1
Primary Source 14.4
ADAM SMITH, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS (1776): ON SLAVERY1
Adam Smith (1723–90) was a Scottish author, philosopher, economist, and political thinker
educated at the Universities of Glasgow and Oxford. His first major work, The Theory of
Moral Sentiments (1759), propounded the idea that our moral sentiments emerge from
feelings of sympathy toward others. A close friend of David Hume (1711–76), he became
acquainted with many French intellectuals during a lengthy stay in France.
His masterwork, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
(1776), revolutionized economic theory. With vast erudition, historical detail, practical
examples, and personal observations, Smith divides economic output into three contributing
elements: labor, rent from land, and profits on stock (or excess wealth unnecessary for
subsistence) and analyzes each of these elements. As populations grow denser, he observes,
producers of goods and commodities begin to exchange with others, gradually focusing on
what they can produce most efficiently and profitably. Thus commerce begins with human
civilization. As people specialize more, they produce more wealth, raising the standards of
living of themselves and of their societies. Social elites often restrict economic activity, from
fear of social change or seeking personal benefits. Since all members of society pursuing their
self-interest will generally advance the common good, however, it is best for governments to
leave economic activity to follow its natural course—via laissez-faire (“let it alone”) policies—
concentrating instead on defending society from external attack and from domestic
criminality and by providing necessary social services.
In the passages below, Smith argues that slave labor is always less productive than
free labor, that slaves rarely innovate for fear of risking their masters’ displeasure, and that
slaves are often better treated when their masters live under absolutist government.
For the full text online, click here. For freely accessible audio recordings, click here (for
Book I), here (for Book III), and here (for Book IV).
BOOK I.
OF THE CAUSES OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE PRODUCTIVE POWERS OF LABOUR.
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE WAGES OF LABOUR.
...
The wear and tear of a slave, it has been said, is at the expense of his master; but
that of a free servant is at his own expense. The wear and tear of the latter, however, is, in
reality, as much at the expense of his master as that of the former. The wages paid to
journeymen and servants of every kind must be such as may enable them, one with
another, to continue the race of journeymen and servants, according as the increasing,
diminishing, or stationary demand of the society may happen to require. But though the
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations (London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1852),
33–34, 159–60, 241–42, 284–85.
1
2
wear and tear of a free servant be equally at the expense of his master, it generally costs
him much less than that of a slave. The fund destined for replacing or repairing, if I may say
so, the wear and tear of the slave, is commonly managed by a negligent master or careless
overseer. That destined for performing the same office with regard to the free man, is
managed by the free man himself. The disorders which generally prevail in the economy of
the rich, naturally introduce themselves into the management of the former: The strict
frugality and parsimonious attention of the poor as naturally establish themselves in that of
the latter. Under such different management, the same purpose must require very different
degrees of expense to execute it. It appears, accordingly, from the experience of all ages and
nations, I believe, that the work done by freemen comes cheaper in the end than that
performed by slaves. It is found to do so even at Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, where
the wages of common labour are so very high.
...
BOOK III.
OF THE DIFFERENT PROGRESS OF OPULENCE IN DIFFERENT NATIONS.
CHAPTER II.
OF THE DISCOURAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN THE ANCIENT STATE OF EUROPE,
AFTER THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
...
. . . In the ancient state of Europe, the occupiers of land were all tenants at will. They
were all or almost all slaves; but their slavery was of a milder kind than that known among
the ancient Greeks and Romans, or even in our West Indian colonies. They were supposed
to belong more directly to the land than to their master. They could, therefore, be sold with
it, but not separately. They could marry, provided it was with the consent of their master;
and he could not afterwards dissolve the marriage by selling the man and wife to different
persons. If he maimed or murdered any of them, he was liable to some penalty, though
generally but to a small one. They were not, however, capable of acquiring property.
Whatever they acquired was acquired to their master, and he could take it from them at
pleasure. Whatever cultivation and improvement could be carried on by means of such
slaves was properly carried on by their master. It was at his expense. The seed, the cattle,
and the instruments of husbandry were all his. It was for his benefit. Such slaves could
acquire nothing but their daily maintenance. It was properly the proprietor himself,
therefore, that, in this case, occupied his own lands, and cultivated them by his own
bondmen. This species of slavery still subsists in Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia,
Moravia, and other parts of Germany. It is only in the western and south-western provinces
of Europe that it has gradually been abolished altogether.
But if great improvements are seldom to be expected from great proprietors, they
are least of all to be expected when they employ slaves for their workmen. The experience
of all ages and nations, I believe, demonstrates that the work done by slaves, though it
appears to cost only their maintenance, is in the end the dearest of any. A person who can
acquire no property, can have no other interest but to eat as much, and to labour as little as
possible. Whatever work he does beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own
3
maintenance can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his
own. In ancient Italy, how much the cultivation of corn 2 degenerated, how unprofitable it
became to the master when it fell under the management of slaves, is remarked by both
Pliny3 and Columella.4 In the time of Aristotle5 it had not been much better in ancient
Greece. Speaking of the ideal republic described in the laws of Plato, 6 to maintain five
thousand idle men (the number of warriors supposed necessary for its defence) together
with their women and servants, would require, he says, a territory of boundless extent and
fertility, like the plains of Babylon.
