s or later. How could they have.

[@SuperFunkmachine]

England never had legal slavery, it had a system where slaves would never touch English soil, the Somerset case made that clear what happed if they did. Transportation and indenture did fill much of the same role but with critical legal differences.

[@djlystics]

Don’t expect an applause For fixing a problem you caused

[@grabtharshammer]

The slave Trade as made illegal in the UK and its colonies in 1807. Freedom in the colonies was in 1833 (mostly) and slave owners were compensated by a massive amount (at the time) of 20 million pounds, which the people of the UK only finished paying for in 2015. However, in England it only became illegal to actually own a slave in 2010 as an afterthought

[@Pmooli]

Same way we paid settlers for our land in Kenya. I think we finished paying recently. Slavery was abolished in order to increase the tonnage available for shipping industrial goods which was more profitable. The African Kingdoms had become proficient in haggling and the price for slaves was so high that it often became a loss making venture.

[@simplesimon5739]

That £20 million pounds was a bond. And it paid out 4% two times a year. So that was £1.6 million p.a. 1957 was actually the year it could be paid of. It cost us far more than 20 million.

[@Goldlion973]

A lot of dishonesty when it comes to British history. Those who are unaware may not know of the Nazi's considerations of how to effectively deny others their rights whilst avoiding becoming beasts of men themselves while doing so. This perspective and attempt at solution has long found its way into European attitudes toward Colonialism and Imperialism as institutions that still continue to this day. So.... we hear nothing of the EXTREME cost of maintaining such brutal oppression, no mention of the wars fought and WON against enslavers. We are sold the idea of an enlightened English driven to compassion after making HUGE profits from their actions. Anyone with genuine compassion would have long related to the triumphant and daring stories of those who were enslaved and their various victories, long before coming to the institutionalised change of operation that those who profited from it enacted in reaction. The British tax payer finished paying the decedents of slave owners for their loss of human stock in ****2016**** (it is now 2024). People talk of the abolishment of slavery but somehow manage to neglect colonialism and the wars fought against it and still manage to stake claim to some whisper of humanity and pride while doing so. Despite the apparent abolishment of slavery being followed directly by colonialism. Again, we talk about abolishment but not the fact that Haiti which freed itself has long been pursued by European and American states driving it into a state of absolute poverty through theft and abuse of that free nation state. These facts being a few things I like to throw out as bird feed for those proud and enfluffed people who actually think the British ''abolished slavery'' as though it were not an economic decision that gave them the opportunity to police the seas and begin an era of colonialism instead.

[@moc7323]

I ask myself that every day ..?

[@iamjustsaying4787]

At the same time Britain was taking full advantage of cultural practices like the caste system. But after all, the Untouchables aren’t technically slaves.

[@johnharris3335]

The Normans abolished slavery in the 11th century when they conquered England

[@joshuataylor3550]

Are you feeling ok today?

[@Rowlph8888]

Okay, so the Scandinavians then. the Brits that in the rest of the rest of the world

[@LeicaM11]

A British child for sure does not believe, what their ancestor did in the great Empire past. How do they react? For sure, they want to vomit alle their wealth, money, traditions and gold nuggets.

[@vincewhite5087]

In the carribean they not how Church of England people would attack evangelical congregations.

[@Prince_of_Saint_Domingue]

George Canning was not a Lord. His son was though

[@scruffy50531]

11:54 girl in black dress in heels in the background.. ankle is in danger

[@jwhiskey242]

When talking about all of the people that made money on slavery - no mention of the African chiefs that supplied the bodies for slavery.

[@naithngr81-jh2bb]

that's because african chiefs who were used by whites did so because of guns and not because of actual money that they could generate wealth on. not to mention that as soon as whites were done with them, they overran them when they colonized the continent.

[@berniefynn6623]

Britain NEVER had slavery, it was against very old anglo saxon law which said all men are free

[@bt3743]

is that why theres an entire wikipedia article about it? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#:~:text=Slavery%20in%20Britain%20existed%20prior,in%20English%20law%20or%20custom.

[@aleksanderfinstad5785]

Britain did never have official have slavery in Britain. But sadly only have slavery outside Britain out imperiet true non-British people cast as slave, a kind of legal loophole, which British shipowners and British financial firms abused, as an excuse to make money, free labor and lazy excuse to say that slavery is a "very common tradition in the world".

[@berniefynn6623]

@@aleksanderfinstad5785 So many gutless chinless wonders complain of a FEW who had slaves, but NO ONE condemns the muslims who actually supplied the slaves. NO WAY will I accept criticism until such times as these same gutless people condemn muslims for supplying slaves.

[@MENSA.lady2]

It was legal to own a slave in the UK until as recently as 2010.

