Many historians have studied transatlantic enslavement and offered their views on what the main factor was that eventually led to its demise. How the opinion has changed over the decades is interesting and says a lot about the times they were written and by who.

​

 

Thomas Clarkson - The British sense of justice ended enslavement.

 

Early accounts of the abolition of the slave trade paid overwhelming attention to the white British abolitionists, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce.

Yes, the person so connected to campaigning for the end of enslavement was one of its first historians. In his book, History of the Rise, Progress, and accomplishment of the abolition of the African Slave Trade by the British Parliament (1808) Clarkson states it was a battle of good versus evil. After this. The narrative where Britain was suddenly an anti-slavery nation was the accepted view. It pointed to the use of the Royal Navy to patrol the Atlantic looking for slaving ships. It pointed to the saintly William Wilberforce and allowed a patriotic view of Britain to endure.

Clarkson states exceedingly early on that this was, ‘one of the greatest crimes and sufferings, ever recorded in the annals of mankind.’ In the years afterwards, in the rush to patriotically congratulate itself Britain seems to, at that time, put away its role in committing that crime and congratulated itself on its ignominious ending.

Clarkson does talk about the rise of the trade, its wholesale kidnappings, the middle passage, and the horrors inflicted upon the enslaved. As a history of abolitionism, it misses the point that the institutions that were never comfortable with enslavement were fundamental in its inception and growth. Elizabeth the First is cautious of it. The Catholic church in Spain sees its evils. Yet it is allowed to continue. Clarkson did not want to lay blame on these institutions and as such, lays praise on only the abolition.

While he concentrates on the abolitionist movement, there is no mention of Equiano, Cugano and others who, once freed from enslavement, campaigned against it, raising awareness, and stoking the fires of the abolitionist movement.

There is no discussion of the role of resistance within slave communities, and so there is no role for the enslaved other than victim. There is lots of pity for the enslaved. However, this is never translated into looking beyond the actions of white British people.

This is an incredible resource for the scholar and the teacher, although it missed the opportunity to scan the whole of this history and in doing so played into a nationalist, congratulatory narrative that lasted for many years.

​

 

CLR James - It was resistance to enslavement that brought freedom and spread the fire of enslavement’s downfall.

​

In 1938 CLR James published a seminal work that for the first time in the historiography of transatlantic enslavement put the enslaved at the centre of the narrative and focused on their resistance and agency.

In this passionate work, he dismissed previous histories as written by those who are, ‘ashamed of the behaviour of their ancestors.’

James outlines his focus of Black Jacobins with these strong words, ‘Men make their own history, and the black Jacobins of San Domingo were to make history which would alter the fate of millions of men and shift the economic currents of three continents.’ He is not only highlighting resistance of the enslaved, but in the Haitian revolution had a tangible impact on the whole economy and its demise.

On abolition James pulls no punches: ‘A venal race of scholars, profiteering, panders to national vanity, have conspired to obscure the truth about abolition.’

James dispatches the importance and the sincerity of the British abolitionist movement. He points to the fact that half of the captured people were sold to the French, who made them work in Haiti, therefore benefiting the economy of Britain's enemy at this time. ‘Britain was cutting its own throat.’ In attempting to halt the progress of France in the slave trade Prime Minister William Pitt used William Wilberforce to pass the bill under a humanitarianism guise.

The birth of free trade and the end of mercantilism was a decisive blow to the slave economy of the West Indies, according to James. (Mercantilism is a trade system where a colonising country imports cheaply from colonised countries and colonised countries must import high priced goods from the coloniser.) Free trade meant that Britain could shop elsewhere, lessening the importance of the West Indies to the empire.

James focuses in reverential terms on the heroes of the Haitian revolution. In doing this their rebellion and, in the case of Haiti, their successes are centre stage. This allows the power of resistance and rebellion to be recognised for this first time. And this compelling argument continues into the analysis of the successful rebellion and formation of a free society in Haiti. James states that this was a major contributing factor to the eventual demise of enslavement.

James explains the example set by the Haitians ignited moves for independence in Latin America and was an example for African countries’ independence he saw emerging when he wrote Black Jacobins in 1938 and when he added to it in later years.

​

 

Eric Williams – Enslavement only ended because it was not profitable anymore.

 

Eric Williams was a historian who became Trinidad’s first Prime Minister. In 1944 Capitalism and Slavery made several controversial points at the time that historians still debate today.

 

• Enslavement came before racism, not the other way round.

• He rejected that the abolition was just down to people like Wilberforce.

• The British Empire was built on profit from enslavement.

• Enslavement’s demise was down to economic factors not goodwill.

It is this last point we will look at in more detail. Williams believed that enslavement had built a system that once it had enough money in it did not need enslavement anymore. That once industrialisation had taken off, Britain turned its attention to manufacturing and to exporting goods and for this it turned its attention away from the West Indies and sugar and towards other parts of the empire and parts of the world it could trade in cotton goods, iron goods etc.

