The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
FREE TRADE, FREE LABOUR, AND SLAVE SUGAR IN VICTORIAN BRITAIN
Open accessAbstract
This article reconsiders the sugar duties controversy in early Victorian Britain. Rather than representing the defeat of abolitionism by free trade zeal, the sugar question was a contest of two varieties of anti-slavery thought which had previously co-existed: one believing that slavery's immorality was accompanied by its productive inferiority to free labour and the other asserting that slavery's profits in this world were punished outside the marketplace. West Indian decline after the end of protection led to a revision of free labour superiority, with providential externalities replacing marketplace competitiveness. The episode demonstrates how little most Britons understood the welfare of black freedmen to be connected to anti-slavery after emancipation. A fuller appreciation of the slave sugar debate furthermore recovers an important abolitionist strand in the new ‘human history’ of free trade.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The government did so on the grounds that allowing cheaper slave-produced sugar into the British market would be good for consumers (Huzzey 2010).”
From Historicizing Modern Slavery: Free-Grown Sugar as an Ethics-Driven Market Category in Nineteenth-Century Britain (2020) · cites this paper as Huzzey 2010
Citations
Cites
Before “Fair Trade”: Empire, Free Trade, and the Moral Economies of Food in the Modern World
Trentmann, F. (2007) · Environment and Planning D: Society and Space · doi:10.1068/d448t · Cited by 86
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 10.1093/ehr/XCVIII.CCCLXXXVIII.529 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0018246X08007322 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0018246X00017003 · DOI
- 10.1017/S002205070006544X · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/2141881 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0018246X00009250 · DOI
- 10.2307/2144428 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/2716584 · DOI
- 10.1353/jsh/27.3.579 · DOI
- 10.2307/3125066 · DOI
- 10.1162/jinh.2004.34.4.634 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smith, A., & Johns, J. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04318-1 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- HUZZEY, R.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- HUZZEY, RICHARD
- ORCID
- HUZZEY, RICHARD
- Venue
- The Historical Journal
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-04-27
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 359-379
- ISSN
- 0018-246X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5103
- OpenAlex
- W2141804022
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 10.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- The Historical Journal (publishedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Colonialism, slavery, and trade
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Historical Economic and Social Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Influence
- Keywords
- free trade, free labor, abolitionism, protectionism, Victorian Britain, emancipation, providentialism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
