Francisco Arango's Vision for Cuba's Economic Transformation

Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History
The Wealth of Empire: Francisco Arango y Parreo, Political Economy, and the Second Slavery in Cuba Author(s): Dale Tomich Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 4-28 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3879480 . Accessed: 14/11/2013 08:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Studies in Society and History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:00:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Wealthof Empire: FranciscoArango y Parrefio, Political Economy, and the Second Slavery in Cuba
DALE TOMICH
Departmentsof Sociology and History,BinghamtonUniversity
INTRODUCTION
FranciscoArangoy Parrehio (1765Planter,statesman,and economic reformer also was elite and for Havana's 1837)was the spokesman among planter emergent the majorarchitectsof Cuba'ssugarboom duringthe firsthalf of the nineteenth century.' In 1792, in the midst of the slave insurrectionin Saint Domingue, addresseda series of Arango,ApoderadoGeneralof the Havanaayuntamiento, de in Discursosobrela Agricultura memorialsto the SpanishCrownculminating la Habanay Medios de Fomentarla(Arango 1793a:114-75). These documents at once articulatedthe interests of the Havana planter class and formulated of Cubaneconomic life. Widely reArango's programfor the transformation framework for as texts of Cuban garded key history,they providedthe theoretical fromthe 1820s the developmentof Cubainto the world'sleadingsugarproducer into the twentiethcentury.At the same time, they express the creationof new of zones of slave productionas partof the political and economic restructuring the world economy that I have elsewhere called the "secondslavery"(Tomich to the continualre-forof these worksthuscalls attention 1988).An examination mationof slavery and otherforms of compulsorylaboras partof the historical developmentof the capitalistworldeconomy andto the ways thathighly specific local actionsat once shapeand are shapedby globalprocesses. The Discurso drew its effectiveness from Arango's acute awarenessof the ways United Statesindependence,the FrenchRevolution,andthe Haitianslave insurrectionwere restructuring the Atlanticeconomy, and his profoundunderboth of the opened standing possibilitiesthatthis politicaleconomicconjuncture
I would like to thankRolph Trouillot,Arcadio Diaz-Quifiones, Anifbal Quijano,Joan Scott, Albert Luiza Moreira,Rafaelde BivarMarquese,Mark AntoniFuri6,ChrisSchmidt-Nowara, Hirschman, Frezzo, JuanGiusti, RichardYidana,and the two anonymousreviewers for ComparativeStudies in Society and History for their encouragementand for their comments on various drafts of this manuscript. 0010-4175/XX/4-28$9.50 ? 2003 Societyfor Comparative Studyof SocietyandHistory
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
up for Cubaand of what was requiredfor Cubato take advantageof these conditions (Benitez-Rojo1986:10-12). Arango'sconcernwas to secureconditions for Cuba's long-term dominance over the trade in tropical goods, above all sugar, beyond the immediate advantagefrom what he then perceived to be the temporarydisruptionof order in the neighboringFrench colony (Arango 1793a:143). At this decisive moment, he systematically conceptualized the emerging conditions of the Atlantic economy from the perspectiveof the Havana planterelite. The keystone of his proposalswas his call for the free entry of slaves into Cubaandfor the removalof Spanishmercantilerestrictionsin order to permitfree tradein tropicalproducefor Havanaplanters.In his conception, free tradewent hand in hand with the expansion and renovationof sugar and productionthroughthe systematic applicationof slave labor, agricultural industrialimprovement,and betterslave management.His projecttheoreticalslave relationsand sugarproductionwithinnew ly andpracticallyreconstituted economic, political, and ideological domains and formulateda programfor Cuba'seconomic and social transformation. Emphasison the Atlanticdimension of Arango'sthoughtreveals its innovative character. In these works, the revitalizationof slave laborand expansionof the sugarfrontierin Cubaappearnot as the persistenceof archaiceconomic and social forms, but as active and formative aspects of what Giovanni Arrighi refersto as "theBritish systemic cycle of accumulation" (Arrighi1994:47-58, of world economic and political relationsthat co159-238), the restructuring incided with free tradeand the integrationof world markets,the industrialrevolution in Britain,the crisis of colonial slavery in the British and FrenchWest Indies, and anti-colonialrebellion elsewhere in LatinAmerica.Arango's project itself is articulated withinmodemformsof thought.The new disciplineof political economy providesArango with the means to formulatehis programfor increasingthe wealth of Cubaandhis justificationfor slavery.He re-conceptualizes slave labor within the frameworkof free trade,individual self-interest, efficient management,and systematic technological innovation. Indeed, the Discurso demonstratesnot the incompatibility,nor even the simultaneouscoexistence of liberalideas and pro-slaverythought,but the ways these positions derive from the sharedconceptualfield of political economy. This common groundingis perhapsnowhere more evident thanin Arango's theoreticalaffinity with and appropriation of Adam Smith. Despite the differences between them, the proximitybetween these two thinkers,stemmingfrom theircommon theoreticalorigin in physiocracyand agrarian thought,and from theirconceptionsof free trade,labor,and self-interest,give groundsto question the boundariesand supposedantimoniesbetween pro-slaverythoughtand liberal political economy. Examinationof the Discurso and other texts at once discloses the compatibilityand interdependenceof liberal political economy and pro-slaverythoughtin Arango'sprojectand problematizesSmith'sliberalism by drawingout the ways thatit is compatiblewith slavery.
DALE
TOMICH
This interpretation thatregardslaveryin the to approaches may be contrasted Americas as an anomalousor archaic social and economic relation that is irreconcilablewith modernforms of productiveorganization,market,and state (e.g. Williams 1944; Genovese 1967; Moreno Fraginals 1976, 1978; Lewis 1983). Fromthis latterperspective,slavery is destinedto be supersededby the emergence of a liberal economic, political, and social order. Such interpretations continuallyjuxtapose a linearconception of (liberal,capitalist)modernity against an equally linear conception of pre-modernslavery.Here, the social relationsof slavery may coexist with the world marketand liberalism,but each termis conceived as an independent,internallyunified, and mutuallyexclusive social category (see, for instance, Lewis 1983:97-98, 141-42). These abstracted attributes are localized in discretesocial spaces, each of which is asa distinctive signed temporality.Thus, Cuba remainsfixed as the site of slavand racial ery ideology, while true capitalism, the real bourgeoisie, and authentic liberalismare takento occur elsewhere. From this perspective, the coexistence of slavery,the free market,and Enand as partof the world view of the lightenmentthought,both internationally Creole elite itself, is regardedas at once a defining featureand a centralparadox of the nineteenth-century Cuban slave regime. Arango, the planterclass, Cuban slavery,and racial ideology are excluded from full membershipin historical modernity.With "one foot in the bourgeois future and the other in the remote slave past" (Moreno Fraginals 1976:60), they are viewed as hybrid productsof the self-contradictory attemptto combine irreconcilableopposites. The history of slavery in nineteenth-century Cuba is understoodas a narrative of flawed and unfinishedliberalism(Lewis 1983:144-45). Cubanslavery and racial ideology are characterizedby their incompleteness and immaturity (Lewis 1983:149). Liberalpracticesand ideas are construedas out of place in the colony: Colonial forms of liberalthoughtare viewed as deformedversions of theirmetropolitan of Cubanslavery and analogues.The historicaltrajectory the planterclass is defined by its failure to conform to the progressive development of liberalcapitalism. What is lost here is precisely the self-consciousness of the Cuban planter Such perspectives class and its projectof social and economic transformation. areunableto conceive of the Cubanplanterelite as an active andreflexive subject, engaged in practical activity and capable of appropriatingand transforming fields of knowledge and social ideas in order to grasp their historical condition in their own terms and act practicallyon it (CarvalhoFranco 1993:32-35). Instead,they presentCubanplantersas caughtbetween two alreadyformedand incompatiblebodies of ideas: On the one hand,theirthought is imprisonedwithin ideological forms that directly reflect anterior,determinant, and virtuallyimmobile slave relationsof production.On the other hand, they are passive recipients of a fixed and complete liberal ideology, which is importedfrom the outside and which they are unablefully to assimilate.
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
Rather than conceiving of the opposition of liberalism and pro-slavery thoughtas resultingfrom the juxtapositionof distinct temporalities(pre-modern and modern)in one place, I would like to arguethatit is more fruitfulthink to differentplaces of these two intellectualcurrentsas expressions appropriate in the same time-the time of the world market.The specificity of Arangoand Cubanslavery duringthe nineteenthcenturyis to be found not in the continuous interplay of homogeneous pre-bourgeoisand bourgeois forces, but in a compound,internallycomplex modernitythatis historicallyformedwithinheterogeneousand pluralrelationsof slavery and world economy. Enlightenment thoughtand liberal political economy are not "out of place" in Cuba. Rather, they are constitutiveelements of Cubanpro-slaverythought.Indeed, I would like to suggest thatthe particular conjunctureof liberalpolitical economy and pro-slaveryideas that characterize Arango'sDiscurso discloses not an anomaly withinthe nationalspace of Cuba,but the temporaldiscontinuityof slavery in the Atlanticworld;thatis, the remakingof slavery and world inequalitiesin a new cycle of accumulation.
