Download Extended Essay - History - ibhistorylevel2hongkong

Extended Essay - History
Word Count: 4,000
Research Question:
The economic effects of the abolition of slavery in the
British Empire.
Extended Essay – sample 3
1/23
Contents
Abstract …………………………………………… Page 2
Introduction ……………………………………….. Page 4
Chapter 1 ………………………………………….. Page 6
The Abolition of Slavery
Chapter 2 ………………………………………….. Page 9
The Cotton Industry
Chapter 3 …………………………………………. Page 11
The Sugar Industry
Conclusion ………………………………………... Page 14
Bibliography ……………………………………… Page 15
Appendix …………………………………………. Page 17
Extended Essay – sample 3
2/23
Abstract
Word Count: 258
The abolition of slavery in the British Empire in1833 was a turning point in history. By
examining the economic effects the repercussions are shown to be both immediate and
long term. The British Empire was the first world power to enforce abolition but had also
been its most vocal opponent. The expected repercussions of abolition on the cotton and
sugar industries of Britain prevented the Act from being passed for nearly forty-two
years. These arguments against abolition were primarily economic, while the arguments
for it were humanitarian.
This essay uses both primary and secondary sources to explore whether the fears of the
anti-abolitionists were well founded. Different historians have varying opinions as to how
important abolition was in the decline of the British cotton and sugar industries. The
primary sources suggest that the impact was immediate, while the historians view the
decline as being gradual, with the decline of the sugar industry beginning before abolition
was first voiced by William Wilberforce.
In conclusion this essay illustrates the point that there were other factors besides abolition
which had a greater impact on the decline. Abolition did have a long term impact on the
decline of the sugar and cotton industries. However, other factors had a more immediate
impact. The fears of the anti-abolitionists were unfounded with regards to cotton, while
abolition did accelerate the decline of the sugar industry, specifically in the West Indies.
The economic effect of abolition was far reaching, changing the balance of power around
the world. Within the Empire the economic repercussions altered its foundations.
Extended Essay – sample 3
3/23
Introduction:
The year 2007 saw the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. The film,
Amazing Grace1, retelling the story of William Wilberforce’s involvement was released
to celebrate the occasion. The economic effects of abolition were far reaching after
slavery within the British Empire was abolished in 1833. Cotton and sugar were two
industries that were founded and expanded on the backbone of slavery. Their most
influential members were those who made the greatest profit and opposed abolition on
economic grounds. The working classes, who were the backbone of the processing part of
the industries, were for abolition despite the hardship they would suffer as a result. The
physical and mental cost to the abolitionists in their fight for equal rights and what
occurred afterwards is often forgotten. For this reason the economic effects of the
abolition of slavery is an intriguing topic, as the economic fallout was the main argument
for maintaining slavery.
The merchants and politicians argued the towns and people they represented would suffer
great hardship if slavery were abolished. The triangle of trade had been operating since
the 17th century. Ships left Britain loaded with goods and sailed to Africa, where they
would sell the goods and buy slaves which they would then transport to the West Indies
or the Americas. After selling the slaves they would buy raw materials, mainly cotton or
sugar, and return to Britain for processing. The finished goods would then be exported to
Africa. Manufacturing towns and ports grew rich off this trade as Britain dominated the
triangle. Lancashire and its towns, such as Manchester and Liverpool, made their profits
from cotton. Birmingham, Bristol and York made theirs from sugar. The great wealth
from trade made it possible for Britain to become the leader of the western world,
founding an empire and starting the industrial revolution.
Wilberforce, the public head of abolition, was the son of a merchant. A member of the
Clapham sect, he was against slavery on religious grounds. Wilberforce gave his health
and political life to the cause of abolition, dying a month before the Act for the Abolition
1
Amazing Grace, 2007, Bristol Bay Productions with Ingenious Film Partners
Extended Essay – sample 3
4/23
of Slavery in the British Empire passed through the House of Lords. The British
economy was so tightly bound up in slavery that there were fears of total economic
collapse if slavery were to be abolished. For this reason it took 52 years, from 1781 to
1833, for the British to take action. The abolitionists attacked slavery through three key
initiatives: sugar consumption, by appealing to the people’s conscience through the life
story of Olaudah Equiano and a minor governmental act that the opposition did not see
coming; costing the slave traders a small fortune that after a two year period made the
expense of slavery outweigh its economic value.
