Nationalism and Slavery in Early Colonial America

An examination of newspaper articles from the pre-1754 era regarding the slave trade makes clear the influence of nationalism on the development of this industry of horrors. The recurring themes of these articles illustrate that in many cases the rapid expansion of the slave trade during this time period was fueled by nationalistic rather than purely economic motives. The articles consistently reference the complex issue of slavery in the context of nation and empire-building, and in comparison to the development of the slave trade in other competing empires. This demonstrates that the development of the slave trade during this time period is a direct result of the virulent nationalism of the time period, and must be discussed in this context for an accurate appreciation of how such an inhumane system came to develop. The importance of understanding the role of nationalistic tendencies in the expansion of the slave trade is an essential piece of history and has myriad implications for modern society in terms of how we perceive and respond to nationalistic political developments.

One of the documents that most clearly illustrates this point is “The Representation of His Council’s majesty of New Jersey.” In this document, the political landscape of the time period is discussed in great detail and used as the main justification for the expansion of the slave trade. The article states that as a result of the upheaval in Europe the colonists have “no reason to expect assistance from that quarter...wherefore we only conceive that it would be more for the interest of the people of this colony to encourage the importation of slaves…” Clearly, the endorsement of the slave trade by colonial officials, therefore, has more to do with a nationalistic desire to best competing powers given their lack of desire for cooperation, rather than for any purely economic motives. It stands to reason that in a more economically and politically collaborative environment colonial officials would not so happily endorse slavery as a method of national advancement. This ties into a number of concepts addressed in the Foner reading.

One of the most important aspects of the previously addressed document is that the embrace of slavery by the colonists of New Jersey is exemplary of British colonial policies towards slavery across the Americas, and therefore worthy of a great deal of further examination in the hopes of illuminating the role of nationalism in the slave trade. According to Foner, “slavery existed in every colony of British North America,” which makes the aforementioned document an illuminating insight into the conditions that exacerbated the slave trade across the British Empire” (137). The fact that the practice was expanded uniformly across British North America means that we can extrapolate the significance of the document to give insight into the role of nationalism in the slave trade throughout the American colonies rather than in one specific area. This is an important and exciting development because Foner explains a great deal of context regarding British nationalism that puts the document in a new light.

Foner makes a number of interesting assertions regarding the development of nationalistic tendencies amongst colonists during this time period as a result of imperial wars between Britain, France, and Spain. According to Foner, “For both Britons and colonists war helped to sharpen a sense of national identity against foreign foes” (150). Clearly, this era of warfare and imperial struggles resulted in a new virulent strain of nationalism that had a dramatic variety of political and economic consequences. It would, therefore, be remiss to examine the development of the slave trade during this time period without discussing the impact of increased nationalistic tendencies on the institution. Furthermore, Foner elaborates on the importance of this increased nationalistic tendency in greater detail throughout his work.

Importantly, this trend of increased British nationalism was not short-lived, but rather an element of British identity that only grew in importance as time progressed. As Foner states, “British patriotism became more and more assertive as the eighteenth century progressed…The rapidly expanding British economy formed another point of pride uniting Britons and colonists” (150). This quote illustrates not only the validity of viewing colonial actions through the lens of British nationalism, given the close ties between Britons and colonists during this time period, but also the importance of viewing the adoption of slavery as not merely an economic measure, but also one that exemplifies the nationalistic spirit of the era. Once again we see that motives that appear to be purely economic at first blush actually have a great deal more to do with nationalism than pure commercialism. This point is only furthered by Foner’s explanation of the connection between slavery and British nationalism.

Interestingly, the British belief in nationalistic superiority was not only compatible with slavery but reliant on the continuance of the practice. As Foner states, “Central to this sense of British identity was the concept of liberty...It viewed nearly every other nation on earth as ‘enslaved’—to popery, tyranny, or barbarism” (150). The British therefore depended on the practice of slavery, or at least their broadened conception of it, to justify their nationalistic view of superiority to all other nations. We can, therefore, see the justifications for slavery on the part of British colonies as a natural outgrowth of the nationalistic sentiments that pervaded the time period, a context it would be difficult to appreciate without close examination of the subject. We can see these nationalistic sentiments on the part of the British in other examinations of documents from the time period.

The document with the byline “London,” dated December 26, is an excellent example of the further influence of nationalism on the development of the slave trade in the British Empire. The article observes in no uncertain terms that the French “African trade...depends so much on the American as the great mart for slaves that it will not be worth keeping if we drive them out of the latter.” This statement demonstrates the profound influence of nationalistic feuding between the British and French on the slave trade of the time period. Quite clearly the British conquest of the Americas was to some degree related to the desire to capture control of the slave trade from their national rivals, further indicating that the development and proliferation of the slave trade was in large part related to nationalistic fervor on the part of the British, which supplanted more basic economic motives. Once again this sentiment is echoed in Foner’s observations regarding the time period.