THE DISCURSO, AND OF THE ATLANTIC ECONOMY ARANGO, THE CONJUNCTURE
was a leadSon of a prominentHavanafamily, Franciscode Arangoy Parrefio ing figure of the nascentHavanasugarelite. This group,including such figures as Jos6 Ignacio Echegoyen, Nicohis Calvo, Ignacio Pedro Montalvo y Ambulodi (the Countof Casa-Montalvo), Bonifacio Duarte,andNicolas Pefialver,reshaped Cubaneconomy and society in the first part of the nineteenthcentury and transformedCuba into the wealthiest plantation colony in the world (Amores 1998:19-20). Arangowas a new kind of intellectualwith a new relationship to power (Benftez-Rojas1986:9-14). His ideas most often found expression in political memorials. Intellectuallyprecocious and well-educated, Arango studied at the Seminariode San Carlos and the University of Havana in Cuba, where he received a bachelor of law degree in 1786. After a period practicinglaw before the Audienciain SantoDomingo, he completedhis studies in Spain, where he received his doctorof law degreein 1789. In Madrid,he attracted the attentionof high functionariesof the CourtincludingPrimeMinister Floridablanca. At the same time, he was a friend of GasparMelchor de Jovellanos and other figures of the Spanish Enlightenment.In this milieu, he developed a cosmopolitanoutlook. He was familiarwith the works of Raynal, Montesquieu,Quesnay,Smith, and Genovesi among others.Although he had not yet attainedhis legal majorityby 1788, he was then appointedApoderado General of the Havanaayuntamientoat the age of twenty-three.In this capacity, he addressedthe Discurso sobre la agriculturade la Habana y Medios de Fomentarla to the Spanish Crown in 1791 (Ponte Dominguez 1937:5-13, Navar1984:8; 26-49; Friedlaender1978:157-63; MarreroGonzIilez-Ripoll ro 1999:145-46).
DALE
TOMICH
Arango drafted the Discurso with great urgency following the arrival in Madrid of the news of the slave insurrectionin the French colony of Saint with Domingue.The situationin the Frenchsugarcolonies began to deteriorate the outbreakof revolutionin France.But it was the slave uprisingthat created an unprecedentedopportunityfor Cuba. Arango quickly grasped the significance of the moment: "... seeing them [the French] immersed in a calamity that, if it does not destroy all of the prosperityof that colony will retardit indefinitely,it is necessaryto look at it not only with compassion,but with political eyes, and, with the faith of a good patriotand a good vassal, announceto the best of kings the opportunity of the and the means to give to our agriculture Islandsadvantageandpreponderance over thatof the French"(1791c:111-12). He urgedthe King thatit was necessaryfor Cubato take advantageof the disruptionof Haiti in orderto raise itself "to a level of power and wealth capable of withstanding competitioneven when yourrivalrecovers. ... Takeadvantage of the momentto bringto your soil the wealththatthe narrowterritory of Guarico [SaintDomingue] gave to the Frenchnation"(1793a:133). Arangowas concernedwith what would happento Cubaafterthe immediate effects of Haiti were over. The windfallprofitsgeneratedby the revolt in Saint to guarantee Cuba'slong-termdevelopment. Dominguewere inadequate Arango fearedthatthe return to orderwouldbe ruinous.He argued thatfor Cubato maintain its position in the face of English and Frenchcompetition,agricultural and commercialreformwas an urgentnecessity:"Thevery advantage thatwe enjoy for us if we do not know how to take todayin the sale of sugarscan be disastrous of it. I have alreadysaid, andI repeat,thatif we wish to encouragethis advantage branchof industrywe must work as thoughwe were in the times precedingthe of the negrosof Guaricoso thatwhenthey [theFrench]return we do insurrection not find ourselvesin the sad conditionthatwe were in before"(1793a:143). The Discurso articulatesjust such a systematic programof reform. In it, Arangobringsto bearboththe theoreticalperspectivesof politicaleconomy and Enlightenmentthought and his profoundpracticalknowledge of Cuba. More thana pasticheof incompatiblepre-modern and modem elements,this remarkable documentcombines a theoreticallyinformedvision with practicalpolitical concerns.The text is organizedin a formatsimilarto thatused by Jovellanosin his Informesobre Industriay Comercio(1790) and his Informesobre la Ley Agraria (1794). It begins with a summaryhistoryof Cubaneconomic development that contraststhe colony's stagnationunderSpanishmercantilistpolicies with the growthand prosperitythatit experiencedas a resultof the English invasion of 1762, which promotedthe importation of slaves andopen commercial policies. Arangothen comparesthe colonial policies of Spain,England,France, and Portugalin orderto identify Cuba'stechnicaland economic disadvantages in relationto its chief competitors.Throughhis incisive and uncompromising treatment of these problems,Arangodiscloses the root causes of these difficulties and forcefully advocatesfull and immediateexploitationof Cuba'spoten-
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
tial for productionof tropicalexport staples. Describedby historianLevi Marreroas "themagnacartafor the subsequentdevelopmentof the sugarindustry," the Discurso not only argues for the particularreforms that triggeredCuba's but gives conceptualcoherenceto practicesandpolieconomic transformation, cies that were to guide Cuban development at least until 1868 if not beyond 73; 1984:15-16; MorenoFraginals1978:1, 1978:163-64; Marrero (Friedlaender Navarro1999:156-63). Gonzailez-Ripoll
POLITICAL ECONOMY, AGRICULTURE, AND FELICIDAD
Although the Discurso is a policy proposal,not a systematictreatise,it nonetheless demonstratesthe Enlightenmentsources of Arango's thought.Arango of himself describes his programfor the economic and social transformation he Cuba as one of "propagating enlightenment"(propogarlas luces). Indeed, formulateshis projectfor increasingthe productivity(rendimento)of colonial agriculturewithin the intellectual frameworkof political economy. The appearanceof this discipline duringthe second half of the eighteenthcenturyprovided a new vocabularywith which to conceptualizewealth and the perception that agriculture, industry,and commercewere the means to produceand accumulate it (Tribe 1978; Marquese 1999. For analysis of the vocabularyof the Discurso, see Perotin1974:273-313; Marrero1984:15).Even if we do not seek to ascertain the genealogy of specific ideas in the Discurso, it is clear that and physiocratic,agrarian, Arangowas influencedby diverseneo-mercantilist, liberal theoristsincluding Quesnay,Jovellanos, Campomanes,Genovesi, and Galliani, as well as Adam Smith. In the last decades of the eighteenthcentury, Enlightened liberal agrarianssuch as Jovellanos and Campomanesdrew on physiocraticargumentsaboutagricultureand free trade.Yet they were neither doctrinairephysiocrats nor even systematic theoretical economists. Rather, of practicalpolicy and they used political economic discourseas an instrument progressivereform.In a mannersimilarto that of otherLatinAmericanthinkers, such as ArgentinesManuel Belgrano and MarianoMoreno,Arangorelied on these apparentlyeclectic intellectual sources to diagnose the condition of Cuba and to elaboratethe programthat would lay the groundworkfor subsequentCubaneconomic development(LluchandArgemi 1985:1-120, 185-96; Friedlaender1978:161, 166-75; Maestri 1938:8, 12; Travieso 1970:139-40; Venturi1972:180-224, 265-91; Chiaramonte1982:33-66, 105-78; Chiaramonte n.d.:xii, xxviii-xxxiv). Arangodrawson the new discipline of political economy to reassess the nature and sources of wealth in the Americas. He argues:"No one still denies or doubts that true wealth consists of agriculture,of commerce and the arts, and that if Americahas been one of the causes of our decadence,it was because of the disdainthatwe hadfor the cultivationof its fertilelands,because of the preference and protectionthat we accord to mining, and because of the miserable method with which we conduct our commerce"(1793a:115).
