Britain was one of the first nations to industrialize. The contribution of external factors such as colonies, Slavery, triangular trade to the Industrialisation process has been a contentious issue in academia where scholars are sharply divided. The debate was inaugurated by the seminal work of Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery, which gave the "William Thesis." The William thesis made four critical contributions: Slavery was an economic phenomenon, and racism was its consequence, not cause[1]; slave economies of British west indies caused, or in the least, contributed significantly to the British industrial revolution; After the American war of Independence, the colonies declined in profitability and importance to England; Economic motives within England led to the abolition of slave trade and emancipation, not humanity. What follows is an attempt to analyse the different views of scholars and conclude whether Slavery was significant to Britain's rise as an industrial power or not.
Adam Smith argued that the wealth of nations is derived from an efficient division of labor. An efficient division could only happen where some advanced 'primitive accumulation had taken place. Karl Marx mocked primitive accumulation and accorded it the same role in political economy, as 'original sin' had in Christian theology, but accepted that the emergence of capitalist accumulation in a non-capitalist environment was thought-provoking. Marx conceded that the cyclical problem could only be solved when one assumes primitive accumulation as a point of departure. The land enclosure movement in Britain effectively separated Labour from means of production and initiated primitive accumulation and the emergence of wage labor. In northwest Europe, the tenant farmers had to pay rent to the landlord, and agricultural improvement would allow the tenants to reap profit, which encouraged investment in agriculture. Wage labor became a variable cost instead of a fixed cost. Herein lies the element of Capitalism and competition.
Nevertheless, these social relations were also problematic. The state aided the enclosure movement through laws, labor statutes, commercial agreements, treaties which enabled Capitalism to transform into industrial accumulation. The absolutist states enabled such processes. By the end of the seventeenth century, factors like colonies, national debt, tax system, and protection system had combined.[2] The 17th century reconstructed the English state, supported mercantilism, and secured the confidence of financial markets through low-interest rates and stable currency. Thus, Robin Blackburn says that the colonial and Atlantic regime of extended primitive accumulation or metropolitan accumulation through state-initiated mercantilist policies helped break out of its agrarian and national limits and quickly approach the industrial state.
The actual transition to industrialization happened through intense exchanges with the plantation economies. Slavery-based profits qualify as primitive accumulation because it was based on brute force, not economic coercion, as in the capitalist world. Both Marx and Smith saw free labor as a positive side of Capitalism, but Marx was more candid in noting the brutality of transition to Capitalism.
Eric Hobsbawm and Christopher Hill, both Marxist scholars, have pointed out the role of colonies in aiding Capitalism because statistics and official statements of the time reflect the belief that colonial development will aid the national economy.
Eric Williams in his pioneering work, Capitalism and Slavery draws out the intimacy between the triangular trade system and early Capitalism and argued that the profits from the slave trade had fertilized the ground on which industrialization developed. He quotes scholars like William Woods, Adam Smith and Postlethwyat, who had highlighted the importance of the slave trade for Britain's economy. The new World provided the Europeans a large new market. Profit produced by the West Indies was by the hard work of Negro slaves. The sugar economy proved to be one of the significant employment generators for the British.
The triangular trade's primary mechanism, which provided a triple stimulus to British industrialization, was as follows: a Slave ship sailed from the home country to the African coast where it exchanged manufactured products for African slaves, making a handsome profit. The ship then sailed with African slaves to the plantation economies of America, where the slaves were sold, and plantation products like Sugar, cotton, the indigo that was imperative to the British economy were purchased. The maintenance of the slaves on the plantations provided for another considerable market where the British manufactured products were sold. The ship then sailed back to its home country, where plantation products were sold.
In the mercantilist era, Monopoly in colonial trade was valued, and the supply of agricultural goods from colonies was imperative. The colonial products, in exchange, were given a Monopoly of the home country's market. The navigation laws (1651) and the Act of Union[3] (1707) epitomized British mercantilism, where slaves and Sugar were explicitly central.
Under the Navigation laws, only "English built ships" could bring colonial products to England.[4] The triangular trade stimulated shipbuilding and other axillary industries in England because the slave ships, combined capacity and speed to reduce mortality, were made in Liverpool. The long voyages of a triangular trade supplied Britain's Navy with trained seamen. The shipping community in Liverpool unanimously agreed that the abolition of the slave trade would be detrimental to the Naval strength, economy and affect each person indirectly. The fishing industry found a market for English Herring in sugar colonies.