The pride of man makes him love to domineer, and nothing mortifies him so much
as to be obliged to condescend to persuade his inferiors. Wherever the law allows it, and
the nature of the work can afford it, therefore, he will generally prefer the service of slaves
to that of freemen. The planting of sugar and tobacco can afford the expense of slavecultivation. The raising of corn, it seems, in the present times, cannot. In the English
colonies, of which the principal produce is corn, the far greater part of the work is done by
freemen. The late resolution of the Quakers in Pennsylvania to set at liberty all their negro
slaves,7 may satisfy us that their number cannot be very great. Had they made any
considerable part of their property, such a resolution could never have been agreed to. In
our sugar colonies, on the contrary, the whole work is done by slaves, and in our tobacco
colonies a very great part of it. The profits of a sugar-plantation in any of our West Indian
colonies are generally much greater than those of any other cultivation that is known either
in Europe or America; and the profits of a tobacco plantation, though inferior to those of
sugar, are superior to those of corn, as has already been observed. Both can afford the
expense of slave-cultivation, but sugar can afford it still better than tobacco. The number of
negroes accordingly is much greater, in proportion to that of whites, in our sugar than in
our tobacco colonies.
To the slave cultivators of ancient times gradually succeeded a species of farmers
known at present in France by the name of metayers. They are called in Latin, Coloni
Partiarii. They have been so long in disuse in England that at present I know no English
name for them. The proprietor furnished them with the seed, cattle, and instruments of
husbandry, the whole stock, in short, necessary for cultivating the farm. The produce was
divided equally between the proprietor and the farmer, after setting aside what was judged
necessary for keeping up the stock, which was restored to the proprietor when the farmer
either quitted, or was turned out of the farm.
Land occupied by such tenants is properly cultivated at the expense of the
proprietor as much as that occupied by slaves. There is, however, one very essential
difference between them. Such tenants, being freemen, are capable of acquiring property,
and having a certain proportion of the produce of the land, they have a plain interest that
That is, grain.
Gaius Plinius Secundus (23–79 A.D.), or Pliny the Elder, was a Roman naturalist, statesman, and author of an
early encyclopedia, Naturalis Historia.
4 Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (4–c. 70 A.D.) was a Roman expert on agriculture.
5 Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) was a leading Greek philosopher who wrote about nearly every branch of learning.
6 Plato (c. 428–c. 347 B.C.) was Aristotle’s teacher and the author of numerous important philosophical works
in dialogue form, including Laws.
7 Smith is referring to a declaration against the owning of slaves approved at the annual Quaker meeting in
Philadelphia in 1776. By that time, most Quakers in the colony had rejected slavery.
2
3
4
the whole produce should be as great as possible, in order that their own proportion may
be so. A slave, on the contrary, who can acquire nothing but his maintenance, consults his
own ease by making the land produce as little as possible over and above that maintenance.
It is probable that it was partly upon account of this advantage, and partly upon account of
the encroachments which the sovereign, always jealous of the great lords, gradually
encouraged their villains to make upon their authority, and which seem at last to have been
such as rendered this species of servitude altogether inconvenient, that tenure in villanage
gradually wore out through the greater part of Europe. The time and manner, however, in
which so important a revolution was brought about is one of the most obscure points in
modern history. The Church of Rome claims great merit in it; and it is certain that so early
as the twelfth century, Alexander III8 published a bull for the general emancipation of
slaves. It seems, however, to have been rather a pious exhortation than a law to which
exact obedience was required from the faithful. Slavery continued to take place almost
universally for several centuries afterwards, till it was gradually abolished by the joint
operation of the two interests above mentioned, that of the proprietor on the one hand, and
that of the sovereign on the other. A villain enfranchised, and at the same time allowed to
continue in possession of the land, having no stock of his own, could cultivate it only by
means of what the landlord advanced to him, and must, therefore, have been what the
French call a metayer.
It could never, however, be the interest even of this last species of cultivators to lay
out, in the further improvement of the land, any part of the little stock which they might
save from their own share of the produce, because the lord, who laid out nothing, was to
get one-half of whatever it produced. . . .
...
BOOK IV.
OF SYSTEMS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
CHAPTER VII.
OF COLONIES
...
In all European colonies the culture of the sugar-cane is carried on by negro slaves.
