Hubbry Logo
Slave shipSlave shipMain
Open search
Slave ship
Community hub
Slave ship
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Slave ship
Slave ship
Slave ship
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A plan of the British slave ship Brookes, showing how 454 slaves were accommodated on board after the Slave Trade Act 1788. This same ship had reportedly carried as many as 609 slaves and was 267 tons burden, making 2.3 slaves per ton.[1] Published by the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade
Part of a series on
Forced labour and slavery
Contemporary
Historical
Antiquity
Medieval Europe
Muslim world
Atlantic slave trade
Topics and practice
Naval
By country or region
Sub-Saharan Africa
North and South America
East, Southeast, and South Asia
Australia and Oceania
Europe and North Asia
North Africa and West Asia
Religion
Opposition and resistance
Related

Slave ships were large cargo ships specially built or converted from the 17th to the 19th century for transporting slaves. Such ships were also known as "Guineamen" because the trade involved human trafficking to and from the Guinea coast in West Africa.[2]

Atlantic slave trade

[edit]

In the early 17th century, more than a century after the arrival of Europeans to the Americas,[3] demand for unpaid labor to work plantations made slave-trading a profitable business. The Atlantic slave trade peaked in the last two decades of the 18th century, during and following the Kongo Civil War.[4]

To ensure profitability, the owners of the ships divided their hulls into holds with little headroom, so they could transport as many slaves as possible. Unhygienic conditions, dehydration, dysentery, and scurvy led to a high mortality rate, on average 15%[5] and up to a third of captives. Often, the ships carried hundreds of slaves, who were chained tightly to plank beds. For example, the slave ship Henrietta Marie carried about 200 slaves on the long Middle Passage. They were confined to cargo holds, with each slave chained with little room to move.[6]

The most significant routes of the slave ships led from the north-western and western coasts of Africa to South America and the south-east coast of what is today the United States, and the Caribbean. As many as 20 million Africans were transported by ship.[7] The transportation of slaves from Africa to the Americas was known as the Middle Passage of the triangular trade.

Conditions on slave ships

[edit]

Slaves

[edit]
A painting c.1830 by the German artist Johann Moritz Rugendas depicts a scene below deck of a slave ship headed to Brazil; Rugendas had been an eyewitness to the scene.

The owners of slave ships embarked as many slaves as possible to make the voyage more profitable. They did so by cramming, chaining, and selectively grouping slaves to maximize the use of space. Slaves began to die of lack of oxygen due to these cramped conditions. Portuguese lawmakers passed the Tonnage Act of 1684 in order to slightly improve conditions.[8] Slaves on board were underfed and brutally treated, causing many to die before even arriving at their destination; dead or dying slaves were dumped overboard. An average of one to two months was needed to complete the journey. The slaves were naked and shackled together with several different types of chains, stored on the floor beneath bunks with little to no room to move. Some captains assigned slave guardians to watch over and keep the other slaves in check. They spent a large portion of time pinned to floorboards, which would wear skin on their elbows down to the bone. Diseases such as dysentery, diarrhea, ophthalmoparesis, malaria, smallpox, yellow fever, scurvy, measles, typhoid fever, hookworm, tapeworm, sleeping sickness, trypanosomiasis, yaws, syphilis, leprosy, elephantiasis, and melancholia resulted in the deaths of slaves on board slave ships.[9] Firsthand accounts from former slaves, such as Olaudah Equiano, describe the horrific conditions that slaves were forced to endure.[10]

The Slave Trade Act 1788, also known as Dolben's Act, regulated conditions on board British slave ships for the first time since the slave trade started. It was introduced to the United Kingdom Parliament by Sir William Dolben, an advocate for the abolition of slavery. For the first time, limits were placed on the number of slaves that could be carried. Under the terms of the act, ships could transport 1.67 slaves per ton up to a maximum of 207 tons burthen, after which only one slave per ton could be carried.[11] The well-known slave ship Brookes was limited to carrying 454 people; it had previously transported as many as 609 enslaved.[1] Olaudah Equiano was among the supporters of the act, but it was opposed by some abolitionists, such as William Wilberforce, who feared it would establish the idea that the slave trade simply needed reform and regulation, rather than complete abolition.[12] Slave counts can also be estimated by deck area rather than registered tonnage, which results in a lower number of errors and only 6% deviation from reported figures.[13]

This limited reduction in the overcrowding on slave ships may have reduced the on-board death rate, but this is disputed by some historians.[14]

Sailors and crew

[edit]
Upper deck of the Marie Séraphique upon arrival at a port in Saint-Domingue
View of the same ship's slave deck

In the 18th and early 19th centuries, the sailors on slave ships were often poorly paid and subject to brutal discipline and treatment.[15] Furthermore, a crew mortality rate of around 20% was expected during a voyage, with sailors dying as a result of disease, flogging, or slave uprisings.[16][17] While conditions for the crew were far better than those of the slaves, they remained harsh and contributed to a high death rate. Sailors often had to live and sleep without shelter on the open deck for the entirety of the Atlantic voyage, as the space below deck was occupied by slaves.[15]

Disease, specifically malaria and yellow fever, was the most common cause of death among sailors. A high crew mortality rate on the return voyage was in the captain's interests, as it reduced the number of sailors who had to be paid on reaching the home port.[17] Crew members who survived were frequently cheated out of their wages on their return.[15]

These aspects of the slave trade were widely known; the notoriety of slave ships amongst sailors meant those joining slave ship crews did so through coercion or because they could find no other employment. This was often the case for sailors who had spent time in prison.[18]

Black sailors are known to have been among the crews of British slave ships. These men came from Africa or the Caribbean, or were British-born. Dozens of individuals have been identified by researchers from surviving records. Knowledge of this is incomplete, though, as many captains did not record the ethnicity of crew members in their ship's muster roll.[19] African men (and occasionally African women) also served as translators.[20]

Abolition of the slave trade

[edit]
The former slave ship HMS Black Joke (left) fires on the Spanish ship El Almirante before capturing her, January 1829 (painting by Nicholas Matthews Condy).

The African slave trade was outlawed by the United States and the United Kingdom in 1807. The 1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade Act outlawed the slave trade throughout the British Empire. The U.S. law took effect on 1 January 1808.[21] After that date, all U.S. and British slave ships leaving Africa were seen by the law as pirate vessels subject to capture by the U.S. Navy or Royal Navy.[22] In 1815,[23] at the Council of Vienna, Spain, Portugal, France, and the Netherlands also agreed to abolish their slave trade. The trade did not end on legal abolition; between 1807 and 1860 British vessels captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 160,000 slaves.[24]

After abolition, slave ships adopted quicker, more maneuverable forms to evade capture by naval warships, one favorite form being the Baltimore Clipper. Some had hulls fitted with copper sheathing, which significantly increased speed by preventing the growth of marine weed on the hull, which would otherwise cause drag.[25] This was very expensive, and at the time was only commonly fitted to Royal Navy vessels. The speed of slave ships made them attractive ships to repurpose for piracy,[26] and also made them attractive for naval use after capture; USS Nightingale and HMS Black Joke were examples of such vessels. HMS Black Joke had a notable career in Royal Navy service and was responsible for capturing a number of slave ships and freeing many hundreds of slaves.

