Written for coursework, June, 2019
Of this classic economic critique of the British Slave Trade it is often said that the Trade became less profitable than free labor, which was the real motive behind the abolition of the trade. This is perhaps Williams’ argument too deeply distilled. He argues convincingly that to fully understand the traffic and its disruption, a narrow focus on the abolitionists would not do. In fact, his most interesting chapter widens the aperture on this particular class, calling out individuals by name whose wealth was surely tied up with the continuance of slavery even after the British had abolished the trade. He found instead historical patterns among capitalists that seemed capricious and hypocritical, but that were more likely than not rooted in their economic interests. “Slave traders,” he argued, “were among the leading humanitarians of their day,” and capitalists “had first encouraged West-Indian slavery and then helped to destroy it. When British capitalism depended on the West Indies, they ignored slavery or defended it. When British capitalism found the West Indian monopoly a nuisance, they destroyed West Indian slavery as the first step in the destruction of West Indian monopoly” (45, 169). It was not so much a problem with slavery but a problem with monopoly. Decades later, Seymour Drescher would champion the successful role abolitionists played in removing slavery from the metropole from the European states (Abolition: A History of Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 2008). Williams would have bristled at this claim and sought to establish how slave labor capitalized the Industrial Revolution, which in turn led to its selective abolition, landing his work squarely in a debate over the profitability of the Slave Trade.
Williams’ most captivating use of sources draws on the direct quotes from leading abolitionists, many of whom make it clear they have little interest in halting the institution of slavery, only the traffic contrary to their economic interests. Williams shows at best that some abolitionists presumed slavery would fade away on its own after the transatlantic ban, a thesis he hotly contradicts. Williams exposes their empty public rhetoric as impractical for enslaved people. Other sources include a host of libraries and their special collections, museums, and a parliamentary papers, including debates and correspondence. There is a noticeable absence of documents that would suggest a robust accounting for the numbers.
Capitalism and Slavery unfolds in twelve brief chapters, beginning with the development of the slave trade and ending with an attempt to recover the position of slaves within the dialogue. Opening with the slave trade allows Williams to describe the racialization of slavery, which was not a smooth journey from indigenous to African labor, but from Indigenous to white labor. This is an apt approach for an exploration of the arbitrariness in the search for cheap labor. The book develops several major trends: the shift from protectionist and monopolistic practices to free trade, the transition from sugar-based wealth to cotton-based wealth and the coterminous need for more and more production of raw materials to refine in Britain’s burgeoning factories.
Despite the obvious critiques of Capitalism and Slavery, it might be more aptly titled: Capitalism, British Slavery, the Industrial Revolution, and Abolition as it is his main focus.