Historians have a question: Why did Great Britain go to all the trouble to
create the largest, far-flung Imperialist Empire of Colonial states based
upon slavery and its concomittant ideology of racism? This required
administration and defense: a very expensive reality, then create an ideology
of "Abolitionism"? An answer to this question continues to be contentious: the
historians do not agree. Thus the viewpoint expressed here is one that can be
accepted, or rejected by the reader.
First, Abolitionism NEVER opposed slavery. What was opposed was chattel slavery:
only one form of slavery. In chattel slavery, the slave is considered legal
property — to be bought, sold and owned, or disposed of as wished (including
killing the slave). Furthermore, the chattel slave can not own property, his
children are slaves as well. The slave's "wife" may not be viewed as "his". In
general, European women cannot in own property (property becomes the property of
her master (her husband). A woman has few legal rights. In this context, female
slaves are not women (they are not even human) nor is her slave
"husband". Legal protections non-existent except for the master.
Another form of slavery is peonage slavery: the slave to live can never pay
for clothes, food, tools, etc. required. Thus the slave gets deeper and deeper
in debt, his children inherit the debt, and all progeny yet to be born over
several generations become further enslaved for generations on end. The slaves
are never legally owned, but are indebted for the air they breath.
There are other forms of slavery. However, not all forms of slavery are "negative".
Thus there are forms of slavery that the slaves positively desired. Examples are
slavery in which the slave gets food to live (in times of famine). Slaves often
exist in a hierarchy. Thus full slaves, half slaves, quarter slaves. Such a
hierarchy might exist in property the slave is allowed to work: a full plot,
half a plot, a quarter of a plot, or no plot at all.
A "working" definition of slavery is "dependency". A slave is an entity (may not be
viewed as human) that depends on an owner (or someone). In this view of slavery,
a slave may have access to property (including food). Thus the slave may be a source
of wealth to his family (his family gets food, or money, etc.). Thus women from the
Cuman steppes, destined to an Ottoman Paşha's harem, might seek out this form
of slavery to support impoverished relatives.
Thus palace slaves might be considered fortunate indeed! Thus a king (quite wealthy)
might be dependent upon his generals (thus the king is a slave). The king's generals
(wealthy) might be dependent upon the king (and also be slaves). Indeed, all might be
slaves save god himself (but there might be a hierarchy of gods, a heavenly hierarchy
of dependency), in which case some gods might be slaves too!
Modern slavery was based upon African dark-skinned slaves traded to be used on a
large scaled plantation or part of a labor force used in mines. Such slaves were
originally from the West coast of Africa. They were transported across the Atlantic
Ocean to the New World: Brazil (Portuguese South America), the Caribbean Islands,
North America (and other destinations). Later, France, Portugal, Holland, etc. took
part in this trade, not only to the New World, but to Asia, African East or West
Coast or Indian Ocean destinations. Thus Abolitionism opposed Atlantic chattel
slavery (NOT African inland slavery nor Indian
Ocean slavery).
Slaves escaped. Slaves were "stolen" from slaving companies and illegally appropriated
by those that worked in this slave industry. At first, branding was used to keep track
of the "inventory". Eventually people realized that rather than transport slaves from
Africa to the New World, in which a sizable proportion of the "inventory" died or
disappeared, it was wiser (and more economical) to leave the slaves on the African
continent and simply take over the African continent. Thus was modern Colonialism born.
How to protect this business, inherently unstable (slave revolts, "raids" by rivals,
communicable diseases, etc.)?
England is its Navy
The Navy is Sugar
Sugar is Slaves
In order to increase the value of raw products like sugar,
cotton (Manchester), tobacco, indigo, hemp, coal, mercury, iron,
gold
silver, diamonds, emeralds, pearls (all the objects found in Elizabethan poetic "blazons" in
"sonets", "sestinas", "elegies", "songs", "madragals", etc.). It is obvious that reducing the
volume or weight of the raw products is the cheapest way to transport the products for distribution.
Thus exactly the opposite was done! Why? Why increase the cost? The
raw products needed to be transported to England where all industrial processing of refinement
was concentrated (the industrial revolution). Industry confined to England. The countries
of origin of raw products are kept underdeveloped (and impoverished). In order to accomplish this,
circa 20% more ships were needed. However, this is not an undue expence. Having 20% more ships
makes a larger standing Navy. Ships used to transport raw goods can become part of the military
Naval force when needed. Hence, defense of the Colonial enterprise while simultaneously supporting
industrialism! The Industrial Revolution ceased to be based upon wood and sale (sailing ships),
instead shifting to coal as an energy source, and steam engines made from iron and steel.
