Links between railways and slavery to be explored in new research project

[coppercapped]

Perhaps things than were long hidden/ignored shall be brought to light at last. Very good I think, as a member of a minority group.

This sort of project is unnecessary. I really cannot see how steam railways and ships have anything to do with the slave trade or slavery in the British Empire - the dates are completely awry:

1. The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807 and the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron then suppressed as much of the remaining trade as it could with the technology of the time - square-rigged frigates and muzzle loading cannon.
2. After over twenty years the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with France ended with the defeat of Napoleon by Wellington and Blücher at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815
3. Arguably the first steam railways in their modern form were the Stockton and Darlington in 1825 and the Liverpool and Manchester in 1830.
4. The first successful transatlantic steam ship was the SS Great Britain, launched in 1843 which made its maiden voyage in 1845.

There was a gap of some 18 years between the ending of the slave trade and the opening of a railway in the coal fields of the northeast and nearly a quarter of a century before a railway reached a significant sea port. It was another 15 years before the first steam ship was built and another 15 before steam ships became commercially effective.

Just before the Battle of Waterloo Napoleon abolished slavery in France but after he vanished from the scene it was re-introduced for a short period but banned again in 1818. In 1845 laws were passed which led towards the final abolition of slavery in France and in 1848 this was extended to the French colonies. The United States didn't get round to abolishing slavery until their Civil War in 1861 - two generations after this was done by Britain.

I really do not see what links this 'research' can be expected to uncover connecting UK railways and steam ships with slavery except possibly some peripheral information which will not change the main facts[1].

[1] Unless there is an American connection...but we already knew that Lancashire cotton traders generally supported the Confederacy hoping to ensure their supply of raw materials.

 

[O L Leigh]

Maybe something. Maybe nothing. Unless people look no-one is going to know.

 

[WesternLancer]

This sort of project is unnecessary. I really cannot see how steam railways and ships have anything to do with the slave trade or slavery in the British Empire - the dates are completely awry:

1. The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807 and the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron then suppressed as much of the remaining trade as it could with the technology of the time - square-rigged frigates and muzzle loading cannon.
2. After over twenty years the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with France ended with the defeat of Napoleon by Wellington and Blücher at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815
3. Arguably the first steam railways in their modern form were the Stockton and Darlington in 1825 and the Liverpool and Manchester in 1830.
4. The first successful transatlantic steam ship was the SS Great Britain, launched in 1843 which made its maiden voyage in 1845.

There was a gap of some 18 years between the ending of the slave trade and the opening of a railway in the coal fields of the northeast and nearly a quarter of a century before a railway reached a significant sea port.

Just before the Battle of Waterloo Napoleon abolished slavery in France but after he vanished from the scene it was re-introduced for a short period but banned again in 1818. In 1845 laws were passed which led towards the final abolition of slavery in France and in 1848 this was extended to the French colonies. The United States didn't get round to abolishing slavery until their Civil War in 1861 - two generations after this was done by Britain.

I really do not see what links this 'research' can be expected to uncover connecting UK railways and steam ships with slavery[1].

[1] Unless there is an American connection...but we already knew that Lancashire cotton traders generally supported the Confederacy hoping to ensure their supply of raw materials.

Well, in the ight of your points it will even more interesting to read the research when it's done, and subject it to some proper scrutiny in my view - something you can't really do - with the best will in the world - before they have done it.

It's their money - let them get on with it - if what they publish turns out to be a load of BS - then that's the time to call it out.

(Interesting point about a US connection - I'm totally guessing but I note that certain British interests supported the confederacy (which supported slavery) not least IIRC because of the links between cotton production and cotton finishing in parts of the UK - how that interacted with rail I'm not sure - but the interruption in cotton supplies might have resulted in a down turn in some rail traffic I suspect)

 

[coppercapped]

Maybe something. Maybe nothing. Unless people look no-one is going to know.