By 1750, Seaport towns such as Bristol, Liverpool, and Glasgow emerged as sugar and slave trading centers due to the thriving shipping industry. Bristol became enmeshed with the sugar plantations of the Caribbean with Parliamentarians from here having large stake in plantations. By 1770 Arthur young had documented Liverpool and its thriving slave trade. Sugar and tobacco underlay the prosperity of Glasgow after Scotland was allowed to participate in the colonial trade by the Act of Union (1707).
Products included in a Slave traders' cargo were finery, household, utensils, clothes of all kinds of metals, guns, handcuffs, etc. The manufacturing of these products provided employment and profit to the British and stimulated Capitalism. As acknowledged by contemporary writers, the profits from the Liverpool slave trade were invested in Manchester's Cotton Industry. Mass-produced cotton products from Manchester found a market in Africa.[5] Manchester received a double stimulus from the Cotton trade as it exported manufactured cotton products to Africa and the West Indies. Constant availability of cotton and the utilization of steam power were crucial in the emergence of the Cotton Industries. Before the emergence of cotton plantations in the US South, long-staple cotton export from British West indies Rose from 3.3 million pounds annually in 1761 - 65 to 16 million annually in 1801- 05. (Blackburn)
Sugar refining and Rum distillation industries developed quickly as Colonies were not allowed to refine sugar, as a policy measure. Every slave trader carried Rum liquor in his cargo, and it was used to bargain with African chiefs. The metallurgical products such as fetters chains and padlocks, iron chains, anchors, wrought irons, and nails were needed to tie Africans on slave ships and prevent mutiny and suicide. Birmingham guns were exchanged for Negro slaves. There prevailed a general opinion among the people of Liverpool, Bristol, and Birmingham that the abolition of Slavery would render most of them unemployed.
The profits accumulated were invested in banking, insurance, shipping and contributed to industrial development. Some well-known banks and their founders were linked to the 'African trade,' notably Barclay's in London. The capital accumulated from the West Indian trade helped finance James Watt's steam engine through the William deacons Bank. Antony Bacon, an ironmonger in the eighteenth century, was connected to the triangular trade. Several insurance companies insured slaves and slave ships and tried differentiating between "natural death" and 'perils of the sea."
The profits from the triangular trade fertilized the entire productive system of England. For example, the slate industry in Wales and the Railway project were all connected to people who owned profitable sugar plantations. However, Eric Williams also cautions that one must not infer that the triangular trade was solely responsible for the industrial revolution. As the internal market and industries grew, profit increased and was poured into the system as fresh investments for new industries. However, mercantilism had initially provided a push to industrialization.
By 1783 the English industries were being tied down due to mercantilism. Adam Smith criticized the system of Monopoly because it restricted productive power in England and colonies. The British Industries had grown not because of Monopoly but despite it as high mercantilist prices only met the needs of merchants, not the general populace. British capital had been forced out from trade with neighboring countries to trade with more distant countries. Money that could have been used to improve lands and increase manufacturing was used for trading with colonies and waste in wars. In the new age after American Independence, there was no longer a place for mercantilism.
British Capitalism grew manifold, especially cotton and iron industries, and this changed the political and economic reality making Monopoly irrelevant. The ironmaster and the Cotton spinner were capitalists represented early in the reformed Parliament. While the British exports to the World were increasing, the share of exports to the British West Indies decreased. In 1821, British exports amounted to 43 million pounds, and by 1832 it amounted to 65 million pounds—most of the exports when to Europe, the East Indies, and China. In 1821 the British West indies took 1/9th of the total export, and in 1832, only 1/17th. Thus, the British West Indies was no longer crucial to British Capitalism. The Manchester cotton products found a profitable market in Brazil and United States, and Monopoly in the West Indies was useless. After 1750 the British West Indian colonies were perceived to be a failure. The British West Indies in 1832 was economically an anachronism, which was unsustainable.
