The Great Emancipation Myths

By Rupert Johnson

There has always been a great euphoria among people of African ancestry in the West Indies and Canada with regard to Emancipation Day on August 1. But amidst this widespread celebratory feeling, we should also rid our minds of some of the lingering myths about the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire in the 1830s.

One of the most popular myths is that the main aim of William Wilberforce and Thomas Fowell Buxton was always the outright emancipation of the slaves.

Another myth is the widespread belief that Queen Victoria was responsible for the final liberation of our African ancestors in 1838.

It is true that Wilberforce and Buxton spearheaded the humanitarian movement for the abolition of the West Indian slave trade, but it must be remembered that these men were never in favour of outright emancipation.

As a matter of fact none of the British humanitarians championed the cause of total emancipation at the outset.

It was Wilberforce who forcefully asserted in the parliamentary debates on March 17, 1807, “that the sole point which they [the abolitionists] had in view was the abolition of the slave trade and not the emancipation of the slaves.” (See British Hansard)

It is to be noted that in 1793, Ottobah Cugoano (an African abolitionist) infuriated Wilberforce by calling him a hypocrite because of Wilberforce’s reluctance to call for the total abolition of slavery.

It is true that the so-called abolitionists stepped up their anti-slavery activity in 1823 when there was widespread persecution of white missionaries in the West Indian colonies. But it can be argued that this change in attitude was motivated by a deep concern for the well-being of the white missionaries, rather than a deep feeling for the plight of black slaves labouring relentlessly in the cane fields of the Caribbean.

In the parliamentary debates that followed the atrocities which the missionaries sustained, Fowell Buxton made it abundantly clear that the move towards emancipation should be based on extreme caution.

A significant part of his carefully guarded speech in the House of Commons on May 15, 1823 is worth quoting.

He said unequivocally: “The object at which we aim, is the extinction of slavery—not the sudden emancipation of the Negro. I even shall be unable to predict that at such a time, or in such a year, slavery will be abolished: it will never be destroyed. It will subside; it will decline; it will expire; it will, as it were, burn itself down into its socket and go out. We are far from meaning to attempt to cut down slavery in the full maturity of its vigour. We rather shall leave it gently to decay.”

The so-called abolitionists’ espousal of gradualism towards emancipation of the slaves was so entrenched in the British society, that it is not surprising that the Emancipation Act of 1833 was inimical to the entire concept of freedom. Of all the restrictions that the Act imposed on the slaves, none was more grossly immoral and oppressive than the Apprenticeship System which kept our African ancestors in chains for another five years.

It is, therefore, inconceivable that many people still immortalize the names Wilberforce and Burton with regard to the abolition of slavery.

Equally inconceivable is the false notion among many people, that Queen Victoria (Missis Queen) was the great liberator of slaves. However, it should be noted that there is no evidence to support the common belief that Queen Victoria was ever involved in the movement against slavery. Neither is there any evidence that she issued a Royal decree to free the slaves.

It is obvious that the issuance of a Royal decree would have been contrary to the British convention of constitutional monarchy.

According to this long-standing convention, all Bills to be enacted in law must originate in Parliament, and not in the Royal Household. It is, therefore, inconceivable that a freshly crowned monarch would venture to overturn this conventional practice.

As Head of State, the Queen was constitutionally obliged to sign all Bills and documents passed by Parliament. It must, therefore, be understood that the rendering of Queen Victoria’s signature to the parliamentary document that proclaimed the end of slavery in 1838 was an automatic exercise, and is definitely not indicative of her role as a great liberator of slaves.

Contrary to the popular view that the concerted efforts of the British humanitarians and Queen Victoria brought about the abolition of slavery, it may be argued that the decline of the sugar industry, and the revolutionary resolve of the slaves in the British Caribbean colonies were the dominant forces that brought the ultimate demise of slavery.

On August 1, let us not only cherish our hard won freedom, but let us purge our minds of the many distortions and myths that have been propagated by British historians over the years.

Rupert Johnson can be reached at: r.b.johnson@sympatico.ca.