Caribbean Project: Review: The Mighty Experiment

Seymour Drescher's The Mighty Experiment: Free Labor versus Slave Labor in British Emancipation

Great Britain

Seymour Drescher’s The Mighty Experiment: Free Labor versus Slavery in British Emancipation is an attempt to understand the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies in terms of the neutral appeals to social science made by abolitionists and “the slave interest.”

When the abolition of slavery was finally enacted from 1834 to 1838, it was framed as a “mighty experiment” by Colonial Secretary Edward Stanley that would have “immense influence” on the lives of millions and “generations yet unborn” on both sides of the Atlantic.

Among other things, Britain’s “Mighty Experiment” was regarded at the time as the ultimate test under controlled conditions of the “free labor ideology” articulated by political economists like Adam Smith and its relative competitiveness as a social and economic system versus plantation slavery in the Caribbean.

Freedom Failed: The Missed Red Flags

Previous experiments in combinations of abolition and free labor were dismissed as precedents by anti-slavery activists:

HaitiIn the aftermath of the abolition of slavery in Haiti, the remnants of the French population were exterminated, Europeans were banned from owning property under the Haitian Constitution, sugar production and the plantation system completely collapsed, and Haiti quickly became dominated by a rural peasantry engaged in subsistence agriculture.

The abolitionist response was to argue that Haiti was an economic failure because of the unique violence of the Haitian Revolution, but that it was a social success under the Malthusian “population principle” because the Haitian population had become self-sustaining and was growing, unlike the British West Indies where “inhumane” sugar monoculture under wicked and cruel planters had created an unsustainable and demographically wasteful economic system.

Guadeloupe – In 1794, the French National Assembly had abolished slavery throughout the French Empire, which resulted in the relatively peaceful and temporary overthrow of slavery in Guadeloupe and French Guiana.

In Revolutionary Guadeloupe, sugar production had also collapsed to some degree and was sustained by the Victor Hugues regime through a system of a coerced labor. In 1803, the Richepance expedition sent by Napoleon reconquered Guadeloupe and restored slavery, where it would endure until abolition under the Second Republic in 1848.

In Guadeloupe, the sugar plantations had generally remained intact, but the new “cultivators” (who were still coerced laborers) were unable to sustain sugar production at slavery levels. Maybe this inconclusive result was due though to the disruptions in the labor force caused by the war between Britain and France in the eastern Caribbean.

In any case, Guadeloupe was enough to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of some key abolitionists about the self evident superiority of the “free labor ideology.” After the restoration of slavery in 1803, the French were able to produce more sugar in Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, and Réunion in the Indian Ocean than in Saint-Domingue at its height.

Sierra Leone – In the 1790s, the Sierra Leone Company established a black free labor colony in West Africa that was backed by abolitionists and was explicitly designed to demonstrate the superiority of free labor in the production of tropical commodities. The abolitionists led by Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce naively envisioned “a zone of freedom” radiating out from Sierra Leone that would expose the economic futility of enslaving Africans, cruelly transporting them to the New World, and brutalizing them on West Indian sugar plantations with negative incentives to extract their labor.

The Sierra Leone utopian experiment quickly became a huge albatross for the abolitionists and was pilloried by the slave interest. Financially, it was a disaster that collapsed into bankruptcy and was taken over by Britain as a Crown Colony. Economically, it failed to produce commodities that could compete with slaves in the West Indies. Socially, it was an even bigger failure under the “population principle” because black and White mortality in “free labor” Sierra Leone was significantly higher than in any of the “slave labor” West Indian colonies.

British West Indies – Even before abolition, the free negro was a common sight in the British West Indies, and the refusal of the free negro to work on the sugar plantations as a wage laborer was one of the many reasons cited by the slave interest in their arguments that abolition would be an economic disaster.

The abolitionist response to this criticism was that plantation labor in the West Indies had degraded and stigmatized labor which is why the blacks refused to work on the plantations as free laborers. Once slavery was abolished and labor was dignified by the “free labor ideology,” then the blacks would happily work on the plantations and their natural motivation to improve themselves would make them more productive and efficient laborers.

The United States – The United States was also problematic for British abolitionists.

By the 1830s, the Black Undertow in the Northern states had not developed a reputation as an industrious labor force or as a particularly thriving community, but were already then notable as a notorious criminal element. In fact, the slaves on Southern plantations were more fecund and had a higher life expectancy than the free negro in the Northern states.

