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

The link to more recent statutes is to an article that, as far as I can tell, doesn't cover anything past this act. Am I missing something? Dstar3k (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Careful when driving Wikida, you might be blinded by your Halo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.42.217 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 January 2013 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.220.115 (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is very difficult to tell exactly where was affected and when. The text of the act mentions "Slavery within divers of His Majesty's Colonies," "Laws now in force in the said several Colonies", the ability of the colonies to bring in their own laws to free the slaves earlier than the Act, exclusion of the territories controlled by the East India Company, exclusion of Ceylon and St Helena and delayed implementation in the Cape of Good Hope and Mauritius colonies.

Added to the fact that some territories would have abolished slavery before the Act was written, it will take a lot of research to straighten things out. Hopefully someone can find a secondary or tertiary source that can provide the answers. 86.175.217.110 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Parliamentary Paper of awards for compensation lists the countries in which slave holders and their representatives made claims. These are Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Guiana (Guyana), British Honduras (Belize), British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Nevis, St Kitts, St Lucia, St Vincent, Tobago, Trinidad, Cape of Good Hope and Mauritius. GGrannum (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary coercion

Did the abolition remove certain prohibitions, which has enabled the increased coercion of people who are unemployed?Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understnd the question. Can you please explain a little further? Road Wizard (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Did the repeal of this act legalise some of the increased coercion introduced by recent benefit law changes?Keith-264 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Act freed slaves alive in 1834. Depending on how literal you want to be in your interpretation, the repeal of the act could have made them slaves again in 1998, but as they were all dead the question is an academic one. I don't see how either freeing slaves in 1834 or possibly unfreeing long dead slaves in 1998 would have any bearing on benefit law. Your question seems a complete non sequitur so I may have missed the point you are trying to make. Road Wizard (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you pulling my leg? ;O) The point I was making was why repeal the law? Was it the simple removal of a dead letter or was there an ulterior motive?Keith-264 (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had asked that from the start. The answer is already given earlier in the talk page and the article. The Act has been repealed as the few elements that are still relevant are covered by other statutes. As I said, this particular Act was primarily for freeing slaves alive in 1834 and compensating the owners. Repealing the Act would at the very worst reverse those two points and have no further impact.

What was throwing me was your reference to coercion and benefits; a comparable question would be "Did the repeal of the Trunk Roads Act 1936 legalise coercion in benefit law?" They are all completely separate subjects. Road Wizard (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the original poster the question of re-introducing 'coercion' is made irrelevant by the various European Human Rights Acts that are now part of UK law, no matter how much certain right-wing groups would wish otherwise. So it would not be legal to introduce an element of coercion to the benefit laws, despite the repeal of the 1833 Act. However for this to be proven illegal would require a test case which would clarify matters legally. This would need to be started by the benefit claimant and as the government is well aware, with the reduction or elimination of almost all Legal Aid to those on low incomes, they will not be able to dispute any such action. Thus the government can in effect do as it pleases, safe in the knowledge that no-one affected will be able to take them to court - where the claimant would likely win. So one is in a position where the government can break laws willy-nilly, as long as its victims are unable to afford to go to court to uphold the law - the introduction of the 'No Win, No Fee' system, made the law in-effect unobtainable to those on low incomes - as indeed it was intended to do - what shuyster lawyer is going to risk his fee on proving a test case for some poor sod living in a council house on benefits. Prior to NWNF a claimant could get Legal Aid and (theoretically) the best solicitor or barrister in the land - with Legal Aid it was first come, first served see, and the solicitor of barrister got his fee come what may. Not now though. This introduction of NWNF was necessary as the relevant UK benefit rules were drawn up by previous governments of the past twenty years or-so made up almost entirely of lawyers, fortunately not very good ones it would seem, as many seem to lack any knowledge of the spirit behind the law, and as a result many of the new laws are on very dodgy ground, human rights-wise. Thus the vulnerability to test cases and the need to prevent them ever reaching court. Charles Dickens eat your heart out.

The result is something that twenty or thirty years ago would have had Panorama or World in Action screaming about 'injustice' but which now after the 'dumbing down' of the media is just allowed to pass into law without even a murmur.

But that's what happens when the populace loses interest in true democracy and is content instead with mindless drivel. Left alone, Governments get out of control. Just look what happened after 1933. We live, as the Chinese say, in 'Interesting times'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Who did this?

This article contains not a single word about who was behind this act in Parliament, who was Prime Minister, how much opposition there was, or who was opposed. I think we should at least know who was Prime Minister at the time. --MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Number of slaves freed

Going to look it into it on my own, but I think the article would be well served by including an estimate of how many slaves were emancipated as a result of the act. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The majority were in the Caribbean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.54.253 (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are now about 3,000,000 in the area. The population has increased since 1833. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.54.253 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ten years later this important fact is still missing from the article. I believe the number is around 800,000, but I would like to see a breakdown by location. LastDodo (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Weird blockquote instruction

The first paragraph of the "Background" section has an unresolved html "blockquote". I have no idea what the author of this edit intended, but someone who understands this (I do not) ought to fix the problem.Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Slave owners is being considered for deletion

Just to let you know Category:Slave owners is being considered for deletion. This nomination is part of a discussion of several related categories. You can share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Eartha78 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091210021701/http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm to http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091210021701/http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm to http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817111642/http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/en/Stolen-Wages/ to http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/en/Stolen-Wages/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi Juliet212 and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have left most of your changes from "slaves" to "enslaved people" except where the term (and others) were used in a quote, or created clumsy constructions, such as "enslaved people ships". However, the slave trade is a recognised term and used throughout articles about slavery in Wikipedia, as are slave ships. You introduced "from African heritage" where cited sources make no mention of this. Please be careful about introducing wholesale changes to long-standing articles - it is better to tread cautiously as a new editor, and post questions on the talk page, or go to the Teahouse or Help Desk rather than making blanket changes. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Gradual or immediate?

The opening sentence of the article is misleading. "'The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) provided for the immediate abolition of slavery in most parts of the British Empire."

It does not explicitly state that the 1833 act was an act of immediate emancipation, but implies to readers that this is the case. Per WP:RS, according to distinguished professor of emancipation and slavery at the University of Hull John Oilfield, the 1833 Act was an act of gradual emancipation and not immediate.[1] One way or the other, the article should clearly the case unambiguously. Professor Oilfield wrote:

In May 1833 Lord Stanley presented a plan to Parliament which finally passed into law on August 29. In essence, the new legislation called for the gradual abolition of slavery. Everyone over the age of six on August 1, 1834, when the law went into effect, was required to serve an apprenticeship of four years in the case of domestics and six years in the case of field hands (apprenticeship was later abolished by Parliament in 1838). 104.254.227.62 (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Payment by 1833 or 1837 act?

Both Slavery Abolition Act 1833 and Slave Compensation Act 1837 say those laws paid slave owners £20 million. Was it the same £20 million or was a total of £40 million paid? If the first law did this, why was the second one needed? Did it set out implementation details or something? -- Beland (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no way it was done twice. £20m is the figure used everywhere so the first Act must have made no such provision. LastDodo (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)