gmalivuk wrote:"An estimated 15%" isn't inconsistent with "nearly 20%".rmsgrey wrote:↶
Wikipedia has an estimated 15% of slaves dying in the Middle Passage.
Incidentally that same Wikipedia article points out, "During the 18th century,... British slavers carried almost 2.5 million [slaves]."Chattel slavery on this scale was not common. Pointing out that "some form of slavery" was common doesn't actually refute that point in any way.Also an estimated 75% of all people alive in some form of slavery c. 1800.
It's as if Angua said that steam locomotives were not common in 1830 and you "countered" by pointing out that an estimated 75% of all people had access to some form of non-human-powered transportation.Where are you getting these numbers? You put quote marks around them but the longer quote isn't Googleable.Estimates of the economic impact on Great Britain range from "less than 1%" to "at the very most possible, under the most favourable assumptions, and assuming there were absolutely no costs involved, up to 5%" of the economy.
No one else has been talking about just the money exchanged for the transport and purchase of slaves. Cotton in particular has been brought up a couple of times. How much of Britain's economy was related to the textile industry? How much of its cotton came from US slave plantations?
Between cotton and rubber, it's probably very fair to say the Industrial Revolution wouldn't have happened when and where it did without British slavery.
That's a bit more than a 5% impact on the British economy.
If you start playing "what if" then how much cotton would have been produced without slave-labour in British colonies? I've not found anything to back it up, but I came across one source that said cotton production increased following the abolition of slavery (which may have been due to a number of factors independent of the use of slaves vs underpaid freemen).
I guess if it's not chattel slavery, then it's not a problem? I gave the 75% figure because that was the only at least semi-relevant and verifiable figure I could track down. Seems the Arab slave trade didn't keep reliable records, with estimates ranging from a tenth of the trans-Atlantic trade to several times the trans-Atlantic trade during that period.
The quoted figures were paraphrases - the 5% had a list of technical assumptions made and costs excluded with qualifiers that these were being as generous as possible to the argument that the slave trade was a major contributor to the British economy, and that the abolition of the slave trade was largely on economic grounds due to falling profitability from soil exhaustion and with the intention of euchring other nations with still fertile colonies out of following in their footsteps (in order to debunk that argument).