The constitution of those who have been born in the temperate climate of Europe could
not, it is supposed, support the labour of digging the ground under the burning sun of the
West Indies; and the culture of the sugar-cane, as it is managed at present, is all hand
labour, though, in the opinion of many, the drill plough might be introduced into it with
great advantage. But, as the profit and success of the cultivation which is carried on by
means of cattle, depend very much upon the good management of those cattle, so the profit
and success of that which is carried on by slaves must depend equally upon the good
management of those slaves; and in the good management of their slaves the French
planters, I think it is generally allowed, are superior to the English. The law, so far as it
gives some weak protection to the slave against the violence of his master, is likely to be
better executed in a colony where the government is in a great measure arbitrary than in
8
Pope Alexander III (r. 1159–81).
5
one where it is altogether free. In every country where the unfortunate law of slavery is
established, the magistrate, when he protects the slave, intermeddles in some measure in
the management of the private property of the master; and, in a free country, where the
master is perhaps either a member of the colony assembly, or an elector of such a member,
he dare not do this but with the greatest caution and circumspection. The respect which he
is obliged to pay to the master renders it more difficult for him to protect the slave. But in a
country where the government is in a great measure arbitrary, where it is usual for the
magistrate to intermeddle even in the management of the private property of individuals,
and to send them, perhaps, a lettre de cachet9 if they do not manage it according to his
liking, it is much easier for him to give some protection to the slave; and common humanity
naturally disposes him to do so. The protection of the magistrate renders the slave less
contemptible in the eyes of his master, who is thereby induced to consider him with more
regard, and to treat him with more gentleness. Gentle usage renders the slave not only
more faithful, but more intelligent, and therefore, upon a double account, more useful. He
approaches more to the condition of a free servant, and may possess some degree of
integrity and attachment to his master's interest, virtues which frequently belong to free
servants, but which never can belong to a slave who is treated as slaves commonly are in
countries where the master is perfectly free and secure.
That the condition of a slave is better under an arbitrary than under a free
government is, I believe, supported by the history of all ages and nations. In the Roman
history, the first time we read of the magistrate interposing to protect the slave from the
violence of his master is under the emperors. When Vedius Pollio, 10 in the presence of
Augustus, ordered one of his slaves, who had committed a slight fault, to be cut into pieces
and thrown into his fish pond in order to feed his fishes, the emperor commanded him,
with indignation, to emancipate immediately, not only that slave, but all the others that
belonged to him. Under the Republic no magistrate could have had authority enough to
protect the slave, much less to punish the master.
...
CHAPTER IX.
OF THE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
The policy of the ancient republics of Greece, and that of Rome, though it honoured
agriculture more than manufactures or foreign trade, yet seems rather to have discouraged
the latter employments than to have given any direct or intentional encouragement to the
former. In several of the ancient states of Greece, foreign trade was prohibited altogether;
and in several others the employments of artificers11 and manufacturers were considered
as hurtful to the strength and agility of the human body, as rendering it incapable of those
habits which their military and gymnastic exercises endeavoured to form in it, and as
thereby disqualifying it more or less for undergoing the fatigues and encountering the
Executive orders sent to enforce the will of the king, most notoriously involving the imposition of
imprisonment and other punishments.
10 Publius Vedius Pollio (d. 15 B.C.) was a minor Roman aristocrat and a friend of the Roman Emperor
Augustus (63 B.C.–14 A.D.), the founder of the Roman Empire.
11 Artisans or tradesmen.
9
6
dangers of war. Such occupations were considered as fit only for slaves, and the free
citizens of the state were prohibited from exercising them. Even in those states where no
such prohibition took place, as in Rome and Athens, the great body of the people were in
effect excluded from all the trades which are, now commonly exercised by the lower sort of
the inhabitants of towns. Such trades were, at Athens and Rome, all occupied by the slaves
of the rich, who exercised them for the benefit of their masters, whose wealth, power, and
protection made it almost impossible for a poor freeman to find a market for his work,
when it came into competition with that of the slaves of the rich. Slaves, however, are very
seldom inventive; and all the most important improvements, either in machinery, or in the
arrangement and distribution of work which facilitate and abridge labour, have been the
discoveries of freemen. Should a slave propose any improvement of this kind, his master
would be very apt to consider the proposal as the suggestion of laziness, and a desire to
save his own labour at the master's expense. The poor slave, instead of reward, would
probably meet with much abuse, perhaps with some punishment. In the manufactures
carried on by slaves, therefore, more labour must generally have been employed to execute
the same quantity of work than in those carried on by freemen. The work of the former
must, upon that account, generally have been dearer than that of the latter. The Hungarian
mines, it is remarked by Mr. Montesquieu, though not richer, have always been wrought 12
with less expense, and therefore with more profit, than the Turkish mines in their
neighbourhood. The Turkish mines are wrought by slaves; and the arms of those slaves are
the only machines which the Turks have ever thought of employing. The Hungarian mines
are wrought by freemen, who employ a great deal of machinery, by which they facilitate
and abridge their own labour. . . .
...
12
Worked.