The Political Languages of Emancipation in the British Caribbean and the U.S. South (review)

Writing comparative history calls for a heightened level of historical knowledge that gives author(s) great competence in each individual area and command and controlled conceptualization of the data/material. Eudell attempted to compare the "political languages of emancipation"/freedom of two societies, which made his task an unenviable one. The problem may lie in the fact that he undertook what is incomparable. The title of the book promises information about British Caribbean and the U.S. South. Unfortunately, Eudell uses material mainly from Jamaica and South Carolina. In addition, he was also hindered by his methodology.

The thesis on which the study is molded is not easily recognizable. The first five chapters demonstrate clearly the work's methodological weakness, encompassing a style that pastes together extensive quotes and personal commentaries. The last two chapters do not vary much. Yet, not since the publication of Gordon K. Lewis, Main Currents in Caribbean Thought: The Historical Evolution of Caribbean Societies in Its Ideological Aspects, 1492-1900 (Baltimore, 1983), has anyone attempted to write an intellectual history involving the Caribbean. Eudell lost the opportunity to make an indelible mark on the historiography, however, by adopting a style and structure that inhibits a clear understanding of exactly what slavery and freedom in both Jamaica and South Carolina had in common.

Belief in the rights of Britons did not arise with the American rebellion. Edward Long—planter, historian and colonial ideologue—had long espoused the colonists' rights as Englishmen, acquired at birth. But since Africans were not born in Britain, they were not entitled to these rights, except when landed in Britain like the runaway slave in the Somerset case.

The author has failed to explore the rich evidence that exists in the plantation papers in Britain and the United States. Consequently, his dependence on the Freedmen Bureau Papers and the statements made by special/stipendiary magistrates limit the scope and conviction of the work. Furthermore, the Jamaican material fails to capture accurately the varied conditions throughout the rest of the British Caribbean.

Since the agents of the Freedmen Bureau and the special (stipendiary) magistrates performed different functions and had limited powers—especially the special magistrates—Eudell does not show that an "intellectual shift occurred in tandem with the political changes that spawned abolition" in the Caribbean (37-38). He would have done much better to develop his statement that British policy on abolition was "instantaneous in historic terms." This perception supports his brief discussion of the "decline thesis" in explaining the abolition of the slave system. Carrington, The Sugar Industry and the Abolition of the Slave Trade, 1775-1810 (Gainesville, 2002), provides ample discourse to reinforce Eudell's statement. The book clarifies Williams' thesis that economic decline led to the abolition of slavery.¹

Eudell's assessment does not endorse the statement that the "special magistrates" in the Caribbean "became part of the putting in place of the new world view, necessary for a new cultural order, an epochal shift identified by Polanyi as the 'great transformation'" (38). The work enters into vague generalizations regarding the role of the special magistrates in Jamaica. It would have been interesting for him to compare and even contrast his findings with those concerning the rest of the British Caribbean.

Careful analysis was required to show that within the early British empire Parliament could not legislate for the colonies, a situation that remained after the American rebellion. Except for Trinidad, St. Lucia, and British Guiana, the colonies had to pass legislation in order to implement British measures. Hence, some colonial officers recommended reform of the assemblies and adoption of Crown colony government. Although West Indians had political influence in Parliament, it had become limited by the time of the Abolition Act. The period...