`Foner illuminates the roots and realities of the rivalry between Britain and France in a number of ways. As he states, “A greater rival to British power in North America—as well as in Europe and the Caribbean—was France” (Foner 165). In some ways this echoes the sentiments of the previous primary document, however, it fails to account for the fact that in many ways Britain’s desire to control North America was a result of their desire to crush the French, rather than vice versa. The nationalistic roots of the dispute between the British and French over control of the slave trade, and by extension North America, in some ways go beyond even what has been indicated by Foner. However, Foner does shed a great deal of light on the connections between the British conception of nationalism and the impact it had on the international slave trade, as discussed in the previous document.

The concept of British nationalism that so greatly impacted the international slave trade was in large part defined in opposition to the French. As Foner states, “Especially in contrast to France, Britain saw itself as a realm of widespread prosperity, individual liberty, the rule of law, and the Protestant faith. Wealth, religion, and freedom went together” (150). Therefore, the newly congealing sense of British national identity and pride was completely reliant on conflict with the French. To a large extent, this clarifies the burning desire to cripple the French economy by weakening their hold on the slave trade that we see evident in the previous document. This political and historical context is essential to a proper understanding of the primary source. Interestingly, it would appear that over time economic conditions shifted to the point that the old strategy of crippling the French slave trade was supplanted by an overall struggle for territory.

While the aforementioned document is an excellent example of the nationalistic tensions between Britain and France during this time period, the specific strategies it presents were later discarded by the British. As Foner states, “In the Peace of Paris in 1763, France ceded Canada to Britain, receiving back in return the sugar islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique (far more lucrative colonies from the point of view of French authorities)” (169). The fact that the British allowed the French to keep the slave driven sugar colonies rather than the slave-free expanse of Canada shows that the strategy of attacking the French slave trade was eventually supplanted by a more simplistic desire to seize territory from the French. However, this does not mean that control of the slave trade was not still of high importance to the British.

One further document that illustrates the profound influence of nationalism on the slave trade is an article entitled “Foreign Affairs” from London, dated February 12. According to the article, “There are very strenuous representations making to the Parliament...against the project of certain companies for monopolizing the trade to Africa.” The fact that the African slave trade was run by government-sanctioned monopolies, against the wishes of the masses of many British citizens, indicates once again that the motivations for Britain’s involvement in the slave trade were more nationalistic than economic. This is once again echoed in many of Foner’s observations regarding the time period.

The British slave trade was run not as an economically open business, but rather as a tightly regulated monopoly. According to Foner, “the Royal African Company” was “the slave-trading monopoly” (153). The fact that the British slave trade was monopolized by a company closely associated with the government, despite the apparently strenuous objections to such a system on the part of many British citizens, indicates that British involvement in the slave trade was much more related to a nationalistic desire to supplant their European rivals than a desire to improve the economic situation of British citizens.

To understand just how important a government-sanctioned monopoly on such an industry was it is important to examine the role of the slave trade in the British economy. According to Foner, “in the eighteenth century, Atlantic commerce consisted primarily of slaves” (153). For the government to restrict its citizens' entry into such a thriving sector of the economy demonstrates quite clearly the nationalistic rather than the economic nature of the British slave trade. However, despite the inherently nationalistic motivations for Britain’s involvement with the slave trade, British citizens certainly enjoyed economic benefits from the practice.

Despite the deliberate monopoly of certain companies on the slave trade, other avenues were available for British citizens looking to profit from slavery. As Foner states, “In Britain itself, the profits from slavery and the slave trade stimulated the rise of ports like Liverpool and Bristol and the growth of banking, shipbuilding, and insurance” (139). While slavery clearly provided for a wide variety of economic opportunities for British citizens, the fact that they mainly occurred in industries tangential to the actual slave trade illustrates the nationalistic rather than economic motives for British slave trading. This context makes the complaints voiced by British citizens regarding the monopoly on the slave trade by certain companies more clear to the modern observer.

An examination of newspaper articles from the early colonial era makes it clear that the British slave trade was fueled largely by an increased sense of nationalism and desire to compete with European rivals. While there were economic gains for the British citizenry as a result of the slave trade, the British government largely worked to maximize the gains for Britain on the geopolitical stage over economic progress for British citizens. This is an important and often overlooked aspect of the development of the colonial slave trade, and one that quite clearly illustrates the perils of overzealous nationalism.

(Appendix omitted for preview. Available via download)

Works Cited

Foner, Eric. Give me liberty: An American history. Seagull third ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. Print.