in the light of differing interpretations, how convincing do you find the view that the slave trade ended for economic reasons Flashcards
Evidence of economic arguments- 1- sugar plants/ Cuba
Facts- British sugar exports blocked by Napoleon in Europe, whilst Cuba traded under US flag, lower profits/more competition
-Between 1799-1807, 65 British plantations in Jamaica abandoned, 32 sold for debt, and parliament discovered that British West Indies plants were producing at a loss in 1807.
Explanation-The export of sugar was integral to Britains economy, but instead they ended up with surpluses of 6 thousand tonnes of sugar. Cuba was more competitive than Britain and to slow down British production meant less slave labour required; the demand for slavery had fallen and so its importance in Britains economy did too. Therefore it would’ve been too costly to continue the trade and explains a reason for why it had to be stopped.
Evidence of economic arguments- 2- slave revolts
Facts- 1 in 10 ships experienced a revolt, damaging to cargo and profits
- Aug 1791, St Domingue, 12000 people killed by slaves and 1000 plantations burned down, previously produced double the amount of sugar that British colonies produced altogether (France owned them).
- high investment costs averaged £3153,
- American war of independence emphasised liberty and freedom for all, coinciding with the slave revolts
Explanation- The Revolts, combined with the American war of independence that emphasised ideas of liberty and freedom for all (reducing the demand for slavery in America) shows that slavery was beginning to die out and was not a sustainable venture for businesses when the risks were already high (high investment of £3153 in 1753). Shows that the risks of slavery were too high compared to the potential return at this point, and it shouldn’t have continued
Limitations to economic argument
Facts- Average returns on slave voyages was 20-50% more than the cost, and 3/7ths of European trade was involved with Liverpool. The slave trade was bringing in £3million a year by the end of the 1700s, increasing from £1million in 1750’s
explanation- This clearly shows that Britains economy was continuing to thrive off of slavery going into the 1800’s; even if areas like sugar were declining, areas like textiles had 87% of their produce going abroad between 1805-07. The gradual change in attitude may have emphasised the slight declines in some areas of the trade, which is why attention shifts to domestic production and the industrial revolution, not solely because the trade wasn’t as profitable.
Humanitarian argument facts (facts and explanation in role of individuals)
Zong case 1781- sharp collected evidence to prosecute captain Collingwood who was responsible for the death of 133 slaves despite having 420 spare gallons of water on board, he threw them overboard like animals
- Wilberforce/ Clarkson, Set up SFEAST which campaigned strongly for the abolition of the trade, Wilberforce presented bills in parliament from 1791-99, and Clarkson travelled 35000 miles, including to Paris to persuade French govt of abolition. Dolben act in 1788 improved slave ship conditions
explanation-As a result, 519 petitions were signed in 1792, and 10700 people out of 50,000 in Manchester signed abolition petitions, showing that public attitude was turning against slavery from 1790 onwards. This had the potential to help to persuade the government to abolish slavery, but all of Wilberforces bills were ignored.
Limitations to humanitarian argument-
Only tangible success was the Dolben act, which may not have even been as a result of Clarkson and Wilberforce who presented their bills after. Sharp failed to have collingwood prosecuted, and despite constant parliamentary pressure and petitions, slavery wasnt abolished subsequently, and France reintroduced slavery in 1802 anyway.
Further limitations- undermining Wilberforce
Further limitations include the fact that there were connections between the west India lobby and 50 UK MPs, showing that it was hard for the government to be persuaded by the campaigners because of ties to wealthy business men profiting from the trade. 24% of Britains income was from the trade too, and it was hard for the government to overlook this and side with the campaigners, which shows that although their arguments had evidence, they lacked importance for those in a position to make a difference, and therefore aren’t convincing enough.
Judgement (both have some credibility, however humanitarians had very little direct impact/ change)
A combination of both factors mentioned would be the most convincing explanation as to why the slave trade ended, as it can not be solely tied to either the humanitarians or the economic problems that eventually began. The fact that the humanitarians were so committed may have helped the end the trade, even if they didn’t physically have anything to show for it, because it suggested to the government that the public were beginning to lose faith in the trade when petitions began to be signed in 1791. If you factor in the problems with exporting sugar created by Napoleon, and the fact that slaves began to fight back, which lowers the profit of slave based industries for Britain, it may have emphasised to the government that an alternative to slavery ( domestic production and the industrial revolution) was a better way forward for the economy, even if the trade was still profitable . Therefore it is convincing that the government were influenced by both economical factors and the campaigners, leading to the gradual end to the slave trade.
