Daily RC Article 60

British Slavery

Paragraph 1

Two impressive studies have reexamined Eric Williams’ conclusion that Britain’s abolition of the slave trade in 1807 and its emancipation of slaves in its colonies in 1834 were driven primarily by economic rather than humanitarian motives. Blighted by depleted soil, indebtedness, and the inefficiency of coerced labor, these colonies, according to Williams, had by 1807 become an impediment to British economic progress.

Paragraph 2

Seymour Drescher provides a more balanced view. Rejecting interpretations based either on economic interest or the moral vision of abolitionists, Drescher has reconstructed the populist characteristics of British abolitionism, which appears to have cut across lines of class, party, and religion. Noting that between 1780 and 1830 antislavery petitions outnumbered those on any other issue, including parliamentary reform, Drescher concludes that such support cannot be explained by economic interest alone, especially when much of it came from the unenfranchised masses. Yet, aside from demonstrating that such support must have resulted at least in part from widespread literacy and a tradition of political activism, Drescher does not finally explain how England, a nation deeply divided by class struggles, could mobilize popular support for antislavery measures proposed by otherwise conservative politicians in the House of Lords and approved there with little dissent.

Paragraph 3

David Eltis’ answer to that question actually supports some of Williams’ insights. Eschewing Drescher’s idealization of British traditions of liberty, Eltis points to continuing use of low wages and Draconian vagrancy laws in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to ensure the industriousness of British workers. Indeed, certain notables even called for the enslavement of unemployed laborers who roamed the British countryside—an acceptance of coerced labor that Eltis attributes to a preindustrial desire to keep labor costs low and exports competitive. By the late eighteenth century, however, a growing home market began to alert capitalists to the importance of “want creation” and to incentives such as higher wages as a means of increasing both worker productivity and the number of consumers. Significantly, it was products grown by slaves, such as sugar, coffee, and tobacco, that stimulated new wants at all levels of British society and were the forerunners of products intended in modern capitalist societies to satisfy what Eltis describes as “nonsubsistence or psychological needs.” Eltis concludes that in an economy that had begun to rely on voluntary labor to satisfy such needs, forced labor necessarily began to appear both inappropriate and counterproductive to employers. Eltis thus concludes that, while Williams may well have underestimated the economic viability of the British colonies employing forced labor in the early 1800s, his insight into the economic motives for abolition was partly accurate. British leaders became committed to colonial labor reform only when they became convinced, for reasons other than those cited by Williams, that free labor was more beneficial to the imperial economy.

Topic and Scope:

Eric Williams’ conclusion about why the British abolished slavery; specifically, two competing views of Williams’ conclusion about why the British abolished slavery.

Purpose and Main Idea:

The author’s purpose is to describe two competing views of Williams’ conclusion about why the British abolished slavery; his specific main idea is that Williams’ conclusion is partly accurate, despite the fact that both Seymour Drescher and David Eltis take issue with it.

Paragraph Structure:

Paragraph 1 provides Williams’ view, which is that the British abolished slavery primarily for economic reasons. Paragraph 2 provides Drescher’s dissenting view, which emphasizes British populism as the primary cause for the demise of British slavery.

Finally, paragraph provides Eltis’ view, which also emphasizes economics as the primary cause behind the end of British slavery. However, while Williams emphasizes the economic decline of Britain’s colonies as the principal motivation for doing away with slavery, Eltis emphasizes the newfound importance of free labor as the principal motivation for getting rid of slavery.

The Big Picture:

  • Compare/contrast passages are generally organized according to the following formula: Each paragraph is usually devoted to a different entity, point of view, or theory. In this case, each of the three paragraphs describes a different view of the demise of British slavery. As you work through the questions in compare/contrast passages, use paragraph structure to help you quickly relocate relevant details.
  • Whenever the author describes different points of view, take care to note whether he or she favors or rejects any of them. In this case, the author is openly critical of Drescher’s interpretation

CAT Verbal Online Course

CAT Online Course @ INR 9999 only
Bodhee Prep's YouTube channel
CAT Prep Whatsapp Group
CAT Prep Telegram Group