Was the transatlantic slave trade essential for the industrialisation and economic de

Question to consider- Was the transatlantic slave trade essential for the industrialisation and economic development of Western Europe. The neo-Marxist analysis of slavery suggests it was

Yes-

The triangle trade was essential in providing raw materials for the industrial revolution

Slavery provided a source of cheap labour to produce materials such as cotton and sugar

The triangle trade was the source of the wealth invested in industry

No-

Slavery is an inefficient use of labour. Adam Smith opposed slavery for this reason. A slave will do the minimum they can wet away with. All right some employees will as well but slaves in general will do the minimum. The forced labourers in Nazi Germany also attempted acts of sabotage if they though they could get away with them

Raw materials such as cotton were available from other places such as India and Egypt and Britain began to use them during the American Civil War. Coal and Iron were in the ground and wool was produced in Western Europe

Other sources of cheap labour were available, the Americas and Caribbean could have been developed using indigenous labour and political prisoners were sentenced to forced labour in England during the wars of succession in the Stuart and Hanoverian eras particularly by Judge Jeffery’s

Could the wealth generated by the industrial revolution been used to develop the wool industry in Yorkshire rather than cotton in Lancashire if the Transatlantic Slave had never taken place?
 
Question to consider- Was the transatlantic slave trade essential for the industrialisation and economic development of Western Europe. The neo-Marxist analysis of slavery suggests it was

Yes-

The triangle trade was essential in providing raw materials for the industrial revolution

Slavery provided a source of cheap labour to produce materials such as cotton and sugar

The triangle trade was the source of the wealth invested in industry

No-

Slavery is an inefficient use of labour. Adam Smith opposed slavery for this reason. A slave will do the minimum they can wet away with. All right some employees will as well but slaves in general will do the minimum. The forced labourers in Nazi Germany also attempted acts of sabotage if they though they could get away with them

Raw materials such as cotton were available from other places such as India and Egypt and Britain began to use them during the American Civil War. Coal and Iron were in the ground and wool was produced in Western Europe

Other sources of cheap labour were available, the Americas and Caribbean could have been developed using indigenous labour and political prisoners were sentenced to forced labour in England during the wars of succession in the Stuart and Hanoverian eras particularly by Judge Jeffery’s

Could the wealth generated by the industrial revolution been used to develop the wool industry in Yorkshire rather than cotton in Lancashire if the Transatlantic Slave had never taken place?

I'm preparing for an history exam on these matters (atlantic trade and slavery). I can say that slavery flourished in mercantilistic empires, but when Britain liberalized its markets, it abolished the slave trade and forced everyone to do so. Slavery wasn't really that inefficent, since without the pressures from Britain for its abolition, it would have kept existing in places like Brazil (Portugal was the last european empire to abolish the trade, for example). It really disappeared with the mechanization of plantations.

Btw, slavery was really abolished when there were other alternatives, like the asian coolies , payed workers. Sometimes the importation of coolies coincided with the emancipation of slaves.

So, yes, i think that forced labour (in its many forms), set the bases for the development of capitalism (and a wealthy middle class).

I think that scientific racism developed to substitute the european demi-slaves of the early XVII century with the slaves from Africa. I suggest to look at the English Revolution, and how the radical religious movements were channeled into new ideologies (like the universal rights for whites only).
 
yes but no.

Yes, the use of slaves sped up the aquirement of raw materials AND in certain rare cases (such as women and children in effective slavery spooling silk in Asia) manufactory.

No, it wasn't important in getting to the critical mass in the first place as it could just as well have been done much slower by advancing technology, although, although how much slower this would be (little/no preexisting proto-industry to build on) is a tough guess to ponder about.

so its a whole whaffle of maybes and prehaps depending on how much slower you're willing to take the first number of prerequsiste steps, before you feel you're not going anywhere at all.
 
Slavery also Limited European migration into areas as their wages could be undercut by slaves. However Disease meant large amounts of Europeans would die in the Tropical regions of the Americas and colonising powers would look for a way to exploit the regions.

Maybe Better medical understanding and clearing Swamp areas means they can exploit these areas without African slaves but the indentured servants would still have a extremely tough time.
 
the industrial revolution was facilitated by the agricultural revolution.
the 4 field crop rotation as was developed in the low countries, found its way in britain, where it allowed the production of a lot more food, and thus stumulated population growth. also the introduction at the same time of better agricultural equipment meant that there were less people need for growing these crops. this caused a flow of population to the cities. it was this combination that allowed industry to boom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution

and remember, the industrial revolution mostly was about non-slavery related products, with cotton being one of the few that were.
the core of the industrial revolution was mechanisation and the related development of steam power.
 
The question should be put differently.

Slavery was not the condition for the industrial revolution and economic development. The absolute proof of this is that slavery had always existed everywhere in the world.
In fact, what we call today the western world was an exception due to the fact that it was the first to abandon slavery.

If you go not on a moral but on an economic point of view, there were objective reasons why slavery had been rational for milleniums and why it ceased being rational.

It was economically rational when there was a structural shortage of manpower and very low productivity.
It ceased being rational when demographic growth and innovation (in agriculture and in other technologies) ended manpower shortage.

This being said, slavery participated in the accumulation of capital surplusses by the western colonial powers. Basically, slavery was used by western european powers to have their own supply of exotic products (sugar, cotton, tobacco) at a lower price and with higher profits than if they had had to buy it to other middlemen and than if those products had been grown by a free labour force.

And even with profits coming from these slave grown exotic products, it did not guarantee there would be an industrial evolution. Many profits were not reinvested in business but in real estate or in "treasury bonds".
 
to ad on to the above the industrial revolution occurred due to deforestation in England, coupled with excellent waterways located near hard coal deposits made the transport of coal to use as fuel cheaper and easier and helped to further facilitate the growth of the British textile industry and this growth coupled with protectionist policies during the early phases of the British and French/Belgian industrial revolutions allowed these countries to drive out international competitors from domestic markets.

Once the industries became established free trade was implemented and now these stable manufacturing businesses that sprung up around major populations centres could export their products at much cheaper prices than their competitors and flood foreign markets with their goods and this allowed Britain to overtake Europe the rest of the world till the rise of the USA from the 1870s onwards and Germany from the 1880s which was gradually catching up the UK due to catcher up phenomenon.

It also helped that Britain had higher literacy rates coupled with as mentioned above four field crop rotations and increased agricultural productivities combined with the growth of industrial cities that were the reasons for industrialization. in all of this the transatlantic slave trade did not matter significantly since it did not impact above industries directly, but indirectly it mattered in terms of the pace of industrial growth, for British and American and other European manufacturing industries relied on souther, carrabien, and latin American cotton at least in the 18th and early 19th century to fuel their factories and due to slavery prices of the above goods were cheaper due to low labor costs and so in that sense helped fuel the growth of the manufacturing industries but even without slavery these industries would grow though at a slower pace.
 
Top