Alecia Evans

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Origin and Development of Slavery .............................................................................................................. 3

Profitability of Slavery and the British Industrialization ............................................................................... 5

End of Slavery................................................................................................................................................ 7

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 10

References .................................................................................................................................................. 12

1|Page
 Alecia Evans

Introduction

Negro Slavery1, its origins and abolition, was once viewed in a Eurocentric light. The Negro was
freed because the humanitarians were sympathetic to his plight of degradation and exploitation.
The colonies should be grateful because whatever wealth they may have is a consequence of
being colonized. This notion was predominantly held until Dr. Eric Williams in 1944 published
Capitalism and Slavery. His idea was not completely original as individuals before him had
taken a similar economic approach to examining slavery and the slave trade, namely his teacher
Professor Lowell Joseph Ragatz. But he dispelled this Eurocentric notion and campaigned that
Europe actually developed because of the extreme profitability of slavery.

Williams placed in historical perspective the relationship between Negro slave trade and
capitalism in Europe. This paper is divided to reflect what I believe are the most important
aspects of Williams’ work. The origin and development of slavery will be examined in Section 1
and the notion that racism was an outcome of slavery. It was necessary, to ensure a passive
labour force, that the Negro felt as if the Lord had intended for him to be nothing but a servant.
Racism became the vehicle to ensure such subordination. Hillary McD Beckles and Carter
Wilson both support this notion of racism emerging after slavery. Russell Menard used
“Chesapeake Gradualism”2 to disclaim this, stating that before British slave trade Blacks were
discriminated against.

Section two examines the relationship between the profitability of slavery and the British
Industrialization. The slave trade was extremely profitable. It was this profit that the capitalists
used to fuel the Industrial Revolution. Solow3, Kenneth Morgan and Inikori4 all supported this
point. Russell R. Menard, David Eltis, Seymour Drescher and Joel Mokyr all believed that this

1
Slavery will be used throughout this paper to refer to Negro Slavery. Also, in Capitalism and Slavery, the word
Negro is used in reference to the people enslaved from Africa. This paper will retain the Negro terminology.
2
In Maryland and Virginia, it took planters at least half of a century to commit their society to slavery and
Africanize their labour force, this Menard calls “Chesapeake Gradualism”
3
Barbara Solow, “Capitalism and Slavery in the Exceedingly Long Run” in Barbara Solow and Stanley L. Engerman,
British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The Legacy of Eric Williams, (Cambridge University Press)
4
Joseph Inikori, “Slavery and the Development of Industrial Capitalism in England” in Barbara Solow and Stanley L.
Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The Legacy of Eric Williams, (Cambridge University Press)

2|Page
 Alecia Evans

may be slight exaggerations. Slavery was not that profitable and Britain would have still seen the
Industrial Revolution without the slave trade.

In 1834, the slaves were emancipated. According to Williams, the new class of capitalists that
emerged after Industrial Revolution saw no need for slavery as the colonies were becoming
unprofitable. The abolitionists then lobbied for the abolition of slavery. The “Saints” and the
slaves also played a part in the abolition process, but most important was the fact that slavery
was no longer profitable. Drescher dismissed this argument stating that British West Indian
colonies were flourishing even after slavery.

Origin and Development of Slavery

In a bid to further understand William’s notion of slavery impacting on capitalism, it becomes

To emphasize the fact that slavery was solely economic, born out of the need for an abundant
supply of cheap, preferably free labour, Williams highlighted the fact that slavery should not be
identified with the Negro alone5. The earliest account of slavery within the Caribbean were the
Indians who were quickly wiped out due to the harsh working conditions they had to endure
along with the diseases the white man brought upon them that they were not previously exposed
to. According to Williams, Indian slavery in the New England colonies had to be abandoned

5
Eric Williams , Capitalism and Slavery (The University of Carolina Press), 7

3|Page
 Alecia Evans

because it was unprofitable. “Slavery of any kind was unprofitable because it was unsuited to the
diversified agriculture of these colonies.”6

Poor whites (indentured servants, “redemptioners” and convicts) became the next victims to the
European’s conquest for economic gains. Emigration, both voluntary and involuntary, was
encouraged within these groups to reduce the poverty rate and put idle labour to productive use.
But by the end of the seventeenth century the aim of economic development had shifted to “the
development of industry within the country, the promotion of employment and the
encouragement of exports.”7 A large population was now needed at home along with the large
labour force that was needed in the colonies to enjoy economies of scale and so they turned to
Africa.