It also seemed that Southern slaves were more fecund and more dynamic workers than British free laborers! The slave interest counterattacked the abolitionists by pointing to Southern slaves as proof that slavery was compatible with the population principle and that the White working class in Britain as well as the miserable free negro in the Northern states was worse off than Southern slaves.

India – Oddly enough, the abolitionists placed great hope in India as a potential “free labor” competitor to the West Indies in sugar, even though there were far more slaves in India and “free labor” in India had already proven unsuccessful in competing with the Cotton Kingdom in the American South.

Trinidad – After the War of 1812, the British settled some American ex-slaves in Trinidad, where they were also unsuccessful in competing with slave labor in the production of tropical commodities.

The Defense Makes Its Case

Before the “Mighty Experiment” began in 1834, the slave interest had responded to the abolitionists – who deployed the free labor ideology (Smith) and the population principle (Malthus) to make their case – with a number of compelling social and economic arguments in defense of slavery:

First, the slave interest could point to the indisputable wealth and prosperity of the British West Indies, the value of its trade to Britain (its most important trading partner), and the productivity of its agriculture which was without peer in the British Empire.

Second, the slave interest could point to the fact that the abolition of slavery in the French West Indies had destroyed its most efficient competitor and was a great boon to the British Empire that had come at the expense of France, and that tampering with slavery in the British West Indies would put British planters at a competitive disadvantage to more unscrupulous planters in Cuba and Brazil.

Third, the slave interest could point to the long track record of failed or unconvincing free labor experiments above which cast serious doubt on the “superiority” of free labor and its application to negro slaves.

Fourth, the slave interest could point to the American South as proof that slavery wasn’t incompatible with Malthus’ population principle, and explain the mortality in the West Indies as an artifact of the slave trade (in terms gender ratios and age deciles) and in terms of the tropical diseases (malaria and yellow fever) that were ever more devastating to the White population than to slaves.

Fifth, the slave interest could charge that the population principle discredited London and most European cities which were similarly dependent on immigration to sustain their populations.

By the 1830s, there were already clear signs that the Malthusian population argument against slavery was fatally flawed. Parts of Brazil became self-sustaining in population. Barbados had become self-sustaining in population. A female creole majority had emerged on the sugar islands and this was indicative of an emerging self-sustaining demographic pattern.

Unfortunately, it was too little to late to stop the momentum of abolition. The level of public enthusiasm and political pressure on the British Parliament was too intense and this is what doomed slavery in the British West Indies.

Racialists, Political Economists, and the Spirit of the Age

As we have already seen, the slave interest was afraid to deploy racialist arguments in metropolitan Britain to defend and justify slavery, even though West Indians like Edward Long of Jamaica were intensely racialist.

The ideological consensus in favor of human equality in metropolitan Britain was so overwhelming that not one MP in the debate over abolition defended slavery on racial grounds. Insofar as race figured into the debate at all, only the unreconstructed racism of West Indian planters was cited as an obstacle to abolition!

No one expressed any doubt that blacks lacked the racial capacity to maintain civilization. The free labor ideology took for granted the existence of human equality which underpinned the “universal” laws of political economy.

The generation of political economists that followed Adam Smith attempted to avoid immersing themselves in the public debate over slavery. There was already growing doubt at the time that “free labor” was really superior to “slave labor.”

In some situations, political economists began to realize that slavery might be rational and enjoy a decisive comparative advantage over “free labor”: such as in sparsely populated frontier areas, where a planter could command and intensely deploy labor that would otherwise uneconomically disperse across abundant land.

Slaveowners could economically command the labor of women and children and the elderly that would be lost to the labor force. While the slave might lack the “motivation” to improve himself, the cupidity of the master to acquire potential wealth was unlimited.

The strength of slavery was not in the motivation of individual slaves, as Adam Smith had assumed, and negatively contrasted to free labor. It was in the management, the scale, and the intensity of the plantation, which are the advantages of modern agribusiness.

Blacks also possessed a clear advantage over Europeans as tropical laborers. They had greater immunity to diseases like yellow fever and malaria which are native to Africa. Might also blacks as an indolent tropical race respond more to negative incentives to labor than positive incentives to better themselves? How is slavery necessarily incompatible with technology? What could stop planters from adopting the latest European technology like the railroads and steampowered mills in slave labor Cuba?