The cause of abolition tugged at the heartstrings of millions, quickly becoming a popular
cause for many across the social divide. Putting aside the emotional impact, it is
important to examine whether the economic effects were as far reaching as predicted by
the anti-abolitionists.
Extended Essay – sample 3
5/23
Chapter 1:
“When we think of eternity and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is
there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the
principals of justice, the laws of religion, and of God?”
Wilberforce, 12 May 17892
A force to be reckoned with, the leading abolitionists took their cause wherever they
went. They were motivated by their consciences and Wilberforce, their voice in
Parliament. Between Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson the abolitionists mobilised a
national movement. They fuelled the flames of public opinion with Clarkson’s writings
and Wilberforce’s speeches. As Shillington so aptly puts it “it was partly their eloquence
that persuaded many Britons”3 of a slave’s right to freedom and dignity. While outside
Parliament, there was strong public support for abolition; inside the greatest support came
from William Pitt the Younger4, Charles Fox, William Fox and Lord Grenville5. In 1789
Equiano published his autobiography, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah
Equiano6. In 1791 William Fox released a pamphlet titled Address to the People of Great
Britain, on the Property of Abstaining from West Indian Sugar and Rum. It called for a
boycott of sugar produced on slave-worked plantation.7 The pamphlet’s success was such
that, in Norfolk, sugar was “positively banished from the most polite and fashionable teatables”8. The first Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was introduced in April 1791
by Wilberforce, and defeated. It was also defeated in 1792 and 1793.
2
William Wilberforce, 12 May 1789, Let Us Make Reparation to Africa, Ian Pindar, 2007, The Folio Book
of Historic Speeches, The Folio Society, London, p87-91
3
Shillington, K, op. cit. p26
4
Prime Minister from 1783–1801 and 1804–1806
5
in the House of Lords
6
See Appendix, p20
7
Slavery and Abolition: The Norfolk Connections, BBC, 2007,
www.bbc.co.uk/norflok/articles/2007/02/27/abolition_norflok_overview_20070227_feature.shtml
8
quoted from an unspecified Birmingham newspaper by the BBC
Extended Essay – sample 3
6/23
In the words of a British slaver trader in 1754, the slave trade “proceeded benefits, far
outweighing all, either real or pretended mischief and inconveniences”.9 The triangle of
trade was profitable at every stage, with the ‘middle passage’, from the African coast to
the colonies, where the price of Britain’s prosperity was shown. “Over a period of 300
years…a minimum of ten million Africans were sold into slavery”.10 Slavers packed their
ships tight with slaves11, knowing that up to half could be lost on the journey due to
illness. This rising death toll was what the abolitionists were trying to end.
War with France made abolition a taboo topic. It was seen as treason to speak out against
the orders of the Crown. Not until the turn of the century was it safe to broach the subject
of abolition again. In 1804 the Act passed through the House of Commons but not the
House of Lords. In 1806, upon the advice of James Stephen, they introduced and
successfully passed a bill12 which prohibited British subjects from aiding or participating
in the slave trade to the French colonies. In the Caribbean the fallout from this was
immense, with Briton being the main, often only, slave trader in the region. The Act for
the Abolition of the Slave Trade was made official on the 25th March 1807. “As the
British navy tried to enforce the ban the price paid for slaves rose”13 making the now
illegal trade more profitable than ever.
In December 1831 the attempted Jamaican revolt pushed the Act for the Abolition of
Slavery through Parliament. Emancipation was summarized as slavery being left “to
decay – slowly, silently, almost imperceptibly to die away and to be forgotten”.14 In 1833
the Act was passed. All slaves within the British Empire were officially granted their
freedom in 1835. Emancipation, however, occurred in 1838, despite the period of
apprenticeship, in which slaves remained working for their former owners for a period of
time to ease the transition.
9
Williams, Eric, 1970, From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean 1492-1969, André
Deutsch, p155
10
Shillington, Kevin, March 2007, British Made Abolition and the Africa Trade, History Today, Vol. 57 no
3, History Today LTD, p25
11
See Appendix
12
know as The Foreign Slave Trade Act
13
Shillington, K. op. cit. p27
14
Mr Buxton, the abolitionist replacement of Wilberforce in parliament, Williams, E. op. cit. p154
Extended Essay – sample 3
7/23
According to historian Richard Beck “the slave trade is a morality play with the British
cast as evil knaves. Profits from the bloody trade secured the imperial hegemony of
Georgian England. It was only brought to an end in 1807 because of the move from a
colonial sugar trade to industrial capitalism.”15. Economics and morality were the two
opposing forces of abolition.
