The Industrial Revolution, the Standard-of-Living Debate, and the Abolition of Slavery

       "What in a nutshell was the Industrial
         Revolution?"


The Industrial Revolution was a revolution which started in Great Britain and then spread to other parts of the Western world. The fancy, new industrial kind of improvements were those that had to do with textiles, machinery in general, transportation, and the like. We see improvements in the cotton industry, roadways, canals, railroads, the metal industry, chemicals, etc. From the Industrial Revolution, we likewise see the ingenuity of the idea of steam power come into play with the invention of the stationary steam engine, which then began taking the place of water and wind power.

The Industrial Revolution was no doubt progress towards the advanced society we have today!




      "What was the standard-of-living debate?"


The standard-of-living debate had to do with whether or not life improved during the Industrial Revolution. Was it better for people to go off and work in hazardous conditions in factory jobs than what was offered before, in regards to occupation and life? This is what the standard-of-living debate was.

The answer? Yes. Facts and history show that people were better off for this simple reason: if they were worse off, then nobody would have taken the jobs. Many had two choices: starve or work in the factory. Poverty was to a point nearly beyond our comprehension. Obviously, if the people were going to be worse off, then they wouldn't have taken the jobs!

The standard-of-living debate now isn't really in question, in regard to the above statements. Now it has more to do with when the people started to have a better standard of living, so-to-speak.

The standard-of-living debate certainly has raised some eyebrows throughout the times since the Industrial Revolution, and I hope that this essay has helped to clear the air to some respect.




"What were the different arguments that combined Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country's overseas colonies?"


One of the arguments combined with the others was this: that in order to abolish slavery we should first abolish the slave trade. In theory, this would result in fewer slaves coming in from the African continent. This would eventually run slavery into the ground due to the few numbers of slave shipments.

The first anti-slavery society was begun in 1787. In this society they had many plans and arguments that they would use to abolish slavery.

These arguments included the idea of a person's natural rights, the idea of humanitarianism which was used to fight against the brutality in slavery (not necessarily powerful enough to end slavery but rather to encourage rational thought), and economic principles.

It was thought that the slaves were beneficial to the economy, but rather it would be more beneficial for a plantation owner to simply hire help. The slaves would have to be cared for all year round, but hired help would be needed only part of the year. This would alleviate a great deal of cost for the slave owners.

Lastly, I will note that the general thought had been that slavery helped to protect national security. The research of Thomas Clarkson undermined this theory incredibly. Rather than slavery providing valuable training (which would lay the foundation for a navy life in times of war) for sailors who worked on the slave ships, the sailors would just die. That's how horrid the conditions on those ships were. Henceforth, if you were dead, then you obviously couldn't be used on British navy ships in times of war.

The Arguments that led to the abolition of slavery in that country's overseas colonies were vast and
interesting indeed!