As a labor system, some early nineteenth century political economists like Jean-Baptiste Say realized that slavery could combine opulence with authority without liberty and equality. The existence of thriving opulent slave societies in the New World stood out as a problem for liberal economics.

The Spirit of the Age in Britain – Adam Smith’s free labor ideology, the Enlightenment’s human rights ideology, and especially the rise and negative influence of evangelical Christianity – caused slavery to be stigmatized and problemized and demonized on moral, religious, and ideological grounds at that particular point in history.

Racialists and political economists were reluctant to singe themselves and lose status (think of how Derb managed to preserve himself at NR for years) by swimming against the public’s great religious and moral anti-slavery crusade which often employed dubious economic arguments.

When slavery came under attack in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century by abolitionists, the insitution of slavery was thriving in the Caribbean and the South. British slavery was poised to expand into the new colonies of Trinidad, into undeveloped parts of Jamaica, and the newly acquired Dutch colonies that would later become British Guiana.

There was no economic force, only moral and political obstacles, stopping slavery from enveloping much of Central America and South America. As Cuba and Brazil later demonstrated, the Golden Circle (an unrecognized Caribbean-based, slave-based tropical civilization) was still in its infancy, not its obsolescent elderly years.

This was something that might have spread much, much further into the tropics, and might have eventually become a much, much more powerful counterweight to Western liberalism, if the New World slave states had developed a greater political, economic, and military unity, as Rhett had argued, and not been divided between rival metropoles.

The Mighty Experiment: The Plunge Into The “Third World”

From the 1650s to the 1850s, the Caribbean and the wider “Golden Circle” civilization had been at the center of the world economy. This was one of the richest, most profitable, and intensely cultivated parts of the world, which is why Europeans squabbled over it for two centuries.

In hindsight, Great Britain’s “Mighty Experiment” permanently changed that: by shutting down the slave trade to its own colonies (1808) and by forcing other nations to abolish the slave trade after the Congress of Vienna (1815), by abolishing slavery in the British West Indies (1834 to 1838), and by the liberal example it set which was followed by France (1848), Denmark (1848), the Netherlands (1863), the United States (1865), and Spain (1870 and 1886).

It is inconceivable that any other major European nation would have took the lead in abolishing slavery as an “experiment.” France had already been terribly burned in Saint-Domingue after going down that road. No other European nation developed a mass abolitionist movement.

In the end, the planters and their creditors were compensated with £20 million after losing the political fight over abolition – 1/4 the value of the market price of the slaves and, if memory serves, 1/8 the total value of the sugar colonies in 1833.

In some ways, the “Mighty Experiment” was a success: the ex-slave population became self sustaining (that would have happened anyway), and there was little violence in the transition to free society, unlike what happened in Haiti.

Abolitionists were initially encouraged when some of the smaller islands – St. Kitts, Barbados, Antigua – increased sugar production after 1838 – in reality, planters planted more cane because free labor was less profitable, and on the small, densely populated islands they could command labor from freedmen without access to land, especially in a protected market with the “safety net” stimulus.

In Jamaica, where the blacks could escape the plantations to squat on worthless unclaimed land, there was a sharp turn to peasant subsistence agriculture like in Haiti and a catastrophic decline in sugar production and real estate values, as the worst fears of the planters were confirmed.

Whatever the disparate fate of sugar production on various islands from 1833 to 1860, the price of sugar in metropolitan Britain increased 40 percent, and then to 60 percent, and there was a 25 percent net decline in sugar production.

In the 1840s and 1850s, it also became indisputably clear that the British West Indies could not compete with slave labor in Cuba, Brazil, and Louisiana – negroes as free laborers could not keep up with demand, would only work short hours in a short work week for exorbitant wages, and could not sustain the absolute level of sugar production under slavery.

The “Mighty Experiment” was declared a failure by the British press, protectionism was removed (1846) because the cost of anti-slavery fell too hard on the British consumer, abolitionism peaked and faded in Britain after 1840, and the British West Indies stagnated and then fell into a long term economic tailspin.

It was the beginning of the “Third World” in the British Caribbean: blighted, ruined, abandoned plantations, unemployed free negroes living as savages in rural indolence and squalor, empty ports and declining commerce and investment, imperial neglect, etc.