Aristocrats managing fazendas or Plantación de azúcar esclavo (plantations) replaced
by ""managers of industries".
Now the point of this review of history:
England is its Navy
The Navy is Sugar
Sugar is Slaves
As a syllogism:
England is its slaves!
The most dangerous rival for England was France. Why France? Because France
also had slaves. In particular, the greatest source of slave power was in French Haiti.
Haitian slaves could be used to finance another industrial revolution and its
concomitant - French Colonialism: a
French Industrial Revolution! To prevent this,
Abolitionism was born.
Some historians place great emphasis upon an Abolitionism as a basis of
Enlightenment moral advance. The last claim on an "escaped" slave in an
English court of law took place in 1950. Morality fell asleep once French
industrialism was retarded. 1, 2, 3
As of c. 1990, the going price of a slave in Morocco was $35 (U.S. dollars).
The morality of Slavery remains quite asleep, a forgotten issue. The
Enlightenment with Voltaire proposing genocide and the great thinker,
Immanuel Kant, insisting on racism (opposing the views of his student,
Johann Gottfried von Herder), or John Locke's support of the genocide of
Amerindians based upon Biblical injunction (use the land well, or forfeit
use of the land - assuming all the world's people are bound by the Bible
- ever hear of Anthropology)? Incredible! We still support the idiocy of
the Enlightenment?
The Chawton novels "Mansfield Park", "Emma", and "Persuasion", under close
examination, reveal that Jane Austen was very aware of Abolitionist writers such
as Thomas Clarkson, William Cowper, and Doctor Johnson, and viewed the ideology
(propaganda) of these writers favorably. The most interesting book with this
viewpoint is "Jane Austen in the Context of Abolition: 'a fling at the slave trade'",
by Gabrielle D. White (Chapter 2: "Mansfield Park", Chapter 3: "Emma", Chapter 4:
"Persuasion").
Mansfield Park
Preface and Chaper 1: Mansfield Park
Cowper's "The Task", Book two: 'We have no slaves at
home - then why abroad?'. One might be reminded of
'Am I not a Man and a Brother?' (Josiah Wedgewood, 1787).
Of course, not to be perverse, but wealthy Abolitionist Richard Oastler noted the
"Yorkshire slaves" of the English textile industry in 1830 (ignoring the coal
working women and children). "Awareness of the plight of those
brought by the slave trade into slavery may be the main focus of the reference to
the slave trade in Mansfield Park and Emma".
Quick summary of chapter 2: Mansfield Park
'I suppose I am graver than other people,' said Fanny. 'The evenings do not
appear long to me. I love to hear my uncle talk of the West Indies. I could
listen to him for an hour together. It entertains me more than many
other things have done - but then I am unlike other people I dare say...
Did you not hear me ask him about the slave trade last night?'
'I did - and was in hopes the question would be followed up by others. It
would have pleased your uncle to be inquired of farther.'
'And I longed to do it - but there was such a dead silence! And while my
cousins were sitting by without speaking a word, or seeming at all interested
in the subject, I did not like - I thought it would appear as if I wanted to
set myself off at their expense, by shewing a curiousity and pleasure in his
information which he must wish his own daughters to fee.'
4
"The quotation twice by Fanny from William Cowper's work is suggestive of the
topic of abolition because Cowper's abolitionist poetry had become well-known.
Quotation stimulates association of ideas between the references to Cowper on
the one hand and abolitionism on the other hand. Association of ideas could
also be provoked by the name 'Mansfield' in the novel's title, following Lord
Chief Justice Mansfield's 1772 decision, not least because of its celebrtion
by Cowper in The Task." 5
"Lady Bertram although used to her husband's being away in London disliked
Sir Thomas going to Antigua,"..."she is reconsiled not only to her son Tom's
[the profligate son] absence... Tom's own absence is noted, as it occurs in
England and in his being taken to Antigua to separate him from the company
he had been keeping." 6
"Sir Thomas tries to redress his absenteeism from Antigua by his absence
instead from England... His absence extends to two years."
7
Pluralism and Absenteeism "...would be borne out in legislaion of 1838, under
which no more than two simultaneous livings were to be allowed and those no
more than 10 miles apart,..." 8
Several arguments, some based upon Cowper's "The Task" that ownership
of slave plantations inherited from absentee plantation owners are not
appreciated by the children of the owners: undermining their abilities to
properly take careof their interests (ownersip of slaves is enslaving the
slave owners ('Ye fallen avenues...'.), 'Slaves cannot breathe in England...',
both from Cowper's "The Task". 9
Quick summary of chapter 3: Emma
"Offices for the sale - not quite of human flesh - but of human intellect."
