Between 1808-1860, the West Africa Squadron captured 1600 slave ships and freed 150,000 African slaves. In 1791, a nation-wide boycott of West Indian Sugar by the British public involved some 300,000 families at its peak, In a mass protest against the slave trade. In 1792, around 400,000 Brits signed anti-slavery petitions - est. 13% of the adult male population. In 1814, est. 750,000 Brits signed abolitionist petitions. If you include petitions sent to both Houses of Parliament, the figure rises to about 1,375,000 signatures. I.e., 20-30% of all eligible males signed such petitions. When Great Britain abolished slavery & the slave trade, she did it at great expense, and used her position as the sole superpower (via gun-boat diplomacy) to bully much of the world into abolition. This included many African Kingdoms & traders who were reluctant to give up the profits of selling their fellow man. It was the first time in history that such a major Empire had gone on such an abolitionist quest. And before anyone says the British only abolished slavery this because the slave trade was no longer ‘economically beneficial’, you’re wrong. In fact, it was thriving at the point of abolition. Between 1701-1710, Britain held a 39% average share of the combined annual slave exports of itself, France and Portugal; this number rose to 59% by 1801-1807. British West Indies held 34.8% of total sugar export share to the North Atlantic in 1770; by 1806, this was 55%. Between 1713-1717, British imports & exports from her colonies in the West Indies stood at 17.9% & 5% of total trade. By 1803-1807, these both rose to 30.5% & 13.1%. By 1812, total value of the British West Indies sat at just over £100 million. This was more than double that of all of British North America - being £46.6 million. The West Indies annual production that year sat at est. £18.5 million - compared to the £13.22 million of British North America. Let's take Barbados specifically, where slavery was such an integral part of its economy that by 1822, only 30% of its slaveholders were landowners. This leads on to the fact that Britain's abolitionist efforts came at the expense of destabilisation across the Empire. The West Indies were furious at the British mother country. One such example, in February 1934, The Barbadian reported that they had "but the shadow of legislative right and power", whilst the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain was just "a few hundred men totally ignorant of our values as Colonies [...] holding us all in the light of savage and heathens." Abolition hurt the economy. If you factor in costs for suppression and higher costs of goods etc., The cost of abolition & suppression was roughly 1.8% of Britain’s Gross National Income every year between 1808-1867. These costs were merely for suppression of the Atlantic Slave Trade. The British were also trying to suppress the East African Slave trade, dominated by Arabs, but the cost of this efforts to the economy is much less clear - though they undoubtedly existed. Moreover, we mustn't forget that Britain was a maritime power, and she lost around 5000 sailors during this great abolitionist quest...

As I explained in The Spectator back in 2023, Slavery reparations are inherently illogical given that every race on every inhabited continent practised it.