Railway history, railway financing and funding, the history and lives of the major participants have been examined in excruciating detail for nearly 200 years. Books, academic papers, pamphlets, magazines and newspaper articles have been published in prodigious quantities.

Why not look for a field which has been far less studied and is more likely to produce informative nuggets?

 

[O L Leigh]

Why not look for a field which has been far less studied and is more likely to produce informative nuggets?

What is it that suggests to you that this won't?

Yes there's been volumes written on many aspects of railway history, but most of it has tended to focus on the railways themselves and not put them into their historical or societal context. I see no harm.

 

[DerekC]

I think anyone who knows much about history should always have been aware of the background of British involvement in and profit from slavery. Is it right to find out more about it? Yes. Do I think this will make young people loathe Britain? No. We need to be realistic about our past.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Railways are just infrastructure, they did nothing wrong, it's governments that are always to blame for anything terrible.
Worst thing railways were ever used for to my knowledge, was in the mass genocides in the 1940s, are trains are railways worthy of contempt for being used in such sickening ways?
No, all the blame lies with the Nazi Party. Likewise, anything relating to slavery, colonialism, and other symptoms of empire, fall entirely at the state committing such acts. The National Rail Museum should not waste money on linking trains to such things, it's more of the job of the British Museum to point out that the government is and was corrupt.
This is like the AA investigating Ermine and Watling Street because the Romans used slaves to build them, it would only waste money on explaining what we already knew.

 

[O L Leigh]

The National Rail Museum should not waste money on linking trains to such things, it's more of the job of the British Museum to point out that the government is and was corrupt.
This is like the AA investigating Ermine and Watling Street because the Romans used slaves to build them, it would only waste money on explaining what we already knew.

I would like to refer my learned colleague to post #5.

 

[Strathclyder]

Personally, I don't see any harm in this avenue being explored. As @ainsworth74 correctly points out, history shouldn't just be a celebration of the good stuff we're proud of while ignoring the less savoury parts of it - it should be confronting things well out of our comfort zone and directly challenging our own views about our past. Calling such efforts 'woke' or 'PC' is to turn a blind eye to both the darker aspects of our past and any new information that they may bring to light. I look forward to seeing the results of the study, whatever it may find.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

As with a lot of these issues that arise these days,
I am not to blame for what my great Grandpapa may or may not have done in this or any other countries in the past.

 

[Vespa]

What has the railway got to do with slavery considering the first railway line was built in 1829 after the abolition of slavery in Britain in 1807, by the time it got exported to the British Empire it was universally abolished in 1835.

Also no one has mentioned the African's role in capturing and selling slave to anyone willing to pay, they got rich from the proceed.

This is just pathetic wokism designed to push a single narrative to the exclusion of alternative viewpoints which gets "cancelled" as it doesn't fit in.

If this was around in the 15th century, we would still think the earth is flat and burning heretics now.

 

[brstd4260]

As with a lot of these issues that arise these days,
I am not to blame for what my great Grandpapa may or may not have done in this or any other countries in the past.

Here, Here!!!!

 

[deltic]

This sort of project is unnecessary. I really cannot see how steam railways and ships have anything to do with the slave trade or slavery in the British Empire - the dates are completely awry:

1. The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807 and the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron then suppressed as much of the remaining trade as it could with the technology of the time - square-rigged frigates and muzzle loading cannon.
2. After over twenty years the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with France ended with the defeat of Napoleon by Wellington and Blücher at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815
3. Arguably the first steam railways in their modern form were the Stockton and Darlington in 1825 and the Liverpool and Manchester in 1830.
4. The first successful transatlantic steam ship was the SS Great Britain, launched in 1843 which made its maiden voyage in 1845.

There was a gap of some 18 years between the ending of the slave trade and the opening of a railway in the coal fields of the northeast and nearly a quarter of a century before a railway reached a significant sea port. It was another 15 years before the first steam ship was built and another 15 before steam ships became commercially effective.