Attempts have been made by descendants of African slaves to sue Lloyd's of London for playing a key role in underwriting insurance policies taken out on slave ships bringing slaves from Africa to the Americas.[27]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Slave ship

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A slave ship was a merchant vessel repurposed or designed to transport large numbers of enslaved Africans across the Atlantic Ocean as part of the transatlantic slave trade, which operated primarily from the early 16th to the mid-19th century. These ships facilitated the forced migration of approximately 12.5 million Africans from West and to the , with records documenting over 36,000 such voyages between 1514 and 1867. The trade formed a leg of the triangular commerce route, where European goods were exchanged for captives in , who were then sold in the to produce commodities like , , and shipped back to , driving colonial economic expansion through coerced labor. The , the transatlantic crossing, typically lasted 80 days and subjected captives to extreme overcrowding, inadequate food and water, rampant , and brutal restraint, yielding mortality rates of around 10 to 25 percent depending on the era. Ship captains maximized profits by packing hundreds or thousands below decks in unsanitary conditions, often chaining individuals in ways that promoted and despair, while facing risks of mutinies from resistant captives. This system, dominated by , British, French, Spanish, and Dutch operators, underscored the trade's scale and brutality, with only about 10.7 million survivors disembarked, the rest perishing en route or shortly after capture.

Historical Context

Origins and Scale of Transatlantic Slave Trade

The transatlantic slave trade emerged in the early 16th century amid European colonial expansion into the Americas, where labor demands for sugar plantations, tobacco cultivation, and silver mining outstripped available indigenous workers following catastrophic population declines from introduced diseases such as smallpox and measles. Indigenous numbers in regions like Hispaniola and Mexico plummeted by up to 90% within decades of contact, with estimates placing pre-Columbian populations at 50-100 million across the hemisphere reduced to under 10 million by 1600, rendering systems like the Spanish encomienda insufficient for sustained extraction economies. European powers, drawing on Portuguese precedents of coastal slave trading in West Africa since the 1440s, shifted to importing Africans who exhibited greater resistance to Eurasian pathogens and were procured through existing African warfare and commerce networks. The Portuguese initiated systematic shipments to Brazil around 1532 for sugar production, while Spain authorized the asientos system in 1518, enabling the first documented transatlantic voyage carrying 4,000 Africans to the Caribbean by 1528 under Portuguese contractors. Over its duration from approximately 1501 to 1866, the trade involved an estimated 12.5 million Africans embarked from West and Central African coasts, with roughly 10.7 million surviving to disembark in the , based on compilations of shipping records, port logs, and contemporary accounts. The volume peaked in the , accounting for over 70% of total embarkations—around 6 million individuals—driven by expanded plantation complexes in the and under flags primarily of / (5.85 million embarked), Britain (3.26 million), (1.38 million), and the (0.55 million). This escalation reflected surging demand for labor in commodity booms, with annual averages reaching 78,000 enslaved departures in the , facilitated by purpose-built vessels integrating into mercantile routes. Primary embarkation regions concentrated along Africa's Atlantic seaboard, with West Central Africa (modern and Congo) supplying 44% (about 5.5 million), the 17% (2.1 million), the Gold Coast 13% (1.6 million), and the 12% (1.5 million), often via fortified European trading posts exchanging goods like firearms and textiles for captives from inland conflicts. Disembarkations favored equatorial zones suited to tropical agriculture: received 38% (4.9 million), the British 17% (2.3 million), the French 9% (1.2 million), Spanish 8% (1.1 million), and mainland under British flags just 3% (0.39 million), underscoring the trade's orientation toward high-yield economies rather than temperate settlements. These patterns, derived from over 36,000 documented voyages, highlight the trade's scale as a response to colonial imperatives for coerced labor in export-oriented production.

African and European Involvement

African rulers in kingdoms such as Dahomey and the Ashanti Empire captured individuals through intertribal warfare, judicial punishments, and raids, supplying them as slaves to European traders at coastal forts in exchange for goods that bolstered their power. These practices built on indigenous systems of servitude but intensified under transatlantic demand, as rulers waged expansionist wars explicitly to generate captives for export, with primary accounts from European observers and African oral traditions confirming the economic calculus of conquest for trade revenue. The Ashanti, for instance, integrated slave exports into their gold-based economy, using proceeds to fund military campaigns that yielded further prisoners. European involvement centered on purchasing these captives at established coastal entrepôts like and , without systematic inland penetration, as high mortality from endemic diseases like rendered large-scale raids logistically unfeasible for non-acclimated traders. From the , , Dutch, British, and French merchants fortified trading posts to facilitate exchanges, providing textiles, iron, and especially firearms—over 1 million guns imported annually by the late —which armed African forces and amplified the gun-slave cycle, whereby weapons enabled more captures to secure additional arms. Trade records from shipping manifests and fort logs, compiled in databases like the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, quantify this dynamic: the region, dominated by Dahomey, supplied about 2 million of the roughly 12.5 million Africans embarked between 1501 and 1867, while the Gold Coast under Ashanti influence contributed over 1 million. This commerce reflected aligned incentives, with African polities resisting European abolitionist interventions to preserve fiscal benefits; Dahomey, for example, defied British diplomatic and naval pressures, maintaining exports until blockades in 1851–1852 disrupted Ouidah's trade, while Ashanti rulers prioritized slave revenues over treaties curtailing the practice. from correspondence and export tallies underscores that cessation required , as endogenous demand for European imports sustained supply despite shifting overseas markets.

Integration into Triangular Trade

Slave ships constituted the critical transatlantic leg of the , a mercantile system operational from the 16th to 19th centuries that linked European manufacturing, African labor extraction, and American commodity production for sequential profit realization. Vessels departed European ports, notably , , and , freighted with industrial outputs such as textiles, ironware, brass pans, firearms, , and distilled spirits like , destined for at West African coastal entrepôts including those controlled by entities such as the Royal African Company. These goods, valued for their utility in African warfare and trade networks, were exchanged for enslaved Africans captured inland by local polities and delivered to forts like or . Upon acquiring human cargoes, the ships navigated the to American destinations—primarily the sugar islands, Brazilian s, and southern North American colonies—where captives fetched high prices amid labor shortages for staple crop cultivation. Profits from slave sales enabled loading of return cargoes comprising raw materials such as , (a rum precursor), , , , and timber, which were shipped back to for domestic consumption, refining, or re-export to continental markets. This circuit avoided ballast-only returns, with each leg yielding margins: outbound goods markup via African demand, slave sales amplified by plantation economics, and inbound commodities benefiting from monopolistic colonial supplies. British operators dominated quantitative scale, embarking roughly 3.26 million enslaved Africans across over 10,000 voyages from 1662 to 1807, per records in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, with peak activity in the late coinciding with expanded holdings post-Seven Years' War. The system's causality in manifested through re-export trades; for instance, sugar imports to Britain reached 200,000 tons annually by 1800, fueling distilleries, refineries, and shipping demands that generated reinvestable surpluses. Localized impacts were pronounced: econometric analyses of parish-level data reveal slave trade exposure correlated with 40% elevated incomes and accelerated manufacturing adoption in affected regions, underscoring demand-pull effects over mere profit transfers. Historiographic assessments, originating with ' 1944 contention that surpluses directly financed industrialization via entities like and Lloyds banking houses, have been refined by quantitative critiques showing direct slave voyage profits averaged under 1% of in peak decades. Nonetheless, causal chains via commodity flows—molasses to , to mills—evidenced sustained contributions to proto-industrial expansion, with broader Atlantic commerce amplifying GDP effects beyond isolated trade ledgers.

