Capitalism and Slavery

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Capitalism and Slavery became a British best-seller in 2022, when Penguin Modern Classics published its first mass-market edition in the United Kingdom. That was seventy-eight years after the book first appeared in the United States. No major British publisher had been willing to print it until forty years after the death of its author, Eric Williams. Williams went on to become the first Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago in 1962. He had sought a British publisher for years. Fredric Warburg, who had published several provocative books in 1930s Britain, turned the manuscript away. The suggestion that slavery was abolished for economic rather than humanitarian reasons was, Warburg said, "contrary to the British tradition." He added: "I would never publish such a book." Why did this argument prove so corrosive to British self-understanding? And what was at stake in Williams's claim that the profits of the Atlantic slave trade helped finance the Industrial Revolution?

  4523

• 2. An Island Scholar at Oxford

  ›

  In 1931, Eric Williams arrived at the University of Oxford from Trinidad on an Island Scholarship. He joined St Catherine's Society, which had only that year ceased to be called the Delegacy for Non-Collegiate Students. It had not yet achieved full college status. Williams earned a first-class degree in Modern History but found social life largely unfriendly. He made a friend of a Thai student and attended the Indian Majlis, a student club, while also interacting with his tutors.

  C. L. R. James suggested the topic for Williams's doctoral dissertation. His supervisor was Vincent Harlow. One of his examiners was Reginald Coupland, who had held the Beit Chair in colonial history at Oxford since 1920. That chair had been founded in 1905. Its founder, Alfred Beit, was a friend of Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner. Coupland belonged to the Round Table movement, which advanced Milner's ideas. The atmosphere at Oxford, as one scholar described it, was shaped by "enthusiasm for social and moral reform." It treated "constitutional progress" as shorthand for centuries of world-historical advance.

  Joseph Oliver Cutteridge had alerted Williams to Coupland's potential importance to his career. Cutteridge was a former British Army officer who served as director of education in Trinidad and Tobago. In 1936, when Williams received funding for his doctoral work, Cutteridge contacted Coupland on his behalf. The aim was to use Coupland's influence with Claud Hollis, the Governor. Cutteridge also counselled "caution." The finished dissertation was accordingly judged "deferential" compared to the sharper published version.

  The original dissertation, eventually published in 2014, carried the same basic argument. David Beck Ryden later identified three forms of decline that Williams saw in the British West Indies during the first half of the nineteenth century. First, sugar planting profits fell. Second, the West Indian trade declined in relative importance to the British economy. Third, opposition to mercantilism rose. In 1966, Williams returned to these debates in his book British Historians and the West Indies. He attacked the majority of Oxford historians who had dealt with the subject, but excepted one: Sydney Olivier.

  67101315

• 3. Howard University and Publication

  ›

  Williams left the United Kingdom for the United States in 1939, after a period of unsuccessful job applications. He was appointed assistant professor at Howard University, an historically black college in Washington, D.C. Alain LeRoy Locke recruited him there, supported by Ralph Bunche and Abram Lincoln Harris. Other faculty members at the time included E. Franklin Frazier and Charles S. Johnson. Williams taught in the Political Science department.

  Locke later wrote the foreword to Williams's 1942 book The Negro in the Caribbean. Excerpts from the doctoral dissertation had already appeared in 1939 in The Keys, the journal of the London-based League of Coloured Peoples. Capitalism and Slavery was published in the United States in 1944. The British edition appeared in 1964, published by André Deutsch. Denis William Brogan wrote its introduction; he had reviewed the book in The Times Literary Supplement and accepted its general argument that economic forces predominated over moral ones. Brogan described Williams's position on abolition as a cutting of losses and an illustration of the workings of self-interest. The 1964 edition went through numerous reprintings until 1991.

  The bibliography of Capitalism and Slavery credited The Black Jacobins by C. L. R. James for giving, in 1938, the first English-language statement of the book's central thesis.

