Did the British have an ulterior method for crushing the slave trade?

It surprises me that the government would take such a clearly moral stance...I suppose I'm too cynical, but I can't help but wonder if they had an ulterior motive?

And, as an AH scenario, what if they hadn't?

Public pressure prompted by a brilliant campaign lead by William Wilberforce. The Joanna Lumley of the early 19th C.

To destroy an economic system that favoured Britain's rivals over Britain itself.

You're right to be cynical, governments may play up the morality of certain actions, but they only ever do what is right when there is a pragmatic benefit to doing so.

ninebucks said:

To destroy an economic system that favoured Britain's rivals over Britain itself.

You're right to be cynical, governments may play up the morality of certain actions, but they only ever do what is right when there is a pragmatic benefit to doing so.

Click to expand...

This si frankly bullshit. One shouldnt trust government propaganda, but one deludes onself just the same way if one assumes theres no idealist motivations for anything. The British (and later on also other European colonial powers) fought (with various levels of earnestness, of course, and also with various levels of success) slavery all over their Empire(s), and not just the US-American slave trade (which was illegal under the USAs own law, too, anyways!)

Of course there was an ulterior motive, much of Britain's wealth was derived from the slave triangle so making a big deal of crushing the slave trade both provided a smokescreen and a cleansing of the conscience.

Fatal Wit said:

It surprises me that the government would take such a clearly moral stance...I suppose I'm too cynical, but I can't help but wonder if they had an ulterior motive?

And, as an AH scenario, what if they hadn't?

Click to expand...

You are cynical. As noted, public pressure. Nobody wants to be votes out. But in that case one could argue that everything an elected government is for the ulterior motive of being re-elected.

The slave-trade did not favour Britain's rivals, and as noted by Susano, the Sultan of Sumgodforsakenswampineestafrika was not a rival to British power and so we had no need to spend valuable time and resources making him stop slaving.

The Dean, I'm not sure I understand you. You're saying we felt bad about having been engaged in the despicable traffic in human misery, so we decided to make an effort to show that we'd reformed by trying to destroy it, and you consider this an "ulterior motive"?

You must be bad at taking apologies.

In conclusion, the British people turned against the slave trade, just as everyone was starting too at the time, and the government went along with that, also having their own moral convictions (Wellington, for example, got the trade condemned at Vienna at some diplomatic cost, and if Vienna had been all about pleasing Britain's bleeding-hearted public opinion, why no free Poland?). That's not to say we and the other European powers were happy-shiny-fun in the 19th century, but we were capable of pursuing moral causes.

On a related topic, the actual abolition of slavery itself, certainly there's no motive to be found there. We shot the West Indies right in the economic foot, and since we were about the first Great Power to abolish slavery it wasn't like we were under any pressure except our own.

The British government was pressured by interest group like the Anti-Slavery society. When the British realized these groups were gaining the moral high ground, and having much influence in both Houses of the Parliament they felt compelled to end the slave trade. And if it was forbidden in Britain, it had to be a British crusade to make sure it's forbidden everywhere.

Mark-ITSOT said:

Public pressure prompted by a brilliant campaign lead by William Wilberforce. The Joanna Lumley of the early 19th C.

Click to expand...

The campaign involved a lot more people than Wilberforce, most of the organisation was done by Thomas Clarkson and the earlier work by Granville Sharp who recruited by Wilberforce and Clarkson not to mention former slaves such as Olufiano. Wilberforce was the parliamentary voice but was fairly reactionary being opposed to manumission as he felt the salves would not be ready for it whereas Clarkson realised that manumission was not going to win parliamentary support and was prepared to wait. Manumission came later when Buxton had taken over the parliamentary campaign and the 1832 Reform Act had reduced the voting power of the slave owning interests.

Public opinion didn't have that much effect in a parliament elected by a tiny proportion of the public. The bill outlawing the British aspect of the slave trade was sold as being aimed at the French, Napoleon had just reintroduced slavery. The omission of manumission made it difficult for a lot of M.Ps to oppose outlawing the trade as they could have been accused of being pro-French. Also the vested interests of plantation owners weren't immediately threatened although it meant conditions of existing slaves had to be improved.

Yes Britain had ulterior motives to some degree but it marked a cruicial point in the longer campaign against slavery itself a campaign that unfortunately is not yet over

Andrew Hudson said:

The campaign involved a lot more people than Wilberforce, most of the organisation was done by Thomas Clarkson and the earlier work by Granville Sharp who recruited by Wilberforce and Clarkson not to mention former slaves such as Olufiano. Wilberforce was the parliamentary voice but was fairly reactionary being opposed to manumission as he felt the salves would not be ready for it whereas Clarkson realised that manumission was not going to win parliamentary support and was prepared to wait. Manumission came later when Buxton had taken over the parliamentary campaign and the 1832 Reform Act had reduced the voting power of the slave owning interests.

Public opinion didn't have that much effect in a parliament elected by a tiny proportion of the public. The bill outlawing the British aspect of the slave trade was sold as being aimed at the French, Napoleon had just reintroduced slavery. The omission of manumission made it difficult for a lot of M.Ps to oppose outlawing the trade as they could have been accused of being pro-French. Also the vested interests of plantation owners weren't immediately threatened although it meant conditions of existing slaves had to be improved.

Yes Britain had ulterior motives to some degree but it marked a cruicial point in the longer campaign against slavery itself a campaign that unfortunately is not yet over

Click to expand...

What he said.