Design and Technical Features

Ship Types and Modifications

Slave ships in the transatlantic trade were predominantly converted merchant vessels, including brigs, schooners, and full-rigged ships, adapted to carry human cargo by reinforcing lower decks and installing temporary wooden platforms to create multiple layers for stowage. These modifications allowed for dense packing, with platforms typically spaced 16 to 18 inches apart vertically to accommodate chained individuals in positions. A notable example is the British ship Brookes, launched in in 1781, whose 1788 diagram illustrated post-regulation stowage capacity for 454 enslaved Africans on a vessel of about 300 tons burthen, featuring shelf-like platforms across the hold. The diagram, based on surveys of ships, depicted rows of bodies chained in , highlighting the engineering focus on maximizing vertical and horizontal space within the hull. British regulations, such as Dolben's Act of 1788, directly influenced these designs by limiting enslaved persons to 1.67 per ton for ships up to 207 tons burthen, and one per ton thereafter, prompting builders to adjust platform configurations for compliance while optimizing for volume. Most transatlantic slave ships measured between 150 and 250 tons, though sizes varied from 100 to over 300 tons depending on the operator and route. Regional differences emerged in vessel preferences; British operators favored faster schooners and brigs for agility against patrols, while Portuguese ships servicing routes often employed larger full-rigged vessels to handle extended voyages and higher volumes, reflecting the trade's peak transport of over 5 million captives to . These adaptations prioritized structural integrity under , with hull reinforcements to support added decking weight without compromising seaworthiness.

Capacity, Ventilation, and Packing Systems

Slave ship operators optimized capacity through packing strategies designed to balance profit against survival rates, with "tight-packing" involving higher densities of 1.5 to 2 enslaved Africans per of ship displacement to maximize returns despite elevated mortality, contrasted by "loose-packing" which prioritized fewer individuals per for better health outcomes. Following the British Dolben Act of 1788, regulations capped loading at approximately 1.67 enslaved per for vessels under 207 tons, aiming to curb overcrowding while still enabling commercial viability. Across documented transatlantic voyages, the average number of enslaved Africans embarked per ship ranged from 300 to 500, varying by vessel size, route, and era, with comprehensive records indicating about 350 on average over roughly 36,000 voyages transporting 12.5 million individuals. These metrics derived from archival logs and manifests underscore the scale of load optimization, where captains weighed cargo volume against anticipated losses from disease and resistance. Ventilation systems relied on deck gratings over hatchways to allow into lower holds and, on some vessels, windsails to direct air downward, supplemented by manual pumps for bilge water removal that indirectly aided air circulation. However, these provisions proved insufficient against equatorial humidity and heat, fostering conditions conducive to epidemics of and , as stagnant air and poor drainage exacerbated spread in densely packed spaces. To mitigate scurvy, a vitamin C deficiency prevalent on long sea voyages, later 18th-century practices included citrus rations on select ships, informed by James Lind's 1747 clinical trial demonstrating oranges and lemons' efficacy, though widespread adoption lagged until the British Navy's 1795 mandate influenced merchant practices. Such measures, when implemented, reduced incidence but were inconsistently applied amid priorities for cheap, storable provisions like yams and beans, highlighting causal trade-offs between cost efficiency and health preservation. Slave ships navigated the Atlantic using a combination of dead reckoning—estimating position from course, speed, and time—and celestial observations for latitude, with longitude determination improving after the widespread adoption of marine chronometers in the late 18th century. These methods were essential for the Middle Passage, the transatlantic leg typically lasting 6 to 10 weeks, during which vessels followed trade winds and currents such as the North Equatorial Current to cross from Africa to the Americas efficiently. Navigational challenges included unpredictable storms, which could scatter fleets or cause wrecks, and the need to avoid hurricane-prone regions in the Caribbean during certain seasons, compounded by the coastal maneuvers along West Africa prone to currents and fog. To counter these oceanic hazards and external threats, captains plotted routes conservatively, often hugging latitudes where winds were reliable, while relying on logs, quadrants, and later sextants for course corrections; however, errors in could lead to prolonged voyages increasing risks of spoilage and . posed a persistent danger, particularly in the and off African coasts, where privateers from rival European powers or independent targeted laden vessels for their human cargo and goods, prompting slave ships to travel in convoys when possible or alter courses to evade known hotspots. Armament on slave ships emphasized defense against multiple threats, including over 465 documented insurrections during transatlantic voyages where enslaved Africans attempted to seize control, often requiring crews to repel boarders with muskets and blunderbusses. Vessels typically mounted 10 to 20 cannons or swivel guns on decks, supplemented by small arms like pistols and cutlasses distributed among the crew, to deter attacks not only from revolts but also from pirates, privateers, and occasionally African coastal forces resisting trade. These weapons doubled as tools for bombarding African forts to secure captives during loading, reflecting the dual offensive-defensive role in high-risk operations. Insurance premiums at markets like incorporated assessments of such risks, with slave voyage policies—comprising 5-10% of —factoring in voyage specifics, including armament levels, to gauge vulnerability to loss from piracy, storms, or uprisings, though underwriters often excluded "perils of the sea" claims unless proven exceptional. Adequate arming could lower perceived hazards, enabling captains to negotiate better rates, as insufficient defenses heightened the likelihood of total loss payouts.

Operational Realities of the Middle Passage

Voyage Routes and Durations

The , the transatlantic leg transporting enslaved Africans from the West African coast to the , followed primary routes shaped by and currents. Ships typically departed from embarkation points along a 3,000-mile stretch of coastline from and the Gold Coast southward to the , , and West Central Africa (primarily ), crossing to destinations dominated by the (such as , , and ), (especially and Rio de Janeiro), and to a lesser extent North American ports like . These paths leveraged the northeast for westward travel, often arcing northward to catch the before veering south toward or the for arrivals, with detours to islands like or the Canaries for fresh water and provisions that could add weeks to the journey. Durations varied empirically based on logbook records compiled in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, averaging around 70 days (10 weeks) across 36,000 documented voyages from 1514 to 1866, though shorter routes from Upper occasionally completed in as few as under favorable winds, while longer hauls from extended to 90 days or more due to calms in the doldrums, adverse weather, or evasion of patrols. National variations reflected route proximities: Dutch voyages to , sourcing slaves from the Gold Coast or Loango and benefiting from a more direct northern South American trajectory, averaged 50-60 days, shorter than many British Caribbean crossings that spanned greater distances. European outfitting hubs like (British), (French), and Middelburg (Dutch) dispatched vessels seasonally to align with these logistics, with pursuits by anti-slave-trade squadrons after 1807 further prolonging some later voyages by 10-20 days. Seasonal factors dictated timing to minimize risks, with departures peaking during Africa's dry seasons ( to May in many regions) when slave raids yielded higher captures tied to post-harvest agricultural cycles, and arrivals timed to precede the hurricane season (June-November) for safer unloading. Wind patterns reinforced this, as reliable prevailed in winters, reducing calms; conversely, El Niño events correlated with drier African conditions that temporarily depressed slave exports by disrupting supply chains.

