yr13_ia_2007_hibbert_d

=Analysis (500-650 Words)=


 * Start by explaining why this topic is important - a. Why was it important at the time? b. What lessons does it provide us with today?**

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade itself saw Britain reap the benefits of the economic profits and the trade in luxurious goods. So why abolish it? Yes, the Slave trade accounted for over 50% of Britain’s income at the time and made the country millions of pounds. But the loss of 13 colonies in North America and a long series of wars with the French between 1793 and 1815 saw a massive **imbalance** in the economy. Firstly Britain lost out on selling slaves to North America which at the time was creating 37% of the entire Slave Trade income. Secondly the upkeep and amount of ships needed to protect the Trade from enemies was seriously undermining Britain’s military strength in the wars against the Americans and the French. So abolishing the Trade in 1807 made perfectly good sense when it came to economic self interest. The wars against the French turned in their favour which saw Britain gain many new colonies.

It is almost certain that the abolition would never have been made possible without the actions taken by individuals. The awareness of how the slaves were treated was at a very low level. In 1784 and 1787 the first petitions against the slave trade had been made in parliament by William Wilberforce and the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Wilberforce himself was an MP for the Conservative party and made it his life’s work to ensure the abolition became a reality. He presented his first bill to abolish the trade to the House of Commons in 1791; it was defeated by 163 votes to 88. With the help of Lord Grenville and Charles Fox, Wilberforce persuaded the House of Lords to accept the measure. On the 25th of March 1807, the bill was passed in the House of Lords by 41 to 20 votes and in the House of Commons by 114 to 15 votes. Despite all of his hard work for the abolition, Wilberforce became ill and died in 1833, a year before parliament granted the **s**laves freedom **(you could mention the recent film "Amazing Grace" here, which certainly suggests that it was the actions of Wilberforce that were essential, and then you could make the clever point that of course this film was designed to present a simple, heroic narrative for cinema audiences so we needn't necessarily trust it)**. In 1831 the first published book in history written by a black woman. It was called ‘The History of Mary Prince, a West Indian Slave, related by herself’ by Mary Prince. When the book came out people thought that slaves wanted to be slaves and that they didn’t know any better, she says in her book, “I am often much vexed and I feel a great sorrow when I hear some people in this country say that the slave do not need better usage, and do not want to be free.” This book **probably had a major hand of the complete abolition across the empire in 1834**. - **you provide absolutely no evidence of this assertion. Was it a bestseller? Was it quoted by Wilverforce and others? The "Life of Equiano" would have been a more convincing choice of book to use (read Jenna's IA, she refers to this book!!!).**

Change in public morality would have been a big factor when it came to parliament voting for the abolition. The work of the individuals could not be justified unless they had support from the public. If the slave trade was to be abolished properly, new measurements upon the law at that time needed to be taken. At first people who were caught carrying slaves would be fined 100 pounds a slave. There were many cases at this time of owners throwing their slaves into the ocean to drown from fear of being caught and having to pay such a huge fine. The after the 1834 abolition people caught carrying slaves were thrown in prison. Of course by 1834 the general public’s moral standing on slavery had changed. At first the black slaves were depicted as animals and not at all human. Charles the 2nd even had a law when slavery was first established that said “the property in a black could only be upheld if the proprietors could prove that the slave is ‘neither man, woman nor child’”. People now saw this as ‘inhumane’ and wanted the law changed.

a. You do not refer to any historians' views on why abolition took place. Find and name a historian who argues it was due to economic self-interest, another who says it was down to the actions of individuals, and another who talks about public morality. This is a relatively straightforward way of edging up the markscheme. b. You do not explain why this topic MATTERS. Why was it such a burning issue at the time (I have a copy of the film "amazing grace" about Wilberforce, which you are welcome to borrow - just ask and I'll bring it in for you)? Why is it still a topic of relevance today (human rights, civil rights, the continuing problem of child labour / slavery in some parts of the world etc).**
 * OK, you have finally made a bit of headway on this section. However, although you outline several possible causes for the abolition movement, there is still some work to be done to get a mark more than about 1/5.