Emancipation from Above? Emancipation from Below? But emancipation!

INDIVIDUALS IN BRITAIN for some time had begun to speak out against Slavery, including John Wesley, the founder of Methodism with his 1774 ‘Thoughts on Slavery’ and others, Philosophers, writers, individuals et all. The debate over Emancipation went into

its final phase with the formation of the Anti-Slavery Movement in 1823.

Absentee planters and merchants with vested interest in slavery responded with a strong campaign to protect their interests, having been living in the UK on the proceeds of their slave investments. The debate was heated.

I have mentioned Wesley as one of the early opponents of Slavery. He stated that “Slavery is an absolute irreconcilable evil, declaring that all slave- holding directly violates natural justice, mercy and human liberty.” He quoted from Genesis, Chapter IV, “And the Lord said,What hast though done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.”

His, as I indicated, was only one of the voices before the strong debate that started in 1823.

In his book CAPITALISM AND SLAVERY, first published in 1944, historian Dr Eric Williams, who later became Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago challenged Euro-Centric historians who attributed the end of slavery to the work of those who were called humanitarians, the persons who were part of the anti-Slavery Movement. Although he accepted that they had played a significant part, he argued that social and economic factors played a critical role as Britain moved from an Agriculturally based economy to an industrialised one where slavery and the slave trade were not essential components of the new industrialising economy. It was felt that Eric Williams overplayed the impact of slavery and the slave trade in the development of Britain. But in St.Vincent, members of the Legislature in objecting to the bill to end Slavery, reminded the mother country of the millions of pounds sterling that they had contributed with the value of their exports, the thousands of seamen who were employed in the merchant navy that became a nursery for the British navy. That, of course, was only St.Vincent.

Dr Eric Williams argued that while the matter was being discussed in the Houses of Parliament in Britain, the colonialists were left with the option of either ending slavery or being faced with a Haitian situation where the enslaved emancipated themselves. Three developments in the colonies were of concern to the public and those desperate to defend Slavery: The Bussa Rebellion in Barbados in 1816. This alarmed those who governed St.Vincent and the Grenadines to the extent that Martial Law was declared and enforced, and guards posted around the town. Then there were riots in Demerara in 1823 and in Jamaica in 1831.

While the bill on Abolition was being debated in the UK Parliament, news was received about disturbances on the ‘Carib Country’ estates in St.Vincent. The question was whether there could be another Haitian situation in the British colonies. The defenders of Slavery began to soften their position when they were being offered compensation. When the St. Vincent legislature objected to the Bill that was presented to them, they had to be reminded that to continue to make those objections their share of the Compensation money would have been in question. The Absentee planters and merchants in Britain advised them of the growing strength of the movement for Abolition and wanted them to accept what was placed before them.

Why Compensation?

Slavery was Chattel Slavery, with the enslaved then as chattels being owned by plantation owners and others who did not own plantations. This was to compensate them for taking away their property, their slaves. The amount given to the owners of slaves in the colonies was £20 million.

Vincentian proprietors received £592, 509, equivalent today to about EC$ 190 million.

There were about 152 estates in St.Vincent. Apart from the Compensation money, the proprietors were to get free service from the enslaved now renamed Apprentices for the hours they were entitled to give those services, with the remaining time left under their control. So, there was no immediate freedom for the enslaved. They had to endure a period of Apprenticeship that was to last for the ‘field slaves’ for 6 years and the domestic enslaved for 4 years. The number of field workers involved were 15, 309; enslaved domestics were 2, 793; and the aged and incapacitated 1, 189. Children under 6 were immediately freed. The period of Apprenticeship which ended prematurely in 1838 meant that the enslaved with their free service were also giving compensation to their owners ‘so called’.

So, freedom actually came in 1838. That in itself is another story but British control continued until ‘Flag Independence’ in 1979 when Britain left SVG without even a parting gift but a constitution that left Commonwealth citizens to be part of the political process under certain circumstances. This is being challenged in the Courts today with its ambiguity. With all of this, starting with the genocide against the indigenous people, why should any of us want to question our search for Reparations?

I realise that some people interpret Reparations as the handing out of millions of dollars to greedy politicians. But this is unlikely to happen, instead Reparations will involve many different forms. It will continue to be a long struggle but will eventually come.

_ Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian