With the new movie "The Woman King" out in theaters, I have been reading a bit about the historical accuracy. While I have not seen the film yet, it is said to focus on the Agojie being in conflict with their king and other political forces to stop dealing in the slave trade and instead focus on other economies like the exportation of palm products to support their kingdom.
It is well researched that the Dahomey engaged in slavery. Both using captured neighbors for their own needs as well as trafficking's them to the Europeans. It is also well known that the British and other European neighbors were actively trying to stop the slave trade in the mid 19th century. While we all know the despicableness of slavery, the British's desire to end it was not based on wholly ethical terms. There were economic factors as play including the mainland's antipathy to the colonies, such as those in the West Indies, who were overproducing sugar and other products. There were other economic forces like the promise (and payment) of compensation to slave owners some of whom would profit more by being paid for their slaves.
I am interested in any research which shows what the internal conflict in the Kingdom of Dahomey was about in regards to their position on slavery. It has been shown that Africans engaging in the slave trade committed atrocities as bad (if not far worse) in acquiring slaves that would rival the Europeans and American's treatment of the slave. I am wondering why the Royalty (and his allies) were so intent on keeping the slave trade going vs the Agojie's alleged aversion to it.
By all accounts the Agojie were physically and mentally conditioned to think/be like men (by their own accounts) so I wouldn't think a "fairer sex" argument about the morality of slavery would come into play. It would seem from a religious/political perspective the Agojie were not outside the rest of Dahomey. Did the Agojie simply see fighting the Europeans on this matter a loosing proposition and decided that economically it was the best response?
The belief that the Amazons of Dahomey were hostile to the slave trade can perhaps be traced to John C. Yoder’s article, “Fly and Elephant Parties: Political Polarization in Dahomey, 1840-1870” published in the Journal of African History. Yoder’s article pushes back against the idea, presented by some earlier observers of Dahomey, that the king of Dahomey was an absolutist monarch who could unilaterally and arbitrarily act in terms of policy. Yoder proposed that the Dahomean monarch was held in check by a parliament of sorts composed of the leading members of the Dahomean government and ruling family as well as prominent traders, warriors, military officers and minor officials (including the Amazons). This council of approximately 300 would meet annually during a roughly month long ceremony known as Xwetanu, which would comprise of religious rites on behalf of the ancestors and gods, a parade of the Dahomean military and review of the troops (including a mock slave raid being waged by the Amazons ), ostentatious displays of the king’s wealth as well as the distribution of cloth, cowries and other goods to the assembled by the king (paired with the killing of war captives). The leading officials and king would also meet with foreign dignitaries and address petitions. Nearly a week was set aside during Xwetanu for the aforementioned council to meet and debate. We have detailed accounts of council speeches given at Xwetanu as well as an itinerary of the event thanks to the presence of European observers, such as British naval officer F.E. Forbes and explorer Richard Burton, who took and published detailed notes. Yoder’s arguments were based on Forbes’ account of the 1850 Xwetanu.
Yoder makes the case that Dahomey in 1850 was split between a pro-slavery/militarism camp dominated by King Gezo, the Brazilian Creole slave traders that had put him into power in a palace coup in 1818 and the elements of the military which profited from the slave trade and an anti-slavery/militarism faction made up of Amazons, middle-level functionaries of the Dahomean government, religious leaders and indigenous traders. The source of contention between the two ‘factions’ (there was no formal organization of these groups, only aligned interests) was the city-state of Abeokuta which challenged Dahomey’s access to its traditional slaving grounds. Abeokuta was also receiving military aid from the British who were pressuring Dahomey to end the slave trade and adopt legitimate commerce (i.e. palm oil cultivation). Thus the pro-slavery faction was determined to destroy the British aligned Abeokuta (referred to, supposedly, as the elephant by the Dahomeans) and defy the British calls to end the slave trade. In contrast to this Elephant party, the so-called Fly party advocated military action against weaker opponents (i.e. flies; the faction names come from a speech given by an Amazon at the 1850 Xwetanu: “If we go to war, we cannot come back empty-handed; if we fail to catch elephants, let us be content with flies”) and accommodations with the British (i.e. begin large scale cultivation of palm oil). It should be noted that the Amazons were not uniformly of the Fly party. Yoder cites an Amazon named Ahgasee who was attached to the retinue of Creole trader Antoine Da Souza (an Elephant Party member per Yoder’s classification system) who made the following statement (as recorded by Forbes and quoted by Yoder; the punctuation and spelling are from Forbes),
“I am the king’s daughter, under his protection; he gave me to the late Da Souza: death seized him: I now belong to Antoine: my name is Ahgasee; and all I want is to got war on Abeahkeata [Abeokuta].”
In contrast, another Amazon attached to Antoine Da Souza made the following argument:
“I am the mother of Antoine; I long to kill an elephant for him to show my regard, but Attakpahm [another less formidable town/fly] must be exterminated first.”
Yoder interprets this statement as the Amazon advocating an attack against a ‘fly’ (weaker opponent) and against confrontation with Abekouta/British (the metaphorical elephant). Thus we see elements of the Fly and the Elephant Party among the Amazons. It should be noted that Yoder’s interpretation of Dahomey’s polarization during this phase have not been uniformly accepted. For instance, David Ross noted that Yoder’s only evidence of the Amazons belonging to the anti-slavery Fly party were those two statements given at the Xwetanu and that their meaning was ambiguous. Ross notes that Yoder’s Fly party Amazons were members of a regiment dedicated to elephant hunting. Rather than a metaphorical reference to Abekouta, the elephant referenced by the two may very well be, as Ross snarkily put it in his rejoinder to Yoder, “a large grayish animal with two prominent tusks.” Ross further questioned if Dahomey referred to Abekouta as the elephant; a general of the Oyo Empire, an early enemy of King Gezo, was prominently referred to as the elephant but there is no reference to Abekouta being given the same appellation. In short, Ross argued that the short and heavily metaphor laden speeches given at the council did not provide sufficient evidence of an anti-slavery/militarism sentiment among the Amazons.
While you wait, you may be interested in this detailed response by /u/LXT130J on the historical narrative about Dahomey (which also references this film).