The Slave Hunt – Capture and Captives

The Slave Hunt” depicts soldiers from Sokoto raiding a village to capture slaves. [Harper’s Weekly (Sept. 12, 1857), p. 581]

For three and a half centuries, European slavers carried African captives across the Atlantic in slave ships originating from ports belonging to all major European maritime powers—Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Britain, France, and Brandenburg-Prussia. Traders from the emerging powers in the Americas also joined in the trade when possible and profitable.

 

European and American slavers exchanged goods for people with African traders along enormous stretches of West and Central Africa, even to Madagascar and southeastern Africa. But most Africans boarded slave ships in six distinct regions of the African coast: Upper Guinea, the Gold Coast, Bight of Benin, Bight of Biafra, West-Central Africa, and southeastern Africa. During the course of the transatlantic slave trade, nearly half of all African captives were taken from West-Central Africa (Congo and Angola today).

“Gang of Captives Met at Mbame’s on Their Way to Tette”, 1861. [Harper’s New Monthly Magazine (Dec. 1865–May 1866), vol. 32, p. 719]

The Bight of Benin (Togo, Benin, and Nigeria today) and the Bight of Biafra (covering approximately today’s Nigeria, Cameroon, and Gabon) accounted for a further 28 percent of embarkations on slave ships. These points of departure from Africa do not necessarily indicate the home regions of African victims, since vast networks of slave routes frequently funneled people to the coast from villages deep in the interior.

Slaves: Shewing the Method of Chaining Them portrays two men chained to one another aboard the slave ship Favourite in 1805.

As a result, those loaded onto European and American slave ships had already endured a number of passages of prolonged hardship long before their sale on the coast. After initial capture, African slavers might pass them through different African societies, through alien lands and cultures, for weeks, months, or years before confronting the most confusing of sights: European men, the Atlantic Ocean, and the slave ships. Though some were marched just a few miles to the coast, others had been forcibly marched hundreds of miles. It was a journey that took its toll on the African men, women, and children bound together by ropes, chains, or wooden yokes.

Different forms of servitude had long been a feature of many African societies, and Africa had long-established slaving systems and slave routes, such as those across the Sahara Desert and along the Nile. These systems differed markedly from the transatlantic slave trade and racialized slavery that Europeans later developed to maximize plantation production in their colonies.

There were various forms of indigenous African slavery, ranging from kinship arrangements to chattel slavery. Africans fell into slavery because of extreme poverty (as with children given away or sold by hungry families, for example), pawn slavery (which might be temporary), or violence, including warfare, slave raids, and kidnapping. Enslaved individuals could then be sold on to other communities in need of labor. There were child slaves and large holdings of enslaved people—upward of one thousand in number—by slave traders on the edge of the Sahara. There was, however, no single form of African slavery.

The coming of European sailors and traders, however, transformed the nature and direction of indigenous African slavery. At first, the growing European demand for Africans on the coast prompted a relatively small trade in humanity. Early European maritime traders acquired African slaves alongside other trade goods. They were purchased at various points on the coast from Arab and African traders, who, in turn, had acquired captives through interior African upheavals, including warfare and the dissolution of major African empires and kingdoms (notably Ghana, Mali, and Songhai). The earliest Africans acquired by Europeans were used for labor and domestic service in Spain and Portugal and later in the Atlantic islands of Madeira, the Canary Islands, and São Tomé. The European settlement of the Americas, and especially the invention of New World sugar plantations, transformed that trickle into a transatlantic flood.

Though some African societies resisted the European demand for slave labor, many coastal societies benefitted from trading with European ships. Europeans provided a host of tempting goods—textiles, ironware, exotic drinks, and firearms—all in exchange for African captives. Without African middlemen—local traders who had access to internal supplies of captured African peoples—Europeans could never have hoped to acquire more than small batches of Africans. Equally, without the commercial attractions of goods imported by the Europeans, African traders would have had little reason to secure ever more victims from their internal African suppliers.

Coffle of slaves coming from the interior, Senegambia, 1814.

Underlying the commercial exchange of goods for people on the coast were unequal power relations between European and African traders and resulting warfare and violence among various African leaders who provided most of the captives sold to Europeans. Europeans formed alliances with such leaders, providing them with the weapons and means to attack rival African communities, in return for captives. African slavers such as the Asante and Dahomey emerged as powerful states and kingdoms in the eighteenth century, controlling and dominating interior slave trade routes in their respective territories. Widespread turbulence and upheaval resulted from the European demand for slaves, and the transatlantic slave trade stimulated an increase in slavery within Africa itself.

Constant and unpredictable violent attacks and kidnapping clearly had a profound and damaging impact on those African populations that were victimized by the slave trade. Many African communities tried to defend themselves from slave traders and raiders by arming or even trading slaves themselves. Others retreated to more defensible geographical regions, such as lakes or escarpments, to escape attacks and capture. As a result, some African communities experienced stagnation because of dislocation. Elsewhere, states collapsed under the pressure of violent slave trading and extreme population loss.