10 In "Emma", "...
Mrs Elton and Mr Suckling's estate Maple Grove..." "The link with the slave
trade is via Mr Suckling as the owner of Maple Grove and brother-in law of
Mrs Elton. Mr Suckling 'was always rather a friend to the abolition'. In
addition to their being discredited, there is the opportunity to consider
that just as Mrs Elton is not much of a friend to Jane Fairfax so Mr
Suckling may not be much of a friend to the abolition."
11
The issues here are the "slave trade" vs "slavery". Thomas Clarson History,
1808:
"
...the arguments being used to discredit the one could also be used (as
they later were) to discredit the other. To this extent the position from
which the second stage of the assault would be launched was already being
prepared. Nevertheless, the fact remains that so long as the struggle over
the trade continued, little thought was given to the practical problems of
coping with slavery itself. 12
"
In simple terms, any discredit of the slave trade is simultaneously a discredit
to the issue of slavery itself. A argument is then constructed based upon logic
(reasoning). As there are many distinct logics, it would appear as though logic
(rhetoric) might be appealed to to distinguish between the "slave trade" and
"slavery".
An argument is invented based upon biblical fable ('one flesh' which derives
from the Genesis Creation story of Eve as a companion for Adam). "the sale - not
quite of human flesh", and on the other hand the sale of "human intellect".
"[M]arrying for money" vs "a related idea of becoming the mistress of a wealthy
admirer.", or even 'postitution'. Later, the "Maple Grove" estate is discussed,
being located near Bristol (a major slave trade port), with an immense plantation
all round it! Thus wealthy aristocrats may be not far removed from purchased slaves.
Also Clarkson had visited Birmingham, where are located "gun manufacturers, whose
products were used in exchange for slaves on the West african coast.
13
The question of the "slave trade" vs "slavery" comes up again.
"In any case, being a victim of 'governess-trade' does not so much describe carrying
out the duties of a governess as applying at the 'Offices for the sale...advertising
offices' and so being a victim of those who trade in posts. (Distinguishing being a
"governess" from the office of hiring governesses, as in the trade of slaves vs being
a slave).
A further argument is invented: 'the abolition' [of the slave trade] is a one-off event,
as opposed to 'slavery' [a continuum]. More word play (not morality).
Finaly the job of governess (analogous to being a slave) vs the victim of trading in
governesses (dealer in slaves). Yet more word play. Can real distinctions be discovered?
Yes indeed: A slave lacks autonomy. A slave loses feeling,
imagination, and creativity. 14
Quick summary of chapter 4: Persuasion
In 1807, the Royal Navy did an abrupt reversal in its policies, from protecting the
slave trade to enforcing the abolition of the slave trade.
"She [Jane Austen] would not need to say what had happened in 1807; any reader of the
time would know. With two brothers in the Navy, one of them voicing anti-slavery
views, there is every reason to suppose that the potential work of enforcing the
abolition of 1807 would have been known to her. Independently of the measure of her
agreement with her brothers, they were a source of points of view and information.
Edward Said is right to note the emphasis on the Navy, but he misses the significance.
There is a contrast with the villinous admiral of an earlier generation in Mansfield Park,
who had corrupted the young Crawfords. The presence of the Navy permeates Persuasion,
and throughout it is seen as a profession of humane men and of fearless prize-winning feats
at sea making for honourably won wealth. 'This peace will be turning all our rich Navy
Officers ashore' says Mr Shepherd, cautious lawyer, visiting Kellynch Hall and, having just
'laid down the newspaper', addressing himself in chapter 3 to the financial embarrassment
of Sir Walter. The reference to peace could draw attention to the external world, including
the need for radical changes in deployment of the Royal Navy.
As exemplified in the 'foolish, spendthrift baronet', Anne's father, the traditional landed
element is by no means more impressive, but rather the reverse. The Royal Navy is seen as a
force for freedom and progress. Anne escapes into it 'belonging to that profession'. John
Winton in connection with the Navy policing the abolition of the slave trade quotes William
Cowper:
'Slaves cannot breath in England; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free;
They touch our country, and their shacles fall'. So wrote William Cowper in The Task
in 1785...The carriage of slaves in British vessels was abolished in 1807. In 1811, slave-trading
was made a felony, punishable by 14 years imprisonment."
15
Why might Jane Austen oppose British slavery in the British Colonial empire?