[@dissent6812]

Africans and the Middle east fought hard to stop the white Christian English from stopping the slave trade. Most folks are fully aware of the trans-Atlantic slave trade which lasted over a four hundred year span. But we know very little about slavery that was happening in other parts of the world, both before and after the Atlantic salve trade was outlawed. The Arabs long before any White man stepped onto African shores had a 700-year period where slaves were being traded not just from Africa but from Europe too. In fact, Europeans enslaved each other as did Africans, Slavery was in fact a world wide phenomenon and it is estimated that even in todays world well over a 100 countries still practice slavery. One may argue that modern day slavery is now practiced exclusively in non White countries. A big Difference between the Arabs and the Western world was in which the slaves were treated. In the western world today we have the descendants of slaves and most folks would be able to name famous Black folks from America be it sports personality, pop star, or even a politician as we saw with Barack Obama, but then try doing the same with somebody who is Black and comes from the Middle East and I would bet most people would be unable to do it. The main reason behind this is because the Arabs castrated the men and 6 in every 10 slaves would die from this practice. But the silence is deafening on this matter which says a lot about those opposed to revealing this information. One would have to ask the reasoning and its plainly obvious that it destroys the narrative the left and liberals want you to believe so rather than discuss it they leave it out. Which is what they do with any information that threatens their own agenda’s.

[@oyaami1874]

Haiti

[@ducthman4737]

Slavery has never been abolished just changed the why it looks. If those in power have the right to know EVERYTHING about you you are no longer free. Therefore Direct Taxation = Slavery. Just try not to pay and find out how long you stay 'free'.

[@Finderskeepers.]

except your free to leave if you dont want to pay

[@ducthman4737]

@@Finderskeepers. After fulfilling all your tax obligations. And than the question is where to go? Give me the name of a country the authorities are not following you?

[@Finderskeepers.]

@@ducthman4737 It would have to be a huge tax liability for them to follow you in which case you have enough money to live many places. Any country that doesnt have an extradition treaty eg Saudi Arabia

[@ducthman4737]

@@Finderskeepers. So for most of us it would be nearly impossible to leave. And would you really be free in Saudi Arabia a place where today slavery still exists and women are second rang citizens ?

[@Finderskeepers.]

@@ducthman4737 Taxes are what pay for society. Pick the society you want

[@Thebonesoftrees]

People should look into the owners of the ships. Their "early lives" and faith.......

[@matty6848]

Yes not many know the faith of those ship owners. Just research who owned the Windrush?!

[@wendigo53]

Upper Canada (now Ontario) had a 1793 law which gradually ended slavery, completing by 1818. (We had fewer slaves than some colonies.)

[@user-xu9ib9cd6d]

These slave masters changed the names of slaves to English. They also enforced Caribbean people to use their laws. Caribbean countries have British laws on their books.

[@simplesimon5739]

They're lucky then.

[@user-xu9ib9cd6d]

The descendants of masters are still rich ,they are the lucky ones. Not blacks,who are seen as inferior

[@user-xu9ib9cd6d]

Slaves were unpaid. Royals benefitted from slave trade. They are still rich

[@user-xu9ib9cd6d]

Caribbean people are still colonized by UK , although each island is independent. King Charles is represented by a governor general in each island. So we are still enslaved. Barbados said " no way" and became a republic

[@simplesimon5739]

@@user-xu9ib9cd6d Your free to go. Bye bye. Perhaps the names were changed to English because the Africans that sold them failed to translate their names.

[@craigmignone2863]

Debt slavery is more lucrative the slave owner no longer had to provide for his chattels they had to pay for their slavery 30,000,000 my ass

[@AoibheannStateira]

Ummmm... where is part 2?

[@SEAZNDragon]

One of the critiques of the 1619 Project was it portrayed the American Revolution was an attempted to keep slavery due to a British court case ruling African slaves had civil right. Somehow the fact Britain didn't end slavery in its colonies 50 years after the American Revolution seem to elude the editors.

[@artemisjuno]

Surely Britain had no jurisdiction in America after the American revolution.

[@SEAZNDragon]

@@artemisjuno I was referring to the colonial period. The 1619 Project editors seem to think because the British Empire freed their slaves before the US and there was a 1776 British court ruling saying slaves were entitled to rights led the American colonies to rebel to keep slavery. However that line of thinking falls short given the Empire still had slavery 50 years after the end of the American Revolution and all the tax disputes before the Revolution.

[@TransoceanicOutreach]

Britain abolished slavery as a form of economic warfare against the other european empires. It had enough money to free its slaves, but the other empires did not, and more importantly it had begun industrializing and could replace slave labour with machines. The other empires were significantly inferior in both these regards, so a global abolition of slavery would hurt the British less than everyone else, resulting in an increase of british economic power relative to it's rivals. Basically the thinking was 'it will hurt us a little, but hurt everyone else a lot'. For example, the Brazilian Empire was stopped in it's tracks and never recovered from the economic hit that it took from losing the slave imports.