Williams dismisses the notion of Negro slavery being a consequence of racism and of the Blacks
being better able to withstand the harsh conditions of the tropics. Negro slavery, he states, was
economic. Hilary McD Beckles8 supports William’s idea by noting that the act of slavery marred
history predating Europe’s colonization of the world. This form of slavery was not characterized
by the notion of black inferiority. It was after the colonization of the British West Indies that
anti-black ideologies were embedded in British culture almost appearing to be a form of
economic development policy. Africans were seen as an important factor of production for
economic growth and so they were enslaved perpetuating the belief that anything could be done
for national development, whether it be enslavement, conquer or extermination. Much of the
literature concurs with Williams and McD Beckles. Wilson9 exemplifies this support in that it is
also his view that racism arose as blacks became a major source of labour. Racism then
continued under capitalism through human exploitation, extreme inequality and oppression.

It is difficult to accept the notion that racism was totally absent before Negro slavery. The reason
for Africans being used as slaves cannot only be that Britain needed cheap or free labour and
Africa was closest, as Williams posits10. There must have been some idea within the white man’s
head that made him thought less of the blacks to have even considered putting them through the

6
Williams, 9
7
Williams, 16
8
Hilary McD Beckles, Capitalism, Slavery and Caribbean Modernity, (Callaloo Vol. 20 No. 4), 785
9
Carter Wilson, Racism: From Slavery to Advanced Capitalism (Sage Publications, 1996), 124
10
Williams, 20

4|Page
 Alecia Evans

horrors of the Atlantic voyage and more over to actually have established the institution of
slavery. Menard11 seems to support this notion through his challenge of Williams’ idea of racism
being the consequence and not the cause of slavery. “Chesapeake gradualism” is what he used to
question William’s relationship between slavery and racism. “Blacks were discriminated against
in the early Chesapeake before slavery was their universal condition or of much importance to
the regional economy.” But as an established system, racism appeared in the region well after
slavery.

Profitability of Slavery and the British Industrialization

Williams provides a compelling argument as to how the Negro slave trade enhanced commercial
capitalism and as to how the profits from slavery were instrumental in the Industrial Revolution.
The Triangular Trade started with ships leaving the European ports to exchange cargoes of
manufactured goods in Africa for slaves at a profit. These slaves were then traded in the West
Indies for colonial goods at a profit and these cargoes were then sold in the home countries at a
profit. It was this profit, facilitated by slavery, which propelled the Industrial Revolution. As
long as the West Indian colonies had a monopoly of the home country markets and the shipping
of slaves, the colonies and home country flourished.

Europe saw many improvements with the slave trade acting as a direct impetus. The shipping
industry received “a direct stimulus from the triangular trade.”12 Seaports flourished and were
developed, namely Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow. An argument used against the abolition of
slavery was that it would be the ruin of these towns. The goods for the triangular trade and the
processing of colonial products were also a stimulus for the Industrial Revolution in Britain.13
The wool and cotton industry saw improvements under the slave trade. There was also the birth
of the sugar refining, rum distillation and the metallurgical industries.

11
Russell R. Menard, “Reckoning with Williams: Capitalism and Slavery and the Reconstruction of American
History,” Callaloo, 20 No. 4 (1997), 794
12
Williams, 58
13
Williams, 65

5|Page
 Alecia Evans

Agreeing with Williams would mean being in total accordance with the view that the
development of Europe was largely due to the profitability of slavery. Some scholars believe that
it may be a bit too ambitious and a slight exaggeration “to make slavery an indispensable stone
to the establishment of capitalism.”14 If there was all the profit in the world, yet the British
system lacked the necessary infrastructure, attitudes and values to capitalize on it, it would have
profited them naught. It must therefore mean that profits from slavery were a contributing factor
and there are other factors equally or even more pivotal in the British Industrial Revolution. If
the profits from slavery are removed from the equation, would Britain have experienced such
development?