IO
DALE
TOMICH
This conception of wealth signals a decisive shift away from mercantilism and from mining as the source of prosperitywithin the Spanishempireand toward productiveagricultureand commerce (Arango 1789:79). Arango identifies the extractionof preciousmetals, mercantilism, monopoly,andthe balance of tradeas causes of Spain's poverty and decadence.In oppositionto them, he defends the "enlightened view" that "the prosperity (felicidad) of the nation . .. consists principally in developing (fomentar) colonial agriculture" (1791b:108). Viewed in this light, Arango's argumentfor the redeploymentof slave labor in Cuba signals not the persistenceof an alreadyexisting archaic form of social organization,but the revitalizationof the colonial economy throughagricultural productionandtrade.He breaksdecisively from staticconof wealth based on the dominationof fixed territorialspaces that are ceptions the colonial representedby mining economy and mercantilism("the space of places,"Arrighi 1994:80-81). Instead,he formulatesa dynamic conception of well-being or abundance(felicidad) as the result of fertility,productiveactivity, and the circulationof commodities and wealth ("the space of flows," Arrighi 1994:82-83) that characterizesthe new conjunctureof world economy. In accordancewith agrarian conceptions,Arangoheld thatCuba'sadvantage over other sugarproducersresided in the superiorfertility of its soil. Its greatest potentialsource of wealth was agriculture and industrybased upon agriculture.ForArango,exportcrops, especially sugarand coffee, were the appropriate activities for Cubanagriculture, especially since no other Spanishcolonies such supplied products.(This preferencedefined andjustified the sugarelite's dominationnot only of slaves but also of cattle ranchersand tobacco smallholders.)Yet, he argued,commercialrestrictionsoff-set the naturaladvantage of Cuba'ssoil productivity. Such restrictionsincreasedthe cost of labor,equipand technical ment, credit; impeded progress and good management;and inhibited the development of markets.For Arango, Spain's mercantilepolicies were the cause of Cuba'storpor,andfree tradeprovidedthe meansto overcome it (1793a:117-18). Arango's demandto increase the supply of slave laborto Cubawas an integral partof a comprehensive"development project"thatwas groundedin prinof In Discurso the ciples political economy. Arangore-conceptualizesslavery, andcommerceto redefineCuba'splace in the worldeconomic conagriculture, juncture.He links the necessity of free tradeand access to foreign markets,esaccess to pecially that of the newly independentUnited States, to unrestricted slave laborand scientific transformation of productionprocesses. Impliedhere is a reformulation of slavery within the new conditionsof science and technolthat the marogy, productivity,and free trade,and, further,the understanding ket and free trade are the most efficient mechanisms for determiningprice, quantityand quality of goods (including slaves). These are the means to promote Cuba'sprosperityand possible dominationof the world sugarmarket. Arango, familiar with the most advanced political economic ideas of his
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
II
time, does not present slavery as archaicor anomalous.He sees no contradiction between slave laborandfree trade:Rather,he constructsslaverywithinthe presuppositionsof free trade.In his view, slave labor is the means to achieve Cuba'sintegrationinto the world marketand securethe colony's prosperityand progress (1811:185). Conversely,free tradeis the conditionfor the expansion and consolidationof the Cubanslave system.
THE SLAVE TRADE: LIBERTAD ABSOLUTA
In Arango'sconception,the futureof enlightenedagriculture and the prosperiof the thatthe nation He maintained rested upon the slave trade. ty (felicidad) of three centuries and reason the experience proved that export staples (frutos de retorno) of the American colonies-and not their precious metals-contributedin innumerable ways to the well-being of the metropolis.However,the of colonial promise agriculturewas undercutby insufficient population.Alwere preoccupiedwith the developmentof thoughenlightenedadministrations commercialagriculture,the colonies lacked the necessary hands for the lands that they wished to cultivate.Arango looked to the slave tradeto resolve this problem.The west coast of Africa, he contended,providedthe source of manfor this project(1789:79). Africanslaves were, powerthatwas most appropriate in his words, the hands that would "animateagricultureand provide [by their fruits"(1788:77). labor] abundant In Arango'sview, Africanslaves arethe necessarybuildingblock for the development of plantationagriculturein Cuba, and free tradewas the means to obtainthem. He is concerned,above all, with the concrete conditions of slave supply to Cuba, and his case for free tradeis presentedwithin the context of tactical imperatives and political conditions obtaining both in Spain and in Cuba.It develops as an argument with monopolistsandvariousvested interests over royal cidulas thatregulatedthe slave tradefor periodsof limited duration. Nonetheless, Arango sustains the position that not only is free tradethe most adequateand efficient means to assurea sufficient supply of slaves but thatthe market mechanism will provide optimal conditions of quantity,quality, and price. In his first documentwrittenas Apoderadoin 1788, Arangowas determined to seek the remedy for what he viewed as the evil caused by the scarcityof negros in the colony. Absolute libertyto tradewith othernationsin this branchof commerce, he argued,would be the most useful remedy (1788:77). In the following year,in his "Primer papel sobre el commerciode negros,"Arangoelaboratedthis argument. He criticizedSpain'sfailureto engage directlyin the slave trade.He complainedthatDenmark,Holland,Portugal,France,and, above all, England each supplied more slaves to the Americas than Spain. At the same time, Spain'sneed for slaves was greaterthanthatof all of the otherscombined (1789:79). The only way for Cuba to get out of this predicament,he insisted, was to obtain slaves from rival nations. Arango contendedthat the utility for
12
DALE
TOMICH
colonial agriculture of absolutefree tradein slaves was so evident as to require no discussion. In his words, "the advantages that granting absolute liberty to the nations will bring to the American colonist leap out at first glance" (1789:80). The necessaryforce of marketcompetition,he asserted,would produce a commodity in which price, means of payment, and ease of obtaining slaves for the colonial purchaserwere maximized (1789:80). In contrast,monopoly was the least satisfactorysolution.A single firm, chargedwith providing Cuba with negroes, he asserted,could "tyrannizeus, bringinginsufficient numbers of slaves of whatever quality they desire, and at arbitraryprices" (1789:83). Arango's "Primerpapel sobre el commercio de negros" (1789) appearsto have influencedthe subsequentlegislation of the slave trade.The royal cidula of 28 February1789 broke the monopoly system. It ran for two years and allowed all Spanishsubjectsto go abroadto buy slaves and bring them to designated ports (initially Havanaand Santiago)where they could enter Cuba duty free. Foreign ships could also importslaves to Havanaduty free, but had only twenty-fourhours to unload their ships, and the ships had to be less than 300 tons. The cidula did not attemptto fix prices but did regulateother aspects of the trade(Murray1980:11). Arango reassertedhis argumentfor free trade in 1791 when he petitioned the Crown to extend its permission to engage in free trade in slaves (Arango 1791a:97-102). He opposed a simple extension of the cidula of 1789. His argumentfor a longer extension of free tradein slaves reveals his critiqueof the monopoly system and his conception of the role of the free marketin supplying slaves to Cuba.Arangocomparedthe monopolyheld by PhilipAllwood (the Havanaagent for the Liverpool firm of Baker and Dawson) before 1789 with the precedingtwo year period duringwhich the Crown had opened the slave trade.Negroes were scarce and expensive underAllwood's contract(Arango 1791a:97-98). In contrast,Arango reportedthat some 4,000 slaves arrivedin Havanain the first nineteen months following the enactmentof the cidula of 1789. This was followed by another2,000 arrivalsin a subsequenttwo-month period.Almost half of the first groupwere importedby Bakerand Dawson bethe increasein imcause of Allwood's stronglocal contacts.Arango attributed of the effects to the the more recent uprising in Saint period ports during market their normal to Unable to access outlet, slave traders gain Domingue. undernormalcirthat warned their to Cuba. However,Arango brought cargoes that reason, it for favorable not most Cuba was the market,and, cumstances, risked the loss of the slave trade when orderwas restoredin Saint Domingue (Arango 1791a:101). He argued that if, under such unstable conditions, the King conceded to the local commercial authoritieswho wanted to expel Allto the advantageof Cuban/ Spanishinwood and otherforeigners(presumably tradethemselves), Baker and Dawson to the who slave wanted control terests would discontinuesending slaves to Cuba, or worse. Cuba would then be re-
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
13
duced to depending on one or anotherisolated adventurerwho would be attractedto the great scarcity,or, to the wretchedalternativeof forcing its own implantersto go themselves to find slaves in the otherislands. (This argument after that did not want exclude to Allwood, who, all, plies Arango necessarily remaineda majorslave trader, but rathersoughtto expose him to the discipline of the marketand competition.This positionrecalls Smith's view thatthe market competitionwould, in his words, constrainthe "meanrapacity"and "moand promoteinsteadindusnopolizing spirit"of merchantsand manufacturers try and frugality(see McNally 1988:226-28). ArangoarguedthatCubaneeded to reorganizethe termsof its slave tradefor marketas the surestsupthe long-termanddevelop a stableandnon-speculative ply of slaves. In his view, the slave trade could not make firm and constant progressif it were maintainedon its currentfooting (1791a:102). If the Crown were to grantonly anothertwo-yearextension of "freetrade"in slaves, such a shortperiodwould merely encouragespeculators who wantedto make a quick profiton theirfirst voyage. Businessmenof standing,who were preciselythose thatCubanswantedto attract, didnot expose themselvesin thisway.Instead,they investedwith the securityof recoveringon the secondor thirdvoyage whatthey might lose on the first (Arango 1791a:101-2). Serious slaving requiredinvestment and profits over the long term (cf. Smith 1976:1,98-110, 124-30). Of would provideCubawith a more stablesupplyof slaves course, such merchants thatit was in (andperhapsof betterquality)at betterprices.Arangomaintained the King'sinterestthathis Americanvassalshave the negroesthatthey neededat he urgedthatthe the lowest pricesandwithjust termsof payment.Consequently, unrestricted trafficin slaves be extendedfor six to eight years in orderto secure a non-speculative trade.Thus, even as his position was inscribedwithintactical of the necessities,Arangoprovidedthe theoretical justificationfor the superiority marketandfree trade(libertadabsoluta)as a mechanismof supplyingslaves.