Anti-abolitionists were men of power, Britain’s nobility and merchant class. They argued
that the abolition of slavery would be detrimental to the prosperity of industrial towns.
Liverpool had argued “that it would collapse without the open trade in enslaved
Africans”16. Cotton merchants, like Edward Colston, saw the complete ruin of the British
cotton industry if abolition was successful. The same applied to the sugar industry.
Arguments for slavery according to the anti-abolitionists are summarized as follows: the
Africans were an inferior form of human to the British, slavery made Britain prosperous,
and if slavery ended everything the British public enjoyed from slavery, such as cotton
cloth and chocolate, would cost more than ever before. As anti-abolitionist Chamber
stated, abolition “would be inevitably followed by the ruin of colonial commerce”17.
Port cities, Liverpool and Bristol, were dependent upon the triangle of trade to survive. In
1806 the anti-abolitionist merchants and manufacturers of Manchester signed a petition18
that was submitted to the House of Lords. It stated that all the undersigned and their
workforce were for the continuation of the slave trade on the grounds that they would be
ruined if abolition was passed. Sir Robert Peel saw the Foreign Slave Trade Abolition
Bill as a threat to the cotton industry and, specifically, Manchester. He raised the petition
so the risk to the merchants and their foreign trade and the local manufacturers was
clearly expressed to Parliament. On the 14th May 1806, the working-classes of
15
Hunt, Tristram, 23rd March 2006, Abolition of the Slave Trade: Easy on the Euphoria, The Guardian,
Britain
16
Shillington, K. op. cit, p29
17
Williams, E, op. cit. p154
18
Petition from Manufacturers and Merchants of Manchester against the Foreign Slave Trade Abolition
Bill, 1806
Extended Essay – sample 3
8/23
Manchester submitted a petition19 on the encouragement of Clarkson, in support of the
Act of Abolition in response to the manufacturers’ and merchants’ petition. When the
abolitionists managed to pass the Foreign Slave Trade Act in May 1806, prohibiting
British subjects from transporting slaves to the territories of a foreign nation, the antiabolitionist argument lost a good deal of credibility. Prices of cotton and sugar did not
skyrocket and the prosperous towns managed to survive and grow.
Historian Selwyn Carrington argues that the British slave-based planter class in the West
Indies were in decline from the 1770s onwards and ultimately fell victim to an emergent
British industrial capitalism that identified with the principles of free labour and free
trade.20 Pointing out the flaws in the anti-abolitionists’ argument, Carrington attributes
the problems within the industries, unrelated to slavery, being due to the lack of
plantation owners. If Carrington’s analysis is correct, there should have been greater
support from the merchants and manufacturers for abolition but slavery underpinned
everything within British society and therefore the interests of the anti-abolitionists. They
only accepted the Abolition Bill when they were unable to transport their goods without
great difficulty. In the 18th, 19th and early 20th century cotton was king, as was the British
textile industry. Abolition’s effect on the cotton industry was not what the antiabolitionist had argued it would be. Instead time and external, unforeseen events took
their toll.
19
Petition from the inhabitants of Manchester in support of the Foreign Slave Trade Abolition Bill, 1806.
See appendix, p18
20
Richardson , David at the University of Hull, September 2003, The Sugar Industry and the Abolition of
the Slave Trade, 1775-1810, Book Review, EH.NET
Extended Essay – sample 3
9/23
Chapter 2:
“…Not a pound of black flesh shall I leave to my heirs,
Nor must you any more work to death little whites.
Both forced to submit to that general controller
Of King, Lords, and cotton-mills…”
Epistle of Condolence from a Slave-Lord to a Cotton-Lord21
The initial fear of economic collapse leading to the opposition of abolition by cotton
merchants and manufacturers, was laid to rest when the industry continued to grow,
despite the loss of slave labour. Developed in North West England, the industry was
slowly growing in accordance with the industrial revolution. The increased productivity
and the quality of cloth being produced, transformed Britain’s cotton industry into one of
the world’s largest. In 1802 4–5% of Britain’s national income came from the cotton
industry; by 1812 it had overtaken the sugar industry, earning 8% of the national
income.22 Cotton managed to sustain its dominance of the British economy when it
became fully mechanised with the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. While Britain
still depended on slave worked plantations in the southern American states, more
processing and manufacturing occurred within the Empire.