The British West Indies developed an archaic, “postmodern” look – one could imagine this is what Rome must have looked like at the beginning of the Dark Ages, or the transition in Detroit after the 1967 Race Riots.

The Legacy of Freedom

In three crucial ways, I can see that Great Britain’s “Mighty Experiment” in the British West Indies had an extremely damaging and lasting impact on our own society here in the United States:

– In the 1830s, the “Mighty Experiment” emboldened Northern abolitionists to push for the abolition of slavery in the United States, which alienated the South from the Union and precipitated the War Between the States.

– The failure of free society in the British West Indies following the “Mighty Experiment” convinced Southern radicals like Robert Barnwell Rhett that a slave society must rule itself or perish like Jamaica and Haiti, and that resistance even to the brink of war was justified to avoid such a fate.

– Finally, the “Mighty Experiment” set in motion a destructive chain of events by which the “free labor ideology,” even though it was proven to be an economic failure when applied to the negro, ultimately became normative and institutionalized for moral, religious, and ideological reasons in the United States.

How much has the free negro in the form of the Black Undertow and the Visible Black Hand of Economics cost our society and other ex-slave societies in the Caribbean and South America? Why are we unable to see that freedom failed even though the effective result of emancipation is hidden in plain sight?

It’s because of the moral, religious, and ideological smokescreen stirred up by Clarkson, Wilberforce, & Co. that inspired the unprecedented folly described in this book and which can be briefly glimpsed in the squishy, sentimentalist documentary below.

Strongly recommended!

About Hunter Wallace 8854 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. and just think, had they not advanced the cause of the black undertow, leftists today would not be faced with admitting the unthinkable. They instead could have held every gain made, and presumably focused on a less toxic issue.

  2. This explains the sympathy that Britain had with the Confederacy. All sorts of refugees from Jamaica and elsewhere had firsthand understanding of the undertow and the economic impact of the undertow.

    Protectionism and freetrade are intimately connected in this story. With slavery autarky was possible.

  3. Very good, interesting post, Hunter.

    “It also seemed that Southern slaves were more fecund and more dynamic workers than British free laborers!” Fecundity, exceptional reproductive capacity and resistance to tropical climate and diseases were the natural advantages of the Africans. The “roving” Irish semi-enslaved are a poor choice for comparison however.

  4. Italians, and many other white ethnic groups, had they been tested against them, might have come out similarly.

  5. So the War Between the States was inevitable. Unable to compete against a slave economy, the “free labor” north had to resort to violence to assert control over the “union” by destroying the Southern economy.

    Similarly, “free trade” yankee BRA must at some point employ violence against the slave labor economy of China to assert control over the globalist economy. Perhaps our misadventures in the middle east are only warmup exercises for something greater?

    Far more likely is complete capitulation due to crippling demographic changes. Like Britain, the US is an anti-white nation that will fight other whites to the death without any restraint, but will quickly surrender everything timidly to nonwhite “noble savages” who serve as the teleological endpoint of their secular religion substitute.

    We are now witnessing the endgame of the “mighty experiment,” which could simply be restated as “murder other whites for the sake of nonwhite idols” sociopathy. Time has come for these two failed, dying, anti-white empires to wind up on the scrap heap of history right alongside their murderous siblings Jacobin France and Bolshevik Russia.

    Deo Vindice

  6. A truly disturbing comparison. Although the USSR seemed to heve enslaved its Russian and Ukrainian core, they never quite pulled off the success the ChiCom is now
    enjoying. Conflict truly beckons.

  7. The truth is that slavery is an etremely efficient economic model. That’s why it has to be destroyed by competitors. The Thebans effectively saw this same problem with Sparta.

  8. So what if free labour is inefficient? Nobody denies that slaver was economically efficient. Free labour? Obviously good for profits. But it’s not about efficiency. If we did everything based on how efficient it is, we would kill the elderly, sick, and disabled. They’re burdens on society. Peopel wouldn’t have wages anywhere if we were efficient. Race realism is utter nonsense. Trying to apply logic to what is an issue of opinion is utter balderdash. There are no arguments, scientific, economic, or otherwise grounded on logic, which could justify the mass rape (metaphorical) of any group of human beings. Saying slavery is okay because it’s efficent is no better than saying let’s kill our grandparents because they don’t work anymore. Same logic, yet who would argue that we should bomb nursing homes? This stuff sickens me.

Comments are closed.