FRUTOS DE RETORNO AND FREE TRADE
While the Discurso called for openingup the slave tradeto Cuba,it further provided a systematicargumentfor free tradein tropicalproductsas the means to increasethe wealth and prosperityof the island. Not only did Arangoarguefor the removalof mercantilist restrictionsandthe expansionof the slave trade,but he also called for free tradefor Cuba'sexports(especially sugar,coffee, andtobacco) in additionto free importationof the agricultural implementsand machinerynecessaryto improveCubanproduction(Arango 1793a:74).While the slave trade and the demandfor labor were the key elements in Arango's economic reformprogram,they were tied to free tradefor the productsof Cuban agriculture. For Arango, the immediateproblemwas that Cuba was too poor in its current stateto generatean adequateslave trade(1791a:98-99). In his view, Cuba was at the beginningof a developmentalcurvewith high demandfor slaves, but
14
DALE
TOMICH
little ability to pay. Havana could not offer foreign slave tradersattractive for those merchantswho prices, promptsales, or securityof payment.Further, dealt only in slaves (i.e. those who specializedin the directtradebetween Cuba Cuba producednothing and Africa and were interestedin a rapidturnaround), that could be exchanged for slaves on the African coast (1791a:99). Consequently,Arangoemphasizedthe need to generateincome thatcould be used to purchaseslaves. He arguedthatonly the income from export crops, especially sugar,offered a sufficientreturnto attractforeign merchants. of free trade, In the Discurso, then, Arango delineatedthe interdependence He demonin markets. world and Cuba's agriculturalproductivity, position stratedthat in order to develop their potential productive advantage,Cuban equipplantersrequireda cheap and abundant supplyof slaves and agricultural mentthatcould only be securedthroughfree trade.At the same time, they needed larger and more profitableoutlets for their produce. Cuban export staples had to be tradedwhere they broughtthe best return.Only throughits entryinto expanding and increasinglycompetitive world markets,above all, that of the United States, could the Cubansugar industrygeneratethe revenue necessary to pay for slaves and otherinputs (Arango 1788:78). However, in order to place their products in open markets or in markets where they were at a disadvantage,Cubanplantershad to be competitivewith foreign rivals: marketcompetitionrequiredCuba to increase the productivity not simply because it proof its industry.ForArango,free tradewas important vided unrestricted access to slaves, but because in itself, it createdconditions to revive Cubanagriculture. It was not enoughto securethe handsthatanimated colonial agricultureand provided abundantcrops, he insisted. The planter to the hardshipshe (labrador)had to be providedwith a rewardcorresponding had undertaken.In orderto realize the value of new slave production,it was necessary to eliminate the obstacles to the profitable sale of his produce (Arango 1788:77; cf. Jovellanos 1968:112). The free entry of slaves and maproductswould chinery in combinationwith profitableoutlets for agricultural stimulatethe industryand applicationof the colonists (Arango 1793a:118-19). Arango's policy was predicatedon Cuba'snaturaladvantagesover its competitors."Thenaturalorder,"he declared,"demandsthat the possessors of the most fertile lands should govern this branchof agriculture (sugar):but the exact opposite has occurred."(1793a:123; cf. Smith 1976:1, 385). Cuban agriculturaldevelopmentwas subordinated to Spanishmercantilistpolicy and the market.Spain did not provide of the and domestic state requirements Spanish an adequateoutlet for Cubanproduction.Further,it subjectedCubanproduce destinedfor foreignmarketsto heavy taxationandcommercialrestrictions.Under these conditions, once they had gained freedom to import slaves, Cubans had no marketfor their increased output(Arango 1793a:127-29). Their only alternative,in Arango's view, was to find a permanentoutlet for their produce in foreign markets.Tariff adjustmentsand regulationof the consumptionof
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
15
Cubanproductsin Spain were insufficient.Spanishpolicy had to promoteconditions that would make Cubanindustrycompetitive with its rivals in foreign markets(1793a:122-23, 135-36). His goal was to establish a "happyequilibrium" between the supply of slave labor and the productionof export crops (1788:77). While Arango arguedthatthe marketwas the most effective means for proequipmentas viding Cubawith necessaryinputsof slave laborand agricultural in promoting of the state well as outletsfor its produce,he emphasizedthe role its comof competitiveconditionsfor productivecapital.Instead subordinating have to enwould mercialandcolonial policies to metropolitan interests,Spain the couragecolonial produceto enterforeign marketsand support development of colonial agriculture so thatit could competein them. Each of the majorcrops of Cuba-sugar, tobacco, livestock (cattle), andaguardientede cahia-were in one way or anothersubjectto heavy duties, taxation,monopoly,and restricted their development(1788:77access to marketsthatlimited tradeand retarded 78). Arango maintainedthatno branchof agriculturein Havanahad arrivedat the degree of perfectionof which it was capable,and all of them had powerful rivals with which they had to compete (1793a:139-40). Insteadof subjecting colonial industriesto duties and limiting their access to foreign markets,the state should treateach branchaccordingto its own condition.Like a good parent, the state should treatthem as childrenor adolescents and aid and encourage them until they were able to withstandcompetitionfrom theirpowerfulrivals in foreignmarkets(1793a:139-40). The interestsof the treasuryshouldbe subordinated to the free circulationof goods, the developmentof production, and increasedabundance.Colonial industriesshould be supported,not taxed, until they were sufficiently strongto bear the weight of duties and prohibitive laws (1793a:140).
