038840engo 2

(^160) Mbaye Gueye
would no longer be a market for their slaves, they encouraged their subjects to
devote their energy to the production of export crops which would be the only
way of procuring European goods. In 1858, one of the hinterland chiefs declared
that he had had no slaves to sell since the demand for them had ceased. He now
employed them in ground-nut plantations, which was far more lucrative.^49
With the increased production of lawful export goods, the domestic
slave trade progressively declined. The new farmers, who had an ample, assured
supply of servile labour in the shape of their household slaves, were quite
capable of doing without ordinary slaves, who were always tempted to escape.
As the colonial conquest progressed, the internal slave trade lost its vitality.
To give weight to their campaign against slavery, the colonial authorities
sought the support of the hinterland chiefs. Each time a trade treaty was
concluded with the native leaders, the Africans had to commit themselves to
ceasing all slave traffic. Faidherbe adopted this policy in all his dealings with
the Senegambian chiefs. The treaties provided that never again would they
sell free subjects, nor allow raiding parties to destroy villages, nor capture and
enslave foreigners travelling through their lands.^50 But the mere fact of signing
the treaties did not mean that the slave trade simply vanished. Only those who
had found a suitable substitute really gave it up. The development of export
crops alone provided 'a means of alleviating and then gradually eliminating
this noxious trade'.^51
The European authorities were quick to grasp the situation. To begin
with they were careful to be extremely tactful with the chiefs over the thorny
issue of slavery. Their courts only tried cases of slavery committed by European
citizens in the European possessions. In the occupied territories, colonial
authorities and African chiefs co-operated to combat the slave trade until its
final extinction. In 1892, the governor of the French possessions took a wise
decision on slavery : he made all the African chiefs in these territories sign an
agreement whereby they agreed to prevent slave traffic in the territories ruled
over by them. Ordinary slaves who in principle could be sold out of hand were
now given the same privileges as household slaves, who as time went on came
to be regarded more as servants than as slaves.^52
Their subjects did, however, retain the right to buy slaves from foreigners.
It was deemed preferable to ' admit slaves from distant, barbaric lands into the
homes of people who^53 agreed to treat them as servants, rather than leave
them in the hands of people who would truly treat them as slaves'.^54
As can be seen, the main object was to weaken the internal slave trade.
The African chiefs still practised it, to be sure, but less ostentatiously. Some of
them, claiming to apply the provisions of the agreement, would confiscate the
caravans passing through their territory and keep them for themselves. Caravan
drivers would refuse to go through areas where their slaves might be arbitrarily
seized at the whim of a chief.^55 They would only move when it was dark.