By the late 1700s the Atlantic slave trade, which had shipped enslaved Africans to plantations in the Americas for nearly 300 years, began to break down. Three forces drove this: industrialisation changed what Britain's economy needed, an abolitionist movement turned public opinion against slavery, and legitimate commerce — legitimate commerce — gave African merchants a replacement income.
- Industrialisation and economic change — Britain's economy was shifting from plantation-based colonial trade towards factory production. Industrialists needed raw materials (cotton, palm oil) and new markets for manufactured goods, not more sugar colonies. Historian Eric Williams argued slavery became less central to British wealth once factories, not plantations, drove the economy
- The abolitionist movement — Religious and humanitarian campaigners argued slavery was morally wrong. William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian MP, led decades of parliamentary campaigning in Britain from the 1780s onward. The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade (founded 1787) organised petitions, public meetings and pamphlets that shifted British public opinion against the trade
- Rise of legitimate commerce — West African rulers and coastal merchants who had grown rich supplying slaves needed a replacement income once Britain banned the trade. Palm oil (used for soap and to lubricate industrial machinery), and later cocoa and groundnuts, offered this. Trade in the Niger Delta shifted from people to produce over the 19th century
Economic and moral causes worked together: Do not treat industrialisation and abolitionism as rival explanations. Industrial Britain no longer needed the slave trade economically, which made it politically easier for MPs to vote for abolition without threatening the national economy. The two causes reinforced each other — this is exactly the kind of multi-causal link Paper 3 examiners reward.
Don't give one cause all the credit: A strong essay ranks the causes and explains how they connect, rather than listing industrialisation, abolitionism and legitimate commerce as three separate, equal boxes.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
The East African slave trade, centred on the Swahili coast and Zanzibar, declined later than the Atlantic trade — mainly across the second half of the 19th century. Its causes were different: humanitarian pressure from missionaries, European colonial expansion that physically closed the slave markets, and the slow decline of slavery inside the Ottoman Empire.
- Humanitarian factors and missionaries — Explorer-missionary David Livingstone publicised the brutality of the East African trade in Britain through his writings and lectures in the 1860s and 1870s, describing slave caravans and the human cost of the trade around Lake Nyasa. His reports built British public support for suppressing the trade
- Colonial expansion and the closing of markets — As Britain, Germany and other powers took direct control of East African territory in the 1880s–1890s (Scramble for Africa), colonial administrations physically shut down slave markets, most importantly the great market at Zanzibar, closed in 1873 under British pressure on Sultan Barghash
- Decline of slavery in the Ottoman Empire — The Ottoman Empire, a major destination for East African and Red Sea slaves, gradually restricted the trade under European diplomatic pressure through the 19th century, reducing demand at the trade's eastern end
Atlantic trade decline
- Driven mainly by Britain's own industrial and moral shift
- Ends earlier: trade effectively suppressed by mid-1800s
- Legitimate commerce (palm oil) replaces slave exports
East African trade decline
- Driven mainly by external colonial force and missionary pressure
- Ends later: still active into the 1890s
- Colonial conquest physically closes the markets
Same word, different story: Never assume the two trades declined for the same reasons or at the same speed. The Atlantic trade was undercut from within Britain's own economy and conscience; the East African trade was shut down mainly from outside, by colonial force arriving decades later.
Learn what examiners really want
See exactly what to write to score full marks. Our AI shows you model answers and the key phrases examiners look for.
Three laws mark the legal turning points against slavery in the 19th century. Each did a different job — banning the trade, freeing the enslaved, and dividing up Africa in ways that (officially) targeted slavery.
| Act | Date | What it did | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1807 Slave Trade Act | 1807 | Made it illegal for British ships to carry enslaved people; Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron began patrolling to intercept slave ships | Did not free existing enslaved people; other nations (Spain, Portugal, Brazil, the USA) kept trading for decades |
| 1833 Abolition of Slavery Act | 1833 | Abolished slavery itself across most of the British Empire, freeing enslaved people in British colonies | Freed people were forced into 'apprenticeships' for several more years; enslavers were compensated financially, not the enslaved |
| 1885 Berlin Act | 1885 | General Act of the Berlin Conference; European powers publicly committed to suppressing the slave trade in Africa as part of dividing the continent into colonies | Used partly as a moral justification for colonial conquest itself; enforcement was patchy and self-interested |
1807
Britain bans the Atlantic slave trade for its own ships; Royal Navy patrols West African waters to intercept traders.
1833
Britain abolishes slavery itself in its colonies, freeing enslaved people (though 'apprenticeship' delays real freedom).
1885
The Berlin Act commits European powers to fighting the slave trade in Africa, used to justify colonial takeover of the continent.
Ban the trade (1807) -> free the people (1833) -> use it to justify empire (1885).
Legislation is not the same as ending slavery: Passing a law in London did not instantly end slavery in practice. The Atlantic trade continued illegally for decades after 1807; East African slavery persisted into the 1900s. Acts changed what was legal, not overnight what actually happened on the ground.