Sugar and Mercantilism

Joseph points out that Mintz is "adding to the discourse on capitalism" in his analysis of the production and consumption of sugar.

Mintz's analysis of the role of sugar in the transition of the British economy from one of Mercantilism to that of "free trade" by the early/mid 19th century brings up a couple of interesting aspects.

First, the ending of Mercantilism did not dampen British domestic sugar consumption.  There was no "backlash" by consumers of non-Caribbean sugar being imported into the British Isles.  As prices continued to fall and quantities continued to increase, the recognition by domestic consumers with specific British West Indies sugar faded. 

Second, there was a decided "class conflict" which emerged between the advocates of free trade and the West Indies planter class and the protected domestic sugar producers.  The ending of Mercantilism meant that the British Caribbean sugar industry would be subject to the vicissitudes of worldwide competition and no longer protected.  The conflict in this sense was generated by the state in its subsidies and grants of monopoly privileges to the planting class.

Mintz writes that the bankruptcy of Mercantilism by this time was demonstrated when the "leading sectors of British capitalism" would no longer trust the "mercantilist-nationalist arrangements" for the production of such an important commodity as sugar had become.  (70) 

Although not stressed, the eventual adoption of free trade played a part in the abolition of Caribbean slavery.  For without the subsidies and guarantees of the mercantilist system, the importation and maintenance of slaves as Mintz describes ("triangles of trade") would no longer be viable.