Just before the Battle of Waterloo Napoleon abolished slavery in France but after he vanished from the scene it was re-introduced for a short period but banned again in 1818. In 1845 laws were passed which led towards the final abolition of slavery in France and in 1848 this was extended to the French colonies. The United States didn't get round to abolishing slavery until their Civil War in 1861 - two generations after this was done by Britain.

I really do not see what links this 'research' can be expected to uncover connecting UK railways and steam ships with slavery except possibly some peripheral information which will not change the main facts[1].

[1] Unless there is an American connection...but we already knew that Lancashire cotton traders generally supported the Confederacy hoping to ensure their supply of raw materials.

The Slave Compensation Act was passed in 1837 - so the money became available just at the time when the new railways were looking for funding

 

[Jim the Jim]

Once you've made a profit from something, that money doesn't just disappear. People made money from the slave trade and they, or their children, still had resulting wealth to invest two or three decades later. Owning, as opposed to trading, slaves wasn't outlawed until the 1830s when the government gave former slave owners huge amounts of money in "compensation", some proportion of which was naturally invested in the railways.

This means that a lot of the money "from slavery" that was invested in rail was ultimately public money. There may even be a case to be made that compensating slave owners was a clever way for the government of the day to indirectly invest in world-changing public infrastructure in a time when direct state investment would not have been seen as a possibility.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2021 ==

As with a lot of these issues that arise these days,
I am not to blame for what my great Grandpapa may or may not have done in this or any other countries in the past.

In that confidence that you are not to blame for your ancestors' actions, you should have nothing to fear in those actions being brought to light.

In any case most of us are not descended from slave owners and are more likely to count amongst our ancestors those who suffered the cruelty of those men in other ways, working in their mines and factories and giving up their earnings to them in rent for their homes.

 

[WesternLancer]

The National Rail Museum should not waste money on linking trains to such things, it's more of the job of the British Museum to point out that the government is and was corrupt.
This is like the AA investigating Ermine and Watling Street because the Romans used slaves to build them, it would only waste money on explaining what we already knew.

The NRM is not funding this research - as I posted up thread.

err it's not like the AA funding that (which would be more like NR funding this, which they are also not doing).

Tho you have hit on a clear link since we all know that the 4'8 1/2" was set due to roman chariot wheels - which must have been set to run on slave built roads so there we have it ....

 

[Ianno87]

Maybe something. Maybe nothing. Unless people look no-one is going to know.

This.

It's an area of history that simply hasn't been properly explored and analysed (and a bit brushed under the carpet).

[I say that as somebody who was skeptical when this first came up last year, but have come around to it]

 

[WesternLancer]

Also no one has mentioned the African's role in capturing and selling slave to anyone willing to pay, they got rich from the proceed.

This is just pathetic wokism designed to push a single narrative to the exclusion of alternative viewpoints which gets "cancelled" as it doesn't fit in.

They have mentioned it up thread. And as I stated - covered in detail on TV a few weeks ago on a prime time c4 programme. You not seeing it does not mean it is has not been mentioned....

If this was around in the 15th century, we would still think the earth is flat and burning heretics now.

Not sure I follow that line of thinking. If what was around?

I thought it was precisely through challenging the established narrative that it came to be accepted that the world was not flat. So on that basis challenging the established narratives about slavery just might be worth doing...

Or are the challengers to be burnt at the stake in modern equivalent (torched on line I guess)?

 

[Ianno87]

I thought it was precisely through challenging the established narrative that it came to be accepted that the world was not flat. So on that basis challenging the established narratives about slavery just might be worth doing...

Or are the challengers to be burnt at the stake in modern equivalent (torched on line I guess)?

This also.

I've compared this situation to the episode of The Simpsons "Lisa the Iconoclast", where Lisa dares to challenge the legacy and background of the town's founder, Jebidiah Springfield, when she discovers new evidence about his past.