Cotton was introduced to Britain from India by the East India Company. It was woven
with wool and silk but as it grew in favour “the East India Company was accused of
unpatriotic profiteering”23, leading to The Calico Riots of 1721. These riots were the
British cotton industry’s first challenge. Calico24 was used as an alternative to ‘cotton’
which had become a ‘dirty word’. To resolve the situation the government imposed a ban
on the selling and wearing of pure cotton goods in order to protect the wool and silk
industries. This ban lasted until 1776 but “many ingenious ways were found to get around
21
See the Appendix for full poem, http://www.fullbooks.com/Home-Life-of-the-Lancashire-FactoryFolk2.html
22
www.outwardfamily.com/cotton_trade.htm
23
Ferguson, Niall, 2004, Empire – How Britain Made the Modern World, Penguin Books, England, page
unknown
24
nickname for pure cotton products
Extended Essay – sample 3
10/23
it”25ensuring the survival of the cotton industry. The Factory Acts of the 19th century
were an attempt by the British government to place a level of control on the industry.
First issued in 1833, it limited the manufacturers’ freedom to exploit. In 1843 the
restrictions on exportation of textile machines was lifted opening the door for
international competition, producing quality cloth at lower prices. The Factory Acts of
1842 and 1847 had the same purpose as the first in 1833. They did not prevent the trade
with the South, for in the words of Karl Marx “without slavery, no cotton; without cotton,
no modern industry.”26 The Acts were meant to ensure stability and expansion after the
industry’s loss of slave labour. The Epistle of Condolence from a Slave-Lord to a CottonLord27 acknowledges the fallout from abolition and the Acts, illustrating the long-term
impact.
The people of Lancashire “ultimately depended on slave-grown produce for their
livelihood.”28 Cotton stopped coming to Britain from the West Indies, where monoeconomies centred on sugar were fast becoming the only economy. This caused Britain to
become increasingly dependent upon Southern America. Despite Southern America’s
pro-slavery stance, government legislation and Britain’s moral high ground, 88% of
imported cotton was imported from the Southern states by 1860. “So rapid was the spread
of the cotton fields that by 1810 the American south was supplying half of England’s
annual consumption of 78 million pounds.”29
The American Civil War in 1861 was an event from which the British cotton industry did
not recover. This period is known as the Lancashire Cotton Famine. The American
Federal Navy blockaded the Southern ports, cutting off Briton’s supply of raw cotton.
Though the industry tried to find alternative cotton sources, none were of sufficient
quality. According to 1865’s London Quarterly Review, “the Cotton Famine is an event
Weightman, Gavin, 2007, The Industrial Revolutionaries – The Creation of the Modern World 17761914, Atlantic Books, London
26
A letter from Karl Marx, 1848, ibid, page unknown
27
http://www.fullbooks.com/Home-Life-of-the-Lancashire-Factory-Folk2.html
28
Shillington, K. op. cit. p29
29
Weightman, G. op. cit. page unknown
25
Extended Essay – sample 3
11/23
that has burnt itself into the history of Lancashire”30. Described as ‘the darkest days in
Lancashire’s history’31, leaving great poverty in its wake. Despite the textile industry not
being immediately affected by British abolition, American abolition caused irrevocable
damage. Within the industry, some normalcy was returned in 1865 with the end of the
war, but the consequence was the beginning decline of an industrial empire.
The problems that plagued the British cotton industry ran deeper than just the Lancashire
Cotton Famine and government legislation. It is the belief of economic historians
Henderson and Torrens32 that the cotton industry would still have suffered a depression in
the early 1860s, despite the American Civil War, due to massive overproduction33, and
excessive speculation34. The opinion of historian Crittall is that the decline of the industry
was due to a failure to modernise at the end of the 18th century. A lack of modernisation
caused a continuing drop in production and quality, earning the industry a ‘bad
reputation’35. During the 1860s, the illegal slave trade which had been operating since
1807 finally burnt itself out, ending in the 1880s and increasing pressure on the cotton
industry. During the 1870s the textile industry was dominated by super mills. These mills
were run by dynasties, lasting into the 20th century. Three of the wealthiest were the
Rhylands, Fieldans and Horrocks. The Horrocks’ cotton company exported all over the
British Empire. Their slogan was “Horrocks; the greatest name in cotton.”36 For a time
they were. After the Lancashire Cotton Famine, competition from Indian, Brazilian and
Japanese textile industries became a problem. It was cheaper to produce in Asia, the
Middle East and South America. In 1873 raw cotton was no longer Britain’s biggest
import, as it had been since 182537. This was the first obvious sign that cotton was no
longer king of the British economy. The Abolition of Slavery Act was a catalyst for the
problems that plagued the British textile industry.
