Very much, Robin Law dedicates an entire chapter to that particular topic in 'Abolition and Imperialism': "International Law and the British Suppression of the Atlantic Slave Trade" he argues that Britain’s role as an agent for the suppression of the slave trade lent moral
authority to its self-interested interventions in other polities’ affairs. Its very possible that the (arguably self-serving) actions taken by the British in west Africa during this period may have contributed to the expansion of domestic slavery, increased the dangers faced by slaves who were still being exported, and complicated the moral case for abolitionism.
Could it be possible that the reason why the Benin king imposed a ban on the exportation of slaves was because of the recalcitrant attitude of the Portuguese, that probably eventually started refusing to give in to Benin's terms when it comes to the price of slaves? This could be a possibility since before the ban Benin frequently increased the price of slaves & sometimes closed the market to purchase male slaves. Could another reason be that the Benin king needed manpower for warfare (since according to a 1650s account, the Benin king ruling in that era maintained this ban because he was using male slaves in his kingdom for his wars) & could another reason be that he felt there was not much benefit to be derived from trading slaves that was now maybe causing disputes between them & the Portuguese supposedly refusing to give in to their demands (since the Portuguese were not bringing them things (apart from manillas - which Benin also got from selling ivory & beads) that they did not already have) like beads, cloths etc.
all the reasons you provide could indeed explain why the ban was issue in the first place, and A. F. C Ryder does infact cite all three as the most likely. What is more perplexing is why the ban continued even after the Portuguese had left (when the more friendly Dutch and English traders had replaced them); why Benin remained eager to export cloth to the Dutch, and why, despite the ever changing internal political environment of Benin (whether it was during times of peace or civil conflict or expansion) did they not actively seek to re-enter the slave trade when they were at their most powerful during the 16th and 17th century, but only entered it in the 18th century when they were at their weakest, and were unsurprisingly not very good at it.
It could be because Benin had different concepts of social hierachies and status than its neighbors regarding who can be enslaved, how slaves were to be used, and how slaves become free (manumitted/intergrated, etc). There's a tendency to assume that any slaves owned locally could be exported and could be easily priced, but its clear (atleast from Kongo and Ndongo) that there were different kinds of slaves and only some could be exported, and, (as Benin showed), the prices of slaves wasn't simply determined by what the european buyers could pay but also what african sellers wanted.
It could very well be that, since most African kingdoms had laws against enslaving and selling their subjects, Benin may have considered slaves to be subjects of the king; even if they were not free (think of Morocco's Moulay Ismail's black army, or the Circassian Mamluks of Egypt during the ottoman era)
We may never have the answers for these questions regarding internal slavery in Benin, b'se they relate to a very specific time period in the 16th and 17th centuries, but what we know is that the king played a very central role in shaping them, because once the ban was in place, virtually no slave left Benin.
Another very satisfying essay, and on a really important subject. Benin strikes me as an especially crucial example because we know there was a ban even if we don't know the specifics of the ideological drivers behind it.
I think there is a way to read the relationship between Dahomey and Oyo through this lens also, which is to say that the use of Dahomey as a kind of "Atlantic vassal" by Oyo, permitting it access to the Atlantic trade without directly controlling a trading port or (mostly) dealing directly with European traders might potentially be read as an awareness of the harms and dangers of the slave trade (despite the fact that Oyo was also engaged in systematic enslavement to its north).
Even more, I think it's possible to read accounts of hostile or aggressive reactions towards slave ships trying to raid or make deals away from the established Atlantic entrepots as a kind of "embodied, expressive anti-slavery"--not delivered as text or law, but delivered through action. We tend to conceptualize that as resistance, but in some cases, we're talking about very small polities that existed on the edges of larger states that clearly had their own working views of the status quo, and we might want to accord their hostility some kind of philosophical or ideological coherence rather than just describe it as reactive. I've sometimes thought the same about some of the groups of people and communities that cohered in the interior, south of the Middle Niger, who unmistakeably rejected Islam and opposed incorporation or tribute to some of the major empires of the Middle Niger (often by living in remote areas)--that looks quite a lot like marronage if you think about it.
I think the biggest challenge we have regarding African perspectives on the institution of slavery (or social hierachy in general) is that they are primarily concerned with the most powerful (often the rulers themselves)
I imagine that all societies recognized some forms of "natural law" (otherwise, they would have to do alot more conflict resolution that they could handle), and that they constantly extended the privileges of natural law to new members as the societies grew and defined themselves against others. the issue was many societies on the Atlantic coast were small, so extending the protections of natural law to everyone would have been constrained by scale (this was partially solved in places with a common religion like Islam).
But its not hard to imagine that some Africans in these regions were opposed to slavery in general, and the existance of social hierachies (I was therefore not too surprised that the 17th century Ethiopian philosophers shared these exact thoughts).
There have been some mentions that slavery didn't exist in some Igbo socities like the kingdom of Nri, though I'll have to do some more research on that.
The Kurukan Fuga undertaken by Sundiata Keita deserved a shout out, keep up the good work love what you are doing.
