Talk:Royal African Company

WHY?

So why exactly did they want to start the Second Anglo-Dutch War?--Streona (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

'Trading' and 'involvement'

It could be I'm being a bit picky here, but I've queried with a cn tag the claim that after the RAC lost the monopoly on trading slaves, this advantaged Bristol merchants - Edward Colston's name invoked here i.e. implying they began trading in slaves themselves. But I find no evidence that Colston did so. Factually, before 1698 he could not have done so, since the RAC held the monopoly, and he retired (K. Morgan pp 4 & 8) in 1708. There might have been 10 years in which he switched his trading activity to include slaves, but I know of no source suggesting this, nor is there evidence of any trading profits from slave trading (Morgan again). His known 'involvement' is his work with the RAC, but if profiting from the company shares and/or receiving remuneration for sitting on committees constitutes "slave trading", a number of very fine statues and sculptured busts need to be removed pronto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioan Dyfrig (talk • contribs) 08:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

PS to the above. D Richardson, The Bristol Slave Traders: A Collective Portrait, 1985, details the post-1698 Bristol slave trade, but the name of Colston is notably absent. I might suggest the removal of Colston's name in this context, while substituting the Richardson citation for the general Bristol reference? Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you can lay your hands on a copy of Madge Dresser's 'Slavery Obscured' but I think it has the answer to most of your questions. Quote p3: "For the truth is that Edward Colston was directly involved in the slave trade. He was an official in the Royal African Company, the company which until 1698 possessed the British monopoly on the slave trade....Indeed the Company minutes show that Colston was present at meetings which organized and approved the sale and transport of Africans to the Caribbean." and also on the same page "a significant part of his wealth was derived from the labour of slaves." His position was akin to being on a present day board of directors, I don't think you can reasonably say he didn't know what he was investing in. Directing the activities of a company that trades slaves is different from being a passive investor.

With regard to whether Bristol merchants were involved in slave trading before 1698, I agree Colston may not be the best example of that. Dresser has a whole section on Bristol and pre-1698 slave connections. E.g. she discusses William and Anthony Swymmer II, who attempted to supply slaves to William Helyar of East Coker, who owned a plantation in Nevis, in 1684. She says as the money was contracted to be paid in Bristol, it was not part of official RAC business. William Swymmer was among the group of merchants who petitioned parliament in 1690 to get a share of the African trade. That year a limited number of licences were granted allowing Bristol ships to travel Bristol/Africa/Americas. However until that is described somewhere online it probably isn't useful to the reader to name them. Perhaps we should just reference the Dresser book, she has a whole section on it, so it is likely the most useful source for a reader to refer to?

With regard to whether Bristol profited from the breaking of the monopoly. Richardson is probably the best source here. Quote: "Bristol merchants responded with greater alacrity than their rivals in other outports to the opportunities offered by the Act of 1698, and...in general it was Bristol merchants more than those of either London or Liverpool that provided most of the impetus behind the substantial expansion of British trade with Africa that occurred between 1713 and 1730." (Bristol, Africa and the Transatlantic Slave Trade Vol 1 p xv)--DrThneed (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Edited to add: Port Cities website has the Swymmers story if that helps

Royal Society

The article on Prince Rupert of the Rhine mentions the Royal Society among the backers. I'd consider it notable enough to be included here, too, if there are any good sources. --Ehitaja (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Ehitaja: I compared the sources in both articles - Kitson apparently mentions him as the third person mentioned on the BoD, but without the book I'm not sure what Kitson's source is for that claim, or how he means the third person. In the State Papers on America and the indies (same 27 September 1672 source as cited in the bib for RAC article), he is not mentioned as receiving the right to the grant, but in the statement of who the grant is in trust to, he is the second in the list of names. -Furicorn (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)