The Royal African Company Sold People
And a bonus rant about how we all suck. Merry Christmas.
The Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa, by its charter issued on 18 December 1660, was granted a monopoly over English trade along the west coast of Africa, with the principal objective being the search for gold.
Their objective quickly changed. These “high-minded” Christians saw an even more lucrative opportunity in the region. Humans, living, breathing people, families living their lives as they had done as long as they could remember. But these people had a so-called distinction that allowed some moral justification for enslaving them, at least in the eyes of the British traders.
Back in the 15th century, the Papacy had declared that enslaving "infidels" was permissible. In other words, if you weren't Catholic or Christian or just didn't practice in a way the church deemed acceptable, you were an infidel, and enslaving you was not a sin; it was morally acceptable by the Vatican. At the time, Britain's official religion was the Anglican Church. But the Stuart family had some serious Catholic ties and tendencies. The RAC was overseen by James II of the Stuart family. He was the Duke of York and brother to the British Crown, Charles II. Both of them, at their core, were very much Catholics.
The justification for slavery, the enslavement of people, goes further. For instance, later, in 1677, there would actually be a legal ruling in England to reinforce slavery as a moral practice. The case was Butts v. Penny. The court ruled that, as a result of this case, black people could be considered property or "goods" for the purpose of trade. This decision was based on the rationale that "infidels" (non-Christians) could not be subjects because they could not swear an oath of allegiance. As a result of all of this psychobabble, it was deemed that Black people were Chattels, which are moveable property.
The English, and later Europe in general, would also claim to be racially superior. Isn't that convenient? They took a look at themselves and said. Yeah, we're better than everyone else.
Then, of course, there was already slavery happening in Africa at the time between tribes. So cultures were already enslaving each other, and the Europeans showed up and said: “I think we'll go ahead and do that as well. We'll trade you for em!”
But what makes this so disturbing and vile than the run-of-the-mill slavery throughout history is this concept of indefinite ownership and generational slavery that Europeans really made a name for themselves in doing.
For example, slaves in ancient Egypt were generally not treated as commodities. They simply had fewer rights. Most slaves over the course of human history ended up that way for being criminals or as a result of conquest.
If you allow me to be a bit crass for a second, you could say that your lower-level slaves are just criminals who may have had a modicum of justification for being enslaved in the first place; I mean, disregarding how morally just the justice system they lived under was anyway. But then worse than that would be the slavery of conquest, where you, your wife, and maybe your children were made slaves as a result of your city or village being conquered by a neighboring kingdom, army, empire, or whatever. Better than just being butchered at the hands of your conquerors, maybe.
But then there's the absolute worst kind of slavery: Chattel slavery. You are taken from your life with this thin religious and "legal" justification for your enslavement. From now on, you and any children you have are simply going to be slaves as well, born into slavery.
That's what we are dealing with here: European Christian-sponsored generational slavery. Imagine that we call much of the time period when this happened "The Enlightenment." We are such strange people.
Ok, so now that we’ve established the obvious immoral ground on which we walk, Let's talk about the British Activities in Africa, specifically the activities of the Royal African Company. There were other countries guilty of the Chattel slave trade, but the RAC is said to have been very active and is responsible for more enslavement of Africans than any other trade company.
John Lok ( not the philosopher ), a merchant and ship captain, is often credited as one of the first Englishmen to lead an expedition to Africa. In 1554, Lok sailed to the Guinea Coast (modern-day West Africa), primarily for trade. His voyage aimed to acquire gold, ivory, and pepper, but he also brought enslaved Africans back to England.
So, from what I gather, As the British and other European countries began expanding their reach across the globe, they would set up forts at strategic points in coastal regions. The coast of West Africa would have these forts set up as staging areas for more inland exploitation, I mean exploration.
For the Royal African Company, it would also be a base of operations where they would enforce and carry out their monopoly on trade with Africa. So, if some rogue English merchant were nearby, he'd better have a damned good reason for being there. Otherwise, they might be considered hostile and probably would be imprisoned. But not enslaved for life, no, not if they were white 'Christians.'
So, the RAC had about 40 forts along this coastline. These forts would hold supplies, have barracks, serve as trading posts, and also the processing of slaves. The history of many of these forts goes back to ownership by other nations, such as Portugal, Spain, France, and the Netherlands. Over the decades, these forts were fought over, taken, lost, and retaken. One could fill an hour talking about this nonsense. Instead, let's talk more about the on-the-ground, real actions happening.
Fighting over control of these forts wasn't limited to just Europeans. Local Kingdoms and leaders would also fight for control over forts.
Ghana is located on Africa's Gold Coast. Long before European colonization, the area was home to the Ghana Empire (circa 300 AD to 1200 AD) and, despite its name, was located in what is now southeastern Mauritania and western Mali, far to the north of modern Ghana.
The Ashanti Empire, which is actually more relevant to our story, arose in the 17th century in what is now central Ghana and became a major force in West Africa, known for its wealth, advanced military systems, and intricate social and political structures.
By the 15th century, European powers, especially the Portuguese, began establishing trading posts along the coast, followed by the Dutch, British, and French, all seeking gold, ivory, and slaves.
So then, Ghana's coastal area became central to the transatlantic slave trade, with European powers building forts and trading posts, such as Elmina Castle and Cape Coast Castle.
