Nelson & His World

I have mentioned 'The instructor, or the young man's best companion' on the Seaman's Power of Attorney thread. Here is another interesting snippet in the Geography section. Under 'Africa', the following appears:

'Egypt is under the dominion of the Turks, its present capital is called Cairo; the piratical states of Tripoly [sic], Tunis and Algiers, have capitals of the same name, and the capital of the empire of Morocco is the city of Fez.

Along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, there are no extensive dominions, the inhabitants being mostly subject to petty princes of their own, who being almost continually at war with one another, sell their prisoners for slaves.'

This contemporary observation underlines what is often conveniently forgotten: obtaining slaves was a trade, which requires a seller as well as a buyer. African princelings colluded with European buyers and enriched themselves thereby. The slave trade was the union of the powerful, both black and white, against the powerless.

Anna,

Too true and, as you say, this is often conveniently forgotten by those who would have us believe it was a purely a white man's evil.

I hesitate to make this post because it strays perhaps too far from history into politics, but I think the phrase ‘often conveniently forgotten’ has already taken us well into that territory. I know it will not have been the intention, but I am worried that the last couple of posts may be read by some as in mitigation of the white European conduct of the black slave trade, particularly when read by those who have suffered or still suffer from its legacy of inequality.

I honestly don’t believe that the willing and eager participation of the black sellers is often forgotten. It is a point often well made in the commentary and debate that I have read. But while definitely of historical interest, it is a point that has little relevance to the debate about the lasting effects of slavery. The debate in Britain is often somewhat self-congratulationary about Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade, and the later abolition of slavery in British colonies. Perhaps we sometimes underemphasize the lasting inequalities created by slavery and subsequent power structures. It has taken until now for America to elect a black president, but the big surprise was that it happened this soon. Political enfranchisement of the black population in the southern United States (and elsewhere) is very recent. It was probably only Joan Baez and Bob Dylan who brought that home to some of us! And who knows how far into the future the consequent social and economic inequalities will reach.

If apportioning blame, it may be unwise to stop at the buyers and sellers, and perhaps better to give a passing mention to all those who individually or collectively, actively or passively, either supported slavery in its day or have since supported systems and attitudes which preserved subsequent inequalities.

Hmm – That just sounds horribly sanctimonious. Sorry!

Tony,

I apologise if it could be construed that my post was a 'mitigation of the white European conduct of the black slave trade'; it was certainly not and, by no stretch of the imagination, was it intended as such. Perhaps it was a bad choice of words.

What I meant was, that that particular angle on the the despicable trade is, at least as far as I have read (which I have to admit is not that much – I should read more), one which is not often commented on. You say, however, that it is well made in commentary and debate, and I bow to your knowledge, as you probably know more of this than I. I imagine also, that the 'petty princes' may not have been induced into selling their prisoners to the white men, if the white men hadn't been looking for them in the first place.

As you say, the problem for us today is how to deal with the legacy that slavery from that time and after, has left behind. We should also not forget that slavery, unfortunately, still goes on by one means or other.

Finally, and also on the verge of politicising this thread, (Anna, you may remove this post if you wish) no-one is more pleased than myself at what has happened in the US. Perhaps we shall now have some sanity – brought by a black man.

Kester:

I wouldn't dream of removing your post or Tony's- or any post that makes interesting and thought-provoking comments in a considered and courteous manner.

The effects of the slave trade in Nelson's day are still with us and therefore relevant on this thread.

The reason I have emphasised, maybe over-emphasised, the fact that the slave trade was not a racially exclusive matter, with whites oppressing blacks, but a monstrous affront to the human dignity of both black and white victims, perpetrated by black and white oppressors, was because this was almost entirely ignored in the commemorations of abolition in 2006. The exhibitions at the National Gallery, for example, and in Bristol, made no mention of African involvement, nor of the concerted efforts at expiation post abolition which resulted in great efforts and sacrifices made by the Royal Navy in the suppression of the trade, or the sacrifices made by the ordinary mill-workers of Lancashire who risked starvation rather than spin and weave cotton picked by slaves.

