So might the earlier ending of the Atlantic slave trade not simply mean such diversifcation occurs earlier? It seems likely to me, and it's pretty much what @Czar Kaizer seems to point to:
Though I'm not sure if West Africa should be compared to India - which, before Europe overtook it at a relatively late stage had long been (much like China) one of the most wealthy and developed regions of the entire world. Nevertheless, I do tend to agree that an earlier end to the slave trade would ultimately be a major boon to West Africa. Depending on how gradually it happens, there might be an economic downturn if it happens too suddenly. But either way, it will force economic diversification. The trade network is there.
On a positive note: having to build up from less of a history of wealth than India historically possessed, it may take a while for uninterested Europeans to notice. If the West Africans gradually evolve into useful trading partners, West Africa may be spared the brunt of direct colonialism, facing concessions and unequal treaties instead. Not ideal, but better than certain other alternatives.
Yes and it also helps that they wouldn't be constantly raiding their neighbors. Personally though, I think a complete end to the slave trade before the 19th century is ASB.
From an economic perspective, the slaves were not an ultra-valuable commodity if not export. Without the slave trade, we would just see excess mortality that would cancel out the slaves leading the area.
i don't understand this post. Can you rephrase? Are you saying that slave weren't so valuable that they caused some African states to completely reorient their economic and political structures around exporting them?