 

[tbtc]

I think that this is an interesting idea

I agree with some of the above points that (at first glance) the dates don't seem to match up, so any "link" seems tenuous right now, but I welcome the idea of assessing the railways from different angles - there are many varied stories relating to the railways but the version we tend to "learn" seems to involve a few nineteenth century visionaries (some of whom backed the right horse, some of whom were backing the wrong horse), then an idealised version of SPEED and the "romance" of steam (Mallard, chuck in a bit of Cuneo) - but these are only some of the tales - if this new research means that new people will be attracted to railway history then I'm in favour as things stand

I've no doubt that my great grandparents will have thought/done some things that wouldn't be acceptable these days - I don't feel personally guilty for that - I'm not embarrassed about raking over awkward bits of the past - but I think that there are new ways of using the railways to teach about history (e.g. we had a huge nationalised railway in the post-war years, one branch of the Government that was desperate for people to fill roles and could offer secure jobs - maybe we wouldn't have had quite so much of the "Windrush" immigration if we'd still had private railway companies unable to take such bold actions - how much did the nationalisation of the railways affect the number of people who moved to the UK in the decade after 1945?)

An alternative way of looking at it is that, if we don't find new stories to tell then each year the National Railway Museum feels slightly more disconnected from the potential audience out there (it becomes more like a Stately Home than something that today's generation can relate to) - I can appreciate why some people are trying to find new angles to look at railway history that might engage people by linking it to modern stories

 

[O L Leigh]

As with a lot of these issues that arise these days,
I am not to blame for what my great Grandpapa may or may not have done in this or any other countries in the past.

Exploring the past is not about attributing blame to the current generation. It’s just about exploring the past and telling the stories so that we can understand. The story of the railways is generally told without any reference to its historical or societal context. This project should help to address this.

This is just pathetic wokism designed to push a single narrative to the exclusion of alternative viewpoints which gets "cancelled" as it doesn't fit in.

That’s just jingoism. If we fail to explore this topic and deny people the chance to learn about it, we “cancel” their right to be heard. Which is worse?

Personally I see no problem with this project. There seems to be this underlying tone that British history is one long tale of glorious progress when in fact it is far far more complicated than that. We dress things up as victories that really weren’t (e.g. Spanish Armada, Dunkirk, etc) and tend to gloss over our darker moments (e.g. injustices meted out as a result of colonialism), and that is neither right nor fair. It’s not “woke” to have a full appreciation of our own history, warts and all and to have a better understanding of just who we are. Neither does it devalue the achievements of our national heroes to acknowledge that they were not always virtuous all the time.

I do not believe that “cancel culture” really exists. It’s simply that some people are not prepared to accept that there might be more than one way of looking at something, and that whether something or someone was “good” or “bad” depends largely on your perspective. History is and always should be capable of being told from more than one viewpoint. The important thing is to respect that no one viewpoint is any more correct or valid than another. If we cannot as a society get over this squeamishness and allow others within our midst to present history from their own perspectives, even where this may be uncomfortable, then we will perpetuate both an over-inflated sense of ourselves as a nation and a fractured society where the entitlement sits with only certain groups.

 

[Starmill]

This sort of project is unnecessary. I really cannot see how steam railways and ships have anything to do with the slave trade or slavery in the British Empire - the dates are completely awry:

1. The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807 and the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron then suppressed as much of the remaining trade as it could with the technology of the time - square-rigged frigates and muzzle loading cannon.
2. After over twenty years the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with France ended with the defeat of Napoleon by Wellington and Blücher at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815
3. Arguably the first steam railways in their modern form were the Stockton and Darlington in 1825 and the Liverpool and Manchester in 1830.
4. The first successful transatlantic steam ship was the SS Great Britain, launched in 1843 which made its maiden voyage in 1845.

There was a gap of some 18 years between the ending of the slave trade and the opening of a railway in the coal fields of the northeast and nearly a quarter of a century before a railway reached a significant sea port. It was another 15 years before the first steam ship was built and another 15 before steam ships became commercially effective.

