- NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 03/Aug 06:17

The law that did not emancipate Africans in Tobago

DR RITA PEMBERTON The Emancipation Act of 1834 sought to undertake the impossible task of bridging the chasm between Britain and its Caribbean colonies during the first third of the 19th century. On the one hand, there was the increasingly influential anti-slavery movement, which, powered by religious groups, launched a strong campaign to end slavery; but on the other hand, West Indian interests, with support from the colonies, although facing waning political and economic influence, fought desperately to save the slave system. While it faced the conflicting demands from these two groups, the British government was not anxious to be the cause of a social upheaval in its colonies; at the same time, it needed to consider the existing political and economic realities and institute measures which would serve the best interests of Britain. Hence, it is of importance to note the circumstances out of which the Emancipation Act was generated. British politics had changed, and representatives of the new economic order sought overseas investment in the cheaper sources of essential raw materials, wider markets and to be relieved of the strictures imposed by the Navigation Acts by which they were bound to trade with the poorer Caribbean colonies. Britain had entered the industrial age, and the Caribbean colonies had been relegated to their past interest and were no longer considered worthy places of investment. The agreement was negotiated between the contending parties and the British administration, but there was no representation for the formerly enslaved population. The planting interests negotiated for a phased emancipation as a guarantee that the sugar industry would not be sacrificed and the interests of investors would not be abandoned. The British respect for landowning held sway, so planters were to remain with their properties and partially free African labourers. Planters were compensated for the loss of labour from two sources: £20 million from the British treasury; and the Africans paid the remaining portion in their labour during what was called the apprenticeship period, which was intended to last for four-six years. The period of apprenticeship was disguised as a period of preparation for life as free people, and not as the workers bearing a cost of planters’ compensation that it was, and, in the process, being forced to pay for their continued exploitation. The interesting fact is that no consideration was given to the Africans in these negotiations while African resistance in Barbados, Jamaica and Guyana spoke loudly for freedom. These resistance movements concerned the imperial authorities because of the cost of increased security arrangements, the fear that they could spread across the region and the danger they posed to life and property. This was a strong factor that propelled the movement for the termination of slavery in the British colonies. It is noteworthy that there was no consideration of preparing planters who were accustomed to owning African labourers for their new role as employers of free people. In addition, there were no supporting changes to facilitate a transition. The administration of the colonies remained the same, and employment remained on the same plantations where owners were magistrates and lawmakers, on which workers, enslaved or freed, were classified as animals and subject to the whims of the planters. The social system put African people at the bottom of the social ladder, where it was assumed they would remain permanently. There was no system in place to liberate the planters from their negative notions of the Africans, and the repressive laws against drums and African practices were not removed. It is difficult to visualise how meaningful liberation could occur under those conditions. In his proclamation to the apprentices of Tobago who were to be freed on August 1, 1838, at the termination of the apprenticeship system, Lt Governor Henry Darling told the apprentices they should be thankful to the queen, the British public and the members of the assembly and council for the “great blessing” conferred on them with the early termination of the apprenticeship system and the grant of full freedom. He avoided any mention of the cost of freedom that was paid by the Africans, or of the intense opposition expressed by Tobago planters and their supporters in the assembly and council to the early termination of apprenticeship. He encouraged them to show their appreciation by the way they discharged their duties, without engaging in acts of dishonesty and being idle or careless with their “masters’” property, and cautioned that the punishment for misconduct during freedom would be no less severe than that applied during slavery and apprenticeship. Despite the promise of freedom, masters and punishment were to remain fixtures in what was supposed to be a new era. This would contribute to the post-emancipation tensions that flared up on the island. When Tobago was made a British possession, all the arable land resources were allocated to large planters for sugar plantations and lots were demarcated for poor settlers, who were expected to be white, around the towns and in the parishes. At emancipation, there was no provision for the freed population to access land. The lieutenant governor advised the population that they could continue to occupy their present quarters on the estates free of charge until October 1, after which they had to make their own arrangements. Unlike the situation with poor white settlers, no assistance was forthcoming from the administration to the free Africans. In fact, there was a distinct opposition to black landowning, it being assumed that estate labour was to remain the calling of the freed African population. From the start of the era of freedom, members of the planting community made it very clear that they would prevent black landowning because it would make the freed people independent of the estates and reduce the island’s labour force. This provided another source of conflict between planters and the freed population Another matter which did not form part of the preparation for a free society was the shortage of coin. This created problems from the very start of freedom, since planters did not have the means to pay their workers. Payments were made in kind, but there was no established system for the determination of equivalence, and dissatisfied workers felt cheated, adding further fuel to the tensions on the island. Finally, the lieutenant governor advised the freed Africans to turn to the Lord, and they would find eternal happiness. This was an indication of the role the churches were expected to play in the free society. The Emancipation Act did not offer freedom to the African population of Tobago because of its creators’ failure to provide adequately for the establishment of a free society. The way the act was formulated suggests it was not the intention of the framers, with their loyalty to the planting community, to create a truly free society. This ran counter to the ambitions of the freed Africans, who were determined to liberate themselves from planter control despite the obstacles they faced. As Emancipation Day is celebrated in 2025, it must be remembered that in 1838, emancipation did not mean freedom; and in Tobago, the freedom that was attained by the relentless struggle of the African population is a legacy that each generation should respect and protect. The post The law that did not emancipate Africans in Tobago appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.