 Race and slavery in Adam Smith possibly episode one of racism in economics So there are two parts to the presentation first Smith's use of the word race and second Smith's discussion of New World slavery and colonialism So starting with his use of the word race he talks about the human race the race of laborers the race of scholars Race as a word for aristocratic house the colonial inhabitants of Brazil He calls a race and the pre-colonial inhabitants of the Cape Good Hope. So now I'll go through the textual evidence for each of these so first Human race it that is the propensity to truck barter and exchange is Common to all men and to be found in no other race of animals Which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts The race of laborers a man must always live by his work and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more otherwise It would be impossible for him to bring up a family and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation And now a second quote for the race of laborers The wages of the laborer it has already been shown are never so high as when the demand for labor is continually rising Or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary his wages are soon reduced To what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family or to continue the race of laborers Now the race of scholars that Unprosperous race of men commonly called men of letters are pretty much in the situation Which lawyers and physicians probably would be in upon the foregoing supposition in every part of Europe The greater part of them have been educated for the church But have been hindered by different reasons from entering into holy orders They have generally therefore been educated at the public expense and their numbers are everywhere So great as commonly to reduce the price of their labor to a very paltry recompense So now there will be three examples of race as an aristocratic house So first the French kings of the Merovingian race all had treasures When they divided their kingdom among their different children, they divided their treasure, too The next example when Robert the second prince of the Capetian race was most unjustly Excommunicated by the court of Rome his own servants It is said through the vitals which came from his table to the dogs and refused to taste anything themselves Which had been polluted by the contact of a person in his situation this third example I think is particularly interesting Because it shows it Smith doesn't limit his use of race to refer to Aristocratic houses that are in Europe The distinction of birth not only may but always does take place among nations of shepherds Such nations are always strangers to every sort of luxury and great wealth can scarce ever be dissipated among them by Improvedant profusion there are no nations accordingly who abound more in families revered and honored on account of their descent from a long race of great and illustrious ancestors Because there are no nations among whom wealth is likely to continue longer in the same families. Okay, so now I move to his discussion of The inhabitants of Brazil during the colonial period And this is both of these cases where race comes up in the discussion of colonialism He's talking about the Dutch but the Dutch government soon began to oppress the Portuguese Colonists who instead of amusing themselves with complaints took arms against their new masters and by their own valor and resolution With the connivance indeed but without any avowed assistance from the mother country drove them out of Brazil The Dutch therefore finding it impossible to keep any part of the country to themselves Were contented that it should be entirely restored to the crown of Portugal in this colony There are said to be more than 6,000 people either Portuguese or descended from Portuguese creoles mulatto's and a mixed race between Portuguese and Brazilians So the his use of race here Let's say is put is more consistent with how it would be used now But I don't think One needs to understand it as having any kind of biological Overtones it's perfectly consistent with a Historical cultural a purely historical cultural interpretation So now turning to the Dutch in Africa The Dutch settlements at the Cape of Good Hope and at Batavia are at present the most considerable colonies which the Europeans have established either in Africa or in the East Indies and Both these settlements are peculiarly fortunate in their situation The Cape of Good Hope was inhabited by a race of people almost as barbarous and quite as incapable of defending themselves as the natives of America Now an intermediate conclusion Smith uses race to mean group class or type Some of his uses have the flavor of descent group But others for instance when talking about men of letters do not at all even this last example Discussing the indigenous people of the Cape of Good Hope It would be very easy for us to read as potentially being racist, but it's clear that the function of it in his in his discussion is simply to point out that it was easy militarily for For the Spanish to conquer the new world and for the Dutch to to colonize the Cape of Good Hope So that's a comment, you know purely about the comparative level of military technology In in the two peoples and I don't think in his text has any sense of any other sort of cultural or Certainly not biological superiority. Okay, so now turning to part two Smith on New World Slavery and colonialism. I'll again give a quick overview and then go into the textual evidence So on slavery Smith makes a number of points number of observations First that liberal government is worse for the condition of slaves than autocratic government is second that wage labor is cheaper than slave labor third He claims that production conditions determine the percentage of Slaves in a population now on colonialism. I Won't I will give the evidence later But the quick version is that Smith Opposes colonialism. He thinks that colonialism is not good for The metropole actually little loan for the colonies Okay, so first liberal government is worse for the condition of slaves now This is a relatively long quote, but I think it's it's interesting. So as we're doing That the condition of a slave is better under arbitrary than under a free government is I believe Supported by the history of all ages and nations In the Roman history the first time we read of the magistrate Interposing to protect the slave from the violence of his master is under the emperors when Various polio in the presence of Augustus Ordered one of his slaves who had committed a slight fault to be cut into pieces and thrown into his fish pond in order to feed his fishes The emperor commanded him with indignation to emancipate immediately Not only that slave, but all the others that belong to him under the Republic No magistrate could have had authority enough to protect the slave much less to punish the master And now the next quote in all European colonies The culture of the sugar cane is carried on by Negro slaves The constitution of those who have been born in the temperate climate of Europe could not it is supposed Support the labor of digging the ground under