The empty Emancipation proclamation

Dr Rita Pemberton

THE issue of the immorality of enslavement was brought to the attention of the British public by the anti-slavery movement, which led a protracted campaign to terminate first the trade in captive Africans, and then enslavement in the British colonial possessions.

While the anti-slavery campaign received much visibility and has been credited as the main causal factor in the British government's decision to terminate slavery in its colonies, it must be recognised that there were other more powerful, but perhaps less visible, forces, at work.

The British government was stimulated by the larger economic interests of its industrialised economy, in which the trading system on which the slavery-dependent plantations was based had become anachronistic. Free trade was the order of the day, and British industrialists felt strangled by the restrictions imposed by the Navigation Acts of 1660.

It was their wish to be able to expand their trade into the wider markets even those of Britain’s traditional rivals, for large-scale purchases of their mass-produced goods. The industrialists wanted to be freed from the restricted markets of the slavery colonies, many of which could only afford very limited purchases.

The interests of the industrial sector were served by political reform in Britain, through which the political supporters of the slavery regime were replaced by men who represented the new business class.

Secondly, the enslaved population of the British Caribbean demonstrated its intolerance with enslavement by intensified resistance efforts across the region from very early in the 19th century. These resistance wars were both costly and disruptive, as property was destroyed, trade disrupted and lives lost, and the imperial government was faced with the huge costs of defence in the region. Fearing that the resistance movement would spread through the region and become uncontrollable, the British Parliament sought to remove the cause of the problem and emancipate the enslaved population.

This decision was not favoured by landowners in the colonies and their supporters. They argued that it would mean the demise of the plantation sector and financial loss to those who had invested in plantations and the sugar business in the colonies.

In order to appease the planting fraternity and its supporters, the British government negotiated compensation to plantation owners for the loss of the labour of their enslaved property.

In addition, to avoid being blamed for the demise of the Caribbean plantation sector, the imperial government agreed to ensure that the supply of labour was maintained for a six-year period through the apprenticeship system.

However, the apprenticeship was terminated after four tumultuous years in 1838.

The passage of the act to terminate the apprenticeship system and emancipate the enslaved population in the British colonies on August 1, 1838 received a hostile reception from the planting community in the Caribbean

Tobago planters opposed the decision and were very distressed about the future of their operations on the island. On July 15, 1838. Governor Henry Darling issued a proclamation in which he implored the freed Africans to be grateful for the boon of freedom which was bestowed upon them by the members of the island’s administration and the people of Britain, who would be looking at their conduct.

He overlooked the tensions which occurred in Tobago during the first four years of the apprenticeship system, which were largely caused by planter opposition to the system and their determination to function in exactly the same way they had functioned before 1834. In other words, they were determined to maintain the slave system despite the law.

In his proclamation, the governor, underscored the obligations of the workers to their employers. He exhorted them never to deprive their employer of lawful labour, and identified the undesirable worker's characteristics: dishonesty, idleness, neglect or careless performance of duty to their master’s property and irregular attendance at work. To strengthen his argument, the governor said such practices made a person dishonest, which made him an enemy of God. Hence the workers had obligations to God and the plantation owners, and were expected to continue working on the estates of the island.

But what of the plantation owners? The governor’s proclamation made no mention of the responsibilities of planters, now employers to their employees.

After four years of the apprenticeship system, there had been no provision in the law to quell the planter/worker tensions. There was discord over every aspect of the planter/worker relationship.

First of all, the planters refused to become employers and continued to act like slaveowners; hence there were conflicts over hours of work and wages. The workers insisted on better wages and terms of work for their labour; but the governor found it convenient to sidestep this central issue in his proclamation, which made no mention of the battle the workers faced to extract a fair wage from their employers.

The underlying assumption of the proclamation and of the planters, was that the freed Africans had no objectives of their own.

Contrary to their views, after the experience of enslavement and apprenticeship, one of the main ambitions of the freed Africans was to remove themselves from planter control by independent employment and housing.

Given the realities of Tobago, this had to be done in stages. Land had to be rented from plantation owners to be used for establishing homes and gardens, which could provide the extra income that was needed to buy land. Landowning was the burning ambition of the freed Africans.

Having recognised this, in an effort to preserve their labour force, Tobago planters used a variety of mechanisms to try to prevent Africans from becoming landowners.

Despite these efforts there is a proud legacy of black landowners on the island.