Srividhya Swaminathan's important new book draws on two recent trends in British historiography. The first is the preoccupation with British identity, which, since the publication of Linda Colley's Britons (1992), has shaped historical inquiry on both sides of the Atlantic, even if Colley's arguments have not gone unchallenged. The second is the rescaling and opening up of the field of slavery studies by literary scholars, as well as a new generation of social and cultural historians. Building on this substantial body of work, Swaminathan offers what is a fresh and original thesis, namely, that the slave trade debates of the late eighteenth century helped to shape British national and imperial identity in unforeseen and complex ways.

Swaminathan is interested in how slavery discourse evolved over time. So, for instance, she attaches particular significance to the way in which British resistance converged around the slave trade as opposed to colonial slavery, a “transformation” she attributes to the influence of Anthony Benezet. The Somerset trial of 1772 was another turning point, not least because it led to a sharp distinction between “British” and “colonial” conceptions of liberty, between freedom-loving Britons and inhumane and tyrannical traders, planters, and overseers. From this moment on, Swaminathan argues, support started to drift away from the proslavery lobby. During the 1770s and 1780s, abolitionists broadened their appeal, using poetry and fiction, for example, to stress both the moral and Christian character of the “true” Briton. At the same time, many abolitionists embraced enslaved Africans as “fellow creatures,” in the process giving them voices, or, in the case of figures like Ottabah Cugoano and Olaudah Equiano, allowing them to speak for themselves. In these and other ways, British national identity came to revolve around “a belief in benevolent Christianity that the corrupt practices encouraged by slavery seriously threatened” (106).

The proslavery lobby vigorously disputed these arguments, pouring scorn on the motives of abolitionists, as well as the veracity and accuracy of their claims. Forced on the defensive, they also came up with an alternative image of what constituted the “true” Briton, based in large part on their sense of the interconnectedness of the British Empire, as well as its global reach. This meant not only repeatedly stressing the value of the Caribbean to British trade and prosperity, but also the likely risks if the government were forced to give way to abolitionists’ demands. In the process, planters identified their superior sense of commerce as a peculiarly British characteristic, just as they argued that abolition would run against “national” interests. With equal vigor, proslavery advocates disputed any notion that Africans were the equals of whites, preferring to see them as “savage” or “cursed.” In effect, they offered an alternative version of national character that, in Swaminathan's words, rested on “the innate barbarity of Africans” (166). Similarly, they contrasted British industry with African indolence and, in what was an attempt to turn the tables on abolitionists, argued that there were more deserving cases “at home.”

Crucially, Swaminathan sees these debates as dynamic and evolving; as she puts it, “much cross-talk occurred” (205). In her final chapter, she points out that between 1788 and 1807, abolitionists were compelled to address the commercial arguments put forward by their opponents, leading them to place increasing emphasis on attempts to civilize Africa, if only to demonstrate their grasp of imperial concerns. Similarly, under pressure from abolitionists, proslavery advocates put increasing emphasis on efforts to regulate the slave trade, thereby admitting that slavery was flawed. In other words, there was an interplay or interdependence between abolitionist and proslavery forces, just as positions and arguments changed over time. Equally important, “both camps exhibited great pride in the nation and had a strong sense of the British holding a singular position within the world” (204).

Swaminathan argues her case with great skill and ingenuity. If many of the texts she draws on will be familiar to specialists, her analysis is measured and thoughtful. Nevertheless, while Swaminathan is alert to new theoretical perspectives, she is arguably less attentive to the processes whereby books and pamphlets were printed, distributed, and consumed. Strangely, she says very little about the opinion-building activities of the Society of West Indian Planters, which was particularly active during 1792, when abolitionist activity was also at a peak. Similarly, while Swaminathan discusses a wide range of texts, closer analysis of sermon literature might have helped to flesh out what she says here about providentialism and British national identity. The apocalyptic visions of men like John Newton and William Cowper, who believed that Britons would be punished if they maintained their involvement in the slave trade, figured largely in abolitionist discourse, reminding us that providentialism remained an important factor in early slave-trade debates.

Swaminathan makes large claims for her book. There were no winners in these debates, she argues. Instead, both versions of national character (commercial enterprise and Christian morality) helped to shape British imperialism in the nineteenth century, thereby justifying the country's altruistic presence in Africa, India, and the English-speaking Caribbean. This is an interesting argument, but it is a pity that Swaminathan was not persuaded to develop it at greater length, perhaps in her epilogue. Nevertheless, these quibbles should not detract from what is otherwise an excellent book. At last, someone has given proslavery arguments the serious attention they deserve. The result is that we now have a much clearer sense of how eighteenth-century slave-trade debates evolved over time, just as we have a clearer sense of how they impinged on questions of national identity. Written in a clear and accessible style and nicely produced by Ashgate, this is a book that deserves a wide readership.