By now, agitation for the reform bill was much more apparent in the industrial areas. There was a growing realization in the Rotten Burroughs that the fruit of the labor of the slaves was converted into the means of employing the working class into inhuman conditions. When the Reform bill was rejected In the House of Lords, protests erupted. England was on the verge of a Revolution. This forced the Parliament to approve the Reform bill. Thus, the new economic reality was corroborated by the political structure that had emerged. In the new Parliament, the needs and aspirations of capitalists were chief, and colonies had lost their centrality. Monopoly was abolished, and Laissez-Faire has the final word. 'The new industrial order had outgrown and abolished its old mercantilist suit.'
In a comprehensive study through statistics, Roger Anstey refuted the claims of the 'William's theses', but he had assumed that Williams was arguing that the Atlantic system only had led to the Industrial Revolution.
Scholars like Charles Kindleberger (neoclassical economic historian), Paul Bairoch (neo-Physiocrat), and Robert Brenner (Marxist) have contended that colonies had no decisive role in Britain's industrialization. Bairoch argued that the 'agricultural revolution' had aided economic growth because increased productivity enabled people to live in towns and demand for producer and consumer goods, which gave a strong home market required for an early industrial advance. Those colonial markets made a very modest contribution to capital formation. Christopher Hill argued that an expanded urban population provided the labor needed in industries. Thus, a common ground Is seen between the Physiocrats and Marxists. Karl Marx himself had invoked the role of the agricultural revolution. Brenner argued that the change in social relations in Europe had enabled capitalist development, and the initial fixed capital demands by the industry were so low that colonies hardly contributed. Immanuel Wallerstein's 'world systems' theory provided a different approach to capitalist development.
Robin Blackburn says there are three ways colonies would have helped British industrialization, first, by providing markets, second, by generating profits to underwrite the capital stock, third, by supplying raw materials to industries. According to Blackburn, the sugar colonies sustained the purchasing power of the entire North American economy. Colonial demand helped overcome the stagnation in European markets as colonies imported all kinds of manufactured products, especially those that underwent a technical transition. There was a shift in demand from primary to manufactured products, like cotton textiles and metals like wrought iron.
Paul Bairoch, though generally critical of the colonial contribution and arguing that colonial exports made a small part of the contribution of gross capital formation, conceded the role of the same in iron exports. Exports to the plantation economies increased from 43% in 1784 to 59% by1806. Britain's' trade with north America suffered in 1776 and 1812, but the west indies remained lucrative. However, the naval supremacy of England ensured dominance in markets abroad. The evidence suggests that specific key industries grew faster. Else, the growth would have been slower in their absence. The complementary relationship, meaning a high demand for British manufactured products in colonies and plantation products in Britain, further aided the accumulation process. By 1784 Britain broke the restraints of a closed economy by tapping into the Atlantic zone and industrializing.
A virtuous cycle of accumulation through agricultural profits would have ensued even in the absence of colonies, argues Bairoch. Blackburn counters that such scholars ignore that large-scale infrastructural investments were required, for example, in canals and roads, and it was not fixed capital, but working capital demands (such as wages and raw materials) that had to be met and plantation profits made a significant contribution here. Since many plantation owners were absentee, profits accrued were largely remitted to Britain after an adjustment for 'island expenses.'
Stanley Engerman wrote, in 1775 the contribution of profits of the slave trade from the West Indian plantations was below 5% of British income in the early years of the revolution. Blackburn says that this would have added up to a significant amount over a sustained period. Furthermore, at least 30 to 50% of triangular trade profits were reinvested, resulting in gross capital formation. If the reinvestment rate was at 30%, triangle trade profits could have supplied 20.9 percent of Britain's gross fixed capital formation. However, if 50% of essential profits were invested, the proportion would rise to 28.7 %. This would mean somewhere between pounds 2.2 million and pound 1.4 million of triangular trade profits were reinvested in monetary terms.
A web of credit can be traced among the slave traders and the Cotton manufacturers as they were highly interconnected and against the abolition of Slavery in the later years. Stanley Engerman argued that profits from the slave trade depended on various socio-economic forces. Robin Blackburn counters that the British slave commercial Empire was more extensive than Spain and Portugal and far better integrated, which meant that colonial profits returned into the Metropolis more reliably.
