TheEconomistNovember 14th 2020 711O
njune7ththisyearEdwardColston
plunged, periwig first, into the waters
of Bristol harbour. It was an incongruous
scene: at least until recently, Britons im-
mortalised in bronze were rarely toppled or
drowned by mobs. Part of the shock of this
image, and part of its power, was to see a
figure dressed in gentleman’s breeches and
a frock-coat being treated as a criminal.
The Victorians who put up this statue
had burnished Colston as a philanthropist.
And this was true: he had given Bristol, his
home city, schools and almshouses. But he
did other things too, which the statue and
its plaque downplayed. During his decade
on the board of the Royal African Company
in the late 17th century, it trafficked 84,000
slaves from Africa to the Americas. An esti-
mated 19,000 died en route.
If statues can be misleading, so can per-
ceptions of entire historical periods. The
Victorians dressed Colston in an air ofunimpeachable respectability; similarly,
modernBritainhascloakedthecountry’s
roleintheslavetradeina hazeofselective
memory.It haslong celebrated William
Wilberforce and his “Saints”, the group
whofoughttoabolishslavery.DavidCam-
eron,a formerprimeminister,oncesaid
that one of Britain’s “proud achievements”
was its “role in ending slavery”.
Like some others, the country is rather
less keen to remember its sinners. Two
timely books, by the historians Padraic
Scanlan and Michael Taylor, set out to
weave a more accurate, less flattering ver-
sion of this story. Take the idea that Britain
worked to reduce slavery from 1807, when
the act that abolished the slave trade in the
British Empire was passed. That is true. It is
equally true that until that date Britain did
much to make it thrive. Of the more than
6m enslaved Africans transported across
the Atlantic, it is thought that 2.5m were
packed into British ships.
Or take the widespread but mistaken
notion that the act of 1807 outlawed the in-
stitution of slavery itself. It did not: it
stopped British slaving. In the flesh—and
this was an argument of flesh—the differ-encewasinfinitelybigger than it seems on
thepage.Chainsthatbound people before
thevote heldfirmafter it. The 700,000
soulswhohadbeenenslaved in the West
Indiesremainedenslaved, and tormented,
fordecades.
Traditionalaccounts of Britain’s role in
slavery culminate with Wilberforce and
thatact.Thesetwoarejust getting going.
MrTaylor’sbook,“TheInterest”, switches
thefocusfromthesaints to the sinners. His
titlederivesfromtheWest India Interest, a
lobbyinggroupofplanters and politicians,
publishersandintellectuals, which dog-
gedlyopposedabolition. Support for slav-
erypervadedBritishsociety. Viscount Nel-
sondeclaredhimselfa “firm friend” to the
colonies. The Duke of Wellington toiled to
frustrate abolitionists. The celebrated car-
toonist George Cruikshank caricatured
them. John Murray, a publishing house
known today for introducing Jane Austen
to the world, was so famous for pro-slavery
arguments that its Quarterly Reviewwas de-
scribed as “one of the most effective and
mischievous props” of the system.Out of sight
Mr Scanlan’s book, “Slave Empire”, concen-
trates on the financial benefits that slavers
reaped. This harvest by no means ended
with abolition. The £20m in compensation
that was eventually paid by the British gov-
ernment to slavers for the loss of their hu-
man property was a vast sum, equating to
40% of the state’s annual expenditure at
the time. Until the banking bail-out of
2008, it was the largest specific payout inHometruthsThehumanstain
TwonewbooksspelloutBritain’sroleinthetransatlanticslavetradeSlave Empire.By Padraic Scanlan.
Robinson; 464 pages; £25
The Interest.By Michael Taylor. Bodley
Head; 400 pages; £20Books & arts
72 Chinatownchic
73 DiagnosingAmericansociety
73 BillyWilder’sstory
74 Johnson: Language and evolutionAlso in this section