The destruction and rejection of the previously accepted sovereignty of Africa’s kingdoms was a sad turning point.
Very much, Robin Law dedicates an entire chapter to that particular topic in 'Abolition and Imperialism': "International Law and the British Suppression of the Atlantic Slave Trade" he argues that Britain’s role as an agent for the suppression of the slave trade lent moral
authority to its self-interested interventions in other polities’ affairs. Its very possible that the (arguably self-serving) actions taken by the British in west Africa during this period may have contributed to the expansion of domestic slavery, increased the dangers faced by slaves who were still being exported, and complicated the moral case for abolitionism.
Could it be possible that the reason why the Benin king imposed a ban on the exportation of slaves was because of the recalcitrant attitude of the Portuguese, that probably eventually started refusing to give in to Benin's terms when it comes to the price of slaves? This could be a possibility since before the ban Benin frequently increased the price of slaves & sometimes closed the market to purchase male slaves. Could another reason be that the Benin king needed manpower for warfare (since according to a 1650s account, the Benin king ruling in that era maintained this ban because he was using male slaves in his kingdom for his wars) & could another reason be that he felt there was not much benefit to be derived from trading slaves that was now maybe causing disputes between them & the Portuguese supposedly refusing to give in to their demands (since the Portuguese were not bringing them things (apart from manillas - which Benin also got from selling ivory & beads) that they did not already have) like beads, cloths etc.
all the reasons you provide could indeed explain why the ban was issue in the first place, and A. F. C Ryder does infact cite all three as the most likely. What is more perplexing is why the ban continued even after the Portuguese had left (when the more friendly Dutch and English traders had replaced them); why Benin remained eager to export cloth to the Dutch, and why, despite the ever changing internal political environment of Benin (whether it was during times of peace or civil conflict or expansion) did they not actively seek to re-enter the slave trade when they were at their most powerful during the 16th and 17th century, but only entered it in the 18th century when they were at their weakest, and were unsurprisingly not very good at it.
It could be because Benin had different concepts of social hierachies and status than its neighbors regarding who can be enslaved, how slaves were to be used, and how slaves become free (manumitted/intergrated, etc). There's a tendency to assume that any slaves owned locally could be exported and could be easily priced, but its clear (atleast from Kongo and Ndongo) that there were different kinds of slaves and only some could be exported, and, (as Benin showed), the prices of slaves wasn't simply determined by what the european buyers could pay but also what african sellers wanted.
It could very well be that, since most African kingdoms had laws against enslaving and selling their subjects, Benin may have considered slaves to be subjects of the king; even if they were not free (think of Morocco's Moulay Ismail's black army, or the Circassian Mamluks of Egypt during the ottoman era)
We may never have the answers for these questions regarding internal slavery in Benin, b'se they relate to a very specific time period in the 16th and 17th centuries, but what we know is that the king played a very central role in shaping them, because once the ban was in place, virtually no slave left Benin.
Another very satisfying essay, and on a really important subject. Benin strikes me as an especially crucial example because we know there was a ban even if we don't know the specifics of the ideological drivers behind it.
I think there is a way to read the relationship between Dahomey and Oyo through this lens also, which is to say that the use of Dahomey as a kind of "Atlantic vassal" by Oyo, permitting it access to the Atlantic trade without directly controlling a trading port or (mostly) dealing directly with European traders might potentially be read as an awareness of the harms and dangers of the slave trade (despite the fact that Oyo was also engaged in systematic enslavement to its north).
Even more, I think it's possible to read accounts of hostile or aggressive reactions towards slave ships trying to raid or make deals away from the established Atlantic entrepots as a kind of "embodied, expressive anti-slavery"--not delivered as text or law, but delivered through action. We tend to conceptualize that as resistance, but in some cases, we're talking about very small polities that existed on the edges of larger states that clearly had their own working views of the status quo, and we might want to accord their hostility some kind of philosophical or ideological coherence rather than just describe it as reactive. I've sometimes thought the same about some of the groups of people and communities that cohered in the interior, south of the Middle Niger, who unmistakeably rejected Islam and opposed incorporation or tribute to some of the major empires of the Middle Niger (often by living in remote areas)--that looks quite a lot like marronage if you think about it.
I think the biggest challenge we have regarding African perspectives on the institution of slavery (or social hierachy in general) is that they are primarily concerned with the most powerful (often the rulers themselves)
I imagine that all societies recognized some forms of "natural law" (otherwise, they would have to do alot more conflict resolution that they could handle), and that they constantly extended the privileges of natural law to new members as the societies grew and defined themselves against others. the issue was many societies on the Atlantic coast were small, so extending the protections of natural law to everyone would have been constrained by scale (this was partially solved in places with a common religion like Islam).
But its not hard to imagine that some Africans in these regions were opposed to slavery in general, and the existance of social hierachies (I was therefore not too surprised that the 17th century Ethiopian philosophers shared these exact thoughts).
There have been some mentions that slavery didn't exist in some Igbo socities like the kingdom of Nri, though I'll have to do some more research on that.
Wow this need to be shared, much thanks Issac.