| I have thoughts. And a lot of those thoughts have to do with disagreeing with the proposition that Jane Austen’s work has secret radical messages, or that Austen was a fierce social and political critic of the times she lived in. Click here for the first in the series. |
CMP#41: Was Slavery a Taboo Subject in Austen's Time? Part 1: Non-fiction
This publisher specialized in abolitionist material. In previous posts, I've briefly looked at the assertion that Austen could not speak out more explicitly about slavery in Mansfield Park (or Emma, for that matter) than she did. I've already quoted scholar George Boulokus who asserts that slavery was NOT a taboo topic in Austen's time: "In fact, there is no evidence that readers, publishers or booksellers of early nineteenth-century London either looked askance at fictional works treating these topics or worried that such topics might upset the public’s sense of propriety.”
In addition to works of fiction that discussed slavery, there were also many non-fiction books and pamphlets which discussed the West Indian colonies in detail. Some were abolitionist, some defended slavery, some were travel guides in which slavery was just a fact of life. In addition, there were extensive parliamentary debates and speeches.
Anyone could read opinion pieces on all aspects: humanitarian, economic, political.
An 1807 book titled A Permanent and Effectual Remedy for the Evils under which the British West Indies Now Labour was not about the evils of slavery, but the “evils” of the falling price of sugar and global competition, and the lack of support for the West Indies traders from the British government.
The Authentic History of the English West Indies (1810), described the geography and climate of the West Indies. The book included explicit accounts of the suffering of the slaves.
In addition to works of fiction that discussed slavery, there were also many non-fiction books and pamphlets which discussed the West Indian colonies in detail. Some were abolitionist, some defended slavery, some were travel guides in which slavery was just a fact of life. In addition, there were extensive parliamentary debates and speeches.
Anyone could read opinion pieces on all aspects: humanitarian, economic, political.
An 1807 book titled A Permanent and Effectual Remedy for the Evils under which the British West Indies Now Labour was not about the evils of slavery, but the “evils” of the falling price of sugar and global competition, and the lack of support for the West Indies traders from the British government.
The Authentic History of the English West Indies (1810), described the geography and climate of the West Indies. The book included explicit accounts of the suffering of the slaves.
The most useful, explicit, and interesting non-fiction book I have come across is Objections to the Abolition of the Slave Trade (1788) by James Ramsay. The title might suggest that it is a defense of slavery, but the opposite is the case: Ramsay, a clergyman who spent time in the Caribbean, “steelmans” dozens of the pro-slavery arguments and then bats them around like squash balls.
Many of the arguments in favour of slavery center around economic necessity; some are based on geopolitical strategic considerations, and a few even defend slavery on what might be called humanitarian grounds -- that enslaved persons would be slaves anyway back in Africa, or they were better off than in Africa, etc. (Yes, if you are new to this, these were in fact the types of defenses made). Here's an example of a so-called humanitarian rationale:
Many of the arguments in favour of slavery center around economic necessity; some are based on geopolitical strategic considerations, and a few even defend slavery on what might be called humanitarian grounds -- that enslaved persons would be slaves anyway back in Africa, or they were better off than in Africa, etc. (Yes, if you are new to this, these were in fact the types of defenses made). Here's an example of a so-called humanitarian rationale:
|
And here is one based on competition with the French:
| Observ. #51 If we give up the trade, the French will extend their share of it. Ramsay's answer: "Suppose that others successfully rob and murder on the highway, must we join the lawless band? At present, the French buy many slaves on the coast from our brokers. Our goods pay for them, our factories accommodate them." |
Women as well as men took up their pens to condemn the slave trade and slavery, notably Hannah More, whom I've mentioned in previous posts. She wrote several poems on the subject and she donated generously to charitable causes.
