Those of us who watched the television series “Sanditon,” set in regency times, heard multiple references to a sugar boycott. Without a doubt, Jane Austen was aware of the sugar boycott movement during her lifetime. But what was it? When was it? Did it have a significant impact in Britain? Today I would like to answer those questions and to give you an excerpt from my work in progress, where I imagine Darcy and Elizabeth discussing the topic.
What was the sugar boycott?
A series of public movements from the late 1700’s into the 1820’s, where adherents refused to buy sugar produced by slave labor. Usually this meant any sugar produced in the West Indies. The idea was that stopping the demand for sugar would also stop the need for slave labor and put an end to slavery in the British empire. Sugar boycotts happened multiple times, with different numbers of British citizens publicly abstaining from sugar and from products containing sugar. Some citizens signed petitions that were presented to Parliament as part of their protest against the slave trade.
Who started it?
Primarily Quakers in England, later joined by members of other faiths and eventually moving into British society as a whole. William Wilberforce, the famous British statesman, was the most prominent figure associated with the movement.
How many people participated?
Some 300,000-400,000 people participated in the boycott in the 1790’s. Countless others followed suit over the following decades.
Did it work?
That depends on what you mean by work. Yes, the sale of sugar was drastically reduced at times. Yes, the sugar boycott focused the attention of the public on slavery and spurred multiple petitions to Parliament in favor of abolition. But slavery continued for decades after the boycotts started. The focus on sugar usually only lasted a few years at a time, and then another matter would draw public interest. Sales of sugar produced by slave labor would then rebound to their previous levels. Still, it’s hard to believe that the laws to end the slave trade (1807) and later, slavery itself (1833) would have happened in quite the same way without the sugar boycotts paving the way.
What were arguments for and against the sugar boycott?
There were too many to list here, but my work in progress, Such I Was, has a conversation on the topic between a newly married Darcy and Elizabeth, with Georgiana listening in. It was interesting to imagine how our two main characters might respond to this issue. Please let me know what you think!
As he paged through the latest paper from town, Darcy shook his head disapprovingly. “The practice of slavery is at least as dangerous to the empire as any of Napoleon’s grand plans,” he pronounced. “It is a moral blight on our nation and ought to be abolished anywhere our flag flies.”
He spoke with such gravity that both Elizabeth and Georgiana were startled. They exchanged a look before Elizabeth ventured, “My father told me the practice was already eliminated several years ago.”
“The importation of slaves was abolished, but not the actual practice of using their labor. And no wonder. It is so tightly wound into the fabric of our society that it cannot be ripped out without tearing at the very warp and woof. And yet the ripping must be done. Sadly, I do not believe it will happen in our lifetime.”
“Didn’t our grandfather use slaves on his plantation in Jamaica?” Georgiana asked, rather timidly. “I thought father said that he did.”
“A practice he found abhorrent,” Darcy confirmed. “Any decent, civilized man knows that the practice is immoral. Yet when our grandfather died and father inherited, he found that paying for labor would bankrupt the plantation, besides endangering the livings of other merchants who depend on the sugar trade. And to what end? Closing one plantation would make little difference in the greater scheme of things; the trade would continue regardless.”
“So they did nothing,” Elizabeth said flatly. She looked at the fine china on the table, the costly paintings on display, even the dress she wore, made of material she could never have afforded as Elizabeth Bennet. Had all these luxuries been paid for by someone else’s misery? “And now you are the holder of those same properties.”
“We are the holders. But your conscience can rest easy,” Darcy offered, seeming to read her mind. “One of my first acts after I inherited the estate was to sell all of our properties in the West Indies. I cannot help what was done in the past, but I will not have the Darcy name associated with anything that reeks of such cruelty and mistreatment towards others.”
“All three of us put sugar in our tea not half an hour ago.” Elizabeth pointed out. “Sugar that may well have been produced by poor, unfortunate souls under a West Indian sun.”
Georgiana startled at her words. She frowned and stared at the sugar bowl in front of her thoughtfully, as if seeing it for the first time.
“One cannot avoid all luxuries. The abolitionists go too far in their demands sometimes, I think. Mrs. Barton and other honest merchants like her would have no income whatsoever if we obeyed their dictates and boycotted every form of sugar.”
“Nevertheless, I will do my best from now on to ensure that nothing produced by such barbaric means crosses the threshold of Pemberley,” Elizabeth said firmly. “If it means paying a little more for such a trifling luxury, that is a sacrifice we can well afford to make.” Darcy looked at her approvingly, and she flushed under the warmth of his admiring gaze.
Leave a Reply