The British eventually gained control over the Gold Coast, as it was known, after defeating the Ashanti in a series of wars by the early 20th century. Ghana became the first African nation to gain independence from colonial rule in 1957 under the leadership of Kwame Nkrumah, a key figure in the Pan-African movement. Following independence, Ghana experienced periods of political instability, including military coups, but has since established itself as a stable democracy with a growing economy driven by its gold, cocoa, and oil industries.
Thank you, Master Jones. That will be all.
So, how did this slave trade actually work? Did they just round people up and put them on boats?
Well, here's an example process.
The Trading Company would arrive by ship at the fort and unload a bunch of manufactured goods to trade with the locals. The coastal tribes were often at war with interior tribes. So then, when these coastal tribes would win a battle, rather than killing everyone or making some kind of treaty, they would often march them great distances to the coastal forts, with many of them dying along the way. It's just the most brutal conditions you can imagine. You'd almost have to go out of your way to make it worse, like making the trail covered in hot rocks for no reason, you know, just awful. Then, these slaves would be traded from the coastal tribes to the Royal African Company, for instance, and would get goods in exchange.
Many of the goods they traded for were practical things like metalware and cutlery, and things that were practical like cloth, cotton, and fabrics. Alcohol and tobacco would also be traded. But then, they would also trade weapons and gunpowder.
And you might think they were introducing them to guns, but that would not be true. Many of these West African tribes were introduced to guns when the Ottoman Empire traded with them in the 1500s. So they'd seen guns for over 100 years by the time they started dealing with the RAC. Metalworking, in general, goes back to 1200 BC in Africa. The Iron Age in Africa is older than it is in Europe. So, I don't think all of these tribes were throwing spears, dressing in grass skirts, or engaging in some overgeneralization. That wouldn't be accurate. There was a wide diversity of tribes in West Africa.
But then, these slaves would be traded to the RAC, where they'd be kept in large prisons with horrible conditions. I wouldn't even say living conditions because many didn't live. They'd just die in those prisons. But then these poor folks finally did get onto boats, which had even worse conditions, and even more died. And surely, when they had to throw the dead overboard, the ship masters just shrugged and said: “cost of doing business.”
And this brings up Sugar. The demand for sugar would bring about demand for labor in the Caribbean, where many sugar plantations were located. So, at first, many of the RAC slaves were sent to the Carribean, but then slaves might also get sent up north to the Colonies from the Carribean or even directly to the colonies from Africa.
So, this kind of trade network thrived as a result. It's often called triangular trade between Europe, Africa, and the Americas. It was much more complicated than this, of course, but this is sort of an example of how it might have gone.
Goods like food and raw materials like lumber and ores might be sold from the colonies to England. Then those raw materials might be manufactured into goods that would be sold all over, including back to the slave forts in west Africa, which then traded for more slaves who were shipped to The Caribbean and the colonies, and oh yeah, they were doing a great deal of labor to get those raw materials. So it was like a really immoral engine that churned. Actually, the Steam engine sort of has a weird relationship with slavery. It sort of enabled and reinforced slavery in some ways by making sugarcane plantations more profitable. Still, ultimately, along with some soul searching, it helped to eventually do away with slavery by replacing manpower with machine power.
All of the advancements civilization has made could have been done without slavery. I'm positive of that. Whether we'd be ahead or behind where we are now is debatable. Maybe we'd be at the level of technology they had in the 1800s today if we'd never relied on slaves. I like to think we'd be ahead of where we are, but I don't know. But I do know we'd be a lot more prouder of our history if that had been the case.
Unfortunately, there’s bad news. Slavery never went away. It still exists. You likely knew this already. I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know. And while some are getting indignant online about the way Ticketmaster operates or how awful it is that Netflix just canceled their favorite show, many of us are unknowingly complicit in modern slavery. If you’re reading this, you’re probably complicit as well.
Do you like Chocolate? Coffee? Clothing? Electronics? These things and many more are linked to slavery. I’m as guilty as anyone. I have to admit it. But what now? Do I only drink fair trade coffee? How on earth would you know which electronics to use?
I’m not trying to point fingers here, and I'm not handing out answers like I know the solution, but I rather like being honest. I can’t wave my finger at the past while acting like I’m standing on some kind of solid moral foundation from which I get to preach. But we should all talk about this stuff more. If we don’t, it’ll never go away. We are living in a time where we will be looked down upon by the future; I’m sure of this.
We waste so much time online talking about bullshit. I hate Ticketmaster, too. Hey, easy fucking fix, don’t go to shows. Oh, you can’t miss the next XXXXXX concert? Well, then, shut the fuck up about Ticketmaster, done. There are more important things in this world, and we need to stop ignoring them.
My soapbox is burning, and there's an angry mob of Taylor Swift Fans running down the street at me now, so I’m gonna end here. Thanks for reading.
Take this personally. Merry Xmas.
Hugs and Kisses. - Zaphod
Quote of the Week
“Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing.”
-Thomas Paine
Recommendations
Notes
I didn’t intend to talk about modern slavery when I decided to write about Africa and the slave trade. It was because I came across that picture above that shows modern slavery across the globe. It was hard to ignore, and I realized it deserved more attention than anything else my stupid face was going to say.
Whether you celebrate Christmas or not, I do wish you a Merry end of 2024.
Links
Spotify | Apple | Podcast Addict | Pocket Casts | YouTube