Teaching materials available in schools, make little, if any mention, of the involvement of African princelings in the trade. I made a courteous approach to one body about the incompleteness of their treatment of the slave trade in their publications, but received no reply. A whole generation is receiving a skewed and inaccurate view which is an insult to them and to history. It was this that caused me to use the words 'conveniently forgotten'. It is lazy and intellectually reductive to ignore the complexities of the slave trade. To present it as the one-sided oppression of Africans by Europeans, is not only factually incorrect, it provides additional and unnecessary embitterment to the very genuine grievances that many black people are entitled to feel about their treatment and status over the years, and may well contribute to the lack of self-esteem that can hinder their advancement. The wrongs Africans suffered as a result of the slave trade were utterly horrendous. The elimination of the last vestiges of the denigration and humiliation they have suffered since is the duty of every civilised person. But as far as the slave trade itself is concerned, we should pay them the compliment of access to the truth.

Kester, I certainly didn't think you intended your post that way, I was just concerned that others might read it that way.

Anna, while I cannot dispute the sources and exhibitions that omitted the information, I still feel the need to take issue with "conveniently forgotten", which implies deliberate intention to mislead. I think the information is so readily available that any such conspiracy is doomed.

For example, the sale of slaves by Africans is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on the Atlantic Slave Trade, which goes on to describe the slave markets within Africa at length and provides quotes such as:

Links take you to many other articles including one describing ongoing slavery within Africa.

The BBC 'Quick Guide' to the Slave Trade actually suggests that purchase from African merchants was the only source. The Encyclopedia Britannica's article in its Guide to Black History goes to great length on the subject.

Access to the truth on such an emotive subject may be a tall order, but access to information on that aspect of the slave trade is not denied to anyone. Surely nobody with the slightest inquisitiveness about the subject could possibly be in the dark?

I am not well read on the subject and was surprised to realise today that rather than enforcing abolition, Britain allowed slavery to continue in Africa until the 1890s and early 20th century? For example, in 1895 the British Colonial Office said:

In Nigeria it took until the 1920s and 30s to make significant progress.

Perhaps that has been conveniently forgotten, and should have featured in the exhibitions?

Tony:

my use of the phrase 'conveniently forgotten' was, I now see, used with too narrow a reference, confined, as it was, and as I should have made clear, to the events, discussions and publicity relating to the Bicentenary in 2006 of which I had experience. While I readily agree that 'for anyone interested' the information about the true nature of the slave trade is there to seek, my concern was that very little of that information was presented in the public displays, discussions and events during 2006; and most particularly, that the teaching materials made available were similarly bereft. I should not have strayed into speculation about motivation, and I am happy to amend the phrase 'conveniently forgotten' to 'unfortunately omitted.' All I am saying is that there was nothing I came across during this period to alert the casual visitor to the knowledge that African leaders abused and exploited their own people. I do think it was a dereliction on the part of curators and educationalists to be so selective in their presentations, and to deprive visitors and pupils of an understanding of the true nature of this vile trade.

Indeed, if you mention the topic of the slave trade in conversation, a good number of people will be astounded to know that there was a long-established practice of capturing Europeans who were sold in the slave markets of North Africa, and equally surprised that African leaders colluded in the abuse of their own people.

Regarding the British enforcement of abolition: the aim was limited to the abolition of British involvement in the slave trade, recognising that, however devoutly it might be wished, the abolition of slavery itself, in its entirety, whether in America or Africa, might be beyond even the power of the British Empire. America was a sovereign state, and even in the colonies the undercurrents of custom and tradition were very powerful. In India, for example, British attempts to abolish 'suttee', the immolation of a widow on her husband's funeral pyre, were not wholly successful. It apparently occurs, although very rarely, to this day. Similarly, 'Old Africa hands' had the experience and understanding to recognise that with regard to slavery in Africa, their writ did not always run.

Another angle on the slavery issue - a little out of our period, but interesting, nonetheless. This document for sale on ebay lists the names of rebels who were sent as slaves to America after the failure of the Monmouth Rebellion in 1685.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... K:MEWAX:IT

An article from today's Times about the discovery of the graves of slaves in St Helena. It makes distressing reading; but there is also a mention of the Preventive Squadron of the Royal Navy that sought to intercept the slave ships post the abolition act of 1806. Two interesting points: that RN ships were hampered by their reluctance to fire on slave ships for fear of killing the captives; and that initially slave ships had the advantage of being faster, but once steam was introduced in the RN, interception was made easier.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life ... 950288.ece

As I have said in earlier posts on this thread, the effects of slavery are still with us so I think it is not out of place to comment on or highlight current events that have some connection with 'our' period. The recent horrific earthquake in Haiti has put its tragic history in the news. Here is an interesting article from Today's Times by the indefatigable Ben MacIntyre, which links the country's current dire economic straits directly to the policies of France, the original colonial power. Haiti was the only country to free itself from slavery by a slave-led rebellion during the Napoleonic period, inspired, ironically, by the ideals of the French Revolution. The article makes an illuminating connection between the past and the present.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 995750.ece

Anna,

Thanks for that interesting article. I wouldn't want to make any assumptions but, judging by the comments following it, any laying of blame or responsibility will open a political minefield.