Jan de Vries has argued that an Industrious Revolution accompanied the industrial revolution driven by a widespread appetite for a more varied and cost-effective basket of consumption goods. Malthus also argued that consumerism was encouraged by exotic products. Plantation products were an exotic luxury and' incentive good,' Because the slave populations produced them, they could be supplied on a larger scale. Energizing products like Sugar and exotic beverages such as tea, coffee, chocolate became compensation to the new bourgeoisie and proletariat, especially for those needing extra calories for the manual work. These beverages were boiled and sweetened in water, giving them a health advantage. Sugar entered the confectioneries and pastries and became a part of the urban diet; it became the only luxury yet had reasonable prices and was allowed in the family budget. Laborers, men, women, and children were drawn to industrial labor.
Thus, Blackburn shows that the pace of capitalist industrialization in Britain was advanced by the success of extended primitive accumulation and exploitation of slaves in America. "Exchanges with the slave plantations helped British capitalism to make a breakthrough to industrialism and global hegemony ahead of its rivals." However, Blackburn does not entirely embrace the extreme position that Britain would be unable to industrialize without Slavery.
Barbara Solow identifies a slave sugar complex that can be traced back to Italian times. After being brutally replicated in the new World, this system was a bridge between the old and the new World. Solow agrees with Williams that slave labor was a logical answer to the problem of exploiting an underpopulated region. A flow of factors and commodities, such as European investments, exchange of manufactured products for raw materials, became particularly crucial for 18th century Britain, which exploited the opportunities offered by the plantation system. She counters the claims made by Thomas and Engerman that the colonies were a negative expense to the metropole. However, both Solow and Richardson agree that the domestic demand was high and caused industrialization. Williams's contention that profits of the slave trade were directly invested does not hold up although the society was made more prosperous.
Joseph Inkori says that combining slave labor and new world land and exploiting the land helped Britain escape the fate of the Mediterranean economies of the 17th century. A large and diversified market was opened to England, and the mercantilist policies advanced their growth, unlike the Iberian countries.
David Eltis says that several scholars show the strategic nature of the sugar economies. For example, they demanded ironworks and cotton textiles crucial to Britain's growth. Overseas markets covered the slump in domestic markets. When a trade is in dispute, its magnitude is exaggerated. As it happened with the slave trade, most of the profits made by sugar plantations maintained the slave trade and defended the west indies. While slave labor was economical, it was expensive. It is the immorality of Slavery that has made scholars focus on the contribution of sugar economies to Slavery, but the direct input of Slavery to any economy was meager. This is exemplified in the case of Portugal, which transported more Africans across the Atlantic and where slave trade was crucial to the economy, yet industrialization failed to emerge. Causal links between Slavery and industrialization must not lead to generalization as there is further need for a detailed investigation. The only reason Sugar has attracted attention as strategic is that it used slaves. It is not always clear-cut that the sugar profits were invested in industrialization. Thus Eltis concludes that the industrial revolution would have occurred even in the absence of Slavery. plantations were an offshoot of capitalism, not vice versa.
To sum up, the debate regarding Slavery and its contribution is dynamic. Scholars such as Adam Smith and Karl Marx talked about 'primitive accumulation,' but now the debate swings more in favour of what Blackburn calls 'extended primitive accumulation.' The arguments made by Eric Williams have been relevant in highlighting the brutal nature of capitalist growth through Slavery. For eric Williams, the links between triangular trade and industrialization were economic, ideological political-cultural. Other scholars have done a detailed investigation of Slavery, and their works have been significant in understanding the exact contribution that Slavery made. However, the lack of consensus among scholars reflects further avenues of research.
Notes
[1]in a colony where land is plenty and cheap, there is no supply of labor, and the peasant has the will to work only on his own land, the labor has to be forced. The negro labor, was cheapest and the best, thus was exploited in colonies. [2]Colonies were controlled by brute force in the era of absolutism and mercantilism, and certain vested interests could lead to lack of primitive accumulation, as in the case of Spain, which looted south America, yet failed to emerge as an industrial nation. [3]The act of union 1707 (which combined the parliaments of Scotland and Britain) was mainly a response to Scotland trying to establish its independent African company. [4]The Governors of Barbados had repeatedly requested the English government to retain free trade However such subversive ideas who are not received kindly in England. The chief constituents enumerated in the navigation laws were slaves and sugar hundred years later the same conflict between monopoly and laissez faire were repeated, only this time the British were all for free trade while the plant is insisted on the continuance of monopoly. [5]after the Indian handicraft cotton Industries had been destroyed through prohibitive duties and could no longer meet the African demand.