Eltis doesn’t argue against this. His entire argument is an answer to the question of why this is true: voluntary labor and higher wages led to “want creation” and stronger consumer markets, which appealed to employers and laborers alike.

Eltis agrees with this. Williams is the one who argues against it—he thinks abolition came about simply because slave colonies weren’t viable anymore. Eltis disagrees with Williams, arguing that slave colonies were actually more viable than Williams thought.

Eltis argues against this explanation and in favor of a different hypothesis. His argument is that British views on liberty don’t explain the abolition of slavery; rather, abolition came about because voluntary labor came to be seen as more economically beneficial.

Eltis has no stance on this. This is part of Drescher’s argument, but not the part Eltis disagrees with. Drescher says that abolition resulted from “widespread literacy and a tradition of political activism.” Eltis only disagrees with the activism part. He doesn’t take a position on whether literacy played some part in abolition.

Eltis doesn’t argue against this. His entire argument is an answer to the question of why those antislavery measures were so widely supported: voluntary labor and higher wages led to “want creation” and stronger consumer markets, which appealed to people across political divides.