ABSTRACT
The defensive stance meant that there was a crucial division between slave traders and West Indian defenders of slavery. In contrast to the continuing West Indian emphasis on blood and despotism, the slave traders revealed much more about the variety and complexity of Negro systems of government and jurisprudence. On the pro-slavery side the tendency to use reporting as propaganda was most obvious with Archibald Dalzel and Robert Norris on Dahomey but it was also evident more unevenly in John Matthews’ account of Sierra Leone. Much of the debate over the slave trade developed into an argument about—and eventually an inquiry into—the nature of enslavement in Africa. The belated attempt to play down injustice and tyranny was also at odds with the arguments of West Indian defenders of slavery. With such dubious allies the slave traders were fighting a losing battle in arguing that the African coast comprised orderly native societies with equitable systems of justice.