Just before the Battle of Waterloo Napoleon abolished slavery in France but after he vanished from the scene it was re-introduced for a short period but banned again in 1818. In 1845 laws were passed which led towards the final abolition of slavery in France and in 1848 this was extended to the French colonies. The United States didn't get round to abolishing slavery until their Civil War in 1861 - two generations after this was done by Britain.

I really do not see what links this 'research' can be expected to uncover connecting UK railways and steam ships with slavery except possibly some peripheral information which will not change the main facts[1].

[1] Unless there is an American connection...but we already knew that Lancashire cotton traders generally supported the Confederacy hoping to ensure their supply of raw materials.

I guess that's a good reason for you to refer to the research then if you're unsure.

 

[Ianno87]

I do not believe that “cancel culture” really exists.

Example: Piers Morgan claims to be "cancelled" in numerous TV interviews, presenting roles, newspaper columns, social media posts etc etc etc

 

[WesternLancer]

Example: Piers Morgan claims to be "cancelled" in numerous TV interviews, presenting roles, newspaper columns, social media posts etc etc etc

That's just his point of view though isn't it - and he's entitled to it. Only history will tell if Piers Morgan is truly cancelled....

 

[Vespa]

Exploring the past is not about attributing blame to the current generation. It’s just about exploring the past and telling the stories so that we can understand. The story of the railways is generally told without any reference to its historical or societal context. This project should help to address this.



That’s just jingoism. If we fail to explore this topic and deny people the chance to learn about it, we “cancel” their right to be heard. Which is worse?

Personally I see no problem with this project. There seems to be this underlying tone that British history is one long tale of glorious progress when in fact it is far far more complicated than that. We dress things up as victories that really weren’t (e.g. Spanish Armada, Dunkirk, etc) and tend to gloss over our darker moments (e.g. injustices meted out as a result of colonialism), and that is neither right nor fair. It’s not “woke” to have a full appreciation of our own history, warts and all and to have a better understanding of just who we are. Neither does it devalue the achievements of our national heroes to acknowledge that they were not always virtuous all the time.

I do not believe that “cancel culture” really exists. It’s simply that some people are not prepared to accept that there might be more than one way of looking at something, and that whether something or someone was “good” or “bad” depends largely on your perspective. History is and always should be capable of being told from more than one viewpoint. The important thing is to respect that no one viewpoint is any more correct or valid than another. If we cannot as a society get over this squeamishness and allow others within our midst to present history from their own perspectives, even where this may be uncomfortable, then we will perpetuate both an over-inflated sense of ourselves as a nation and a fractured society where the entitlement sits with only certain groups.

What about "no platforming" and statue toppling it doesn't achieve anything nor promote debate, it created more division.

I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, I still hold that Britain is a force for good and we have nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[John Luxton]

Railways are just infrastructure, they did nothing wrong, it's governments that are always to blame for anything terrible.
Worst thing railways were ever used for to my knowledge, was in the mass genocides in the 1940s, are trains are railways worthy of contempt for being used in such sickening ways?
No, all the blame lies with the Nazi Party. Likewise, anything relating to slavery, colonialism, and other symptoms of empire, fall entirely at the state committing such acts. The National Rail Museum should not waste money on linking trains to such things, it's more of the job of the British Museum to point out that the government is and was corrupt.
This is like the AA investigating Ermine and Watling Street because the Romans used slaves to build them, it would only waste money on explaining what we already knew.

Exactly 100% agree!

 

[O L Leigh]

What about "no platforming" and statue toppling it doesn't achieve anything nor promote debate, it created more division.

I don't disagree. You will notice that I have kept neutral with regard to sides because I believe that the lessons apply equally to both. The scenes in Bristol last year were not helpful and does not foster the kind of discourse that I think we should be having.

I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, I still hold that Britain is a force for good and we have nothing to be ashamed of.

