Sugar Trade Dbq Essay

First and foremost, without a solid agricultural basis, it is unlikely the sugar trade would have flourished at all. It is thus incredibly fortunate that much of British land designated to the production of sugar fell under near ideal settings in terms of geography, as will be discussed in documents 1 and 6. For instance, in 1750, an extensive portion of the Caribbean islands fell under British ownership (Doc 1). Therefore, not only was land easily and readily available for colonial use, but the islands also created an abundance of ports from which to better transport goods. Consequently, an island format surrounded by easy access would have led people to travel shorter distances from their plantations to trading ships, and thus the British might have possessed an advantage over the Spanish’s fewer, larger islands. Furthermore, according to William Belgrove, uncleared Jamaican land in 1775 could be purchased at well under £1 per acre (Doc 6).

Land that could be bought and sold very cheaply would further raise the incentive to become involved in the industry, while also encouraging uncleared land to be prepared for sugar production. Furthermore, most if not all of British-owned Caribbean islands met near-ideal settings in terms of climate and location, as well. Indeed, according to a 1980s copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, at least two of the islands (Jamaica and Barbados) fell within the ideal latitude range, temperature range, and soil type (Doc 2). Specifically, each was located between 37˚N and 30˚S, are between 68 and 90˚F, and are at least somewhat composed of a sand, silt, and clay soil mixture. And, while the rainfall was a little less than the ideal amount, it nevertheless remained within 20 inches (in Barbados) and 3 inches (in Jamaica) of the desired amount, each time with annotations describing the rainfall’s considerable variety. Hence, little additional work was needed to manually or artificially enhance the land’s features to make it suitable for sugar production. Thus, the Caribbean’s ideal geography and climate created a coaxing nest from which the sugar trade could blossom.
However, more than available land or exemplary climates, a phenomenal boost in consumer demand for the product was necessary in order to drive the sugar trade forward. This can be most clearly expressed in the following statistic: a 1990s work from the Duke University Press stated that between 1698 and 1775, the annual British sugar consumption per person nearly quadrupled from around 4.6 lbs to 16.2 lbs, and sugar imports increased by over a thousand pounds (Doc 5). All the while, the population did not even increase by 50%, showcasing the fact that in a relatively brief amount of time, the desire for the sugar that each individual consumed increased dramatically. This newfound desire for the product is perhaps best explained by examining documents 3 and 4. Indeed, Benjamin Moseley observed the highly addictive nature of sugar (Doc 3). As British people began to slowly implement the product into their diet, it became more and more difficult to relinquish the desire for it. This struggle was doomed to fail, though, and as the demand increased, larger quantities were able to be shipped in smaller amounts of time. For instance, 65 large barrels known as hogsheads, each weighing over 700 lbs, could be filled with sugar and distributed to the masses (Doc 3). Thus, sugar was not only highly addictive, but was easily accessible. Finally, other exotic imports — namely coffee, chocolate, and tea — acted as complementary goods to sugar, according to Sydney Mintz (Doc 4). In essence, the additional products increased the demand for sugar by association, as so as the consumption of the complementary products increased, so once again did the demand for sugar. In short, high consumer demand for the product, caused by its addictiveness, availability, and links to other imports, in turn lead to become a driving force of the sugar trade.
And yet, perhaps the most crucial component that allowed the sugar trade to expand exponentially relied on a steady availability of labor.

More specifically, African peoples were in no shortage of supplying the much-needed labor to the Caribbean islands. Documents 6 and 8 highlight the extent to which such plantations were labor-intensive. Namely, a 500 acre plantation in 1755 required 300 slaves to tend to the land (Doc 6), and depictions of such plantations are filled with Africans performing labor such as planting sugarcane “setts” or running cane juice through a boiling gutter (Doc 8). It thus seems to follow that African slaves would become increasing implemented into the sugar producing business. Indeed, in order to keep pace with the booming demand for additional labor, the labor supply continued to grow: in Jamaica, the slave population rose by more than 200,000 individuals between 1703 and 1789 (Doc 10). In short, slavery played an enormous role in ensuring sugar could continue to be supplied to

Britain.
Interestingly, an interest in achieving personal gain from the sugar led many Europeans to be oblivious to its horrors and therefore, seeing only the benefits of the process, continue to practice it. In fact, many of the plantations owners such as Charles Long and Robert Hilbert were absentee owners themselves, and already generally from wealthy households (Doc 7). In this way, those in the power to shut down cruel labor rarely saw the true cost of slavery, and once again the practice continued to increase and consequently sugar production once again was on the rise. Unfortunately, gradually more than those directly related to the sugar’s production began to benefit from the sugar trade, therefore engraving human labor into the foundations of the trade. Everyday merchants, for example, could become involved within the trade network by purchasing shares in the slave trade (Doc 9), or otherwise trading their personal goods for African slaves (Doc 11). Hence, capital was not limited to monetary systems, and as capital in the form of goods could be readily traded for slaves in Africa, merchants could benefit from the exchange. In simpler terms, as the demand for sugar grew, so did the need for more slaves, and consequently, so did the demand for the merchant’s goods.