Two interrelated aspects of life on aristocratic rural estates was threatened
by colonialist slavery. Pluralism and absenteeism
were a major problem. Aristocrats and wealthy new merchants owned palaces in
England, but often simultaneously owned sugar plantations in the British West
Indies: pluralism of properties. Such wealthy and powerful men had an honourable
obligation to regulate their properties, ensuring that poor farmers, small business
men, peasants (uneducated poor farmers) etc. were properly absorbed on aristocratic
lands and towns. If this were properly done, then acts of violence such as riots due
to poverty could be avoided. However, if these aristocrats had multiple holdings,
the aristocrats could not simultaneously be at these holdings to supervise what was
happening. These wealthy men had to be at one estate or another (thus absent)
at at least one estate. The more so if one estate is in England, while another estate
is in the British West Indies (or India or Africa)! These wealthy absentee lords
often spent years away from their families. These lords became alcoholics in the lax
slave environments, and became riddled with diseases (syphilis, yellow fever, malaria,
etc.). These lords often had several Black mistresses and mixed race children
(click to see).
These lords often cared not the least for their wives, (still in England, if alive). These
wives had to live too. They became absentee wives (wives without husbands). These wives
took lovers. Aristocratic children became absentee children (with both parents absentee
parents, the children were abandoned to housekeepers and were absentee children). Thus
the aristocratic or wealthy family environment disintegrated. Any wives that might escape
had also to contend with living in a society in which women were shuned if educated, were
expected to concern themselves only with cosmetics, fashions, jewels, vacuous conversation,
anything but intellectual achievement. Exactly what concerned the Bluestockings.
Indeed! Wives became bought cattle (slave mentality), husbands became bought cattle
(slave mentality): "He is worth £5,000 ... she is £6,000". Just as Black slaves
were bought and sold, so were the members of aristocratic and wealthy palace dwellers. The
wealthy could no longer really support a colonial empire, nor could their incapacitated
children. This was not new. The older New World Colonies had the same problems (Portuguese
in African Kongo, African Mozambique, and Brazil, Spain in the New World, too. Ancient
Rome fell: beset by the same problems.) Why should the British Colonies in the New World,
Africa, and India be spared? 17, 18, 19
Thus the context of slavery, Abolitionism, and the education of women were forefront in
Jane Austen's thinking and writing. The true Bluestocking ought to be focused upon political
affairs, including History, Philosophy, Rhetoric, Poetry, Aesthetics, Mathematics, Cartography,
Economics, Military Affairs, etc, most certainly NOT misconstrued with an Enlightenment idiotic
"suffrage". 20
White, Gabrielle D. V.; "Jane Austen in the Context of Abolition: 'a fling at the slave trade'"
Williams, Eric; "Capitalism and Slavery"
1
William Wilberforce opposed Abolitionism due to morality, as morality stands outside
time and profitability. If slavery were to be opposed because it ultimately was not
profitble, what if it became profitable? However, if slavery were opposed because it
was immoral, profit would not affect opposition.
2
British embassy officials in Africa were required to free any slave that reached
British territory. These governmental islands were constructed to have a picket
fence surrounding buildings. These picket fences were only a few inches away from
buildings, leaving as little land for any slave to reach British territory. Guards
ensured that slaves never could claim freedom under British law. English ambassadores
compained about English moralistic women opposing slavery that pestered the governmental
officials.
3
Williams, Eric; "Capitalism and Slavery"
4
White, Gabrielle D. V.; "Jane Austen in the Context of Abolition: 'a fling at the slave trade'", p. 19
5
ibid., p. 21
6
ibid., p. 22
7
ibid., p. 23
8
ibid., p. 24
9
ibid., p. 40
10
ibid., p. 52
11
ibid., p. 52
12
ibid., p. 53
13
ibid., pp. 54-57
14
ibid., pp. 58-63
15
ibid., pp. 76, 77
16
According to Aristotle, Rhetoric (propaganda) focuses upon the art of persuasion,
not truth or falsity. What propagandists say may or not be true, that isn't the
concern.
17
Freyre, Gilberto; "Casa-grande e senzala" ("The Masters and the Slaves", English)
18
Stedman, John; "Narrative of a five years expedition against
the revolted Negroes of Surinam", engravings by William Blake
19
Gibbon, Edward; "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
20
The word "idiot" comes from the Greek noun ίδιώτης
idiōtēs 'a private person', ... In Latin, idiota was
borrowed, meaning 'uneducated', 'ignorant', 'common', and
in Late Latin came to mean 'crude, illiterate, ignorant'.
Website Terms of Use