118 Atlantic African, American, and European Backgrounds to Contact, Commerce, and EnslavementIt is important to note, however, that although the slave
system existed in Africa, it cannot be wholly compared to
what came to be known as the transatlantic slave trade.
In the case of the transatlantic slave trade where planta-
tion owners had nothing in their minds but profi t, slaves
were overworked, mistreated, and degraded in order to
maximize profi t. But in transatlantic Africa, slaves were
more or less treated like peasant cultivators. Since land was
available to whoever wanted to cultivate it, slaves in Africa
had an opportunity to own wealth that could be produced
from cultivating the land. Slaves also had an opportunity to
own wealth, rise through ranks, even becoming kings, as
was the case of King Osei Tutu who founded the Ashanti
Empire, and be integrated into the community they were
enslaved in.
Regarding the use of the term “slavery,” it is true that
because of what it came to mean thanks to the transatlantic
slave trade, it is not possible to remove the negative conno-
tation it carries. However, as shown above, the form of slav-
ery practiced in Atlantic Africa was not similar in terms of
its motives. In Atlantic Africa, slavery as an institution was
a system placed by law as a means of wealth production as
land could not be owned. Furthermore, the development
of commerce and of social mobility even in trade relied
heavily on slavery, since porters and agricultural work re-
quired labor. Th is labor was readily supplied in the form
of slaves.
It was therefore not surprising that when Europeans
came in to look for slaves, they were able to succeed since
slavery was not a foreign concept. Atlantic Africa, just like
any society that has ever existed, was not egalitarian, and
this meant the existence of the elite who exploited the com-
mon people. Th e ruling class, who from the start had access
to slaves who worked on their land, began selling them off
to Europeans, who in turn sent them to the New World.
In time, when a certain kingdom conquered another, there
was a capturing of prisoners of war who would be sold off as
slaves to Europeans, unlike earlier times when they would
work for the conquering kings. Such was the case in the
West-Central African Kingdom of Kongo and the various
kingdoms in the Angola region. In essence, the presence
of the tribute system fed signifi cantly into the transatlantic
slave trade.
See also: Atlantic Slave TradeKaren W. Ngonyain the ability of people to make that land productive. Th us
the acquisition of labor became the most primary objective
in the expansion of many African states and kingdoms. By
conquering a particular territory, the conquering polity was
in essence earning control over a source of labor as surplus
agricultural products would be sent as a portion of tribute
payments to politically and militarily dominate states. In
addition to agricultural surplus (or tribute in kind), tribute
payments could also include currency in the form of cow-
rie shells or gold dust (specie) or slaves. Th ese slaves would
be put to work in the land owned by the king and other
ruling elite.
Sometimes the territories off ering tribute were not
necessarily conquered people but rather those who decided
to submit themselves under a particular kingdom to gain
its protection from other enemies. One way in which these
kingdoms would show their submission would be through
the payment of tribute, by giving a number of slaves to
work in the king’s land or to serve in the army. In return,
the more powerful king would off er protection to the sub-
mitting kings against other invaders.
In terms of wealth production, the only legally rec-
ognized way of producing wealth was the ownership of
slaves who provided labor. Th is was because, unlike the
plantations in the New World owned by private hands, in
Atlantic Africa the concept of private land ownership was
never fully developed. Th erefore, unlike in Europe where
land taxation was more generally employed, in Atlantic Af-
rica tribute payments were determined by population size
of the tribute-paying state (also referred to as a tributary).
Tribute systems were also used in conjunction with labor
conscription for the construction of state projects or the
creation of mass armies during times of war. Again, the size
of the tributary would determine the number of conscripts
to be sent in service of the state.
Ownership of slaves and land was not restricted to the
king only. Th ere were those considered “nobles” who were
mainly of the ruling class. Th ey too owned land that was
cultivated by slave labor. Th eir land ownership was mainly
sanctioned by the king, since they were given this land
while holding a particular offi ce under the domain of a par-
ticular king. On conquering a particular territory, the king
would appoint several people to rule over these territories
in his behalf. Such appointments came with benefi ts like
having land and slaves at their disposal. Th ese benefi ts were
considered as payment of tribute to the conquering king.