30
London Quarterly Review, January, 1865
London Quarterly Review, January, 1865
32
http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0676
33
by 1830 over half Britain’s exports were cotton textiles
34
risky business ventures
35
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=16085
36
Who Do You Think You Are?, Jane Horrocks, BBC1, UK, 2006
31
37
See Appendix, p17
Extended Essay – sample 3
12/23
Chapter 3:
“The pleasure, glory and grandeur of England has been
advanced more by sugar than any other commodity”
Sir Dalby Thomas38
Sugar was a highly valued commodity to the Europeans. It was difficult to procure but as
it became easier the profits increased. For this reason slavery had the support of the sugar
industry. Britain’s main source was the West Indian colonies of Jamaica39, Barbados40,
and the colonies of India and Mauritius. The wars with Napoleon led to a blockade,
cutting off France’s cane sugar supply. This caused sugar beet to establish itself as a
market competitor. After 1815 cane sugar from the West Indies lost its hold on the world
market but survived until the turn of the century. While raw cane sugar could not survive,
the commercial sugar industry established on its foundations did.
Before 1807 and the abolition of the slave trade, cane sugar production was booming.
The West Indian colonies held a monopoly on the British market for over two hundred
years. The sugar plantations of Barbados made it “the most important jewel of the British
Crown”41 in the 18th century. The small island had, according to a census in 1683, 358
sugar plantations and they exported £350,000 worth of sugar to Britain a year.
Unfortunately for Barbados, Jamaica was producing equal amounts of sugar by 1678. The
cost of Jamaican raw cane sugar was one third less then raw cane sugar from Barbados.
Trying to compete, Barbados exhausted its soil and Jamaica became the ‘jewel’. During
this century it was observed that “planters find more profit in the production of sugar than
in that of cotton.”42 Sugar planters were “a visible and tangible symbol of the wealth that
was sugar”,43 as depicted by Sir Thomas Bertram in Mansfield Park44. The wealth of
sugar advanced the glory and grandeur of Britain, for the profit was never as great in
38
Williams, E. op. cit. p 144
Colonized from 1658
40
Colonized from 1627
41
Williams, E op. cit. p 121
42
Written by Mr. Colbert. 1664, ibid, page unknown
43
Ibid, p 119
44
Austin, Jane, 1814, Mansfield Park, Folio Society, Great Britain, 12th edition
39
Extended Essay – sample 3
13/23
cotton. To ensure that the wealth from sugar went only to them, the British designed the
English Navigation Acts of 1651 and 1660. These Acts made it illegal for the British
colonies in the West Indies to sell their goods to foreign merchants. “The Eighteenth
century was born in the glory that was sugar.”45
Sugar production became a more costly enterprise during this century. There were over
680 sugar plantations and 105,000 slaves on the island of Jamaica in 1774, with an
average of 154 slaves per plantation. While plantation size continued to grow in the West
Indian colonies, people in Britain lost interest, preferring the Americas. The land was
extremely fertile whereas the mono-crop economies of the West Indies had exhausted
large expanses of good farming land. Daniel Defoe points out in The Complete English
Tradesman of 1725 “England consumes within itself more goods of foreign growth;
imported from several countries where they are produced or wrought, than any other
nation in the world”46 This did not stop. By 1800 Britain had consumed fifteen times as
much sugar it had in 1700. Unfortunately this could not save the West Indian colonies
with their sugar-oriented economies. The blockade of France by Britain during the war
with Napoleon hurt the French economy. Without cane sugar from the West Indies, they
turned to beet sugar. The other problem was India. The country was producing raw cane
sugar at a more viable rate than the West Indian colonies. As West Indian cane sugar
began to lose its hold of the market, India filled the void. The pamphlet written by
Charles Fox on slave sugar and the resulting boycott caused Indian cane sugar to become
very popular with supporters of the abolition movement. They would either buy sugar
produced by India’s free labour or they would abstain completely.