Daily Routines and Disease Management

Enslaved Africans endured regimented daily routines on slave ships aimed at sustaining their physical condition as marketable commodities. Feeding schedules typically involved two meals per day, around 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., consisting of boiled staples such as yams, , or horse beans, often supplemented with small amounts of or meat scraps when available. Water rations were rationed at approximately one per person daily, ladled from buckets into individual pannikins to curb hoarding or spillage, with distribution tied to mealtimes. In calm weather, captives were herded onto the upper deck midmorning for compulsory exercise, commonly enforced through chained "dancing" or shuffling movements to promote blood flow and avert muscular deterioration, with oversight via whips for compliance. Lower "slave decks" served for segregated confinement during voyages, where individuals were chained in tiers to maximize space, though ventilation remained inadequate. protocols included stripping captives of clothing at for and basic , alongside sporadic attempts to clear lice through or manual removal, but persistent overcrowding fostered unchecked filth. Disease management focused on pragmatic to protect cargo viability, drawing from captains' logs documenting responses to prevalent threats like (the "flux"), , and fevers. At African embarkation points, rudimentary held suspects in isolation for 10 to 40 days to screen for infections, though enforcement varied. Shipboard, afflicted individuals were segregated to lower decks or holds, treated with minimal interventions such as herbal purges or —approaches paralleling husbandry—while emphasizing separation to limit contagion spread among the healthy majority.

Mortality Rates and Causal Factors

Mortality during the averaged 10-15% of embarked Africans, equating to approximately 1.8 million deaths across roughly 36,000 voyages from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, with rates declining from over 20% in early periods (pre-1750) to around 10% after 1800 due to improved shipboard practices and shorter voyages. mortality exceeded enslaved rates at 15-20%, primarily from fevers acquired in African ports. Regional variations were significant, with lower rates (under 10%) from Upper ports like , attributed to healthier embarkation conditions and less virulent local pathogens, compared to higher losses (15-20%) from Central African regions such as . Infectious diseases dominated as causes, with (flux) and fevers accounting for most slave deaths, exacerbated by , contaminated water, and pre-existing infections from African coastal holds; surgeons' logs from the indicate gastrointestinal ailments claimed up to 50% of losses, while smallpox outbreaks occasionally spiked mortality. from ship journals and post-mortem examinations underscores that deaths stemmed more from spread in confined spaces than deliberate , as provisions were typically calculated to sustain captives, though delays in sailing amplified and risks. Crew losses followed similar patterns, with and predominant, reflecting shared exposure rather than targeted neglect. Empirical analyses debate the relative weight of onboard neglect versus inevitable burdens; traditional accounts emphasize and poor ventilation as causal, yet quantitative studies from voyage databases reveal that African port mortality (pre-departure) often exceeded sea losses, suggesting imported pathologies as primary drivers, with nutritional inputs deemed adequate by caloric standards of the despite qualitative deficiencies in diet variety. Revisionist interpretations, drawing on provisioning records, argue that captains prioritized slave survival for profit motives, minimizing intentional privation, though crowding remained a non-negotiable that amplified transmission irrespective of feeding regimes. These findings, derived from aggregated logs rather than anecdotal reports, highlight causal realism in attributing outcomes to epidemiological realities over singular human malice.

Crew Dynamics and Broader Human Costs

Composition and Recruitment of Crews

Slave ship crews typically consisted of 30 to 40 men on vessels between 100 and 200 tons, encompassing specialized roles such as the for command and , mates for oversight of operations, a for medical duties, and the majority as ordinary seamen handling sails, , and maintenance. These crews required general maritime skills rather than expertise unique to slaving, drawing from the broader pool of European sailors accustomed to long-haul voyages. Demographically, crews were predominantly young European men in their late teens to early twenties, often from Britain, , or other maritime nations aligned with the ship's flag nation, reflecting the dominant carriers in the transatlantic trade. A small minority included free Black sailors from , the , or , who served in various capacities despite the trade's racial dynamics. Recruitment occurred primarily through in ports, enticed by contracts offering fixed wages supplemented by head-money premiums—a payment per enslaved African successfully delivered alive, which incentivized retention and performance, particularly for surgeons tasked with minimizing mortality. Intermediaries known as crimps facilitated hiring by advancing wages or provisions, though this often trapped recruits in ; forced recruitment via press-ganging was rarer on merchant slave ships compared to naval vessels. High turnover plagued crews, with frequent desertions during layovers or upon reaching ports, driven by the voyage's grueling conditions and opportunities to abscond.

Crew Mortality and Hardships

Crew mortality rates on transatlantic slave ships frequently surpassed those of enslaved Africans, with annual death rates estimated at 230 per 1,000 for crew members during the loading and voyage phases, compared to 83 per 1,000 for slaves. Overall voyage mortality for crews averaged around 23% in the late seventeenth century, with early British voyages from 1601–1700 recording rates of 22–24%. These figures reflect the perilous conditions of the trade, including extended exposure to tropical diseases along the African coast, where crews lacked immunity to local pathogens. Primary causes of crew deaths included fevers—likely and —accounting for the majority of fatalities, particularly during the initial weeks at sea following coastal loading. emerged as a significant killer on longer passages due to inadequate fresh provisions, contributing to widespread debilitation and secondary infections among sailors. also played a role, with crew members dying in clashes during enslaved resistance or shipboard conflicts, though fevers dominated as the leading causal factor. In comparison to general marine voyages, slave ship crews faced elevated risks primarily from African coastal fevers, which were absent in non-tropical trades, resulting in mortality patterns that diverged sharply from European or intra-Atlantic shipping. Beyond physical perils, crews endured severe hardships rooted in the trade's demanding operational demands. Ship logs document routine floggings and other corporal punishments to enforce discipline amid grueling routines, high risks, and occasional crew mutinies driven by privation or disputes with officers. The psychological toll was profound, stemming from prolonged isolation on voyages lasting months, constant vigilance against uprisings, and the moral strain of participating in a violent enterprise, which historical accounts describe as fostering torment and desensitization among survivors. These factors compounded the empirical mortality data, underscoring the trade's human costs extending to free participants, though differentiated by agency and context from enslaved conditions.

Enslaved Resistance and Shipboard Conflicts

Enslaved Africans mounted resistance against their captors on approximately transatlantic slave voyages, with documented incidents numbering over 465 across the trade's history from the 16th to 19th centuries. These uprisings, drawn primarily from captains' logs, crew testimonies, and trade records compiled in databases like Slave Voyages, occurred most frequently during the initial coastal phase near or early in the , where captives outnumbered crew but lacked navigational knowledge or arms. Tactics included coordinated attacks using improvised weapons such as chains, benches, or smuggled blades to overpower guards, as well as like to ignite holds or provisions, though the latter risked self-endangerment in confined wooden vessels. Suppression relied on physical restraints like iron shackles and thumb screws to immobilize leaders, combined with superior firepower from muskets, pistols, and occasionally cannons, enabling crews to quell most revolts swiftly despite occasional fatalities among slavers. Success for the enslaved—defined as of the ship and escape—was rare, succeeding in roughly 1 percent of cases overall, as victors typically lacked sailing expertise and faced recapture by patrols or . One notable exception was the 1839 revolt on the Spanish schooner , where 53 Mende captives, led by Sengbe Pieh, killed the captain and most crew in a nighttime using sugar cane knives on off Cuba's coast; the survivors navigated erratically before U.S. , ultimately gaining freedom via ruling after proving illegal enslavement post-African embarkation. These conflicts imposed direct costs on voyages, including crew deaths (estimated at hundreds across incidents) and heightened premiums, yet logs indicate captains adapted by increasing armaments and segregating ethnic groups to hinder alliances, drawing from empirically observed patterns in prior failures. While shipboard records, often self-reported by interested parties, may undercount minor or aborted plots due to suppression or omission, the aggregated data from primary sources underscores resistance as a persistent but largely futile in the trade's logistics.