Fair enough. That's certainly one historical viewpoint, and there is a lot to suggest that this might be the case. However, you have to understand that your own viewpoint is just that, your own viewpoint. Not everyone else is going to share it. All I'm saying is that we have nothing to fear by allowing those with other viewpoints on history having their say.

**EDIT**

I would just like to add that I never suggested that Britain was not a force for good or that we should be ashamed of our past. What I said was that if we are to address some of the issues that affect our society today we need to be prepared to listen to other viewpoints in order to help understand how we got to this position in the first place. Perpetuating the "us and them" approach will not work, and that applies to both sides equally.

 

[John Luxton]

What about "no platforming" and statue toppling it doesn't achieve anything nor promote debate, it created more division.

So very true.

Frankly we end up in a situation where no platforming / cancel culture / wokeism / political correctness polarises people - it drives quite often moderate, middle of the road people further to extremes. I am certain the authorities are aware of this but are not dealing with it properly.

I can given you an example of this from my own job. A few years before I retired as a teacher a police officer came to a staff training event to talk about the Prevent Strategy. As people will be aware this was developed to deal with religious extremism leading to terrorism. However, virtually all of his presentation was concerned the identification of those likely to become involved in right wing groups and right wing terrorism.

Now has the penny not dropped with those in power that some people are drifting to the extremes because they are starting to feel as though they are becoming an alien in their own country? That people, events, traditions and values are being undermined? As a result it provokes a reaction.

On a personal basis I was brought up an average middle of the road conservative in a conservative family, however, my views are hardening and I know I am moving towards the right, mainly because I see the mainstream moving to the left.

Why not just leave things as they are?

Sometimes progressive attitudes can be perceived as threatening by those with traditional views.

 

[O L Leigh]

Why not just leave things as they are?

As a former history teacher I would have thought you'd understand why not. Things have never remained fixed. Stories invariably have more than one side to it and whether or not you view something as "good" or "bad" depends on which side you view it from. Whether you identify someone as being a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" depends on whether or not you identify with their aims. History is always written by the victors, and all that. There are no sacred cows when it comes to the past.

We constantly reinterpret history in the light of new evidence. For example, we are learning a lot more about our early Celtic culture through the artifacts that have been discovered which has allowed us to reinterpret that period of our history and understand far more than the slightly dismissive description given by the Romans.

So what do we do? You may well be right in saying that there is very little to link the history of the railways to slave trade, but without exploring that avenue we will never know. Wouldn't you like to examine the evidence and be sure? I've said several times already that the history of the railways as written at the moment is largely absent of historical and societal context. It would be nice to flesh out that side of the story too and see what we discover.

Sometimes progressive attitudes can be perceived as threatening by those with traditional views.

I get that. My brother-in-law is exactly the same. Whether it be e-commerce or immigration he finds it unsettling.

But again, what are we to do? Do we suppress other viewpoints just to give comfort to those who find change upsetting? What about the feelings of those we deny a voice to? What makes the feelings of the traditional establishment so much more important than those of the people we silence? Whatever your feelings the fact remains that this is OUR history and we all deserve to have it discovered. Treated properly, it is not being appropriated, altered or devalued but rather augmented and given greater depth and context. If you'd rather not be part of that process then fine, it's not compulsory.

 

[deltic]

What about "no platforming" and statue toppling it doesn't achieve anything nor promote debate, it created more division.

I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, I still hold that Britain is a force for good and we have nothing to be ashamed of.

I strongly disagree with your viewpoint. Britain invaded foreign lands and subjugated nearly 20% of the world's population. We established the world's first concentration camps in South Africa, we were responsible for massacres and failed to alleviate famines. We looted countries, exploited people and their resources. We have meddled in the Middle East for decades, and our creation of arbitrary national boundaries around the world has led to never ending conflicts.

Like all countries we have been a force for good and ill and the latter should not be forgotten or glossed over.

 

[telstarbox]

I must admit I feel very unhappy about our railway heritage being pulled into the current trend for political correctness and "wokeism".

What does "wokeism" mean please?