Menard15 highlighted that slavery being the key source of capital accumulation in Britain falls
short when the evidence is examined. The profits were not that great to be so instrumental in the
financing of the Industrial Revolution. Eltis16 holds a similar view. He points out that profits
from abroad does not seem to be of the “requisite large amount” to have impacted greatly on the
Industrial Revolution and completely dismissed the idea of colonies being instrumental.
Increased factor productivity, he states, is currently being examined as an important factor in the
industrialization process. Drescher17 even went as far as to state that the colonies were a “net
capital loss to the metropolis” and Joel Mokyr reiterated that Britain would have seen an
Industrial Revolution without the slave trade or slavery18.

Williams’ idea must not be dismissed or trivialized. “To argue that slavery was important for
British economic growth is not to claim that slavery caused the Industrial Revolution19.” The
profits from slavery must have contributed to the development of Britain. The question is, to
what extend was slavery monumental in the development of Britain? According to Solow20, the
sugar colonies of the Atlantic provided Britain with a better industrial base and growing
economy to start the nineteenth century.

14
Wilson Gee, “Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams,” American Sociological Review Vol. 10 No. 4 (August 1945),
566
15
Menard, 795
16
David Eltis, Economic Growth and the Ending of the Transatlantic Slave Trade (Oxford University Press), 5
17
Seymour Drescher, “Eric Williams: Capitalism and Slavery”, History and Theory Vol. 26 No. 2 (May, 1987), 190
18
Selwyn H. H. Carrington, “Capitalism and Slavery and Caribbean Historiography: An Evaluation”, The Journal of
African American History Vol. 88 (2003), 307
19
Solow, 73
20
Solow, 74

6|Page
 Alecia Evans

Some scholars agree with Williams and have done extensive work to support his theory.
Kenneth Morgan investigated records of the profit from slavery and concluded that slavery did
contribute to industrial growth, long-term credit organizations, banks, insurance companies and
long distance trade21. Inikori22 also argues that the Industrial expansion of Britain in the
seventeenth and eighteenth century was made possible by the Atlantic slave trade. He furthers
Williams’ argument about the profits of slavery being the stimulant to the Industrial Revolution
by showing how slavery made possible the division of labour, provides the necessary
“transformation of economic and social structures” and also provided entrepreneurs with the
necessary capital to expand without depending on the government.

End of Slavery

Even though slavery was profitable, Williams state that it began to be an albatross around the
British’s neck. This he believes motivated the abolition of slavery and not humanitarian effort.
Slavery was characterized by increased production and the West Indian monopoly. But within
this sphere, one must realize that Britain was just one player. There were the French, Spanish and
the Dutch. These countries had established their slave colonies after the British and now were
able to realize larger economies of scale and realize lower production cost. This cheap sugar was
beginning to invade the European markets but Britain had to accept sugar at the West Indian
monopoly price all because it was grown by her colonies.

The American Revolution was another blow to slavery. The notion of British colonies being
important as outlets for manufactured products was abandoned and this saw trade opening up
between America and Britain in 1783. Britain started thinking in world terms. Production and
trade went beyond the bounds of the West Indian colonies. In the 1825, the Navigation Laws
were altered so that colonies could trade directly with the rest of the world but the West Indies
still had a monopoly on the home market. This was becoming burdensome since cheaper sugar
could be had elsewhere. Exports to the colonies started to decline and the “British West Indies
were thus becoming increasingly negligible to British capitalism.23” In the new capitalist system

21
Carrington, 307
22
Inikori
23
Williams, 132

7|Page
 Alecia Evans

that was emerging, the West Indian slave society had no place. This led to the abolition of
slavery.

The same data used to arrive at these conclusions was used by Drescher 24 to show that “there
was no decline in the British slave system until well after the abolition of slavery”. It may very
well be that the abolition of slavery led to the decline of the colonies. It has been said that
Williams was the victim of not only inflating the rising slave trade impact to the Industrial
Revolution but also to accelerating “the fall of the West Indies in accounting for the demise of
slavery. Neither in terms of profits, productivity or political economy did the West Indies
account for the timing and pace of the abolition.”25 Drescher believes that, not only did Williams
over emphasize the role of the West Indies to the development to the Britain before 1775, he also
exaggerated “the diminution of its importance to Britain after 1783”. Maybe until at least 1815,
“two growing, if unequal, economic system faced each other, rather than a rising one and a
declining one.”

