Talk:Slavery Abolition Act 1833

Ramifications

Perhaps more discussion of the ramifications of emancipation is needed? --Benwilson528 12:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been a number of arguments put forward for the cause of the downfall of slavery, and in particular the abolition of it from the British Empire.

The traditional and accepted argument is the Whig/liberal interpretation. This attributes the Abolition Act of 1933 mainly down to mass protest. Slavery not only went against the British tradition of liberty, but also against the increasingly prevalent bourgeouis ideal of 'free labour'. The size and popularity of abolitionism was huge and almost unprecedented - this is not doubted by any historical interpretation. However, the extent of the effect of this on government as well as the other contributing factors has been verociously challenged.

The, perhaps, antithesis of the liberal view is the economic one led by Eric Williams in his path breaking work 'Capitalism and Slavery'. He emphasised the importance of the economic and financial decline of slavery in the West Indies *1, as opposed to public opposition to it (but in no way did he discount it). Trade between the islands and Great Britain had fallen rapidly between the 1810s and 1830s. In 1821, British exports to the islands were 1/9 of the country's total; by, 1832, just 1/17. Imports from the island were also declining. For example, the B.W.I provided 7/10 of cotton imports from 1786-90 and just 1/50 in 1826-30. The B.W.I were becoming less and less commercially important. By the late 20s, they had also become a financial burden on the state. In 1828, the islands would have been running at a loss if it wasn't for their subsidisation, which, in 1828 alone, cost the British taxpayer £1,500,000. This fiscal protection afforded to and maintaining the B.W.I monopoly was extremely unpopular amongst Britains booming commercial and manufacturing sector, especially as (mentioned above) they had beocme unimportant to their interests.

............not finished

1.although not the only place slavery existed in the British Empire, was the predominant and only significant place

--80.42.212.195 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a question

With the abolishment of slavery, the planters were not as profitable and many plantations were shut down at an alarming rate.

Sorry to be all english teacher about this, but I don't think abolishment is a word. I think the correct word is abolition, I'm not 100% sure on this though. (I get mixed answers from the internet and am not sure who to trust) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.145.211.42 (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Repeal

Perhaps I'm just a dunce, but why was this act repealed in 1998? Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably just a clean up of the law, as the article says the issue is still covered in more recent statutes, this happens alot. StevenAFC

When they were actually free

According to Adam Hochschild's Bury the Chains. Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves, the law didn't actually make the slaves free before August 1, 1838. Also, in the article on August 1, 1838 is listed with Trinidad and Tobago's emancipation of slaves, but nothing on the rest of the British Empire's slaves in 1838. Is Hochschield overrating the importance of 1838? Ornilnas 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the original text of the Act, which is linked to in the article. There appears to have been 3 separate dates for the end of slavery. The official end of slavery in the British Empire was 1 August 1834 when it became unlawful to own a slave. However, in reality only slaves below the age of six were freed as all slaves over the age of six were redesignated as "apprentices". Apprentices would continue to serve their former owners for a period of time after the abolition of slavery, though the length of time they served depended on what type of apprentice they were:

• The first class of apprentice covered labourers that had served as slaves on their owner's land - they were freed from their apprenticeships on 1 August 1840.
• The second class of apprentice covered labourers that had served as slaves somewhere other than their owner's land - they were freed from their apprenticeships on 1 August 1840.
• The third class of apprentice covered all other types of slaves - they were freed from their apprenticeships on 1 August 1838.

Apprentices could buy their way out of apprenticeship early, but this was probably not an option for the majority of former slaves. I will amend the article to include these details later today. Road Wizard (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Ceylon and the territories held by the East India Company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.9.147 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A question

If all slavery was abolished in 1833, then how come North America didn't free its slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation) until 1863? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77pinklady77 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was made an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affected the British Empire, not the United States. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Though how we wish that were not so. Wikidea 17:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What countries/territories specifically

It would be nice if this article would list the places where it was abolished by Britain rather than using vague terminology like saying it was abolished in "most" but there are "notable exceptions". All exceptions are noteworthy, as are all inclusions, so they should be listed. A map could be very helpful.