How did England influence slavery in America?

English slaves went mioslty to caribean, not North America.

Britain was the first country in modern times to permanently outlaw slavery, except Spain who had a system of feudalism that made slavery redundant. In the 18thC some patchy attempts were made in some of the colonies of America, and the French revolution abolished slavery only to re-instate it. Throughout the 17thC villainage had been made illegal, but some slaves were being brought in. So on the British mainland it was made illegal in 1700 and every slave landed on English soil was immediately free by law. The process of Abolition abroad began in 1807 when significant restrictions were put on the trade of people, and laws were extended until 1833 when all slavery in the colonies was abolished and trade by sea was policed by the Royal Navy. This ban extended to the entire Empire. Slave ships were seized and returned to port. I think your question is missing the facts somewhere.

Britain was the first country in modern times to permanently outlaw slavery, except Spain who had a system of feudalism that made slavery redundant. In the 18thC some patchy attempts were made in some of the colonies of America, and the French revolution abolished slavery only to re-instate it. Throughout the 17thC villainage had been made illegal, but some slaves were being brought in. So on the British mainland it was made illegal in 1700 and every slave landed on English soil was immediately free by law. The process of Abolition abroad began in 1807 when significant restrictions were put on the trade of people, and laws were extended until 1833 when all slavery in the colonies was abolished and trade by sea was policed by the Royal Navy. This ban extended to the entire Empire. Slave ships were seized and returned to port. I think your question is missing the facts somewhere.

English slaves went mioslty to caribean, not North America.

It all comes down to money. Economies influence political and social order. A well- fed, secure population will have a completely different outlook than one at war. After all, people are people. The English Economy was based on a theory called the Mercantile System. This was the basis for her colonies. Each colony had certain trade goods that it produced. Colonies were only allowed to trade with Britain and the other colonies. This was done on British ships, allowing her to make a profit on shipping goods and making sure that all shipments passed through customs, paying duties. Colonies were prohibited from most types of manufacturing, forcing them to buy these goods, from England, at inflated prices. The American colonies, in particular, chafed at this. They had a whole continent to conquer and develop. They were certainly going to make their own goods. The resulting friction was a motivating factor for the American Revolution. The Australian colony was also growing and changing. Ex-convicts entered local society. The colony grew to a point where it no longer wanted Britain's criminals sent there. As Britain's empire matured an changed, so did the views of her people. If there was no profit to be made in slavery, the evil nature of this institution could no longer be ignored. Just like people today, the british people, during this time based their actions on economic principles.

First of all, white people could not have captured and enslaved the Africans without the cooperation of the African chiefs, who profited handsomely from the slave trade. Slavery still exists in many parts of Africa today. The English were looking for a cheap source of labor. They also believed that the Africans otherwise would be unprofitable savages, and that being slaves allowed them to live in a society where they could be transformed into useful laborers and enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized Christian society. Considering that no blacks in sub-Sahara Africa have, to this day, invented the wheel or developed a written language, there is at least a germ of truth in that notion, racist as it may be. The slave trade was extremely profitable to New England merchants, although slavery itself was not suited to New England, and eventually died out, principally on economic, not moral, grounds. In 1808, the slave trade was outlawed in the United States, and the prohibition enjoyed almost universal support at the time. The slave population in the South was well established, and the expense and burden of training the "savages" from Africa was considered too great and too destabilizing to society. If the Southern master needed more slaves, and his slaves were not reproducing fast enough, the master could always help breed more of them himself. Slavery was a degrading influence on American life.

"1. How did the social, economic and political situation in England, America and Australia help to maintain and strengthen slavery in America and bring about and continue the transportation of convicts to Australia in the period 1770 - 1861?" Maybe this should read "How can we dodge responsibility or guilt for our own part in the Atlantic Slave Trade. So we can continue to blithely believe that our country has never done wrong, and stop the moral high ground from which we look down our noses at other nations crimes, from turning into quicksand." The truth of the matter is that the US was founded on certain principles (or at least was meant to be), that would have rendered slavery an automatic aberration. Yet slavery continued for 85 years after the Declaration of Independence. Just how long does a nation have to be independent before it takes responsibility for it's own disgraces?

"1. How did the social, economic and political situation in England, America and Australia help to maintain and strengthen slavery in America and bring about and continue the transportation of convicts to Australia in the period 1770 - 1861?" Maybe this should read "How can we dodge responsibility or guilt for our own part in the Atlantic Slave Trade. So we can continue to blithely believe that our country has never done wrong, and stop the moral high ground from which we look down our noses at other nations crimes, from turning into quicksand." The truth of the matter is that the US was founded on certain principles (or at least was meant to be), that would have rendered slavery an automatic aberration. Yet slavery continued for 85 years after the Declaration of Independence. Just how long does a nation have to be independent before it takes responsibility for it's own disgraces?

First of all, white people could not have captured and enslaved the Africans without the cooperation of the African chiefs, who profited handsomely from the slave trade. Slavery still exists in many parts of Africa today. The English were looking for a cheap source of labor. They also believed that the Africans otherwise would be unprofitable savages, and that being slaves allowed them to live in a society where they could be transformed into useful laborers and enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized Christian society. Considering that no blacks in sub-Sahara Africa have, to this day, invented the wheel or developed a written language, there is at least a germ of truth in that notion, racist as it may be. The slave trade was extremely profitable to New England merchants, although slavery itself was not suited to New England, and eventually died out, principally on economic, not moral, grounds. In 1808, the slave trade was outlawed in the United States, and the prohibition enjoyed almost universal support at the time. The slave population in the South was well established, and the expense and burden of training the "savages" from Africa was considered too great and too destabilizing to society. If the Southern master needed more slaves, and his slaves were not reproducing fast enough, the master could always help breed more of them himself. Slavery was a degrading influence on American life.