Links between railways and slavery to be explored in new research project

[ainsworth74]

An interesting project here:

Links between railways and slavery to be explored in new research project​

Posted on 10 October 2021

Universities and museums across Yorkshire and the North of England will explore the links between the railways and the global slave trade as part of a new research project.
Called ‘Slavery and Steam: steam power, railways and colonialism’ the project has received a grant from the White Rose University Consortium.

The year of funding will stimulate research, build networks, and increase awareness of the links between slavery, steam power and the development of railways in Europe and the colonies.

Colonial legacy

The project was developed by academics from the Universities of York, Leeds, and Sheffield, and curators from the National Railway Museum, the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester and Leeds Industrial Museum.

As part of the project, the team will run a series of workshops, publish a handbook and create digital content such as web articles and blogs to share their findings with the public.

In the longer term, the project will seek to generate peer reviewed research articles and further academic research into Britain’s colonial legacy.

The history and development of the railways has been the subject of considerable research in the past, but according to project lead, Professor Jonathan Finch from the Department of Archaeology at the University of York, there has been little research in this area.

Professor Finch said: “The relationship between steam power and global trade is complex. Steam engines replaced wind power on the plantations and waterpower in British cotton mills, steamboats transported raw materials and goods around the globe.

“Railways were critical to the expansion of colonial power across Asia and Africa, as well as the opening up of the North American interior. Wealth generated in the colonies was a stimulus to industrialisation, long after the abolition of slavery in the UK and US. This project will examine the economic, social and infrastructural legacy of steam and slavery in the late 19th and 20th centuries.”

Untold stories

Dr Oliver Betts, Research Lead at the National Railway Museum, said: “This is the latest in a series of collaborations between the museum and leading academics which will shine a spotlight on the links between slavery and railways. Across the Science Museum Group through projects such as this, we are examining Britain’s colonial past to look again at the stories we tell, the voices we represent, and the challenges we face in presenting complex, hitherto untold stories to the public.”

Dr Kate Pangbourne from the University of Leeds’ Institute for Transport Studies said: “I am delighted to be leading the University of Leeds’ contribution to this ground-breaking interdisciplinary initiative to develop new understandings of the entwined history of steam power innovation, enslavement and colonialism. We have a visible legacy that is revealed in the geography of our ports, rail infrastructure, and industrial landscapes that deserves closer examination. At the University of Leeds, we are contributing expertise in transport studies, mobilities and law.”

Enslavement

Dr Rosie Knight from the University of Sheffield, said: “The University of Sheffield's slavery research hub is very pleased to be part of this project. It promises to make an important contribution to ongoing debates around the relationships between industrialisation, colonialism, and enslavement, as well as bringing to light the day-to-day lives of enslaved, indentured, and free labourers.”

The National Railway Museum has a dedicated research department and in 1995, launched the Institute of Railway Studies in partnership with the University of York. The collaboration has led to numerous opportunities for full-time and part-time study, including a number of shared PhD students whose work broadens public understanding of the museum collections.

Links between railways and slavery to be explored in new research project

Universities and museums across Yorkshire and the North of England will explore the links between the railways and the global slave trade as part of a new research project.

www.york.ac.uk

I suppose this follows on from the interesting piece which was published in London Reconnections last year:

Slavery and the Railways, Part 1: Acknowledging the Past​

11 SEPTEMBER 2020
Britain’s railway exists as a legacy of slavery. In this short series we look at this under-explored aspect of railway history, and talk to Network Rail about how we acknowledge that past and build a better present.

On 25th May 2020, George Floyd was allegedly murdered by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, igniting vigorous protests against police brutality and wider institutional racism in the US. Across the globe, the Black Lives Matter movement regained prominence and in today’s social media era, institutions have been forced to look at their own legacies with increasing scrutiny. Statues are literally being toppled.

