“Several factors led to the Act’s passage. Britain’s economy was in flux at the time, and, as a new system of international commerce emerged, its slaveholding Caribbean colonies—which were largely focused on sugar production—could no longer compete with larger plantation economies such as those of Cuba and Brazil. Merchants began to demand an end to the monopolies on the British market held by the Caribbean colonies and pushed instead for free trade. The persistent struggles of enslaved Africans and a growing fear of slave uprisings among plantation owners were another major factor.”
Are you making the argument that decades of political pressure from multiple slavery Abolitionist groups as well as the prime minister being vehemently against slavery had nothing to do with it?
“Several factors led to the Act’s passage. Britain’s economy was in flux at the time, and, as a new system of international commerce emerged, its slaveholding Caribbean colonies—which were largely focused on sugar production—could no longer compete with larger plantation economies such as those of Cuba and Brazil. Merchants began to demand an end to the monopolies on the British market held by the Caribbean colonies and pushed instead for free trade. The persistent struggles of enslaved Africans and a growing fear of slave uprisings among plantation owners were another major factor.”
Are you making the argument that decades of political pressure from multiple slavery Abolitionist groups as well as the prime minister being vehemently against slavery had nothing to do with it?
No, I’m making the argument that those factors were secondary to the real driving causes which were economic.
Well that’s certainly a take