Between 1808-1860, the West Africa Squadron captured 1600 slave ships and freed 150,000 African slaves. In 1791, a nation-wide boycott of West Indian Sugar by the British public involved some 300,000 families at its peak, In a mass protest against the slave trade. In 1792, around 400,000 Brits signed anti-slavery petitions - est. 13% of the adult male population. In 1814, est. 750,000 Brits signed abolitionist petitions. If you include petitions sent to both Houses of Parliament, the figure rises to about 1,375,000 signatures. I.e., 20-30% of all eligible males signed such petitions. When Great Britain abolished slavery & the slave trade, she did it at great expense, and used her position as the sole superpower (via gun-boat diplomacy) to bully much of the world into abolition. This included many African Kingdoms & traders who were reluctant to give up the profits of selling their fellow man. It was the first time in history that such a major Empire had gone on such an abolitionist quest. And before anyone says the British only abolished slavery this because the slave trade was no longer ‘economically beneficial’, you’re wrong. In fact, it was thriving at the point of abolition. Between 1701-1710, Britain held a 39% average share of the combined annual slave exports of itself, France and Portugal; this number rose to 59% by 1801-1807. British West Indies held 34.8% of total sugar export share to the North Atlantic in 1770; by 1806, this was 55%. Between 1713-1717, British imports & exports from her colonies in the West Indies stood at 17.9% & 5% of total trade. By 1803-1807, these both rose to 30.5% & 13.1%. By 1812, total value of the British West Indies sat at just over £100 million. This was more than double that of all of British North America - being £46.6 million. The West Indies annual production that year sat at est. £18.5 million - compared to the £13.22 million of British North America. Let's take Barbados specifically, where slavery was such an integral part of its economy that by 1822, only 30% of its slaveholders were landowners. This leads on to the fact that Britain's abolitionist efforts came at the expense of destabilisation across the Empire. The West Indies were furious at the British mother country. One such example, in February 1934, The Barbadian reported that they had "but the shadow of legislative right and power", whilst the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain was just "a few hundred men totally ignorant of our values as Colonies [...] holding us all in the light of savage and heathens." Abolition hurt the economy. If you factor in costs for suppression and higher costs of goods etc., The cost of abolition & suppression was roughly 1.8% of Britain’s Gross National Income every year between 1808-1867. These costs were merely for suppression of the Atlantic Slave Trade. The British were also trying to suppress the East African Slave trade, dominated by Arabs, but the cost of this efforts to the economy is much less clear - though they undoubtedly existed. Moreover, we mustn't forget that Britain was a maritime power, and she lost around 5000 sailors during this great abolitionist quest...

Between 1808-1860, the West Africa Squadron captured 1600 slave ships and freed 150,000 African slaves. In 1791, a nation-wide boycott of West Indian Sugar by the British public involved some 300,000 families at its peak, In a mass protest against the slave trade. In 1792, around 400,000 Brits signed anti-slavery petitions - est. 13% of the adult male population. In 1814, est. 750,000 Brits signed abolitionist petitions. If you include petitions sent to both Houses of Parliament, the figure rises to about 1,375,000 signatures. I.e., 20-30% of all eligible males signed such petitions. When Great Britain abolished slavery & the slave trade, she did it at great expense, and used her position as the sole superpower (via gun-boat diplomacy) to bully much of the world into abolition. This included many African Kingdoms & traders who were reluctant to give up the profits of selling their fellow man. It was the first time in history that such a major Empire had gone on such an abolitionist quest. And before anyone says the British only abolished slavery this because the slave trade was no longer ‘economically beneficial’, you’re wrong. In fact, it was thriving at the point of abolition. Between 1701-1710, Britain held a 39% average share of the combined annual slave exports of itself, France and Portugal; this number rose to 59% by 1801-1807. British West Indies held 34.8% of total sugar export share to the North Atlantic in 1770; by 1806, this was 55%. Between 1713-1717, British imports & exports from her colonies in the West Indies stood at 17.9% & 5% of total trade. By 1803-1807, these both rose to 30.5% & 13.1%. By 1812, total value of the British West Indies sat at just over £100 million. This was more than double that of all of British North America - being £46.6 million. The West Indies annual production that year sat at est. £18.5 million - compared to the £13.22 million of British North America. Let's take Barbados specifically, where slavery was such an integral part of its economy that by 1822, only 30% of its slaveholders were landowners. This leads on to the fact that Britain's abolitionist efforts came at the expense of destabilisation across the Empire. The West Indies were furious at the British mother country. One such example, in February 1934, The Barbadian reported that they had "but the shadow of legislative right and power", whilst the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain was just "a few hundred men totally ignorant of our values as Colonies [...] holding us all in the light of savage and heathens." Abolition hurt the economy. If you factor in costs for suppression and higher costs of goods etc., The cost of abolition & suppression was roughly 1.8% of Britain’s Gross National Income every year between 1808-1867. These costs were merely for suppression of the Atlantic Slave Trade. The British were also trying to suppress the East African Slave trade, dominated by Arabs, but the cost of this efforts to the economy is much less clear - though they undoubtedly existed. Moreover, we mustn't forget that Britain was a maritime power, and she lost around 5000 sailors during this great abolitionist quest...

'Being a furry is like wearing a superhero cape'