Economic Underpinnings

Profit Mechanisms and Investor Returns

Slave ships generated revenue primarily through the purchase of enslaved Africans at low cost along the African coast—typically £5 to £10 per person in the 18th century—and their resale at markups of two to three times that value in American ports, yielding net profits of approximately £10 to £20 per surviving slave after accounting for purchase, transport, and mortality costs. This was supplemented by ancillary trade in return cargoes such as sugar, rum, and indigo, which were exchanged for European manufactured goods on the final leg back to ports like Bristol or Liverpool, contributing an additional 20-30% to overall voyage earnings in successful triangular trades. Account books from British voyages, such as those analyzed from Bristol and Liverpool syndicates, reveal that these mechanisms sustained operations despite partial losses from disease or rebellion, with gross revenues often exceeding £20,000 per voyage for ships carrying 200-400 slaves. Investor returns averaged 10-17% per voyage for British operators in the late , equating to annualized yields of around 10% given typical 12-18 month durations, which compared favorably to alternative merchant investments like Baltic trade or domestic commerce. In port syndicates, such as those in where merchants pooled capital for multiple expeditions, aggregate net profits reached £60,000 across sampled fleets, demonstrating scalability and risk diversification through shared of vessels and cargoes. These figures, derived from surviving ledgers rather than estimates, refute claims of inherent unprofitability by showing consistent positive margins even after deducting outfitting expenses of £5,000-£10,000 per ship and crew wages. For French slave trade ventures between 1710 and 1789, empirical analysis of 238 expeditions indicates internal rates of return (IRRs) exceeding those of contemporaneous long-distance alternatives like shipments, often surpassing secure state bonds yielding 5-6% amid the superior efficiency of French Caribbean plantations. Specific portfolios, such as that of Bertrand de Cœuvre, achieved IRRs comparable to low-risk while incorporating slave sales as the core driver, with liquidity from rapid commodity resale enabling reinvestment cycles. Such data from archival venture records underscore the trade's economic viability, as investors prioritized high-volume slave throughput to offset variability in per-head margins.

Risk Factors and Insurance Practices

Slave ship operators confronted substantial risks during transatlantic voyages, including shipwrecks, enslaved revolts, and elevated mortality among captives, which could erode profitability despite insurance mechanisms. Shipwrecks accounted for the loss of an estimated 500 to 1,000 vessels out of approximately 35,000 transatlantic slave-trading voyages, representing roughly 1.4 to 2.8 percent of total departures, often due to storms, navigational errors, or structural failures exacerbated by overloading. Enslaved revolts occurred on about 10 percent of voyages, posing threats of ship capture or destruction that heightened operational hazards. Mortality rates averaged 10 to 15 percent of embarked captives, primarily from diseases like spread by and poor , leading to deductions from insured values as "perishables." Marine insurance, predominantly underwritten at Lloyd's of London, mitigated these perils by covering hull damage, lost cargo, and enslaved captives against "perils of the sea" such as storms or piracy, with slave voyages comprising 5 to 10 percent of total marine premia in the 18th century. Enslaved individuals were classified as perishable goods, entitling owners to partial compensation for deaths from insurable events but excluding ordinary attrition or deliberate crew negligence unless specified in the policy. Jettisoned slaves, however, typically fell outside coverage unless justified under general average principles—sacrificing cargo for the vessel's common safety—as illustrated by the 1781 Zong case, where 132 captives were thrown overboard amid a water shortage dispute, prompting insurers to contest the claim as non-maritime peril rather than outright murder. Such disputes frequently centered on distinguishing insurable losses from mismanagement, with courts like King's Bench adjudicating based on policy terms rather than ethical considerations. To hedge against these uncertainties, shipowners and underwriters diversified across multiple voyages; for instance, merchant James Rogers insured all 55 of his slaving expeditions between 1784 and 1793, spreading exposure through syndicates that pooled risks. Premiums reflected peril levels, often 5 to 30 percent of insured value, incentivizing design trade-offs like prioritizing speed to shorten the and curb mortality, though refitted merchant hulls optimized for capacity sometimes compromised stability in heavy seas. These practices underscored market adaptations to empirical loss patterns, with insurers like those at Lloyd's leveraging actuarial data from repeated claims to refine without addressing underlying causal drivers such as voyage overcrowding.

Comparative Efficiency to Other Labor Transports

Slave ships demonstrated comparable or higher mortality risks relative to other forms of coerced or distressed labor transport, yet achieved efficiency through high-volume delivery of labor suited to tropical environments. Empirical data from transatlantic voyages indicate an average of approximately 12% during the , with variations from 10% in later periods to over 20% in earlier or French-operated ships due to factors like and . In contrast, British convict transports to post-1790s averaged 1-2% mortality, benefiting from medical reforms and shorter relative distances, though early fleets like the Second Fleet saw 28% losses from neglect. Irish famine emigrant "coffin ships" in the exhibited rates commonly reaching 20%, with anecdotal reports of up to 50% on poorly provisioned vessels plagued by , underscoring that high death tolls were not unique to slave trades but common in unregulated mass migrations under duress. Economically, slave ships proved efficient for owners by minimizing per-head transport costs compared to alternatives like European indentured labor, which incurred higher recruitment and acclimatization expenses in tropical climates where white workers suffered elevated mortality from diseases like . Studies of labor acquisition costs reveal that enslaved Africans, once delivered, provided lower long-term expenses than hiring free laborers or indentured servants for cash-crop operations, as the upfront amortized over lifetimes of coerced work without wages or repatriation. This calculus prioritized volume over individual survival, with slave vessels packing 1.5-2 slaves per ton of capacity—denser than typical —to maximize returns despite losses, a density rivaled only in post-abolition trades. Following legal bans on the Atlantic slave trade, the 19th-century trade to destinations like and replicated slave ship practices, with mortality rates around 16% from similar and poor , transporting over 250,000 Chinese laborers in conditions that blurred into . These parallels highlight slave ships' operational model as a scalable, if brutal, benchmark for bulk coerced migration, where economic imperatives drove tolerance for risks exceeding those of voluntary free migrations but aligning with other unfree systems.
Transport TypeAverage Mortality RateKey PeriodNotes
Transatlantic Slave Ships10-15%17th-19th centuries focus; higher in early voyages.
Ships to 1-2% (post-1790s)1788-1868Improved with regulations; early spikes to 28%.
Irish Famine Emigrant ShipsUp to 20%1840sDisease-driven; "" moniker from outbreaks.
Trade Ships~16%Mid-19th centuryTo /; akin to slave packing densities.