While sugar was still important to Britain, it began to look further afield for its sweet fix. It looked to the East Indies and to Cuba to buy sugar at a cheaper rate. Therefore, the West Indies and their plantations worked by the enslaved became less important as they lost their monopoly. It was within this window that abolition could grow.

 

Williams believed the role of abolitionists had been grossly exaggerated. ‘The British abolitionists were a brilliant band.’ writes Williams. However, he points out that while some slave produced goods like sugar were boycotted, it was impossible to not use anything not produced by the enslaved or the profits of their enslavement. He makes the case that abolitionism in the UK was a small part of a whole economy and empire that had been born and profited immensely from enslavement.

Williams also made another controversial point - Transatlantic enslavement came before racism, not the other way round. The idea that enslavement was primarily an economic thing was surprising. He stated that racist ideas came afterwards to justify the profiteering from enslavement. He states that as the first people forced to work on plantations were the Indigenous people in the Americas and then indentured white people, its origins were not racial. However, when the demand grew, and the available labour decreased Africans were then used instead.

 

'Here, then, is the origin of Negro slavery. The reason was economic, not racial. It had to do not with the colour of the labourer, but the cheapness of the labourer.' Eric Williams. 

 

James and Williams’ work is resurgent as they place in the narrative the role of the West Indies, and the role of enslaved people themselves taking control of their own destiny and having a significant role in the demise of the slave trade. Due to events in 2020 with the murder of George Floyd, BLM, Colston statue protests, countries in the West Indies cutting ties with the British monarchy, theses historians have taken on a new relevance, as shown by the popularity of the reprint of Capitalism and Slavery and works on Toussaint L’Overture being popular reads.

​

 

Seymour Drescher - You can’t leave out the abolitionist movement.

 

Seymour Drescher, an American historian, brings back the role of the abolitionists. He directly takes on James and Williams in the opening of Econocide published in 1977. Drescher does not accept James’ argument that the abolition movement was, ‘merely a humanitarian clock covering economic interests of diabolically Machiavellian cleverness.’[1]

He then takes aim at Williams' theory that enslavement ended solely because of economic decline. To focus on just the economics neglected the humanitarian factors involved.[2]

 

 

David Olusoga

​

British historian, David Olusoga in The World's War reframed the telling of World War One history through the lens of Empire soldiers. He also served as a witness for the defence in the trial of those responsible for the toppling of the statue of Bristol slave trader, Edward Colston.

David Olusoga has become one of the foremost popular historians championing Black British history. The acclaimed Black and British BBC series with accompanying book published in 2016 and young person’s version, published in 2020 has become a standard in the field.

In Black and British, Olusoga retells British history with the inclusion of Black people while including the historiography on the abolition of the slave trade. (while being accessible for a popular audience)

It is with this mandate that he can take a synthesis view of the history of abolition. In doing so all sides of abolition are considered, their importance, negligible effects covered.

He upholds the economic argument proposed by Eric Williams but denies that West Indian enslavement was a spent force by the time the abolition movement was in its ascendancy. While over planting had made the West Indies less profitable, this did not stop new plantations from opening. Olusoga quotes Dresher, ‘In terms of both capital value and of overseas trade, the slave system was expanding, not declining, at the turn of the nineteenth century.’[3]

Olusoga attributes slave rebellion as having a larger role in the abolition of the trade than had been acknowledged, so supports CLR James’ arguments.

However, Olusoga says even the weight of rebellion and economic downturn could not be enough to turn a country’s attitudes in such a concentrated space of time. And for this the part played by abolitionists acting in Britain is acknowledged.[4]

It is within this space that the contributions of Olaudah Equiano, Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, William Wilberforce are recognised. However, their work could only triumph over the general public’s opinion, which it did, rather than overturn regimes as L’Overture did, free enslaved people, as they often did themselves or quietly offer passive but direct resistance.

It is also here that incidents such as the Zong massacre in October 1781, where 133 enslaved people were thrown overboard to their deaths by an inept crew worried that they would run out of water before making land. This shocking case of mass murder became known as the owners sued their insurance company for compensation for loss of profits. Olaudah Equiano brought this case into the light of day, with the help of Clarkson and the sickening nature of this case, highlighted to many how diabolical this trade was to an abolition movement that was a disparate group of campaigners.

 

[1] Drescher, S., 2010. Econocide. University of North Carolina Press. Pg 3

[2] Drescher, S., 2010. Econocide. University of North Carolina Press. Pg 5

[3] Olusoga, D., 2022. Black and British: A Forgotten History. Pan Macmillan. Pg 202 quoting from Hoare’s memoirs of Granville Sharp.

[4] Olusoga, D., 2022. Black and British: A Forgotten History. Pan Macmillan. P 203