I found this overview on Wiki concerning Toussaint Louverture, the leader of the 1791 rebellion:

http://thelouvertureproject.org/index.p ... Louverture

Coming back to the original subject of Nelson and Wilberforce, history always has to be appreciated through the lens of the time in question. Nelson was a public servant employed by the government that until after his death condoned the slave trade, therefore it can be argued that if you work for the system your acceptance of its policies is implied.

More specifically - and this is obviously very much open to interpretation – there are a number of things within the unwitting testimony of Nelson’s life that may have a bearing on this discussion. His wife Francis’s family had been involved in plantations and her Uncle was a senior politician on Nevis so would have had much to do with the running of the islands slaves. Nelson’s role was to protect British interests in the West Indies meaning our business, our plantations and ensure the unmolested running of these business’s by any foreign power – indirectly protecting slavery. This protection is best exampled by the long chase of 1805, not knowing where the French fleet had gone, Nelson’s duty and logic told him to head west to protect the West Indies. The French knew that this would be the case and the plan at that point worked well. The threat to British interest was enough to send Nelson across the Atlantic.

In 1800 Nelson, Emma and Sir William spend Christmas with William Beckford whose family fortune had been made on the backs of West Indian slaves. Most notably, Nelson was a slave owner – As distasteful as it is to think of a national hero involved in slavery the facts can not be ignored, I seem to remember reading that he purchased a slave called Fatima for his wife, although a quick look in a few of my biographies and I can’t find it..I’m sure it’s there so I’ll keep looking.

My thoughts are that Nelson was probably ‘blind’ to the subject of slavery. Even though he came into more direct contact with it than most of the British population he saw no reason to rock the political boat, he was in this sense a ‘company’ man, and politically his views were very traditional and conformist.

History is full of these unpleasant shades of grey but they can not be denied. These were the times that he lived in, to modern eyes there were many systems and beliefs that we would find totally unacceptable, Wilberforce campaigned for the end of the slave trade not slavery itself, this is explained as a stepping stone to total abolition, perhaps so and it certainly makes sense however some of Wilberforce’s papers contradict this train of thought – for Hollywood this full exploration would make for a messy script.

John Newton gave up the slave trade after he had a stroke and was unfit to continue command, not due to his evangelical experience... that came later. You could argue that if he had not suffered the stroke would he have ceased the lucrative business that he had been in for most of his life?

Olaudah Equiano (who coincidently sailed with the young Nelson aboard the Racehorse on its Arctic mission) following his freedom became briefly involved in a slave trading venture himself.

The subject of slavery is understandably littered with very uncomfortable facts, one of which is that that Nelson was a supporter of slavery, at the very least professionally it was part of his and every other naval officers duty at that time.

Many thanks for that interesting, thoughtful post.

It chimes with some of the observations made earlier on this long, meandering thread. Certainly, the issue was a deeply contentious one in which Nelson, as you note, took the traditionalist conservative line, though many naval officers were in the opposite camp.

Re: your mention of the servant Fatima that Nelson obtained for Emma. I had meant to make a post about this myself, having just read a little about obtaining North African slaves in a book I mentioned on another thread, 'Lady Worsley's Whim' by Hallie Rubenhold. She recounts the efforts of Sir Richard Worsley, while on his travels, to obtain a black slave, which he eventually managed to do (and subsequently ill-treated him in a particularly brutal way.) She suggests he must have employed some nefarious means to do so as some African states made it illegal for individual Christians, as opposed to recognised traders, to buy slaves. This set me wondering how Nelson obtained Fatima. Could she perhaps have been a gift to him from a foreign dignitary? Even this is deeply unsavoury to our modern sensibilities, but perhaps less reprehensible than dealing in an illegal market.