In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

54 Chapter 3 Rules and Reality Anteproclamation Slavery and Society on the Gold Coast At first glance, it could be argued that in the period following the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade, the policies of the administration of the Gold Coast gradually paved the way for full emancipation. In this teleological view, anteproclamation policies represented a deliberate attempt to reduce the central role of slavery within society in preparation for the introduction of capitalism and wage labor. In fact, however, the several reforms of the period 1807–1874 formed not a series of methodical and planned steps, but instead a series of experiments that—despite a string of external edicts and the interference of an enlarged missionary community—failed to transform dependency relationships for the majority of slaves and slave owners. This argument is not intended to imply that the events of this period were marginalto the process ofemancipation. During these crucial years, various modes of liberation were explored by members of servile classes. Organizations of traditional and educated elites that would be crucial in organizing postproclamation resistance coalesced, and the attitudes and strategies that would be applied by government and missionary agents in the postproclamation period were formulated and discussed. On a regional level, British in¶uence increased at the expense of other European powers, eventually paving the way for British hegemony on the coast. Similarly, the continuing ambitions of Asante to establish a secure presence on the coast clearly marked them as Britain’s nemesis in a con¶ict that would play itself out in the last quarter of the century. Thus the interior and coastal states of the Gold Coast were actors in a cycle of con¶ict and détente that would in 1874 culminate in the imposition of increased British military and civil power, and consequently lead to the imposition of antislavery laws. You are reading copyrighted material published by Ohio University Press/Swallow Press. Unauthorized posting, copying, or distributing of this work except as permitted under U.S. copyright law is illegal and injures the author and publisher. Anteproclamation Slavery and Society on the Gold Coast 55 However, although important social and economic factors coalesced during this period, slavery was not really any closer to its end in 1873 than it was in 1807, and even on the latter date, the chief justice of the still-diminutive Gold Coast Colony would defend the policy of turning away refugee slaves in recognition of the rights of slave owners in neighboring territories.1 Nor, during this period, was it clear that indigenous elites would simply accept the potential imposition of British laws restricting slavery. It would take the shock of the 1873 Sangreti (Anglo-Asante) War, and the attention it focused on the region, to cause a radical departure from previous policy and thereby genuinely usher in emancipation. Restricting Slave Ownership in the Wake of the 1834 Emancipation Slavery lost its legal recognition in most parts of the British Empire when the 1833 Act for the Abolition of Slavery in the British Colonies, which provided for the abolition of slavery by August 1, 1834, was introduced.2 All slaves in regions under British suzerainty henceforth were “absolutely and forever manumitted .”3 In the confusion surrounding the promulgation of this act, Governor George Maclean, acting for the Committee of Merchants, wrote to the Colonial Of¤ce for clari¤cation as to how the 1833 act applied to the Gold Coast.4 The response, embodied by a royal order in council, was that it did not. The great “philanthropic” act applied only to Crown colonies—Antigua, Bermuda, Bahamas , St. Christopher, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Mauritius, and the Cape Colony.5 Consequently, Maclean was allowed great leeway in dealing with slavery. Other than requiring the chief ’s signatory to the treaty of 1831 to restrict panyarring, Maclean himself declined entirely to interfere with slave owning among the settlements’ allies and neighbors.6 The of¤cials of the Committee of Merchants initially tried to ignore the 1833 act, just as they had ignored abolitionist pressure, exerted as early as 1807, to forbid Europeans from owning slaves. Even within the forts, company of¤cers continued to hold and use slaves.7 After the committee, responding to abolitionist pressure, forced this practice underground in the late 1830s, of¤cers simply purchased debt contracts from African merchants and became the “patrons,” and de facto masters, of large numbers of pawns.8 Although Maclean’s administration was largely absolved of responsibility for...

Share