Reviewed by: Trouble of the World: Slavery and Empire in the Age of Capital by Zach Sell Peter A. Coclanis (bio) Trouble of the World: Slavery and Empire in the Age of Capital. By Zach Sell. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2021. Pp. 340. $95.00 cloth; $34.95 paper; $22.99 ebook) The topics of slavery, empire, and capital all command a great deal of attention in scholarly circles, and Zach Sell hits the trifecta, connecting all three in his ambitious, smart, provocative, sometimes frustrating first book. Sell's principal goal in Trouble of the World is to embed U.S. slavery in the context of the expansion and elaboration of Western-led global capitalism in the nineteenth century. In pursuit of this goal, the author perforce takes readers all over the world, albeit often via curious, circuitous routes. Drawing heavily upon Marx and a variety of Marxist and marxisant theorists ranging from Du Bois to Ranajit Guha and from Eric Williams to principals affiliated with the "New History of American Capitalism" movement, Sell argues that enslaved African American laborers and expropriated Native American land were crucial not only to the economic development of the United States but also to early industrialization in Great Britain. More specifically, ill-begotten profits associated with the production for export of slave-grown agricultural staples—cotton, rice, indigo, sugar, etc.—helped establish and sustain British industry and "inspired new hallucinatory imperial visions of colonial domination that took root from the Atlantic world to Asia and the Pacific" (p. 1). In Trouble of the World, Sell splits his time between the generation of said profits and the "hallucinatory" visions they encouraged. In nineteenth-century southern agriculture, cotton, of course, served as primus inter pares, accounting for the largest share of U.S. exports and serving as the key raw material in textiles manufacturing, Britain's leading industry. Indeed, the economic importance of cotton to Britain was sufficiently great, according to Sell, as to motivate various and sundry imperial projects to develop and secure supply sources other than the U.S. South, which projects, not surprisingly, gained momentum with the supply disruptions occasioned by the [End Page 79] American Civil War. The author devotes considerable attention in Trouble of the World to such projects, most of them evanescent and inconsequential. He notes similarly conceived colonial projects intended to secure Asian supply sources for other important slave-produced agricultural exports from the U.S. South, most notably indigo and rice. Besides their impracticality and disappointing results, these colonial projects—in India, Australia, and British Honduras (Belize) among other places—shared characteristics the author believes were intrinsic to global capitalism during its nineteenth century rise to power: land expropriation, labor coercion and exploitation, racial domination, gross inequality, and violent depredation. Trouble of the World marks the debut of a talented historian, a scholar of uncommon breadth and an impressive command of both theoretical work and historical studies critical of capitalism. This said, for several reasons Sell's book is less successful than it could—and perhaps should—have been. First, it fails to engage or even reflect familiarity with alternative views on the southern economy, the rise of industry in Great Britain, the global expansion of capitalism in the nineteenth century, etc. Secondly, the author makes his case against capitalism with rhetorical flourish but without much analytical rigor, and almost no measurement or quantification. Thirdly, Trouble of the World is rather thin empirically, particularly the author's chapters on indigo and rice. In the case of indigo, Sell misdates and misinterprets the reasons for the collapse of the U.S. industry and neglects important American exporters in the period between his coverage of South Carolina/Georgia and India, most notably, Guatemala, but also, for a time, Brazil. Regarding rice, the author misunderstands the nature of the European market for rice, which was essentially a commodity market by the mid-nineteenth century, privileging low price rather than perceived quality, and does not seem cognizant of the fact that total U.S. rice exports (as well as exports to Europe in particular) were lower in the 1850s than they were in the 1790s and that cheap Asian...
Read full abstract