This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 1, 2009, August 1, 2010, December 1, 2010, August 1, 2012, August 1, 2014, August 1, 2016, August 28, 2018, and August 28, 2021. |
Daily page views
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 1, 2009, August 1, 2010, December 1, 2010, August 1, 2012, August 1, 2014, August 1, 2016, August 28, 2018, and August 28, 2021. |
Daily page views
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)