Between 1807 and 1833 British confectionary companies such as Terry’s, Fry & Sons
and Cadbury were booming. Based in industrial towns like Bristol, these companies were
founded in the mid to late 18th and early 19th century on the back of the sugar from, at
first, the West Indies. Ironically the owners of these companies were Quakers. The
Quakers founded the Clapham Sect. Cadbury began in 1824, between abolitions, but
45
46
Williams, E, op.cit. p 121
Defoe, Daniel, 1725, The Complete English Tradesman,, Ibid, page unknown
Extended Essay – sample 3
14/23
Joseph Fry47 started making chocolate around 1759 when slave produced sugar was still
strong. While the commercial side of the British sugar industry expanded, cane sugar’s
monopoly of the world and British market could not last, and by the 1820s cotton had
overtaken sugar as Britain’s largest import. So the cotton/textile industry of Britain
boomed despite abolition and the fears of the anti-abolitionists came true for sugar,
specifically West Indian sugar. The sugar industry was dependent on slaves, who had for
the past two centuries eased the cost of production. Now they were invaluable. Mauritius,
another British colony with a mono-crop economy of sugar, increased pressure on the
British market during this period between abolitions. To compete, the West Indies were
producing sugar in excess of British consumption. This could not last.
“Slavery was essential to the preservation of the sugar plantations.”48 In Mauritius the
slaves were illegally bought and sold by the entire slave-owning community until 1820.
As demand for slaves increased, slave labour on the island was reorganised under
pressure from the sugar industry. In 1817 slaves had been brought into Mauritius from
other islands under foreign rule where the trade was still legal.
By 1807, cane sugar had begun its downward spiral. When emancipation was declared in
1833, plantation owners feared the immediate collapse of their livelihood and slaves
rebelled. To keep order and alleviate fears, the British government introduced the period
of Apprenticeships. Between 1808 and 1830 the total population of slaves in the West
Indies was reduced from roughly 800,000 to 650,000. The period of Apprenticeship
ended in1838 and precious few slaves worked afterward.
In 1847, the confectionary companies continued to grow and by 1850 the “West Indian
system was bankrupt.”49 Mauritius was now Britain’s most important sugar producing
colony – the sugar was not solely obtained by slave labour, and most of Europe’s sugar
needs were being supplied by beet sugar. While Indian sugar was still in demand within
the British market, beet sugar was threatening “the British government’s ambition…to
47
Fry & Sons founder
Williams E, op. cit. p139
49
Ibid, p282
48
Extended Essay – sample 3
15/23
become the…sugar suppliers of the whole world.”50 Three fifths of the world’s total
sugar production was beet sugar between 1894-5. It was a more profitable industry than
cane sugar. In 1852 the British government had the Navigation Acts repealed, throwing
their mercantile principles away in favour of free trade51. Any hope of retaining a
monopoly in the British market for cane sugar was dashed.
The West Indian historian Williams attributes the collapse of British cane sugar
production to, ultimately, a failure of the plantation owners to improve working
conditions and update their technology52. His argument is correct, as a failure to
modernise within the industry forced the British to embrace free trade in order to obtain
sugar at the cheapest market prices. The beet sugar industry used the latest technology to
increase their yield as cheaply as possible. Cane sugar planters were, on the other hand,
still using donkey powered mills, and relying on the hoe and strength of manual labour. It
was the price of sugar that had been the argument for slavery in the first place. Sugar had,
for a long time, been hard to acquire and expensive. Slavery reversed this, temporarily. It
was clear to the abolitionists and others that sugar’s rising prices could not be stopped by
slavery. British cane sugar production in the West Indian colonies and elsewhere failed
because it could not compete with challenges, both from other colonies and government
legislation, and pressure from world economic markets. Abolition and emancipation
caused the sugar industry to change directions but were not directly responsible for its
failure in the West Indies, as historians Williams and Ferguson both illustrate. Both
attribute the failure, partially, to a reluctance to modernise within the industry by both the
planters and the manufacturers. “The…planters justified their backwardness on the
grounds that the profits were so good that the proprietors were content.”53
50
Ibid, page unknown
See appendix for a table detailing the consequences of the policy change, p17
52
Williams, E, op. cit. page unknown
53
Ibid, p371
51
Extended Essay – sample 3
16/23
Conclusion:
The slow decline of both the sugar and cotton industries began with abolition but was not
a direct result of it. Both industries suffered a future loss of their agricultural workforce,
the increased price of retaining even a small percentage of them, and an increase in
competition on the world market. Britain’s wars with France led to sugar beet firmly
establishing itself as a market competitor. Cane sugar could not overcome the challenge
and the mono-crop economies collapsed. The greatest blow to the British cotton industry
came from the Lancashire Cotton Famine. The Industrial Revolution allowed Britain to
establish itself as a world power. Free Trade allowed Britain to prosper but it was also a
contributor to industrial decline. Competition from other nations led to both cotton and
sugar being sold to cheaper areas of the world, causing Britain to lose its position as the
wealthiest nation.