  314162522

• 4. The Economic Case

  ›

  Williams opened his chapter on the triangular trade with a blunt declaration: "Britain was accumulating great wealth from the triangular trade." The argument built outward from that premise. The book relied on economic reasoning going back to Lowell Joseph Ragatz, to whom it was dedicated. It also drew on Frank Wesley Pitman's 1917 study The Development of the British West Indies, 1700-1763. Hugh Edward Egerton, the first holder of the Beit Chair at Oxford, had reviewed Pitman's book in 1918 and picked out 1763 as a pivotal baseline. That year, the Seven Years' War ended with the Peace of Paris. Britain returned the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe to France and kept Canada instead. From that point, Williams argued, British sugar producers manipulated trade regulation for profit. The West India Interest was an exercise in client politics, creating artificial scarcity.

  Chapter 4, titled "The West India Interest," traced the shifting alignments of the sugar lobby across the eighteenth century. By 1739, planters and merchants were already in conflict over the question of free trade with continental Europe. By 1764, the West India Interest had reached what Williams called its "heyday." Around 1780, the American Revolution disrupted the existing system of British commerce, and planters and merchants found their interests temporarily aligned. By 1832, the Reform Parliament at Westminster represented the Lancashire manufacturing interest rather than the West India Interest.

  The central claim was that slavery had played a major role in developing the British economy. The high profits of slavery, Williams wrote, helped finance the Industrial Revolution. British capital was built on unpaid work. He also cited earlier arguments about New England. William Babcock Weeden, who lived from 1834 to 1912, had argued that the slave trade was integral to New England's economic development. Lorenzo Greene made the same case in 1942.

  The 1807 prohibition of the international slave trade carried a strategic dimension in Williams's reading. By banning the trade, Britain prevented France from expanding sugar plantations on other Caribbean islands. British investment then turned to Asia, where labour was plentiful and slavery was unnecessary. From 1823, the British Caribbean sugar industry entered terminal decline. Williams also connected the end of slavery to slave rebellion itself. The Haitian Revolution of 1792-1804 and the Jamaica Christmas Rebellion of 1831 both figured in his account. These uprisings had interacted, in his view, with the new pro-free trade interests to bring about the end of slavery in the 1830s.

  31923371

• 5. The Moral Question

  ›

  In 1933, a centenary celebration of the Slavery Abolition Act took place in Kingston upon Hull, the birthplace of William Wilberforce. Reginald Coupland made explicit at this event his view that the British Empire had been propelled essentially by benevolent impulses. G. M. Trevelyan supported those ideas in The Times. Capitalism and Slavery was a direct assault on this tradition.

  At issue was Coupland's reading of the Somersett case, the legal judgment that abolitionists had long treated as a turning point. Williams summarised the position and then rejected it. "Professor Coupland contends that behind the legal judgement lay the moral judgement," he wrote, "and that the Somersett case was the beginning of the end of slavery throughout the British Empire. This is merely poetic sentimentality translated into modern history." In the book's conclusion, Williams put the criticism more broadly: "But historians, writing a hundred years after, have no excuse for continuing to wrap the real interests in confusion." A footnote named Coupland directly as "a notable example" of what Williams called this "deplorable tendency."

  Williams noted that the abolitionists themselves had for a long time "eschewed and repeatedly disowned any idea of emancipation." He argued instead that abolition had been driven by diminishing returns. A century of sugarcane cultivation had exhausted the soil of the Caribbean islands. The rise of evangelical antislavery and the self-emancipation of enslaved people were real forces. In Williams's account, however, they had worked alongside the new economic interests rather than in place of them.

  The book also criticised the use of the 1833 Act as a moral pivot in the broader historiography of the British Empire. Williams objected to a historical school that treated imperial constitutional history as a constant advance through legislation. Billy Strachan, a leading Black civil rights activist and communist in Britain, credited Capitalism and Slavery with heavily influencing his world outlook.