Comments

This article gives a false picture when it describes slavery in Africa prior to the coming of the Europeans. The vast majority of African slavery was generational (the children of slaves were free) and not chattel slavery (children were also viewed as property) as was the case in colonies. This included indentured servitude, which also existed in Britain at the time, for example Irish prisoners of war and homeless Irish people were rounded up and sent to work in the Caribbean by the English. Many African slaves were part of the community and treated as people, they were allowed to marry and progress to various degrees within society. This is completely different to the chattel slavery of the colonies where slaves were viewed as non-human, had no legal rights, were viewed as property, were bred like cattle, were not allowed to marry or to learn to read and write and as mentioned before, whose children were not free.

It is misleading to say that ‘some’ African societies resisted the Europeans demands for slaves, but ‘many’ coastal societies benefitted. It was the coastal societies who were middlemen because the Europeans mainly stayed on the coast to avoid catching diseases. However, the Europeans had guns and ships with canons along the coast and traded guns to those who traded slaves, changing the balance of power in the area. We can safely assume that there was coercion by the Europeans as well as mutual trade agreements. To suggest that more than 12 million slaves were captured because of the tempting goods the Europeans offered is too simplistic. The paragraph following this suggestion, explaining the unequal power balance, and making it clear that ‘some’ not ‘many’ African slavers controlled and dominated African slave routes is more realistic.


The article doesn’t mention it was Africans selling Africans to the Europeans . No mention of the importance of Africans organising and running the African slave ports. Or Africans owning Africans slaves themselves. There was also a slave trade from Southern Europe to North Africa , carried out by the Barbary Corsairs. Kidnapped white people sold as slaves . The Royal Navy was most active in stopping the Africans slave trade. People trafficking is still common from Africa to Europe . People are forced to work, sell drugs or prostetute themselves to pay the traffickers.


The first picture depicts a slave hunt by the Sokoto Caliphate in 1857 – some 50 years after the British had started to suppress global slave trading and had shut down the Atlantic slave trade. The Sokoto Caliphate had the largest slave holding in the world from the 1870’s until they were stopped in the early 1900’s. They embarked on large scale slave hunts for their own economy, not for the Atlantic slave trade.
There is little or no discussion about the East African slave trade through Zanzibar; reported as around 20,000 a year and not stopped until the late 1800’s. The records of Dr John Kirk set out the terrible treatment of East Africans who had so little value that they were killed outside the harbour of Zanzibar rather than incur the $1 tax levied on them. The reported life of a slave was about 18years. There was so little regard because they were considered to be a plentiful supply.
We know of the medieval slave trade routes through Africa and none of those went to the Americas – for the simple reason that Europeans hadn’t discovered the Americas.
As for African slavery being somehow “better” than European slavery, that is nonsense. Read any article on the religious human sacrifices, funeral rites or Vodun fetishes. They kept Eunuchs, a polite term for a castrated slave – only 1 in ten men and 1 in 4 boys survived the Eunuch castration process.
Ethiopia was forced by the British to finally proclaim slavery as outlawed in 1942 and they were not a colony.
It is about time that Africans stopped looking at slavery through the window and started to look in the mirror.


And nowhere is there a mention of the organised African slave trade that existed long before Europeans dicovered Africa, Muslim Arabs. Why are all the liberals in denial over this fact? Why are Africans blamed, they did enslave other tribves but only within Africa, and as Europeans were unwilling to travel in from the coast, the organised Muslim slavers collected from all ovcer the continent and took them to the coastal ports. The Arabs were also at it enslaving white people from Europe; they raided coastal villages, and captured fishermen, all being sold to Arab nations. And of course they were doing nothing bad, their Qu’ran specifically allows slavery of any men who refused to convert to Islam, and women as sex slaves. They were just not allowed to enslave Muslims.
Interesting how many African Americans converted in the 20th century to the religion of their enslavers, thinking that it was just white men who enslaved.
Of course indiginous American tribes enslaved members of other tribes, as did pretty much all societies throughout history, but only the Atlantic slave trade is thought evil.


Who captured the African people and Herded them like animals to the coastal ports. Did white people gather the people who would become slaves. Were they sold to the Slave dealers (Black or White) and they sold them to the Whites of Europe and North America.


Great Britain sshould tbe given more respect for forging an Empire with a clearly defined aim of ending slavery and promoting world trade. Colonisation was used as a tool to eradicate slavery in Africa by powerful empires made rich by slavery. These former empires now form part of the Commonwealth and joining is volountary. Black colonisation by African Imperialism by comparison was murderous and enslaving with millions killed, The Bantu migration saw the rise of forces through Zimbabwe and East and Sothern Africa who killed or enslaved the inhabitants on a huge scale. They arguably were displaced by superior Brirish forces intent on ending the Dutch Africaaners ill treatment of black peoples.


Post a comment