Extended Essay – sample 3
17/23
Bibliography
Film/Television





Amazing Grace, Bristol Bay Productions with Ingenious Film Partners, 2007
Who Do You Think You Are?, Jane Horrocks, BBC1, UK, 2006
Who Do You Think You Are?, Steven Fry, BBC1, UK, 2006
Who Do You Think You Are?, Colin Jackson, BBC1, UK, 2007
North and South, BBC, UK, 2004
Books














Arnold – Baker, Charles, 2001, The Companion to British History, Routledge,
London and New York, revised 2nd edition
Austin, Jane, 1814, Mansfield Park, Folio Society, Great Britain, 12th edition
Bee, Malcolm, 1984, The Industrial Revolution and Social Reform in the
Manchester Region, Neil Richardson, Manchester
Cook, C. and Stevenson, J. 1980, British Historical Facts 1760 – 1830, MacMillan
Press LTD, London
Dickinson, M. 1979 Britain, Europe and Beyond, MacMillan, Britain
Ferguson, Niall, 2004, Empire – How Britain Made the Modern World, Penguin
Books, England
Gaskell Elizabeth, 1854, North and South, Penguin Classics, England
Harris, Nathaniel, 1985, Spotlight on: The Industrial Revolution, Wayland Ltd,
UK
Harrison, Scott and Hillary, 1990, Questioning History 4: The Industrial Age,
Macmillan, Hong Kong
Perkin, Harold, 1969, The Origins of Modern English Society 1780 – 1880,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, England
Pindar, Ian., 2007, The Folio Book of Historic Speeches, The Folio Society,
London
Sylvester, Theodore L., 2000, Slavery Throughout History: Bibliographies, UXL,
United States of America
Weightman, Gavin, 2007, The Industrial Revolutionaries – The Creation of the
Modern World 1776 – 1914, Atlantic Books, London
Williams, Eric, 1970, From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean
1492 – 1969, André Deutsch, Trinidad and Tobago
Articles





The London Quarterly Review, January, 1865
Cavendish, Richard, The Sweet Smell of Success, History Today Vol 40, July
1990, History Today LTD, Britain
Herbert, Ian, 1st October 2005, After 250 years, Terry’s chocolate factory melts
away, Ian Herbert, The Independent, England
Kurtz, Harold, Europe in the Caribbean, Part Two: The Monarch of the West
Indies, History Today, May 1971, Britain
Shillington, Kevin, British Made Abolition and the Africa Trade, History Today
Vol 57 no. 3, March 2007, History Today LTD, Britain
Extended Essay – sample 3
18/23
Websites
























http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/content/articles/2007/02/27/abolition_norfolk_over
view_20070227_feature.shtml Last Accessed: 16/01/2007
http://slavetrade.parliment.uk/slavetrade/assetviews/documents/a50mancpetionfor
abolition.html;jsessionid=BBC03FF9A922A2ED7603B56BE4FA29D8 Last
Accessed: 06/12/2007
http://slavetrade.parliment.uk/slavetrade/assetviews/documents/petitionfrommanu
facturersandmerchantsofmanchesteragainsttheforeignslavetradeabolitionbill.html
Last Accessed: 05/12/2007
www.spinningtheweb.org.uk/m_display.php?irn=10&sub=overview&theme=over
view&crumb=Lancashire+Cotton+Famine Last Accessed: 11/06/2008
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/get_started/ Last Accessed:
11/06/2008
www.outwardfamily.com/cotton_trade.htm Last Accessed: 06/12/2007
http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0676 Last Accessed: 07/01/2008
http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/timeline/west.indies.html Last Accessed:
11/06/2008
http://caribbean-guide.info/past.and.present/history/abolition/ Last Accessed:
09/05/2008
http://www2.bc.edu/~richarad/asp/tmec.html Last Accessed: 02/06/2008
http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_cotton.htm Last Accessed:
11/06/2008
http://www.fullbooks.com/Home-Life-of-the-Lancashire-Factory-Folk3.html Last
Accessed: 03/06/2008
http://www.fullbooks.com/Home-Life-of-the-Lancashire-Factory-Folk2.html Last
Accessed: 03/06/2008
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/2c/lectures/06L05Slavery.ht
m Last Accessed: 11/06/2008