  310311216

• 6. Contested Ground

  ›

  Henry Steele Commager welcomed Capitalism and Slavery with enthusiasm when it first appeared in the United States. Elizabeth Donnan and Frank Tannenbaum both expressed reservations. A 1968 review article by Roger Anstey marked the start of the first critical wave. Ryden, writing in 2012, traced three such waves across more than four decades. Seymour Drescher, one of the most prominent critics, nonetheless acknowledged in 1987 that the book had earned classic status. "If one criterion of a classic is its ability to reorient our most basic way of viewing an object or a concept," Drescher wrote, "Eric Williams's study supremely passes that test."

  Richard Pares had dismissed the influence of West Indian plantation wealth on British industrialisation even before Williams's book appeared. He argued that whatever substantial investment from West Indian profits had flowed into industry, it happened after emancipation, not before. Stanley Engerman calculated that slave-trade and plantation profits combined never topped 5% of the British economy in any year of the Industrial Revolution. David Richardson, writing in 1998, found Williams's claims about the Industrial Revolution exaggerated. Profits from the slave trade alone amounted to less than 1% of domestic investment in Britain. Richardson also found that the terms of trade had moved heavily in favour of African sellers after about 1750. Ward argued, by contrast, that slavery had remained profitable in the 1830s because of innovations in agriculture. Ryden, in 2009, presented evidence of an emerging crisis of profitability in the early nineteenth century, in support of Williams's position.

  Drescher's 1977 book Econocide offered the most sustained counter-argument. Drescher argued that the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 had nothing to do with slavery's diminishing value. It resulted instead from the moral outrage of a British public that had the vote. Geggus, in 1981, cast doubt on the method Drescher had used to value capital in the British West Indian sugar industry in the 1780s. Carrington's 1984 reply defended two of Williams's main theses. He argued that Drescher was, in effect, agreeing with what Ragatz had argued in 1928: that decline had set in at the moment of peak prosperity for the planters. But Drescher, Carrington claimed, had misplaced that peak by neglecting the effects of the American Revolutionary War and the slow recovery that followed.

  Hilary Beckles wrote in 2004 of "the fundamental academic respect that Capitalism and Slavery enjoys within the Caribbean," even while noting persistent criticism. Sydney H. H. Carrington, who lived from 1937 to 2018, remained an advocate of the decline thesis as originally stated. Gordon Kenneth Lewis, who lived from 1919 to 1991, put it plainly: "it is testimony to the essential correctness of that thesis that the attempt of a later scholarship to impugn it has been unsuccessful." Kenneth Morgan, writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, called the book perhaps the most influential written in the twentieth century on the history of slavery.

  Catherine Hall and the other authors of Legacies of British Slave-Ownership, published in 2014, identified four key arguments in Capitalism and Slavery and noted a schism between Anglo-American historians and those from the Caribbean on whether those arguments held. The project was run by University College London. Gareth Austin, writing in the Cambridge History of Capitalism also published in 2014, described the rejection of Williams's thesis about the Industrial Revolution as a revisionist interpretation. He noted a challenge from Joseph E. Inikori, based on whole-Atlantic trade and the hinterland cloth trade destined for West Africa. Austin added a careful distinction in a footnote: "One should distinguish the issue of causality of the industrial revolution from the fact that various specific industrial investments were indeed made with profits from slave ships or slave estates, as Williams documented."

  In 2023, the Royal Historical Society hosted an event titled "Eric Williams' Capitalism and Slavery: debates, legacies and new directions for research." Its panel included Dr Heather Cateau, Dr Stephen Mullen, Professor Harvey Neptune, Professor Meleisa Ono-George, and Professor Matthew J. Smith. Professor David Eltis, in his 2025 book Atlantic Cataclysm, added a still larger global frame. Eltis noted that in 1804 there were 45 million enslaved people worldwide, of whom the British held only about 750,000, roughly 1.7% of the total. He asked why industrialisation had not happened first in the Americas, or in Spain or Portugal, where slavery was far more widespread. He also pointed to the thriving culture of newspaper and magazine reading in the eighteenth-century English-speaking world. A steady flow of reporting about violence on slave-trading ships and in the slave colonies had, he argued, shifted public attitudes. "Value shifts in Britain and the northern US," Eltis concluded, "are an essential part of the explanation."

  135343839