"Slavery is totally evil, but it should also be noted that it was relatively easy for Britain to have supported abolition of the slave trade and (later) slavery itself because it had no real need for slaves. Whether or not the British would have supported emancipation as early as they did if they had needed slave labor is an unanswerable question."

Art, the British had never used slaves in Britain except on a small scale. The slave trade was the means by which a group or class of people, ship-owners, merchants and financiers, became very rich and powerful, indeed they controlled government (or at least had a very powerful influence on government) and it was the influence of this group that had to be broken - which is what Wilberforce and his followers achieved. It should be understood what an incredible achievment this amounted to, given the huge political power of the slavers themselves.

The slave trade, for the British, was never about taking slaves to use here, it was about the things we were very good at - buying (or stealing) and selling, and making a lot of money for a few people.

The British were no doubt prime movers and shakers in the slave trade, but let's not forget, too, that people of many nations worked and made money in the trade - including Africans themselves.

Wilberforce and his followers were driven, not by a lack of need for slaves, but by their humanity, their religious beliefs, and their enlightened conviction that slavery was inhumane and unacceptable in a civilised society.

Surely what's important isn't whether it was easier for the British to abolish the trade, which led to the abolition of slavery itself (and given the power of the rich ruling class at that time that's open to debate - money talks, and very loudly indeed) - it's that they did it and led the way for the rest of the world? Let's not belittle that achievment - had Wilberforce not prevailed, there might still be slavery in the USA, who knows? Perish the thought.