http://www.ffhs.org.uk/ezine/articles/mlfhs.php Last Accessed: 11/06/2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/mar/25/comment.mainsection1
Last Accessed: 05/12/2007
http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0676 Last Accessed: 11/06/2008
www.revealinghistories.org.uk/stories/museum-of-science-industry/ Last
Accessed: 19/01/2008
www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2007/03/07/240307_objects_poulter_
feature.shtml Last Accessed: 29/01/2008
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/religion/relig3.htm Last
Accessed: 14/08/2007
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-1806act.htm Last Accessed:
23/06/2008
http://www.brycchancarey.com/equiano/extract5.htm Last Accessed: 25/06/2008
http://www.brycchancarey.com/equiano/advert.htm Last Accessed: 25/06/2008
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=16085 Last Accessed:
25/06/2008
Extended Essay – sample 3
19/23
Appendix
Raw Cotton Imports
Date
1769
1788
1795
1799
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1813
1817
Amount (kg)
4,406
20,467
26,401
43,379
55,812
61,867
59,622
58,176
74,925
43,606
50,996
124,913
Source:
Cook, C. and Stevenson, J., 1980, British Historical Facts 1760 – 1830, MacMillan Press
LTD, London
Consequences for Cane Sugar as a Result of Free Trade
Year
British
Imports (tons)
1,476,714
2,005,637
2,951,152
3,799,284
£1,526,000
% Beet
% British
Cane
17
17
12
13
10
% Foreign
Cane
69
60
50
40
15
14
1853
23
1863
38
1873
47
1882
75
1896
Source:
Eric Williams, 1970, From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean 14921969, André Deutsch, Trinidad and Tobago
Extended Essay – sample 3
20/23
Plan of the lower deck of a slave ship for the stowage of the slaves
Source:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/2c/lectures/06L05Slavery.htm
Petition from the inhabitants of Manchester in support of the Foreign
Slave Trade Abolition Bill, 1806
Source:
http://www.ffhs.org.uk/ezine/articles/mlfhs.php
Extended Essay – sample 3
21/23
Epistle of Condolence from a Slave-Lord to a Cotton-Lord
Alas ! my dear friend, what a state of affairs!
How unjustly we both are despoil'd of our rights!
Not a pound of black flesh shall I leave to my heirs,
Nor must you any more work to death little whites.
Both forced to submit to that general controller
Of King, Lords, and cotton-mills Public Opinion;
No more shall you beat with a big billy-roller,
Nor I with the cart-whip assert my dominion.
Whereas, were we suffered to do as we please
With our Blacks and our Whites, as of yore we were let,
We might range them alternate, like harpsichord keys,
And between us thump out a good piebald duet.
But this fun is all over; farewell to the zest
Which Slavery now lends to each cup we sip;
Which makes still the cruellest coffee the best,
And that sugar the sweetest which smacks of the whip.
Farewell, too, the Factory's white pickaninnies,
Small, living machines, which, if flogg'd to their tasks,
Mix so well with their namesakes, the billies and jennies,
That which have got souls in 'em nobody asks;
Little Maids of the Mill, who, themselves but ill fed,
Are oblig'd, 'mong their other benevolent cares,
To keep "feeding the scribblers*," and better, 'tis said,
Than old Blackwood or Fraser have ever fed theirs.
All this is now o'er, and so dismal my loss is,
So hard 'tis to part from the smack of the thong,
That I mean (from pure love for the old whipping process)
To take to whipt syllabub all my life long.
Written by Thomas Moore in 1833. It condemns both the South American planters and
the British mill owners for the cruel use of slave labour to raise cotton and child labour to
operate mill machinery.
Source:
http://www.fullbooks.com/Home-Life-of-the-Lancashire-Factory-Folk2.html
Extended Essay – sample 3
22/23
Advertisement for The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah
Equiano, Published on Friday the 1st of May 1789, in The Morning
Star
Source: http://www.brycchancarey.com/equiano/advert.htm
Extended Essay – sample 3
23/23