The way the slave trade unfolded has parallels with some of the political and moral phenomena of today, especially regarding animal rights and exploitation.

One consistent phenomenon is that participants in the market reacts to incentives, and morals are of little importance in a permissive political environment. This is true for both individuals and states. In the case of the latter, African oligarchs did not oppose the expansion of the industry, but rather actively exacerbated it by engaging in conflict to capture more people to sell to Europeans. The incentive in this case was the goods coming from European traders in the form of guns and ammunition and, to go one level deeper, the warring within Africa that created the need for these products. In the case of individuals, the rise of kidnapping and raids with the motivation to sell people to slavers demonstrates the superiority of incentives over morals to the influence of behaviour.

The buying of slaves is also testament to the power of incentive. With the need for more labor to capitalise on the booming sugar industry, it was more convenient for elites in the Americas to bring in more slaves than to change their system of production to avoid causing harm to more human beings, not to say that this was something on their minds. Africans also may have stopped subjecting people to slavery when Britain demanded legitimate commerce, but this was not a strong enough incentive to incite such a change. Whether as a precautionary or capitalistic utility, an object of incentive goes a long way in deciding, hence predicting the moral behaviour of people.

The second lesson is that the ethical sacrifice, in the favour of a voiceless minority, of a profitable but nefarious system more likely and more readily occurs in a politically inclusive environment. Britain abolished slavery owing to the efforts of a small but highly motivated fraction of its population. The leaders of this movement were not themselves affected by slavery, but rather has altruistic motives for abolishing it. In a system where only few have any influence on laws, it would be highly unlikely that such people would somehow happen to be on power. The fact that ordinary people had some political power also means that slaves, much more relatable to them than to aristocrats, stood a better chance of having allies within the privileged population.

In contrast to, and complimenting the point made by, the change that occured in Britain, internal African slavery did not dissipate as easily. This even after the drop in external demand for slaves and slave-produced goods. Lack of political centralisation, and even where it existed, the exclusivity of political power to oligarchs, strongly defied the abolition of local slave use. It would have suited those in power for the economic system that was already benefiting them to remain the same, and where there was weak or no administrative power, it would be almost impossible for oppressors to suddenly have a change of heart and stop kidnapping and enslaving people. Hence Africans continued to enslave each other even upto the 20th century.

Another reason for the disparity between African and European abolition of slavery could be the fact that Africa had an economy that was heavily dependent on slaves. It certainly helped Britain that they had a parallel free market economy that would expand to fill the gaps left by the ban on slavery. It is also likely that the greater efficacy of free workers compared to slaves, as they were juxtaposed, made the abolition of slavery seem more like a sensible change. This free market economy is underpinned by the presence of more pluralistic politics.

This ties in with modern day animal welfare because industries that exploit animals are an important part of the economy, yet the conditions required to ban them are already met in some countries. One more lesson is that change, within these conditions, can come through the efforts of a small but persistant group pressuring the government and these industries. It will be difficult, but it can be done.

Slavery in Europe was a thing of the past by the year 1400, with some western European populations beginning to fight for better political systems than the serfdom which had replaced slavery. For the most part, slavery in Africa persisted, but it was never the problem it became at the end of the mideval period when Europeans made their way into the continent. It only got worse with time, notably at the beginning of the 17th century when the Carribbean sugar plantations made their rise.

Slaves were sold by Africans to Europeans in exchange for firearms and gunpowder. Most of the slaves were captured in war amongst Africans, and the guns pouring in from Europe were a catalyst to the chaos. Apart from war, kidnapping was another way to obtain people to sell. The extractive nature of African states in this period were such that people’s needs were in the shadow of the profit motive of the oligarchy. One way this manifested itself was in the punishment of crimes. All crimes were punishable by slavery, making for a justice system that was less about justice than profit. State authority naturally came into question under these circumstances, and the chaos wore away the political centralisation of most countries.

Non governmental institutions also lost their integrity as they also pursued riches via the slave trade. Indigenous religious practices became distorted such that religious leaders acquired slaves to sell to Europeans. This is very interesting as it might explain Africa’s move away from indigenous religions toward western religions, but that is a subject for more research on my part.

If African countries had more inclusive political institutions, perhaps  trans-saharan and transatlantic slave trade would not have happened. Inclusive political institutions would involve the population in the decision of whether or not it is just for citizens to be transported elsewhere to become slaves, in contrast to the top-down institutions that made it the decision of an elite minority.

If European and American states had more inclusive political institutions, the slave trade would probably not have happened. More inclusive institutions we political privileges would be extended to non-white populations within these countries, hence it is trivial that these populations would not be subjugated to slavery.

Such institutions for the Americas have implications on the effect of the rise in Carribbean sugar production. Instead of the importation of slaves, widespread employment and technological innovation would probably have resulted from the competitive market that would have been. Indeed I make the same assumption for cotton production. The slave trade held back, although clearly not to the same extent, all of Africa, America and Europe considering the potential prosperity that inclusive political and economic institutions would have brought.