[DesertRhino]

“Britain’s ships were the “global policemen” in the 19th century, and along the West coast of Africa became highly successful in capturing slave ships and freeing slaves.”

Conveniently, the west coast of Africa was not the location of any British colonies. And the Royal Navy was not escorting British ships to return their Jamaican and Trinidad slaves back to Africa.

The Brits, as always, were protecting THEIR textile mills, their Dickensian sweat shops, and their trade routes.

It wasn’t a humanitarian thing.

[Republican Wildcat]

Much of what they did to end slavery would not and could not have protected things like textile mills, including sailors diving into the ocean to save slaves, heroically risking their own lives. If it was all about “textile mills” and nothing humanitarian, why would they have done that?

Your “history” appears to be quite biased and very incomplete, assuming even a word of it is true. https://youtu.be/Yd0_AclfzA4?si=Ygtg-btnwx-pf5u9&t=571

[Wallace T.]

Keep in mind that the British were involved in a century long conflict with the Ashanti in what is now Ghana. The African Company of Merchants was a British chartered company operating from 1752 to 1821 that country, engaged in the Atlantic slave trade. In 1821, the British government abolished the African Company of Merchants and took direct control of the colony. Several decades later, the British established a colony in Lagos, Nigeria. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the French and the British defeated the native tribes and bought out or expelled other European powers.

There was a lot of cheating even when the British Navy and the U.S. Navy were suppressing the slave trade. Like narcotics in our time, the slave trade was too profitable for unscrupulous businessmen to avoid.