AGRICULTURAL REFORM: REASON VS. THE TYRANNY OF IGNORANCE
FromArango's perspective,free tradein slaves and access to foreign markets would create the conditionsfor Cubandevelopmentand stimulateCubanproducers. However, in orderto be competitive with the colonies of other counnotjust of tries in foreignmarkets,Cubanagriculture requiredthe amelioration trade,but of productionitself. Arangoarguedthat,althoughCubawas morefertile than its rivals, agriculturaland manufacturing techniques, slave management, and scientific knowledge were superiorin foreign colonies. The French and British colonies had greaterorder and economy in their sugar mills. The equipmentand the techniquesthatthey employed were superiorto those of the Cubans at each stage of the process of sugar production.Consequently,they were able to produce sugar much more cheaply and efficiently than Cuba. (1793a:126-27; 1793b:180).The problemin Cuba, accordingto him, was not the fertility of the soil, but "theindustryof man"(1793b:187). Arango arguedthat the differentstate of prosperityand vigor in which the
I6
DALE
TOMICH
Frenchand English held commerce and the arts enabled their colonists to enjoy all the goods and implementsthatthey needed at betterprices (1793a:12425). He thereforeproposedan end to tariffs on the importationof agricultural implementsin orderto bringCubato the level of its foreign competitors.Cuba had progressedby allowing the importation of foreignimplements,but the supply was far from what was needed. Duties on these items, Arangocontended, were a burdenfor the agriculturist, were of no advantageto the King, and did not encourageindustryin Spain. Machines and primarymaterials,he insisted, were free of dutiesin all enlightenednations(naciones ilustradas)(1793a:13536). An open and competitive marketfor slaves and free importationof agriculturalimplementsand machinerywould bring Cubamore or less to the level of its foreign rivals (1793a:136). wereinsufficientto resolve However,Arangoinsistedthatisolatedinnovations Cuba'sproblems.Instead, he advocated the systematicadoptionof scientificagriculturaland industrialtechniquesand the mechanization of Cubansugarmills. reformwithinthe rhetoricof enlightArangoframedhis projectfor agricultural enment.In his view, the reformof Cubanagriculture pitted interestand reason againstcustom.The hold of customary practiceswas strongin Cuba.Arangofelt despondentat seeing his compatriots,"destituteof any principle,puttingtheir faithin blindpracticeand,consequently, being exposedto the most crasserrors." Reasonwas worthlittle againstan old, constant,anduniformlyobservedcustom (1793a:136). Most Cubansremainedtied to familiarpracticeseven in the face of favorableresultsfrom new ones. Successfulinnovationencountered skepticism, andthose who soughtto discreditit andmakeit appear ridiculous.Reformwould have to overcome the "tyrannyof ignorance."Nonetheless,Arango remained hopeful thatself-interestwould stir the attentionof colonial plantersand oblige them to hearthe voice of reason(Arango1793a:136-37). the enlightenment." He soughtnot only Arango'spurposewas to "propagate to adopt new productivetechniques,but to transformthe scientific and political economic cultureof the Cubanplanterclass-to remakeboth the colonial economy and colonial subjects.To this end, he proposeda commission to tour Europeandthe neighboringFrenchandBritishsugarislandsto studythe methods employed by French and British planters."Whatwe must do, aside from the diverseeconomic andpolitical observationsthatmustbe noted, is to see the organization,utensils, and machines that the foreigners use to cultivate and process theircrops.We must acquirefrom all of them a profoundknowledge in orderlaterto comparethe foreign methodswith ourown in each branchof agriculture and to see if the result gives us advantages or disadvantages ..." Navarro1999:198-205). (Arango 1793a:164-65; see Gonzailez-Ripoll Arangoviewed the commission as partof a broadereffort to implantscientific agriculture in Cubaand to createan appropriate institutionalframeworkto supporta new critical and self-reflective orientationtoward production.He called for the formationof an agriculturalsociety, the JuntaProtectorade la
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
17
techniques Agricultura,to promote improved agriculturaland manufacturing and estate management.Arango envisioned this Society as an autonomousorganizationunderthe controlof the Havanaplantersthatcould put the resources of Cubaat the service of agricultural development,above all, that of the sugar industry.Its primaryconcernwould be to searchfor the most refinedmeans to propagateEnlightenmentpractices in agriculture(buscar los medios mds exquisitos de propagar las luces sobre la agricultura)and to examine each of the enadvantagesthat,accordingto the commissioners'report,foreign agriculture The goal of the Society would be "to employ the joyed over Cubanagriculture. weapon of reason in conversationsand discussions in orderto demonstrateto the public its interest [my emphasis] and to lead it to abandonits long-established concerns"(Arango 1793a:156-57; MorenoFraginals1978:1,106-7). In addition,Arango stressedthe need to make the most recent technical information availableto Cubanplantersand to bringto Cubathe scientific knowledge of physics, chemistry,botany, and political economy that it so badly needed (See MorenoFraginals1978:1,131-33). Arangocalled for the combinedeffort of governmentand enlightenedplantersto develop technical and scientific education to supportthe sugar industry,improve the technical level of qualified labor,and reformslave management(1793a:136-38).
FREE TRADE AND EMPIRE
Arango's conception of free tradeand productivecolonial agriculturedramatically redefinesthe relationsbetween metropolisand colony. His frame of reference is not the nationalpolitical space of Cuba,but ratherthe Spanish-American empire. He describes himself not as Cuban, but as "habanero"and "hacendado,"and he writes as a vassal of the King. While he regardsHavana as his patria (Arango 1788:77;Amores 1996:512-13), the Discurso suggests that he treatsthe nation as a political entity that encompasses both the peninsula (Spain) and the overseas territories.His conceptionof "riquezanacional" refers simultaneouslyto the wealth of both. to the social or political orIn his project,economic life is not subordinated der. Instead, economic relations shape the social order. Different socioeconomic sectors and relationsare evaluatedin terms of profitabilityand productivity, not substantivepolitical or social relations. Spain and Cuba are to be linked throughrelationsof privatepropertyand the market.In contrastto mercolonies to metcantilistconceptionsof colonialism,which simply subordinate andpropropolitaninterests,Arango'sformulationof the market,productivity, erty rights establishes a community of interests between colonial property holders and the Spanish state-a terrainmore subject to negotiationbetween interestedparties than to metropolitanfiat. The removal of political and ecoholders.Connomic obstacleswill unchainthe self-interestof colonial property sequently,the prosperityof both metropolisand colony will increase through productionand trade.
18
DALE
TOMICH
Arango's conception of the marketand social relationsis more comprehenIn Europe,the sive and thorough-goingthanthatof his Europeancounterparts. that were formaand physiocracy debatesbetween mercantilism,agrarianism, interibetween tive of political economy evolved within dualistic oppositions In and artificial. or and exterior,superfluousand necessary,natural large meaother and wheat grains, as sure, they turned aroundthe question of whether were strateof sourceof subsistenceof nationalpopulationsandsupport armies, of the state, gic goods that were key to the self-sufficiency and independence or whetherthey were the source of profit and destined for foreign commerce (Larrere1992:175-76). For example, in his celebratedInforme sobre la ley GasparMelchor de Jovellanos aragraria, Arango's friend and contemporary gues for free tradefor Spanishproduceexcept for grain.He supportsfree trade in grain within Spain but contends that grainexports should be prohibitedunless therewere an excess beyond the needs of internalconsumption(Jovellanos 1968:129-36). For Jovellanos,the principalobjectof a country'sproductionis its internalconsumption.He gives the metropolis priorityover the colonies. Colonies, he contends,are useful as an outlet for the surplus(sobrante)of metropolitanproduction.This surplusis "nothingmore thanwhatremainsafterinternal consumption."In his view, to deprive the metropolisof the produce of national industryin order to provide it to the colonies would be like aiding poverty outside while allowing hunger to remain in the house ( Letayf 1968: 187-88). In contrast, the characterof Cuban agriculturecompelled Arango to link Cubanprosperity inextricablyandimmediatelyto the market.He views the produce of Cubanagricultureas "frutosde retorno,"which by their naturewere markets.In responseto an official query destinedfor exchange in international thatthe Juntaof Agriculture proposedby Arangoshouldalso protectcommerce, from outside influences, and particArangoresponded:"Toprotectagriculture ularlyin a countryin which all commerceconsists of the exportof its crops, is ... the same as protectingcommerce. If I did not speak at length about commerce, it was because I could do not more thanto sketchmy ideas. . .. that for the momentwe should not make the mistake of makingagriculture dependent on commerceas we appointthe membersof the Junta.The handsdependupon the body, and for the same reason the merchantsin an agriculturalcountry should not dictate terms, but ratherreceive them from those who with their sweat nourishand supportcommerce"(1793a:168-69). Here, Arango conceptuallygoes beyond the physiocrats'opposition of naturaleconomy andcommerce(Larrere1992:212),while practicallyhe promotes the interests of productive agriculturalcapital against those of monopolistic merchants.In his view, Cuban agricultureis indissolubly linked to overseas trade.As frutos de retorno, or produtos de extraccion, all of its crops are intended for export. Agriculturalproductionis necessarily fully integratedinto the market.Whereas Jovellanos treats consumptionas an a priori deduction
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
19
fromthe productandrefersto the surplus(sobrante)as the remainder, Arango's use of surplus (sobrante) suggests permanentlyexpanded Cuban production underwhich the requirements of Spanishconsumptionare subsumed.Spain,in his view, will lose nothingby encouragingits colonies to sell their producein foreign markets.It will always have enough for its domestic consumption.The problemCuba faces is not that of subsistencebut that of competitionin internationalmarkets(Arango 1793a:142-43). Underthe stimulusof the market,Arangoconceived of Cubaas an engine of imperial economic development.Free trade and the development of colonial production,he argued,would benefit not only Cuba, but Spain as well. "This in reality is not a favor. It profits the State, which without losing anythingor setting anythingaside, will find itself at the end of a certainperiodof time with an income thatit did not have previously and with a groupof vassals thatis capable of helpingit" (Arango1793a:140). Freetradewould perfectthe factories, augment the Royal Treasury,and increase the populationof the island. With it, Arango proclaimed, Spain would arrive at the fullness of its prosperity (1788:77). Thus, he urged the King to take advantageof this unique moment which could "give an incrediblestimulus(fomento) to the national wealth, or what is the same thing, to the agricultureof Cuba"(1793a:115n, my emphasis).