Abolition, Enforcement, and Transition

Rise of Anti-Slavery Advocacy

The of 1781, in which the crew of the British slave ship Zong jettisoned 132 enslaved Africans overboard off the coast of to claim insurance on them amid a claimed water shortage, provided stark empirical evidence of the trade's brutality and catalyzed public outrage in Britain. , a key early advocate, publicized the incident and pursued legal action, though the insurers' counterclaim failed to yield murder convictions, the case nonetheless highlighted the of human lives under maritime insurance practices. This event, combined with firsthand accounts from former slaves and crew logs documenting high mortality rates—often exceeding 15-20% per voyage—fueled evidentiary campaigns against the trade's inherent inefficiencies and moral horrors. In 1787, Thomas Clarkson and allies including Sharp founded the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, which systematically gathered ship logs, captain testimonies, and diagrams of packed slave holds to demonstrate overcrowding and disease causation. Clarkson traveled over 7,000 miles in Britain, interviewing 20,000 witnesses and compiling data showing the trade's economic waste through lost "cargo" and crew risks, while blending these facts with appeals to Christian principles of human dignity. William Wilberforce, an evangelical Member of Parliament, joined as a parliamentary leader, introducing motions in 1788 that prompted select committee inquiries revealing over 11 million Africans transported since 1699, with mortality data underscoring the trade's unsustainability. Olaudah Equiano's 1789 autobiography, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, sold over 5,000 copies in its first year and detailed the Middle Passage's squalor—chained captives in holds rife with dysentery and suffocation—drawing on his own enslavement from age 11 and purchase of freedom in 1766. Equiano advocated inefficiency arguments, noting free labor's superiority as echoed by economists like Adam Smith, but prioritized moral indictments rooted in biblical equality, influencing petitions signed by over 100,000 Britons by 1792. Transnational parallels emerged, with Britain's Quaker-led efforts inspiring U.S. groups like the Society for Promoting the Abolition of , founded in 1775 and led by from 1787, which mirrored evidentiary tactics through memorials to citing similar shipboard atrocities. These movements shared Christian ethical frameworks, though U.S. faced sectional divides, with Northern petitions in the echoing British data on trade volumes exceeding 300,000 annually by the late . By the , abolitionist networks exchanged publications across the Atlantic, amplifying causal evidence of role in perpetuating violence and demographic devastation in . The British Slave Trade Act of 1807 prohibited British subjects from participating in the transatlantic slave trade, effective May 1, 1807, and empowered the Royal Navy to seize offending vessels. In the United States, Congress passed an act on March 2, 1807, banning the importation of slaves into U.S. ports effective January 1, 1808, though domestic slave trading within the country continued unabated. These measures reflected constitutional allowances in the U.S. and parliamentary debates in Britain, but lacked unified international enforcement mechanisms, allowing trade to persist under other flags. The in 1815 produced the first multilateral declaration against the slave trade on February 8, signed by major European powers including , Britain, , , , and , condemning it as repugnant to humanity and Christian principles without imposing binding enforcement. Britain established the in 1808 to patrol coastal waters, capturing approximately 1,600 slave ships and liberating around 150,000 Africans by 1860, though this intercepted only 6-10% of voyages due to limited resources and vast operational areas. Traffickers evaded bans through flags of convenience, registering ships under nominally neutral or laxly enforcing nations like or to deter British seizures, often falsifying manifests to claim legitimate cargo such as gear. "Domestic" trades masked transatlantic imports by landing slaves at remote U.S. or sites before redistribution, while Spanish and Portuguese operators sustained voyages to and into the despite nominal bans—Spain's in and Portugal's earlier treaty commitments—fueling over a million additional embarkations post-1807 through , faster "" vessels, and circuitous routes. These tactics exploited jurisdictional gaps and uneven naval commitments, prolonging the trade until economic pressures and intensified patrols curtailed it.

Final Slave Ship Voyages

The schooner Clotilda conducted the last documented transatlantic slave voyage to the , departing , , in late 1859 under Captain William Foster and returning on July 8, 1860, with 110 captives embarked at (modern-day ). Financed by timber merchant amid a wager defying the 1807 federal ban on slave imports, the operation evaded patrols by transferring captives to a smaller vessel mid-ocean before the main ship's return. Upon arrival under cover of night, the Africans were offloaded, distributed among investors, and the Clotilda burned and scuttled in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta to destroy evidence, yielding profits estimated at several times the $9,000 voyage cost despite mortality en route. In , illegal imports continued on a larger scale until 1867, with the final known slave ship docking in that year after evading Spanish and British naval interdiction. Brazil's , prohibited in 1831 and reinforced by the 1850 Queirós Law with naval blockades, persisted through until the mid-1850s, though volumes declined sharply thereafter due to intensified enforcement. Post-ban to these destinations delivered an estimated 1 million Africans overall between 1821 and 1867, including roughly 600,000–800,000 to to sustain sugar expansion amid natural population decrease. These terminal voyages were propelled by economic imperatives, as plantation demand outstripped domestic slave reproduction rates of under 1% annual net growth, driving "new" Africans (bozales) to fetch premiums of 20–50% over creole equivalents—often 300–600 pesos per head in —due to their youth, acclimatization potential, and the bans' scarcity effect inflating overall prices. Illicit operators adapted with faster schooners, false manifests, and coastal transfers, achieving returns up to 300% per successful run despite seizure risks and 10–20% captive mortality.

Legacy and Scholarly Debates

Archaeological and Archival Discoveries

The wreck of the English slave ship Henrietta Marie, which sank in 1700 off the , was discovered in 1985 during salvage operations led by Mel Fisher's team. Excavations yielded over 80 sets of iron shackles, trade goods including glass beads and ivory tusks, two cast-iron cannons, and lead shot, providing physical evidence of the vessel's role in transporting enslaved Africans across the Atlantic. In 2015, the Smithsonian Institution's Slave Wrecks Project identified the Portuguese slave ship São José Paquete Africa off , , which foundered in 1794 with approximately 400 enslaved Africans aboard, resulting in over 200 deaths. Recovered artifacts include iron ballast pigs and a wooden block, confirming the ship's construction and cargo configuration for the ; these represent the first verified material remains from a slave vessel that sank en route with its human cargo. The Clotilda, the last documented slave ship to deliver captives to the in 1860 despite federal bans, was located in 2019 in Alabama's by archaeologists using historical accounts and mapping. Subsequent dives in 2022 retrieved charred oak timbers from the intentionally burned hull and iron fasteners, corroborating oral histories from descendants and ship manifests detailing its illicit voyage from with 110 enslaved people. Archival efforts have digitized primary records, notably the Slave Voyages database, which compiles data on 36,000 transatlantic slave voyages from 1514 to 1866, including manifests, logs, and port clearances that detail embarkation points, mortality rates, and trade goods. In 2022, economic historian Anne Ruderman analyzed newly surfaced 18th-century documents from a French slave vessel, revealing operational details such as coastal trading patterns and cargo valuation practices previously underrepresented in aggregated datasets. These resources enable cross-verification of wreck findings against contemporary ledgers, enhancing accuracy over anecdotal reconstructions. Popular depictions of slave ships frequently portray the Middle Passage as characterized by universal sadism, with crews systematically torturing captives for amusement amid mass deliberate killings. In contrast, primary sources such as ship logs and surgeons' journals from the 18th and early 19th centuries document routines oriented toward economic efficiency, including scheduled feeding, deck airing, and medical interventions to curb epidemics and maintain cargo viability, as dead or debilitated slaves reduced profits. These records, analyzed by economic historians, indicate that while corporal punishment occurred for discipline, gratuitous cruelty was rare because it threatened returns; captains faced financial penalties or legal scrutiny for excessive losses. Mortality rates during the are routinely inflated in activist and media accounts to 50% or more, implying near-genocidal intent, yet econometric models based on over 35,000 documented voyages yield an average of 12-15% for embarked slaves, primarily attributable to infectious diseases like and rather than targeted violence. These estimates, derived from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database's aggregation of port records, captains' reports, and insurance claims, control for factors such as voyage length (typically 60-90 days) and ship , revealing improvements over time due to better ventilation and shorter routes post-1780. Mainstream narratives, influenced by ideological biases in academia and media, often amplify figures from voyages or abolitionist polemics while sidelining this data-driven consensus from quantitative historians like David Eltis. Crew fatalities, averaging 20% or higher per voyage—exceeding slave losses in many cases—are conspicuously absent from popular retellings, which frame the trade as one-sided European barbarism rather than a high-risk enterprise where sailors succumbed to the same tropical fevers, , and combat with African suppliers. British naval surveys from 1784-1790 confirm crew death rates above 20%, driven by analogous onboard conditions, underscoring causal realism: the trade's perils stemmed from epidemiological realities and logistical hazards, not selective malice toward Africans. African agency in supplying captives is systematically minimized in left-leaning institutional sources, which emphasize European demand while obscuring how coastal kingdoms like Dahomey and Asante waged wars and conducted raids to procure slaves for European goods, comprising up to 90% of transatlantic exports from . This complicity, documented in European trade records and African oral histories, involved elite profiteering that fueled internal conflicts, yet activist inflations prioritize victimhood narratives over such shared causation, diverging from empirical reconstructions by historians like John Thornton. Economic scholarship contrasts sharply with these amplifications, attributing primary mortality drivers to pre-existing African disease loads and voyage crowding—optimized for volume under norms—rather than ideological sadism, as evidenced by variance across national fleets where profit incentives correlated with survival rates. While acknowledging instances of , this perspective privileges verifiable logs over emotive extrapolations, highlighting how source biases in modern discourse perpetuate distortions detached from quantitative .

