Slavery in the Circuit of Sugar, Second Edition by Tomich Dale W.;

Author:Tomich, Dale W.;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: State University of New York Press
Published: 2016-03-12T16:00:00+00:00

Chapter Six

Obstacles to Innovation

By the 1830s, the need to reform the organization of sugar production pressed on the plantation system in Martinique. Metropolitan and foreign competition constantly threatened the market position of the colonial product. Further, with the rapid expansion of the previous decades, the effective physical limits of cultivation had been reached, while the abolition of the slave trade prevented the planters from increasing their labor force. Finally, the rapid technological progress of the beet sugar industry made it necessary to reappraise colonial production in the light of scientific principles. Sainte Croix, among others, argued that the advances of beet sugar production should be adapted to colonial sugar manufacture: “The successes of beet sugar manufacture in Europe show how science combined with experience can lead to rapid progress. … Let us profit from the efforts of our rivals and use their means in the hope that, in treating a richer and less complex material than theirs, we will arrive at more advantageous results.” The colonial planters hoped that by ameliorating their wasteful manufacturing methods the natural superiority of cane over the sugar beet would enable them to overcome the challenge of their metropolitan rivals and restore colonial prosperity. In the words of one such planter: “There is, thus, enormous wealth which perishes each year in the colonies. It is an imposing reserve which cannot but be developed a few years from now and which will change completely the face of the debate.”1

There were a wide variety of individual responses to these new conditions. The majority of planters lacked the means and often the inclination to apply scientific principles to colonial production and to adopt the methods developed in the beet sugar industry. Traditional routines remained the norm, and the pace of change was slow. But not all of the planters submitted to their fate passively. As Lavollée admonished: “The lack of improvements introduced in sugar manufacture cannot at all be attributed to the carelessness of the colonists. They so little deserve this reproach that, despite the onerous conditions with which the metropolis has surrounded the improvement of their products, they count several plantations on a completely progressive path.” The processes and techniques of colonial sugar production underwent systematic scrutiny by agronomists, engineers, political economists, and the planters themselves, and an unprecedented number of technical treatises were published. A growing number of attempts were made to experiment with the new technology, and in 1839, in the face of the hostility of many of their compatriots, a group of leading planters founded the Société d’agriculture et d’économie rurale to study and promote the scientific improvement of agriculture in the colonies.2

The debate among the planters was not about whether to accept or reject technological innovation, but under what conditions it could be successfully implemented in the colonies. As a result of long and successful experience, progressive planters such as Guignod, Sainte Croix, and Jabrun were cautious in their approach to reform. Their empirical approach to plantership made them suspicious of abstract formulas and general panaceas and heightened their sensitivity to local variations.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.