GOVERNAR LOS ESCLAVOS: SLAVERY AND LABOR
In the Discurso, Arangois chiefly concernedwithjustifying the slave tradeand the use of slaves as the necessary means to valorize the propertyand investments of Cubanhacendados.He devotes less attentionto justifying slavery as an institution(1811:185) . In 1811, he emphasizedthe "immenseprofit (utilidad) that all branchesof our nationalindustryhave drawnfrom devoting the negroes to the service of all of our ruralestates ... The magnificentproducts of this service andits prodigiousinfluenceareto be seen not only in the progress of the island,butin thatof the slave tradeandthe nationalmarine.... [W]ithout negro slaves, there would not be colonies" (1811:184-85). Arango presumes a racializedlabor force. He refers to Negroes ratherthan to slaves and regardsthem as particularlysuited to agricultural tasks (faenas campestres)in the hot climate of Cuba (1811:184). Thoughhe describesthem variously as ignorantor barbarous,he regardstheir condition as unfortunate, wretched,and sad. In his eyes, they are fellow humanswho, in theirdependent state, are deservingof protection.He arguesthatnegroes are slaves who do not have civil status (persona civil). For that reason, they are more deserving of greatercompassion and greaterprotectionby law and humanity(see Amores 1996:511-12). At the same time, caution and vigilance were necessary,especially when the plantersof Cuba had the example of the Saint Domingue uprising before them (Arango 1793a:167-68). In a good slave system,Arangoinsists, it is necessary that civil laws avoid the abuses as well as the dangersof
20
DALE
TOMICH
slavery (1811:185). On these grounds,he constructsa justification of Cuban slavery by contrastingit with the Frenchslave system: "TheFrenchlooked at the slaves as beasts, and the Spanish looked at them as men. The principle of those [French]mastersand even their slave legislationhas always been excessive vigor, to inspirein theirslaves all the fearthatthey can, believing thatonly in this manneris it possible for a single white to govern a hundrednegroes in the middleof the forestandin the midstof such heavy andcontinuoustasks.... None of the resourcesthatthe negro lacks in the Frenchcolony are missing in our colonies as much because the laws give them to him as because the masters are careful to observe them because of their utility.The slaves of Havana find themselves today with all the assistanceand satisfactions(bienes) thatthe happiest[slaves] in the world can obtain,and our civil laws have balancedperfectly the two extremes,that is, the abuses of the owners and the development of insubordination and insolvency of the slave" (1791c:110-11). here Arango places himself in a long traditionthatseeks to contrastthe mild characterof Iberian slavery with the harsherpractices of northernEuropean powers. Yet for the purposesof this argument,it is perhapsmore interestingto examine how conceptions of property, interest, slavery, and labor shaped Arango'sprogramof economic development.As partof his projectto increase the productive efficiency of Cuban plantations,Arango sought to lower the costs of maintainingslaves and obtain more work from them, but without inor overwork.His goal was to procreasingtheirsufferingthroughmaltreatment mote an economical method of "governing"slaves (metodo de gobernarlos econdmicamente).This understandingof slave management combined the Christianconception of the reciprocalobligations of Master and Slave, which provideda frameworkfor master-slaverelationsbeginningin sixteenth-century Brazil (see Benci 1977 [1701]; Antonil 1969 [1711]:111-17, 131-53), with a notionof the technicallyefficient organization of tasks. (Rafaelde Bivar Marquese has arguedthat by the end of the eighteenthcenturythe frame of reference for the meaningof the term "econrmico"in planterdiscoursehad shifted from the directionof the household to managementof a productiveenterprise. An "economical"master was one who would constantly seek to increase his property,treatinghis expenses as an investmentfor futurereturnsratherthan as an expenditure[Marquese 1999:113-14].) Arango sought to obtain more work from the slaves by reorganizingthe distributionof tasks on each plantation in orderto eliminatedisorderand confusion in the laborof the slaves. But he intendednothingthatwould "increasethe afflictionof the most unfortunate portionof the entire humanspecies" (1793a:138, 154). In addition,he sought to lower the costs of supporting the slave laborforce by encouragingslave provision groundsand local productionof food crops (1793a:138-39, 154-55). Perhapssurprisingly, Arango's conceptionof slave governanceis combined with a conception of labor that recalls that of Adam Smith, who, of course, is generallyregardedas the founderof modernliberalpolitical economy andpar-
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
21
adigmatic critic of slavery (for example, Williams 1944:107). Arango, like Smith, conceives of labor as a materialprocess that is not understoodbeyond the productionof useful goods. In his view, this laboris compatiblewith the division of labor,technologicalinnovation,and ameliorationof agricultural and innovation manufacturing techniques.Indeed,Arangoperceives technological as a materialprocess which eases the burdenof labor and increasesthe output of goods. "Everyoneknows,"he wrote, "thateconomy in the laborof men consists of substitutingfor them by machines or beasts ... " (1793a:126). Smith too treatslabor as a natural,materialprocess that producesuseful or desirable goods, "thenecessariesand conveniences of life." Likewise, he treatsdivision of labor (understoodas the distributionof tasks among laborers)and machinery as simply technicalmeans to improvethe "productive powers of labor,and the greaterpartof the skill, dexterity,andjudgmentwith which it is any where directedor applied."Their effect is to "facilitateand abridgelabor,and enable one man to do the work of many"(Smith 1976:1, 1, 7, 11, 292, 297, 364). For Smith, the purposeof their applicationis the productionof a greaterphysical quantityof goods with a given numberof workers:"Theperson who employs his stock in maintaininglabor,necessarily wishes to employ it in such a manner as to produceas great a quantityof work as possible. He endeavors,therefore, both to make among his workmen the most proper distributionof employment, and to furnishthem with the best machinesthathe can eitherinvent or affordto purchase.... The productivepowers of the same numberof laborers cannot be increased, but in consequence either of some addition and imwhich abridgelabor;or of a more provementto those machinesandinstruments properdivision and distributionof employment"(Smith 1976:1,292, 364). Smith is justly famous for his critique of slavery. Nonetheless, his wellknown argumentsabout the inefficiency of slavery flow not from his conception of the social organizationof the laborprocess, but ratherfrom his understandingof the capacityof the wage relationto excite the worker'sself-interest. Thus, Smith arguesthat wages paid to the free worker stimulatethe worker's in managingthe fund destinedfor "strictfrugalityand parsimoniousattention" replacingor repairingthe "wearand tear"upon the workerratherthanhaving to dependupon a "negligentmaster." In contrast:"Thework of the slave is the dearestof any.A person who can acquireno property,can have no otherinterest but to eat as much, and to laboras little as possible. Whateverwork he does beyond what is sufficient to purchasehis own maintenance,can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own" (1976:1, 90, 411-12). At the same time, however, Smith admitsthe progressof the French West Indiancolonies is superiorthat of the British and "hasbeen entirelyowing to the good conduct of the colonists. ... and this superiorityhas been remarkedin nothingso muchas in the good management of theirslaves"(1776:11, 99-101). Smith's account of the sources of the prosperityof the FrenchWest Indian
22
DALE
TOMICH
colonies discloses his idea of governance. Here, his emphasis on the instrumentalizationof slave laborreveals the conceptualunderpinnings of liberalpolitical economy. Managementor governanceis a form of authorityappropriate to those who are deemed incapable of subjectivity.Smith writes: "But, as the profitand success of the cultivationwhich is carriedon by means of cattle, depend very much upon the good managementof those cattle, so the profit and success of that which is carriedon by slaves, must depend equally upon the good managementof those slaves; and in the good managementof their slaves the Frenchplanters,I thinkit is generallyallowed, are superiorto the English." Paradoxically,Smith attributesFrenchsuperiorityin this regardto the authoritarianstate (with the clear implicationthatEnglish institutionsare unsuitedto slavery): "The genius of their governmentnaturallyintroducesa better managementof theirnegro slaves."The slave is best protectedin a society in which propertyandrepresentative governmentare less well-developed.The arbitrary interventionof the state is the best guaranteeof the slave's well-being: Thelaw,so faras it givessomeprotection to theslaveagainst theviolenceof his masin a colonywherethegovernment is in greater executed meater,is likelyto be better surearbitrary, thanin one whereit is altogether free.In everycountry wherethe unfortunate law of slaveryis established, the magistrate, when he protects the slave, in somemeasure intermeddles in themanagement of theprivate of themaster; property in a freecountry, where themaster is perhaps a member of thecolonial either assembly, oranelector of sucha member, he darenotdo thisbutwiththegreatest caution andcircumspection. Such protectionof the slave, Smith contends, induces gentle treatment.Such treatment,"rendersthe slave not only more faithful, but more intelligent, and therefore,upon a double account,moreuseful. He approachesmore to the condition of the free servant, and may possess some degree of integrity and attachmentto his master's interest [my emphasis], virtues which belong to free servants,but which can never belong to a slave who is treatedas slaves commonly are in countries where the masteris perfectly free and secure" (Smith 1976:II,99-101). If Arango and Adam Smith share a similar conception of labor,the differences betweenthem can also be understoodwithina common intellectualfield. Albert Hirschmanhas eloquently demonstrated the importanceof "passions" and "interests" as organizingthemes of philosophical and political economic discussion duringthe seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies.Smith, in a certain sense, representsthe culminationof this tradition(Hirschman1977:1-12). He individualas liberalsubjectandreconcilesit with generalizesthe self-interested social order.In his political economy wages, rent, and profit form at once the source and the mediation of individual self-interest.Economic interest is determinedby the social location of the individual within the functionaldifferentiationbetween land, labor,and stock as factors of production.The relation among these forms of propertyregulateboth individualand class interestsand