Long-Term Impacts on Global Economies

Profits from the Atlantic slave trade channeled capital into European financial institutions, particularly in port cities like , where slave trading firms established banks that financed early industrial ventures. By the late , reinvested earnings from slave voyages supported and , contributing to Britain's during the . Empirical analysis indicates that slave trade wealth accelerated regional economic development in Britain after 1750, with inflows stimulating domestic investment in sectors. In the , slave labor underpinned economies that drove export-led growth, particularly in production, which accounted for over 50% of U.S. exports by 1860 and generated substantial GDP contributions from enslaved workers estimated at 12-17% of per capita output growth in the . This system expanded arable land under cultivation, boosting aggregate output in regions like the U.S. South and colonies, where cash crops fueled mercantile networks linking to European markets. Following abolition—Britain's in for the and for —former slaveholding economies adapted through labor substitutions, including increased in processing and of free workers to northern U.S. industries, which mitigated short-term disruptions and sustained productivity gains. In the Dutch Republic, Atlantic accounted for approximately 5% of national GDP in 1770, with higher shares in province, yet studies find limited long-term structural distortions, as diversified buffered the post-abolition. Counterfactual assessments suggest that while slave trade profits exacerbated regional wealth disparities—concentrating gains among traders and planters—the broader in goods provided net economic benefits that likely outweighed inequality effects in industrializing nations, with alternative labor or sources potentially yielding similar growth trajectories. Economic models indicate that excluding would have slowed but not halted Britain's industrialization, given parallel advancements in and .

