The role of African kingdoms in the Atlantic slave trade is one of the most significant facts that the reparations campaign consistently sidesteps. It is not a marginal or contested historical point. It is well documented, widely acknowledged by serious historians, and fundamental to any honest assessment of moral responsibility for the trade.
Several of the most powerful kingdoms in West Africa were not victims of the Atlantic slave trade. They were its suppliers. They raided neighbouring peoples, captured enslaved individuals through warfare, and sold them to European traders at coastal markets. The wealth and military power of kingdoms like Dahomey and Ashanti grew substantially as a result of this trade. Their leaders were not passive or coerced participants. They were active agents making deliberate decisions about how to use European demand for enslaved labour to advance their own political and economic interests.
This creates a profound problem for the reparations argument as it is usually framed. The argument holds that Britain owes reparations to the descendants of enslaved people because Britain participated in and profited from a system that caused them immense harm. But the governments of several African and Caribbean nations now making that argument are the successors of kingdoms that did exactly the same thing. The moral standing of those governments to seek compensation from Britain, while their own predecessors’ role goes unacknowledged, is at best complicated and at worst entirely absent.
This section examines the specific kingdoms and their roles in the Atlantic trade.