Slave colonies did experience lower returns after the American Revolution and also the
recurrence of hurricanes. But if long run data should be examined, it would reveal that British
West Indies was thriving well into the nineteenth century.26

Within Williams’ analysis the role of the “Saints” did not lead to the abolition of slavery.
Humanitarians are seen as hypocrites parading under the façade of goodwill but their inner
intentions were just as selfish as the capitalists. In fact, they had no such qualms about slavery in
other parts of the world, just “the Negro in the British West Indies”27. While touting the
inhumanity of the British slave trade, the “Saints” were still supporting the slave grown sugar of
Brazil and Cuba, slave grown cotton of the United States. How then, Williams argue, can their
efforts be seen as being instrumental in the abolition of slavery?

It appears that Williams developed his argument on the importance of the economic factor in the
abolition of slavery, at the expense of the efforts of the humanitarians. It can be understood that

24
Seymour Drescher, “Paradigms Tossed: Capitalism and the Political Sources of Abolition” in Barbara Solow and
Stanley L. Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The Legacy of Eric Williams, (Cambridge University
Press), 193
25
Drescher, 193
26
Eltis, 5
27
Williams, 183

8|Page
 Alecia Evans

this is an economic account of the structure of slavery and the slave trade and that each discipline
may focus on a factor that contributed to the decline germane to its discourse. But this should not
be done by trivializing other factors. Williams not only gave an economic account but he also
emphasized that although the humanitarians were important their significance was exaggerated
and their motives misunderstood.

But is it not a bit fallacious to assume that the “Saints” were not sincere. Even if they stood to
benefit from the abolition of the slave trade and slavery, “a man is not necessarily a hypocrite
because his economic interests and his moral convictions coincide.”28 Enjoying slave grown
products from other countries should not imply that they saw nothing wrong with the institution
of slavery and should not result in the complete disregard of their motives.

Some scholars believe that William’s argument cannot just be dismissed as being “reductionist”.
Williams’ arguments coincide with David Brion Davis’ theories that “antislavery cannot be
divorced from the economic changes that were intensifying social conflicts and heightening class
consciousness.”29 The abolitionists, Davis believes, represents the discontent that existed within
the Britain over labour issues. Capitalism had given rise to a new class who were very concerned
about labour discipline and unemployment. In the same way they were striving to achieve some
form of harmony between the capitalist and his exploited tenants, so too were they trying to
create a harmony between the slaves and the planters. By this, stability would be achieved. The
abolitionist then would just be furthering his interest. Abolition was just an ideology that “served
to justify and legitimize the emerging capitalist elite and the new forms of exploitation of free
labour in England’s factories.”30

The slaves were not passive beings, accepting their fate as God intended as they were led to
believe. They fought hard for their freedom. Williams acknowledged this. “As political crisis
deepened in Britain, the most dynamic and powerful social force in the colonies was the slave
himself.”31 So while examining the mix of factors that led to the abolition of slavery, one should

28
Elizabeth Donnan, “Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams”, The American Historical Review Vol. 50, No. 4 (July,
1945), 783
29
David Brion Davis, “Capitalism, Abolitionism, and Slavery”, in Barbara Solow and Stanley L. Engerman, British
Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The Legacy of Eric Williams (Cambridge University Press)
30
Menard, 796
31
Williams, 201

9|Page
 Alecia Evans

be sure to include the numerous revolts, sabotage and various other forms of resistance by the
slaves themselves. Note worthy are the Maroons in Jamaica. The slaves in 1804 took over Haiti,
thirty years before Emancipation. Could it then mean that the slaves had the power within them
to upsurge other slave economies given time? Within Williams’ examination of the factors that
led the capitalist to abolish slavery, should he then have spent more than a few pages to pursue
the dynamics of the slaves themselves? Or maybe the frequency and magnitude of resistance and
revolts were apart of the reason the colonies were becoming unprofitable and therefore the need
to abolish slavery.

