Search results
- After William III of England rescinded the company's monopoly in 1697 under pressure from the Parliament of England, the RAC became insolvent by 1708, though it survived in a state of much reduced activity until 1752, when its assets were transferred to the newly founded African Company of Merchants, which lasted until 1821.
www.wikiwand.com › en › Royal_African_Company
People also ask
Why did the Royal Africa Company lose its monopoly?
How did the Royal Adventurers get monopoly rights?
What did the Royal African Company trade?
What did the Royal African Company do?
The revocation of the Royal African Company's monopoly in 1698 inaugurated a transformation of the transatlantic slave trade. While the RAC’s exit from the slave trade has received scholarly attention, little is known about the company’s response to the loss of its trading privileges.
- Archival Sources
- Other Primary Sources
- Secondary Sources
The National Archives, Kew Gardens (“TNA”)Google ScholarT 70/23Google ScholarT 70/50Google ScholarT 70/100Google ScholarCharles II. “By the King, A Proclamation.” London: Printed by the Assigns of John Bill and Christopher Barker, Printers to the King, 1674.Google ScholarDonnan, Elizabeth, ed. Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, Volume I, 1441–1700. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1930.Google ScholarHakluyt, Richard, ed. The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation, Vol. XI (Edinburgh: E. & G. Goldsmid, 1884–1890), https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/haklu...Law, Robin, ed. The English in West Africa, 1681–1683: The Local Correspondence of the Royal African Company of England, 1681–1699, Part 1. Oxford: Published for the British Academy by Oxford Unive...Alpern, Stanley B. “What Africans Got for Their Slaves: A Master List of European Trade Goods.” History in Africa 22 (1995), 5–43.CrossRef Google ScholarApter, Andrew. “History in the Dungeon: Atlantic Slavery and the Spirit of Capitalism in Cape Coast Castle, Ghana.” American Historical Review 122, No. 1 (February 2017), 23–54.CrossRef Google ScholarBean, Richard Nelson. “A Note on the Relative Importance of Slaves and Gold in West African Exports.” Journal of African History 15, No. 3 (1974), 351–356.CrossRef Google ScholarBeckles, Hilary McD. and Andrew Downes. “The Economics of Transition to the Black Labor System in Barbados, 1630–1680.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, No. 2 (Autumn 1987), 225–247.CrossRe...- Matthew David Mitchell
- mdmitche@sewanee.edu
- 2020
"We have argued here that the Royal African Company did not fail because it was a large inefficient monopoly. Rather it stood little chance of succeeding given the market structure in which it conducted operations. We see the Royal African Company as a dominant firm with an uncertain cost advantage over a competitive fringe.
1695–1696 The Royal Africa Company suffered heavy losses, and lost its monopoly after the Trade with Africa Act 1697. By 1696, it was clear Charles II of Spain would die childless, and his potential heirs included Louis XIV and Emperor Leopold in Vienna. May 1697 the French raided Cartagena and plundered the city.
However, a new charter, detailing its rights and responsibilities concerning the slave traded created a change in fortune. The Company of Royal Adventurers became the Royal African Company, and gained monopoly rights in 1672 for all of England's trade with Africa.
For Pettigrew, the key factor was the Glorious Revolution and the smart lobbying of the so-called separate traders in preventing the Royal African Company from winning parliamentary sanction for its slave-trading monopoly after 1689.
The following account of the legislative and public debate surrounding the monopoly of the Royal African Company is taken from a larger project seeking to examine economic ideas and discourse during the reigns of William III and Mary, and of Anne.