 Hannah More, (1745-1833) Shall Britain, where the soul of freedom reigns, Forge chains for others she herself disdains? Forbid it, Heaven! O let the nations know The liberty she loves she will bestow; Not to herself the glorious gift confin'd, She spreads the blessing wide as humankind; And, scorning narrow views of time and place, Bids all be free in earth's extended space. What page of human annals can record A deed so bright as human rights restor'd? O may that god-like deed, that shining page, Redeem OUR fame, and consecrate OUR age! |
| Laetitia-Matilda Hawkins (1759-1835) scornfully asked why "East Indian plunderers" [people who amassed major fortunes in India] were welcome in society, while a gentlewoman who helped a fallen woman was scorned: “No one thinks himself contaminated by associated with the East Indian plunderer, the usurer, nor the rich villain of any species—he visits him, he partakes his sumptuous banquet uncensored and unsuspected, but should a woman of unimpeached purity be seen to enter the door of one of dubious character, or known to have been kind even in secret to a frail sister, she would from that moment be stamped, as an impudent friend to immorality.” A number of female authors wrote anti-slavery material for children: Anna Lætitia Barbauld (1743-1825) wrote in Hymns in Prose for Children: "Negro woman, who sittest pining in captivity, and weepest over thy sick child; though no one seeth thee, God seeth thee; though no one pitieth thee, God pitieth thee: raise thy voice, forlorn and abandoned one; call upon him from amidst thy bonds, for assuredly he will hear thee." Priscilla Wakefield's (1751-1832) book for children, Mental Improvement, or the Beauties and Wonders of Nature and Art (1800), included anti-slavery dialogues and encouraged boycotts of sugar, calico, coffee, rice, and rum, "and many other things procured by the sweat of their brow." |  Patricia Wakefield's Mental Improvement, or the Beauties & Wonders of Nature & Art, for children |
Wakefield also wrote travel books aimed at young readers, such as The Traveller in Africa (1814) and Excursions in North America (1819) and she included strong anti-slavery sentiments: “[W]e may encourage the hope, that the time approaches when their shackles shall be removed, and they shall participate with the other races of mankind, in the common benefits of liberty and independence; that, instead of the treatment of beasts of burden, they shall be considered as rational beings, and co-heirs with us of immortality…”
Far from being unable to express opinions about the slave trade because of social sanctions, women were at the forefront of the movement. As scholar Patricia Matthew pointed out, women were in charge of purchasing for the home, and advocated for a boycott of sugar--the "anti-saccharite" movement.
Given all this, it is peculiar that Mansfield Park, a book which expresses no opinions about slavery or the slave trade, is better known today as an anti-slavery novel than any work I've quoted in this post. Why is it more essential to advertise Jane Austen as being an abolitionist, while other women who spoke out forcefully are comparatively unknown? Why insist that it was dangerous, unfeminine, or unusual to discuss slavery in Austen's time?
Previous post: In defense of Sir Thomas Next post: Was slavery a taboo subject in novels?
Far from being unable to express opinions about the slave trade because of social sanctions, women were at the forefront of the movement. As scholar Patricia Matthew pointed out, women were in charge of purchasing for the home, and advocated for a boycott of sugar--the "anti-saccharite" movement.
Given all this, it is peculiar that Mansfield Park, a book which expresses no opinions about slavery or the slave trade, is better known today as an anti-slavery novel than any work I've quoted in this post. Why is it more essential to advertise Jane Austen as being an abolitionist, while other women who spoke out forcefully are comparatively unknown? Why insist that it was dangerous, unfeminine, or unusual to discuss slavery in Austen's time?
Previous post: In defense of Sir Thomas Next post: Was slavery a taboo subject in novels?
| Mary Prince was enslaved in Antigua and Bermuda. She managed to escape in England and published her autobiography in 1831. Although my book A Contrary Wind: a variation on Mansfield Park is set before that time, I used the story of Mary in a discussion between Hannah More and some other fictional abolitionists in Bristol. That's when Fanny Price first learns more about the slave trade than she ever knew in Mansfield Park. Click here for more about my books. |
RSS Feed