Michael Craton32 identifies Williams’ slight treatment of the slave’s effect on the abolition
process. He states that Williams almost ignore the pivotal role of slave revolts in the
metropolitan debate and how almost from the beginning they shaped the course of these debates.
His aim was to build on Williams’ role of the slaves by careful documentation of slave revolts in
the colonies and how revolts in nature moved from being African to creole. His general
conclusion was that, slave revolts and unrests “in the last decade of British slavery was
interrelated, and the degenerating sociopolitical climate in the colonies did contribute to slave
emancipation in 1834-38.”33

Conclusion

Regardless of the identified flaws in William’s analysis, his methodological analysis presents a
framework for continued debates. What is the relationship between capitalism and slavery?
Williams identified Britain’s need for free labour within their colonies since their home colony
had begun to expand and people were needed to provide employment at home. Slavery and
slave trade were so profitable that it contributed remarkable to Industrial Revolution, the
shipping industry, insurance, banking and the wool, cotton and metal industry. The British West
Indian colonies were becoming unprofitable and the capitalist class that slavery made prosperous
became the leading group advocating for its abolition. Not only were the colonies unprofitable in

32
Michael Craton, “What and Who to Whom and What: The Significant of Slave Resistance” in Barbara Solow and
Stanley L. Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The Legacy of Eric Williams (Cambridge University
Press), 262
33
Craton, 278

10 | P a g e
 Alecia Evans

terms of soil conditions and frequency of revolutions, but also the West Indian monopoly was
becoming burdensome. So, capitalist pursuits caused slavery and when it profited the capitalist
no more, they destroyed it.

At cursory glance, Williams’ argument may seem perfect but his strict economic view as to the
rise and fall of slavery was often bias and exaggerated34. The same figures he used were used to
show that unlike what he outlined, the British economy in the long run was growing at the time
of the abolition of slavery. In the same way the abolition of slavery should not be viewed in a
strict moral sense, it should not be viewed in a purely economic one. Williams totally
underplayed the role of humanitarian efforts to advocate his economic factor. Slaves were just as
important in the abolition effort and Williams could have made this seem so. Even though they
were mentioned, it seems almost like an after thought.

Regardless of all, Capitalism and Slavery still remains germane to our understanding of the
motivation of slavery and even in our understanding of the current economic conditions that
prevail in many Commonwealth nations.

34
Gee, 566

11 | P a g e
 Alecia Evans

References

Carrington, Selwyn H. H. “Capitalism and Slavery and Caribbean Historiography: An

Evaluation.” The Journal of African American History Vol. 88 (2003): 304-312

Craton, Michael. What and Who to Whom and What: The Significant of Slave Resistance in

Barbara Solow and Stanley L. Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The

Legacy of Eric Williams. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Davis, David Brion. Capitalism, Abolitionism, and Slavery in Barbara Solow and Stanley L.

Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The Legacy of Eric Williams.

Cambridge University Press, 1987

Donnan, Elizabeth. “Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams.” The American Historical Review

Vol. 50, No. 4 (July, 1945): 782-783

Drescher, Seymour. “Eric Wiliams: Capitalism and Slavery.” History and Theory Vol. 26 No. 2

(May, 1987): 180-196

Drescher, Seymour. Paradigms Tossed: Capitalism and the Political Sources of Abolition in

Barbara Solow and Stanley L. Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The

Legacy of Eric Williams. Cambridge University Press, 1987

Eltis, David. Economic Growth and the Ending of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Oxford

University Press, 1987

12 | P a g e
 Alecia Evans

Gee, Wilson. “Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams.” American Sociological Review Vol.

10 No. 4 (August 1945): 566-567

Inikori, Joseph. Slavery and the Development of Industrial Capitalism in England in Barbara

Solow and Stanley L. Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The Legacy

of Eric Williams. Cambridge University Press, 1987

McD Beckles, Hilary. “Capitalism, Slavery and Caribbean Modernity.” Callaloo Vol. 20 No. 4 (1997):

777-789

Menard, Russell R, “Reckoning with Williams: Capitalism and Slavery and the Reconstruction

of American History,” Callaloo, 20 No. 4 (1997), 791-799

Solow, Barbara. Capitalism and Slavery in the Exceedingly Long Run in Barbara Solow and

Stanley L. Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The Legacy of Eric

Williams. Cambridge University Press, 1987

Williams, Eric. Capitalism and Slavery. The University of North Carolina Press, 1994

Wilson, Carter. Racism: From Slavery to Advanced Capitalism. Sage Publications, 1996

13 | P a g e