Changes

==Slavery==

==Slavery==

One of the most controversial aspects of the Empire is its role in first promoting and then ending slavery. In the 18th century British merchant ships were the largest element in the "Middle Passage" which transported millions of slaves to the Western Hemisphere. Most wound up in the Caribbean, where the Empire had highly profitable sugar colonies, and the living conditions were bad. (The plantation owners lived in Britain.)  Parliament ended the international transportation of slaves in 1807, and used the Royal Navy to enforce that ban. In 1833 it bought out the plantation owners for cash and officially banned slavery. Historians before the 1940s argued that moralistic reformers such as [[William Wilberforce]] and the Evangelical Protestants (especially Methodists) were primarily responsible.   

One of the most controversial aspects of the Empire is its role in first promoting and then ending slavery. In the 18th century British merchant ships were the largest element in the "[[Middle Passage]]" which transported millions of slaves to the Western Hemisphere. Most wound up in the Caribbean, where the Empire had highly profitable sugar colonies, and the living conditions were bad. (The plantation owners lived in Britain.)  Parliament ended the international transportation of slaves in 1807, and used the Royal Navy to enforce that ban. In 1833 it bought out the plantation owners for cash and officially banned slavery. Historians before the 1940s argued that moralistic reformers such as [[William Wilberforce]] and the Evangelical Protestants (especially Methodists) were primarily responsible.   

Historical revisionism arrived when West Indian historian [[Eric Williams]] in ''Capitalism and Slavery'' (1944), rejected this moral explanation and substituted a [[Marxist]] interpretation. He argued that abolition was now more profitable, for a century of sugar cane raising had exhausted the soil of the islands, and the plantations had become unprofitable. It was more profitable to sell the slaves to the government than to keep up operations. The 1807 prohibition of the international trade, Williams argued, prevented French expansion on other islands. Meanwhile, British investors turned to Asia, where labor was so plentiful that slavery was unnecessary. Williams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. The high profits from the slave trade, he said, helped finance the [[Industrial Revolution]]. By implication, Britain enjoyed prosperity because of the capital extracted from the unpaid work of slaves.  

Historical revisionism arrived when West Indian historian [[Eric Williams]] in ''Capitalism and Slavery'' (1944), rejected this moral explanation and substituted a [[Marxist]] interpretation. He argued that abolition was now more profitable, for a century of sugar cane raising had exhausted the soil of the islands, and the plantations had become unprofitable. It was more profitable to sell the slaves to the government than to keep up operations. The 1807 prohibition of the international trade, Williams argued, prevented French expansion on other islands. Meanwhile, British investors turned to Asia, where labor was so plentiful that slavery was unnecessary. Williams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. The high profits from the slave trade, he said, helped finance the [[Industrial Revolution]]. By implication, Britain enjoyed prosperity because of the capital extracted from the unpaid work of slaves.  

More recently historians have challenged Williams. They have shown that slavery remained profitable in the 1830s because of innovations in agriculture, so the profit motive was not central to abolition.<ref>J.R. Ward, "The British West Indies in the Age of Abolition," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 415-39.</ref>  Richardson (1998) finds Williams's claims regarding the Industrial Revolution are greatly exaggerated, for profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain. Richardson further challenges claims (by African scholars) that the slave trade caused widespread depopulation and economic distress in Africa—indeed that it caused the "underdevelopment" of Africa.  Admitting the horrible suffering of the slaves themselves, he notes that many Africans benefited directly, because the first stage of the trade was always firmly in the hands of Africans. European slave ships waited at ports to purchase cargoes of people who were captured in the hinterland by African dealers and tribal leaders. Richardson finds that the "terms of trade" (how much the ship owners paid for the slave cargo) moved heavily in favor of the Africans after about 1750. That is, indigenous elites inside West and Central Africa made large and growing profits from slavery, thus increasing their wealth and power.<ref>David Richardson, "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 440-64.</ref>

More recently historians have challenged Williams. They have shown that slavery remained profitable in the 1830s because of innovations in agriculture, so the profit motive was not central to abolition.<ref>J.R. Ward, "The British West Indies in the Age of Abolition," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 415-39.</ref>  Richardson (1998) finds Williams's claims regarding the Industrial Revolution are greatly exaggerated, for profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain. Richardson further challenges claims (by African scholars) that the slave trade caused widespread depopulation and economic distress in Africa—indeed that it caused the "underdevelopment" of Africa.  Admitting the horrible suffering of the slaves themselves, he notes that many Africans benefited directly, because the first stage of the trade was always firmly in the hands of Africans. European slave ships waited at ports to purchase cargoes of people who were captured in the hinterland by African dealers and tribal leaders. Richardson finds that the "terms of trade" (how much the ship owners paid for the slave cargo) moved heavily in favor of the Africans after about 1750. That is, indigenous elites inside West and Central Africa made large and growing profits from slavery, thus increasing their wealth and power.<ref>David Richardson, "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 440-64.</ref>

==Name==

==Name==

The term "British Empire" was used by historians as early as 1708.<ref>John Oldmixon, ''The British Empire in America, Containing the History of the Discovery, Settlement, Progress and Present State of All the British Colonies, on the Continent and Islands of America'' (London, 1708))</ref> before that the usual term was "English Empire."<ref>As in Nathaniel Crouch, ''The English Empire in America: Or a Prospect of His  

The term "British Empire" was used by historians as early as 1708.<ref>John Oldmixon, ''The British Empire in America, Containing the History of the Discovery, Settlement, Progress and Present State of All the British Colonies, on the Continent and Islands of America'' (London, 1708))</ref> before that the usual term was "English Empire."<ref>As in Nathaniel Crouch, ''The English Empire in America: Or a Prospect of His