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
23
providethe means of makingthem compatiblewith social orderandthe wealth of nations. of the slave popuArango's argumentfor the necessity of the subordination lation develops within the same terms as does Smith's argumentfor the selfinterest of the free laborer.If for Smith, wages, generalizedprivate property, and the market allow the socialization and regulation of the self-interested worker,for Arango,racial slavery allows no such possibility: Toopenthewayfor a manto hopefor anygoodis to openthedooralsoto his forgotItis certainly tenanddangerous of thisgood[freedom]. reflections about beingdeprived Weneednot to arouse in him,if notoutright thenlackof compliance. insubordination, in mention in slavery, theinconvenience andills of suchattitudes seeingthemrepeated all timesandin all countries. of ourestates Inthestupidity of theNegroandthesolitude thatmay lies themostnecessary is anything andallthemoreto be feared subordination, of thewhiteswholive loosenthisunique thiscapital defender of theexistence resource, withso manynegros(Arango 1811:182). Arango organizedhis defense of the Cubanplantersas the defense of the interests of men of property. However,precisely because he remainedwithin the terms of liberal thought,slaves, for him, could have no such interest.Like all men, they were possessed of natural liberty;however,for themthis libertycould not be realizedthroughproperty. Rather,the liberty(andproperty)of slaves had to be suppressedin the interestsof Cubaneconomic prosperity. Excludedfrom slaves were definedby the absenceof interestandthus were incapable property, of self-interested action.(Arangofavoredallowing slaves the use of plots of land to grow their own provisions and improve their materialwell-being [1793a: 125.]. However, such provision groundsare not to be confused with the conin liberaltheory.)In this sense, slaves (and,therefore, ceptionof privateproperty slavery)remainedoutside the sphereof liberalpolitical economy. Self-interest, and exchangecould not mediateandreconcile the interestsof masters property, and slaves-instead, in the absence of liberal subjectivity,dominationand paternalismregulatedthe relationbetweenthem.Withoutthe discipliningforce of property,the slave remaineda dependentsubjectwho had to be both subjugated andprotected.The slave systemrestedupon exclusion anddominationas the means of controlover the enslaved.ForArango,ignoranceand barbarism justified slavery,yet, in his conception,slaverycould only perpetuate them. The proximitybetween Arango and Adam Smith formed by conceptions of free trade, labor, and self-interestgive us groundsto question the boundaries and supposed antimonies between pro-slavery thought and liberal political thanthe economy.These boundariesaremuchmorepermeableandproblematic unified fields of inclusion/exclusion presupposedby the concept of ideology would lead us to believe. Emphasison the oppositionbe(base/superstructure) tween modem liberalismandarchaicpro-slaverythoughtobscuresboth Smith's debtsto the physiocrats(Tribe1978:108-9; David McNally 1988:209-57) and Arango'sposition within Enlightenmentthought.
24
DALE
TOMICH
The point here is not to deny the differencesbetween liberaland pro-slavery ideologies, but to locate the position of each within a sharedconceptualfield. By linking self-interest,the distributionof forms of privateproperty(wages, profit,rent),and marketexchange to providea systematicaccountof social organization,Smith is able to form an internallyunified and consistent political economy.Fromthis perspective,thereis a closurethatallows for a strictly"economic" conception of social relations and permitsformationof the discipline of political economy as a self-contained system of thought. Consequently, Smith appearsas the founderof modem political economy at the same time as physiocracyis consigned to the role of precursorand placed outside of modernity. In contrast,Arango'sconception of the slave economy permitsno such unified economic discourse.Beyond the more limited purposeof the Discurso, his discourse can only be unsystematic.In his case, productiverelationsrest upon Such dominationdoes not slavery andracialdominationfor theirreproduction. allow for eithera unified system of political economic thoughtor the formation of individual subjectivity mediated by private propertyrelations. Hence, it is not compatiblewith Liberalismas ideology. Yet, such differencesexist within a common conceptualfield and have a historicalaffinity with one another. From such a perspective,the sources and internalcoherence of both pro-slavery thoughtand liberalismappearmore open and diverse. Differencesbetween them no longer appearas absolute.Rather,they may be understoodas opposed yet mutually formative tendencies that draw, at least in part, from the same sources. Such an approachcan lead to rethinkingfruitfully analyticaland init furtherreveals both disjunctures and new historical frameworks; terpretative unities. It points to the need to distinguishbetween political and economic liberalism as a finished, articulated ideology and the complex, discontinuousdiscursive field from which it is constructed. In this context, it is useful to recall Paul Gilroy's idea that slavery and race form boundaryconcepts that shape, or perhapseven define modernideologies of progressand modernization. They are constitutedwithin the historicalrelations of modernity, but theirexclusion from considerationwithin it arethe conditions for liberal ideologies of progress.Recognition of this exclusion allows of modernity(Gilroy considerationof the complex and contradictory character of liberal veils the 1993). Here, modernity slavery,while slavery reideology veals the complexity and contradictionwithin liberalism.
CONCLUSION
In his Discurso sobre la Agriculturade la Habana y Medios de Fomentarla, FranciscoArango y Parrefiomobilizes the conceptualvocabularyof political economy and the Enlightenmentto articulatea project for the transformation of Cubaneconomic and social life; this projectrests upon the interdependence of the slave trade, free trade in Cuban agriculturalproducts, scientific im-
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
25
provementof agriculture,and reformof slave management.Ratherthanbeing and anomalous,each of the elements presentedby Arango are interdependent in order them Each the others and requires mutuallyreinforcing: presupposes to achieve its full effect. Arango's argumentbrings together the unrestricted innovationin orderto promote supplyof slave labor,free trade,andagricultural a conception of well-being based on fertility,the circulationof commodities, It representsthe specific formulationof science, and the creationof abundance. slave relationsin Cubawithin changingconditionsof world economy. It thereby calls attention to the diversity and continual historical reconstitutionof slaveries in the Americas. This proposalrepresentsan attemptto use Cuba'sproductiveadvantagesto carve out a dominantposition for the island in the emerging NorthAmerican and Europeanmarkets.It gives theoreticalexpression to Cuba's shift to productive agriculture andfree trade.Withinthis framework, Arangoidentifies the marketas the most effective instrument with both the laborand to supply Cuba materialsthat it requiresand with outlets for its produce.Nonetheless, the interventionof the Spanishstate is necessary to secure the competitive access to marketsnecessaryto overcome Cuba'srelatively weak economic position and establishArango's "happyequilibrium" between slave importsand agricultural exports.However,free tradein itself is insufficientto transform Cuba'seconslave labor,the omy. Its success dependsupon the unrestricted developmentof of reform of slave management,and the scientific transformation agriculture. Accordingly, Arango's programand the subsequentCuban development inspired by it representan original response to the economic and political conjuncture formed by the Haitian and American Revolutions, industrialization, and the transformation of world marketsunderBritish economic and political hegemony. From this perspective,Arango appearsas an Atlantic intellectualwho elaboratedan integralprogramfor economic renewal that, albeit authoritarian, hierarchical,and racist, was successful. His projectwas to inform Cubandevelopment at least until the 1860s and clearly helped to shape the fluid and expandingworld economy of the first half of the nineteenthcentury.Between 1801 and 1865 Cuba importedover 600,000 African slaves as well as indenturedlaborersfromChinaandYucatian. The Cubaningenio developed on anunBy precedentedscale throughsystematicandongoing technicaltransformation. the 1820s Cuba emerged as the world's leading sugarproducerand its output The Cuban sugar industrydomivirtuallydoubled every ten years thereafter. nated the world marketand became a key pivot in the remakingof the American plantationperiphery. Yet, the very success of this projectincreasedCuba's dependence on sugar and slavery and exacerbatedtensions and conflicts between master and slave, between groups in Cuba, and between Cuba and the Spain. In Arango'sview, the policies delineatedin the Discurso would benefit both
26
DALE TOMICH
Cubaand Spain.Even as Cuba'seconomic developmentdrew it into closer relation with the United States, both as an outlet for its produceand as a market for the latter'smanufactured goods and otherimports,Cubaremaineda partof the Spanish empire. However, such policies also implicitly redefined from within the relation between Cuba and Spain and the nature of the empire. Though Cuban plantersremainedvassals of the king, they could not remain colonial subjects who might be simply subordinatedto the interests of the Crownand metropolitan state.Rather,by developingthe planters'propertyand therefore their independentinterest, these policies meant that, even though Spain and Cubaremainedpartsof an encompassingimperialpolitical unit, the planters'relationto Spain had to be negotiatedas a relationshipbetween separate interestswithin the context of a marketeconomy. Arango's projectincreasedCuba's dependenceon slavery in the context of the HaitianRevolution, on the one hand, and British pressureon the international slave trade,on the other.Underthese conditions,the maintenance of slave relationsrequiredthe presenceof a repressiveforce thatboth increasedprotection costs and increasedregulationof master-slaverelations.At the same time, expandingand competitivecommoditymarketsput pressureon the productivity of slave labor.Ideologies of liberalism,progress, and self-interestedindividualismalteredthe ideological space in which slaverycould bothbe proposed and defended.Indeed,in Cuba,the growthof the sugarindustry,with its brutal labor regime and harsh social discipline, underminedthe very Spanish paternalism thatArangodeployed to justify slavery.Finally,the remarkable growth of the sugarindustryexacerbatedthe tensions between sugarand other sectors of the Cubaneconomy.It createdthe unevenregionaland social developmentof Cuba and provoked the social discontinuities and antagonisms that were to manifestthemselves in the Ten YearsWar.
