#I highly doubt the enslaved people whether they were sold to the hellbound ships or not would have agreed they were better off as slaves

[lightdancer1]

Unfortunately the article's claim that slavery was peripheral to African states has the problem that the abolition of the trade brought Dahomey, Benin, and the Sokoto Caliphate to near economic disintegration:

This article in turn is a good case of decolonization historiography as applied to the Kingdom of Dahomey. While I consider the claim that 'slavery was peripheral to the economies of African states' to be special pleading given the abolition of the slave trade brought Dahomey, Benin, and the Sokoto Caliphate to major weakness that made the conquests in the Scramble a matter of marching and the butcher and burn approach, it does make the point that to understand the decisions of African rulers the focus needs to be on African, not European, understandings of what their goals were.

It might be more easily noted that the African states did not see the dangers in mortgaging so much of their liquid wealth in the forms of slavery and doing little to build up anything more diverse.....but that should be equally put into the context that the European states only saw this *after* the era of mercantilism and the start of capitalism made it clear that a mono-focused economy is a glass dome waiting a good hit from a sledgehammer. The conditions furthering this shift did not apply to Dahomey, which made its bones and its money by exploiting the slave trade in its classical system and in the pattern most familiarly known to modern eyes.

Namely its soldiers, including the Ahosi, rampaged in the interior of Africa dragging poor sorry saps who couldn't run away fast enough by those human chains to ports and avoiding anything done to their *own* people with Oyo a particular favorite of their raids. It is a not entirely dissimilar result to Bolivarianism in Venezuela mortgaging the economy solely to oil....and then OPEC pushed oil prices off a roof and took the Venezuelan economy with it.

Judging Dahomey by its own standards likewise means recognizing that an autocratic society has all the usual brittleness of autocratic societies, including the endemic risks of military putsches that tended to be key parts in how Europeans finally brought African states over the brink of collapse. When the slave trade would implode in the 1830s the prosperity of Dahomey started to creak with it. 50 years later when European power returned with a deadly vengeance it was not strong states they faced outside of cases like Ethiopia or Kanem-Bornu where the slave trades in Western and Central and Eastern Africa were at their height, it was brittle ones devastated by the loss of much of their mobile capital and the ability to replenish supplies of gunpowder and firearms.