22 Reading 34-1 The f rst was that clever money and “new men” were moving elsewhere, into England’s own Industrial Revolution, into turnpikes and canals, and into trade outside the Triangle. Above all, the bankers were begin-ning to see that the sugar trade was an incubus in their balance sheets. The planters and traders suffered from hard-core borrowing, on which the debtors were hard-pressed to pay interest, let alone repay the principal. The Triangular Trade was a mature, staple trade, and clever money does not remain long in mature trades. Secondly, because Britain controlled the seas after Trafalgar, no sugar or slaves could be moved except by permission of the Royal Navy. Rivals could not therefore cheat by engaging in the slave trade or import-ing sugar produced by cheap slaves without the Royal Navy’s permission, and when peace came, the slave trade, “abolished” by the United States in 1819 and by Denmark in 1803, could be universally condemned not only morally and logically, but also by force majeure , 28 so that no other country could steal British markets with cheaper, slave sugar. Or was slave sugar cheaper? This was the 3rd reason.
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
access the rest of the document.
This note was uploaded on 11/18/2011 for the course HIST 302 taught by Professor Jensic during the Summer '10 term at Purdue University-West Lafayette.