REFERENCES
Amores, JuanB. 1998. Cuba y Espaiia, 1868-1898. El final de un sueiio. Pamplona:
Cuba.Actas del XI CongresoInternacionaldel Asociaci6n de HistoriadoresLatinoamericanistasEuropeos.Liverpool. II, 507-22. Antonil, AndrdJodo. [ 1711] 1968. Culturae opulencia do Brasil por suas drogas e mi-
Ediciones Universidad de Navarra. . 1996.Francisco La transici6n haciala modernidad en de Arango y Parrefio:
nas.Paris: IHEAH. D. Francisco deArango Francisco de. 1788.Instrucci6n Arango y Parrehio, quese formo cuando se entrego InObras. LaHade los poderes delasunto. de la Habana y papeles bana: de Cultura, Direcci6n 1952,I1:77-78. . 1789.Primer LaHabana: In Obras. de negros. Direcpapelsobreel comercio ci6nde Cultura, 1952,1:79-84. . 1791 a. Representaci6n en la deunaabsoluta libertad manifestando lasventajas concedida de negros, a ochola pr6rroga se amplie introducci6n y solicitando pordos LaHabana: Direcci6n de Cultura, aijos.In Obras. 1952,I1:97-102. . 1791 sobrela introducci6n lb. Oficioacompaiando copiade la representaci6n
THE WEALTH
OF EMPIRE
27
In Obras. La Habana:Direccon razones muy s61lidas. de negros, y corroborandola ci6n de Cultura,1952, 1:106-8. hecha a S. M. con motivo de la sublevaci6nde esclavos . 1791c. Representaci6n en los dominios franceses de la isla de Santo Domingo. In Obras. La Habana:Direcci6n de Cultura,1952, I:109-13. In de la Habanay Medios de Fomentarla. . 1793a. Discurso sobrela Agricultura Obras. La Habana:Direcci6n de Cultura,1952, I:114-75. . 1793b. Respuestasde D. FranciscoArango a los reparosque se hicieron a su de la Habana.'In Obras.La Habana:Direcci6n de Cul'Discurso sobrela agricultura tura, 1952, 1:175-203. de la Ciudadde la Habanaa las Cortes.In Obras.La Ha. 1811. Representaci6n bana:Direcci6n de Cultura,1952, 11:145-87. Arrighi,Giovanni. 1994. TheLong TwentiethCentury.London:Verso. Benci, Jorge. [1700] 1977. Economiacristd dos senhoresno governo dos escravos. Sdo Paulo: Grijalbo. of Toward a Reinterpretation Benitez Rojo, Antonio. 1986. Power/Sugar/Literature: Cubanness.CubanStudies 16:9-31. Bitar Letayf, Marcel. 1968. Economistasespaiioles del siglo XVIII.Sus ideas sobre la libertaddel comercio con Indias. Madrid:Ediciones CulturaHispanica. de la realidad Cay-Galbo,Enrique. 1938. Arango y Parrefio.Ensayo de interpretaci6n economica de Cuba. Cuadernosde Historia Habanera 15:81-112. Chiaramonte,Jose Carlos. 1982. La critica ilustrada de la realidad. Economia y sociedad en el pensamiento argentino e iberamericanodel siglo XVIII.Buenos Aires: CentroEditorde AmericaLatina. . n.d. Pensamientode la Ilustracidn.Economiay sociedad iberoamericanasen -el siglo XVIII.Caracas:BibliotecaAyacucho. Foucault,Michel. 1971. L'ordredu discours. Paris:Gallimard. . 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York:PantheonBooks. Franco, Maria Sylvia de Carvalho. 1993. "All the World was America."John Locke, como conceito antropol6gico.Revista USP 17:30-53. Liberalismoe propriedade Heinrich. 1978. Historia economica de Cuba.La Habana:Editorialde las Friedlaender, Ciencias Sociales. Genovese, Eugene D. 1967. The Political Economy of Slavery. New York: Vintage Books. Gilroy,Paul. 1993. TheBlackAtlantic.Modernityand Its Double Consciousness.London: Verso. Gonzailez-RipollNavarro, Maria Dolores. 1999. Cuba, La Isla de los Ensayos. Cultura y Sociedad (1790-1815). Madrid:Consejo Superiorde Investigaciones Cientificas. for Hirschman,Albert 0. 1977. The Passions and the Interests. Political Arguments Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. CapitalismbeforeIts Triumph. Jovellanos, GasparMelchor de. 1968. Informe sobre la ley agraria. Barcelona:Ediciones de Materiales. Larr're, Catherine.1992. L'inventionde l'dconomie aux XVIIIesiecle. Paris: Presses Universitairesde France. Lewis, GordonK. 1983. Main Currentsin CaribbeanThought:The Historical Evolution of CaribbeanSociety in Its Ideological Aspects. Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniversity Press. Lluch,ErnestandLluisArgemi. 1985.Agronoma yfisiocracia en Espafia(1750-1820). Valencia:Instituci6nAlfonso el Magninimo.
28
DALE
TOMICH
Maestri,Raul. 1937. Arango y Parreiio: El Estadista sin Estado. La Habana:Publicaciones de la Secretariade Educaci6n.Direcci6n de Cultura. & Escraviddo.Idefassobrea Gestdode Marquese,Rafael de Bivar. 1999. AdminstraCgo Paulo: HUCITEC. Sio Escravista Brasileira. Agricultura Marrero,Levi. 1984. Cuba:Econ6miay Sociedad, X. Madrid:EditorialPlayor. McNally, David. 1988. Political Economyand the Rise of Capitalism:A Reinterpretation. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress. Moreno Fraginals,Manuel. 1978. El ingenio. Complejoecon6mico social cubano del azacar, 3 vols. La Habana:Editorialde Ciencias Sociales. 1976. The Sugar Mill. The Socioeconomic Complexof Sugar in Cuba. New . York: MonthlyReview Press. Murray,David R. 1980. Odious Commerce:Britain, Spain and the Abolition of the CubanSlave Trade.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Ponte Dominguez, FranciscoJ. 1937. Arango Parreifo:Estadista Colonial Cubano.La Habana:Imp. Molina y Cia. Pdrotin,Anne. 1974. Le projetcubain des grandsplanteursde la Havane:Jalons pour une lecture de FranciscoArango y Parrefio(1769-1839). In Milanges de la casa de X. Paris:EditionE. de Boccard. Velazquez, Smith, Adam. 1976. An Inquiryinto the Nature and Causes of the Wealthof Nations. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. of Tomich, Dale. 1988. The "Second Slavery":Bonded Laborand the Transformation the Nineteenth-CenturyWorld Economy. In Rethinking the Nineteenth Century: Movementsand Contradictions,FranciscoO. Ramirez,ed. Westport,Conn.: Greenwood Press, 103-17. Economiay DeTravieso,Julio. 1970. El pensamientoecon6mico de Arangoy Parrefio. 10-11 sarollo, (Oct.-Dec.):130-50. Tribe, Keith. 1978. Land, Labour and Economic Discourse. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Studies in a CosmopolitanCentuVenturi,Franco. 1972. Italy and the Enlightenment: Press. New York: Columbia University ry. Williams, Eric. 1944. Capitalismand Slavery.ChapelHill: University of North Carolina Press.

Francisco Arango's Vision for Cuba's Economic Transformation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Francisco Arango's Vision for Cuba's Economic Transformation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History

Amores, JuanB. 1998. Cuba y Espaiia, 1868-1898. El final de un sueiio. Pamplona:

Ediciones Universidad de Navarra. . 1996.Francisco La transici6n haciala modernidad en de Arango y Parrefio:

You might also like