Anti-supported. Neither concedes that moral persuasion by abolitionists was a significant factor. In fact, Drescher outright rejects that view.

According to Williams, the motivation behind Britain’s abolition of slavery was that slave colonies had become a drain on the economy. Both Drescher and Eltis question that hypothesis and offer their own alternative explanations, though Eltis’ hypothesis still supports Williams’ general idea that abolition was motivated by economic factors.

The author doesn’t suggest that Drescher’s explanation is better than Eltis’. In fact, she points out that Drescher’s hypothesis is lacking, and Eltis helps fill in the gaps.

This is only true of Drescher. Eltis does give an explanation: voluntary labor and higher wages fueled “want creation,” which in turn stimulated the economy. This garnered widespread support for voluntary labor over slave labor: it was economically better for everyone.

Anti-supported. Eltis suggests that Williams had it wrong about the economic condition of British slave colonies. Williams thought they’d become economically infeasible. Eltis argues that they weren’t infeasible; rather, voluntary labor just offered better results. The only “vindication” Williams gets is when Eltis agrees that abolition was motivated by economic factors in general. But Williams is still wrong about the economic condition of slave colonies specifically.