References

  1. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/slave-ship
  2. https://study.com/academy/lesson/slave-ship-overview-conditions-middle-passage.html
  3. https://www.slavevoyages.org/
  4. https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-middle-passage.htm
  5. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=446
  6. https://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0035
  7. https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/the_middle_passage
  8. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teacher-resources/historical-context-facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43696678
  10. https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/trans_atlantic_slave_trade/
  11. https://eji.org/report/transatlantic-slave-trade/origins/
  12. https://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates
  13. https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/african_participation_and_resi
  14. https://www.britannica.com/place/western-Africa/The-slave-trade-era
  15. https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/4chapter6.shtml
  16. https://yawboadu.substack.com/p/understanding-the-trans-atlantic
  17. https://www.aehnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AEHN-WP-35.pdf
  18. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300212549/atlas-of-the-transatlantic-slave-trade/
  19. https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/article/section/pre-colonial-history/the-history-of-the-kingdom-of-dahomey/
  20. https://oxfordre.com/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-62
  21. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/triangular-trade
  22. http://archive.understandingslavery.com/index.php-option=com_content&view=article&id=307_trade-and-commerce&catid=125_themes&Itemid=152.html
  23. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-history/period-2/transatlantic-trade/a/transatlantic-trade
  24. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/elloraderenoncourt/files/derenoncourt_atlantic_slavery_europe_2018.pdf
  25. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/slavery-and-british-industrial-revolution
  26. https://www.princeton.edu/~reddings/papers/SBIR_Paper.pdf
  27. https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1884.pdf
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0304387885900240
  29. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/slavery-ships-and-sickness
  30. https://capeannslavery.org/slave-schooners-and-slave-traders/
  31. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-ships-and-the-middle-passage/
  32. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/4303hpr-7e68246b9587078/
  33. https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1226
  34. https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/slave-ship-brookes/
  35. https://aaregistry.org/story/the-slave-trade-act-of-1788-enacted/
  36. https://worldhistorycommons.org/dolbens-act-1788
  37. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/47377/what-was-the-tonnage-carried-in-the-triangle-trade
  38. https://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0146
  39. https://web.stanford.edu/~hklein/Klein_etal_Mortality_ST_WMQ-2001.pdf
  40. https://www.slavevoyages.org/blog/the-transatlantic-slave-trade-database/166
  41. https://academic.oup.com/book/55188/chapter/424376181
  42. https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/05/abolitionist-john-rilands-account-of-the-slave-ship.html
  43. https://www.academia.edu/53748878/_The_lungs_of_a_ship_Ventilation_acclimatization_and_labor_in_the_maritime_environment_1740_1800
  44. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/the-age-of-scurvy/
  45. https://hekint.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/sailors_scurvy-final.pdf
  46. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/305660/1/dp17218.pdf
  47. https://ilc-law.media.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3281/2023/08/Hope-2023.pdf
  48. https://academic.oup.com/book/566/chapter/135300876
  49. https://oxfordre.com/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-937
  50. https://www.slavevoyages.org/blog/glossary/178
  51. https://www.lloyds.com/about-lloyds/history/the-trans-atlantic-slave-trade/lloyds-marine-insurance-and-slavery
  52. https://www.theactuary.com/2025/03/07/unfair-trade-insurers-role-transatlantic-slavery
  53. https://www.slavevoyages.org/blog/-brief-overview-of-the-transatlantic-slave-trade/154
  54. https://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0094
  55. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Middle-Passage-slave-trade
  56. https://oxfordre.com/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-896
  57. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/british-transatlantic-slave-trade-records/
  58. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/digital-archive-slave-voyages-details-largest-forced-migration-history-180963093/
  59. https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/HIST211-1.3.3-SeasonalityintheTransAtlanticSlaveTrade.pdf
  60. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wcas/14/1/WCAS-D-21-0036.1.pdf
  61. https://teamsocialstudies.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2021/04/Transatlantic-Slave-Trade-Primary-Source-Excerpts.docx-Google-Docs.pdf
  62. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/mortality-caused-by-dehydration-during-the-middle-passage/181F483171AFD2FB6DAA46C10CD04DCD
  63. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=471
  64. https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/history-of-slavery/middle-passage
  65. https://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0032
  66. https://oxfordre.com/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-901
  67. https://jeromehandler.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/MidPassage-09.pdf
  68. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01440390802673773
  69. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbaapc/10100/10100.pdf
  70. https://feralatlas.supdigital.org/poster/slave-ships-were-incubators-for-infectious-diseases
  71. https://brill.com/view/journals/jgs/8/1/article-p60_2.xml?language=en
  72. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/new-evidence-on-the-causes-of-slave-and-crew-mortality-in-the-atlantic-slave-trade/78C5E18350F8DB855F44CD596F186B13
  73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1171374
  74. https://www.jstor.org/stable/203625
  75. https://ehne.fr/en/encyclopedia/themes/europe-europeans-and-world/europe-and-atlantic-slave-trade/atlantic-slave-trade
  76. https://www.discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/people-involved/sailors/slave-ships-crew/who-worked/
  77. https://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/should-society-memorialise-a-slave-trader/some-insights-into-the-lives-of-the-crew-onboard-the-slave-ship-hannibal/
  78. http://www.old-merseytimes.co.uk/pressgangs.html
  79. https://www.nber.org/papers/w1540
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5189516_Determinants_of_Slave_and_Crew_Mortality_in_the_Atlantic_Slave_Trade
  81. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/40483/was-mortality-higher-on-french-slave-ships-and-if-so-why
  82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2121267
  83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45001918
  84. https://www.post-gazette.com/uncategorized/uncategorized/2007/10/01/slave-ships-were-death-ships-for-crew-and-captives/stories/200710010247
  85. https://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%253A96284/datastream/OBJ/view/SAILORS_AND_SLAVES__AUTHORITY__MUTINY__AND_THE_POLITICS_OF_SUPPRESSION.pdf
  86. https://www.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.5406/illinois/9780252040559.001.0001/upso-9780252040559-chapter-005
  87. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/amistad
  88. https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php
  89. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/profitability-of-slave-and-longdistance-trading-in-context-the-case-of-eighteenthcentury-france/080F51B27293575155C3790E6AA8521A
  90. https://www.persee.fr/doc/outre_0300-9513_1975_num_62_226_1834
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014498387900118
  92. https://www.ofce.sciences-po.fr/pdf/dtravail/WP2002-06.pdf
  93. https://intrepidtimes.com/2022/08/two-slave-ships-a-flight-to-freedom-and-memory-as-redemption-song-in-costa-rica/
  94. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mapmaker-transatlantic-and-intra-americas-slave-trade/
  95. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26787192
  96. https://fortune.com/2020/06/19/end-of-the-slave-trade-uk-the-zong-case-insurance/
  97. https://journals.openedition.org/1718/1808?lang=en
  98. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/the-university-of-the-west-indies-cave-hill-campus/law-of-torts-ii/insuring-the-transatlantic-slave-trade/7961568
  99. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/insuring-the-transatlantic-slave-trade/F1E2354A667CF7A4DB989838F37B2DC2
  100. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2121762
  101. https://femaleconvicts.org.au/docs/seminars/Voyages_HamishMaxwellStewart.pdf
  102. https://www.dunbrody.com/irish-emigrant-experience/the-voyage/
  103. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0023656X.2021.1974366
  104. https://katzfinemanuscripts.com/blogs/writing-history-stories-of-a-rare-manuscript-collection/macao-to-havana-and-beyond-the-chinese-cuban-coolie-trade-indentured-labor-or-pseudo-slavery-from-1847-1874
  105. https://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/zong-massacre-what-happened-meaning-legacy-slave-trade-abolition/
  106. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jan/19/the-story-of-the-zong-slave-ship-a-mass-masquerading-as-an-insurance-claim
  107. https://understandingslavery.com/casestudy/the-zong/
  108. https://exhibits.library.cornell.edu/abolitionism/feature/origins-of-abolitionism
  109. https://www.antislavery.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/18072007.pdf
  110. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zt9fdnb
  111. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15399/15399-h/15399-h.htm
  112. https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/british-north-america/olaudah-equiano-describes-the-middle-passage-1789/
  113. https://www.newsghana.com.gh/anti-slavery-campaigns-in-britain-and-their-impact-on-the-formation-of-the-united-states/
  114. https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/british-antislavery
  115. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289036292_Was_Abolition_of_the_US_and_British_Slave_Trade_Significant_in_the_Broader_Atlantic_Context
  116. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/2015-parliament-in-the-making/get-involved1/2015-banners-exhibition/maria-amidu/1807-abolition-of-the-slave-trade/
  117. https://statutes.org.uk/site/the-statutes/nineteenth-century/1807-47-geo-3-1-c36-slave-trade/
  118. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/march-2/congress-abolishes-the-african-slave-trade
  119. https://blackpast.org/african-american-history/1808-act-prohibit-importation-slaves-any-port-or-place-within-jurisdiction-united-states/
  120. https://hhr-atlas.ieg-mainz.de/articles/weller-vienna
  121. https://blog.oup.com/2015/06/vienna-abolition-slave-trade/
  122. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/West-Africa-Squadron/
  123. https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/228388
  124. https://oxfordre.com/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-903
  125. https://www.britannica.com/summary/Transatlantic-Slave-Trade-Timeline
  126. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/clotilda-americas-last-slave-ship-stole-them-from-home-it-couldnt-steal-their-identities-feature
  127. https://blackpast.org/global-african-history/clotilda/
  128. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2787/clotilda-the-last-slave-ship/
  129. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/transatlantic-slave-trade-the/
  130. https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/history-of-slavery/abolition
  131. https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/49/4/617/157301/The-Contraband-Slave-Trade-to-Brazil-1831-1845
  132. https://oxfordre.com/latinamericanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.001.0001/acrefore-9780199366439-e-814
  133. https://hutchinscenter.fas.harvard.edu/cuba-us-slave-trade
  134. https://www.history.com/articles/us-illegal-slave-trade-civil-war
  135. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ehr.13272
  136. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/slavery-in-the-development-of-the-americas/prices-of-african-slaves-newly-arrived-in-the-americas-16731865-new-evidence-on-longrun-trends-and-regional-differentials/3499A39A20E2C9DA7354950339B42A45
  137. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F3B50D896FB059EDB72B5E066E6B3D5B
  138. https://www.melfisher.org/copy-of-henrietta-marie-1700
  139. https://worldheritageusa.org/an-underwater-monument-at-the-wreck-of-the-henrietta-marie/
  140. https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/factsheets/history-s-o-jos-slave-ship-and-site
  141. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/sunken-18th-century-slave-ship-found-south-africa-180955458/
  142. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/25/us/clotilda-slaveship-africa-alabama.html
  143. https://www.courthousenews.com/exploration-of-sunken-slave-ship-reveals-charred-timbers-other-artifacts/
  144. https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/race-equity/uncovering-the-economics-of-a-slave-ship
  145. https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/incomplete-memories-distorted-histories-the-silence-around-africas-complicity-in-the-slave-trade/
  146. https://www.tracesofthetrade.org/news/2010/04/reparations-and-african-complicity-in-the-slave-trade/
  147. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/revealing-the-relationship-between-ship-crowding-and-slave-mortality/E978DC4E5FE7CC560734D75A277D4787
  148. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/StelznerBeckert2021.pdf
  149. https://www.history.com/articles/slavery-profitable-southern-economy
  150. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147596725000228
  151. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0144039X.2021.1860464
  152. https://blog.daviskedrosky.com/p/did-profits-from-slavery-finance
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.