[@davidatkinson5858]

Err so they spent more than half the total wealth of their empire immediately and five generations of their descendents hard earned tax money because it made them richer?🤔 sure

[@ndi1928]

SPOT ON MATE !!

[@ndi1928]

Things are never what they seem on the surface. There's far more to this story. Do you really think that two nations England And West Africa who were so heavily invested as partners in the Transatlantic trade got a sudden attack of guilt , and flipped over night into policing the West African coast and trying to stop every nation from trading. There is another element to this story that the narrator in this video has completely missed. At this moment in History in the nineteenth century the Industrial revolution and increased mechanisation were starting to the overtake the old agrarian economy of which large scale plantation slavery was a part. The real reason the British abolished the trade on the West coast was Palm Oil. They needed palm oil in vast quantities to grease the wheels of the Industrial revolution. They needed to keep slaves in Africa to work on Palm Oil plantations. The whole thing was driven by money not ethics. The west African Kings and Chiefs who were the partners of the British Royal trading companies were extremely pissed off when the Brits said they wanted to ban the trade. The Brits told the chiefs to try this new business growing palm for palm oil and even paid the chiefs some compensation for the huge amount of money they lost out on by not being allowed to export slaves. The chiefs gave it a go but found they couldn't make any money and wrote letters to the British Crown begging for them to lift the ban and reinstate the slave trade. The Brits refused so the African rulers carried on exporting slaves and found ways to evade the British navy West African squadron who were policing the coast. The chiefs had to load up the boats by taking them up river a bit at night time, instead of openly in daylight at the trading castles along the coast as they had done before. The chiefs continued to export large numbers of slaves for another 100 years or so after the supposed ban on the trade. It was and still is all about money and trade . Ethics doesn't get a look in when there's big dollar involved. The Elite 1 per cent of Royal and aristocratic clans both in Africa and In Europe were selling their own people down the river for profit back then and nothing has changed up to today. The Elites/Globalists are still selling humanity down the river for profit

[@0nan-Son-of-Juda-Brother-of-Er]

1807

[@sarcasmo57]

I heard the Tories are thinking of bringing it back.

[@devekut2]

And then you had all that obsolete farm equipment lying around.

[@norbertschanne1943]

When did Britain abolish Slavery (or more broadly, Slavery-like work relations) in Africa, the Pacific Islands and Australia? When Slave Trade in the Pacific? ... Britain maintained Slavery for several decades after the Slavery Abolition Act.

[@HarryFlashmanVC]

Slavery was abolished in England in the 11thC. The Slave Trade was abolished in 1807. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1836. The reason for the delay between abolishing the Trade and abolishing Slavery is detailed in this film. There were huge vested interests in Slavery, vast amounts of wealth and power tied up in it. The abolishonists knew they went after Slavery as an institution they would not succeed so they targeted the most publicly cruel part, the Trade. Once this had been passed and once Britain had achieved maritime supremacy after 1812, they moved onto the fight to abolish it across the Empire.

[@NathanDudani]

1863

[@gravityboy79]

Dude! This is not why! Just bcuz it was wrong to enslave? We want to know why not how!

[@hassasinali7979]

Ohhhhhmy god

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

16:31-16:45 - So, essentially, nothing has changed.

[@coolcoder2306]

anyone else here as school homework

[@leegundlach391]

Africa is guilty as hell for kidnapping all the ghani people

[@dkmphotography_co_uk]

No people or country like discussing their darkest aspects of history... But the UK is peculiar in their insistence on viewing a 'sanitised' version of history. Choosing to concentrate on the (eventual) abolishment of slavery, but ignoring their part in the mass industrialisation of the human slave trade, & how many decades of campaigning from the likes of Wilberforce it took to change the very laws that the country had profited so much from... Let alone accept the long impacting, knock on effects of it, felt even in our modern society. In order to learn from history, we must first accept it.

[@R0B0TUK]

Well no shit, everyone already knows the bad stuff , its just not all was bad

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The documentary is specifically about the ABOLISHMENT of if. Not the story of slavery in itself. It all about why Britain ended it. That's it's focus.

[@dkmphotography_co_uk]

@@R0B0TUK Disagree... FAR too many DON'T know the bad stuff & the full history. We British are terrible for rewriting history to only concentrate on the positives. I'm far more historically literate than my parents etc. They have a very glossed over version of British history in their heads & are often shocked when corrected.

[@dkmphotography_co_uk]

@@lyndoncmp5751 As others have said... it's all about context. One singular point in history taken out of context is NOT going to provide the full picture.

[@ReasonAboveEverything]

The whole "spirit of looking at the evils past" is almost solely practiced by people in West. It is just fine to look at the positive things as well.

[@bt3743]

I see the slavery understanders flocked to this comment section?