the burning Sun of the West Indies and the culture of the sugar cane As it is managed at present is all hand labor Though in the opinion of many the drill plow might be introduced into it with great advantage But as the profit and success of the cultivation which is carried on by means of cattle Depend very much upon the good management of those cattle So the profit and success of that which is carried on by slaves must depend equally upon the good management of those slaves and in the good management of their slaves the French planters I think it is generally allowed are superior to the English the law so far as it gives some weak Protection to the slave against the violence of his master is likely to be better Executed in a colony where the government is in a great measure arbitrary than in one where it is altogether free in every country Where the unfortunate law of slavery is established the magistrate when he protects the slave Intermetals in some measure in the management of the private property of the master and in a free country where the master is Perhaps either a member of the colony assembly or an elector of such a member He dare not do this but with the greatest caution and circumspection the respect that he is obliged to pay to the master Renders it more difficult for him to protect the slave But in a country where the government is to a great measure Arbitrary where it is usual for the magistrates to intermedal even in the management of the private property of individuals And to send them perhaps a letter the cashier if they do not manage it according to his liking it is much easier for him to give some protection to the slave and Common humanity naturally disposes him to do so the protection of the magistrate renders the slave less Contemptable in the eyes of his master who is thereby induced to consider him with more regard and to treat him with more gentleness Gentle usage renders the slave not only more faithful, but more intelligent and therefore upon a double account more useful So it's just worth noting from these passages that Adam Smith does not support the legal institution of slavery and thinks that natural humanity would lead someone to Want to intercede between a master and his slave if the master is behaving violently and then he also thinks that giving people the dignity of of of Sound mind and body and some self-respect Makes them more economically productive not views that would have been popular in the anti-bellum south moving on to the next point Wage labor is cheaper than slave labor The wear and tear of a slave it has been said is at the expense of his master But that of a free servant is at his own expense The wear and tear of the latter however is in reality as much at the expense of his master is that of the former The wages paid to journeymen and servants of every kind must be such as may enable them one with another to continue the race of journeymen and servants According as the increasing diminishing or stationary demand of the society may happen to require But though the wear and tear of a free servant be equally at the expense of his master It generally costs him much less than that of a slave The fund destined for replacing or repairing if I may say so the wear and tear of the slave is Commonly managed by a negligent master or careless overseer That destined for performing the same office with regard to the free man is managed by the free man himself The disorders which generally prevail in the economy of the rich Naturally introduced themselves into the management of the former the strict frugality and parsimonious attention of the poor as Naturally established themselves in that of the latter Under such different management the same purpose must require very different degrees of expense to execute it It appears accordingly from the experience of all ages and nations I believe that the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves It is found to do so even at Boston, New York and Philadelphia Where the wages of common labor are so very high Okay, now the next point that productive conditions determine the percentage of slaves in a population So he says The pride of man makes him love to domineer and nothing mortifies him so much as to be obliged to condescend to Persuade his inferiors whenever the law allows it and the nature of the work can afford it Therefore he will generally prefer the service of slaves to that of free men the planting of sugar and tobacco can afford the expense of slave Cultivation the raising of corn it seems in the present times cannot in the English colonies of which the principle produces corn The far greater part of the work is done by free men The late resolution of the Quakers in Pennsylvania to set at liberty all their Negro slaves may satisfy us that their number cannot be very great Had they made any considerable part of their property at such a resolution could never have been agreed to In our sugar colonies on the contrary the whole work is done by slaves and in our tobacco colonies a very great part of it The profits of a sugar plantation in any of our West Indian colonies are generally much greater than those of any other Cultivation that is known either in Europe or America and the profits of a tobacco plantation Though inferior to those of sugar are superior to those of corn as has already been observed Both can afford the expense of slave cultivation, but sugar can afford it still better than tobacco The number of Negroes accordingly is much greater in proportion to that of whites in our sugar than in our tobacco colonies So it seems that Smith is saying that that people are inclined to turn to the most unfree most tyrannical forms of labor organization and Maintain them as long as possible and it's only when they become economically unviable that That instead more humane more just arrangements are are made Okay, now turning to then Smith's Explicit views on colonialism. I want to argue that he is an anti-colonialist. I think it's a pretty open and shut case Here's what he says he says Folly and injustice seem to have been the principles which presided over and directed the first project of Establishing those colonies the folly of hunting after gold and silver mines and the injustice of covening the possession of a country Who's harmless natives far from having ever injured the people of Europe had received the first adventures with every mark of Kindness and hospitality now next quote Such have been the general outlines of the policy of the different European nations with regard to their colonies The policy of Europe therefore has very little to boast of either in the original establishment or so far as concerns They're internal government in the subsequent prosperity of the colonies of America So the conclusions are that Smith opposes slavery and colonialism stressing primarily Economic rationale, but he clearly morally objects to both as well He acknowledges the differences of cultures can correlate with or cause different economic outcomes especially when it comes to military technology He seems to have no notion of cultural or biological inferiority or superiority So he's he's really quite egalitarian and certainly not a racist