Not for the first time, the relationship between slavery and Britain’s railway network has been questioned. On the one hand is the overwhelming evidence of slavery’s deep-rooted impact on modern Britain; on the other is a near vacuum in published material looking at how the railways fit into that picture.

Countless history books covering Britain’s railways have been published over the years, including no small number of best-sellers in the last decade or two. However, the common theme among them is that slavery’s influence is hardly considered. Most often, slavery isn’t mentioned at all. Looking to Wikipedia, which is a good place to go to eyeball the popular understanding of any subject, the early British rail history page (covering the period from 1830 to 1922) returns no matches for “slave” suggesting that the subject has had little or no discussion in either popular or academic history.

But does the lack of discussion of slavery’s impact on the British railway network really reflect the scale of its actual influence on them?

History is as much – if not more so – about identifying the gaps in society’s knowledge as it is about tying together what is already known. The acknowledged scale of slavery’s physical legacy in Britain surely makes it unlikely that the railways were created entirely or even mostly independent of it. Given Britain’s well-established reputation for downplaying the extent of historic systemic racism and the Empire’s involvement in racist atrocities (including slavery), could it be the case that such an influence exists but that nobody has bothered to explore it?

Actually, slavery’s legacy on the railways isn’t entirely unexplored. In 2015, historian David Olusoga made a BBC documentary looking at the wide-reaching legacy of slavery on shaping Britain’s industry, society and culture, including the railways. To do this, he looked at the UCL “Legacies of British Slave-ownership” database.

...

Slavery and the Railways, Part 1: Acknowledging the Past - London Reconnections

The leading source for independent news and analysis about transport in London and beyond. Award-winning coverage of transport infrastructure and politics alongside stories about the history of the Capital's transport networks.

www.londonreconnections.com

Personally I think it's quite an interesting subject and one worthy of exploration as whilst I'm not sure it has any implications on the current operational railway expanding our knowledge of the history of railways is a worthy endeavour but I appreciate that some are less impressed. Indeed the Daily Mail have published an article with a headline that is somewhat dismissive of the research project but the text itself is rather more factual:

National Railway Museum will investigate STEAM TRAINS for links to slavery and colonialism in £9,000 research project​

The National Railway Museum and universities across Yorkshire and the north of England will investigate the possible links between railways and the global slave trade as part of a £9,000 research project.

The project - backed by York, Leeds and Sheffield Universities - will 'examine the economic, social and infrastructural legacy of steam and slavery across the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries'.

It will consider whether steam power aided imperial expansion and also assess trains for their role in facilitating expansion.

The £9,000 research project - titled Slavery and Steam: steam power, railways and colonialism - was developed by curators from the National Railway Museum, the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester and Leeds Industrial Museum, as well as research hubs at the three universities.

...

National Railway Museum will investigate STEAM TRAIN links to slavery

The project - backed by York, Leeds and Sheffield Universities - will 'examine the economic, social and infrastructural legacy of steam and slavery across the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[John Luxton]

I see that my original posting regarding this matter has been appropriate and altered.

Sadly though I think it is a reflection that our heritage is being undermined by those determined to reinterpret the past to suit a new political agenda.

There appears to be a desire to trash our historical heritage by finding links to slavery / exploitation / colonialism and in doing so tarnish its established reputation.

Much of the information can be dug out by anyone determined to do so - but there appears to be more and more effort into doing this and it is going to end badly.

Already a group of National Trust members have formed the "Restore Trust" to the return the trust to conserving historic properties and not focus on the latest trendy PC agendas.

The removal of a portrait of General Picton from the National Museum of Wales last week has stirred up emotions both pro and anti this action with I see Huw Edwards entering the debate and being censured for it.

Most of us just want our history left as it is yes it had its darker sides - and the information is there for people to find if they so care.

But there now appears to be a move to get the JCB's out and dig it up with a vengeance.

When it comes to slavery / colonialism / exploitation we need to look at what is going on today, not what happened in the past.

Unfortunately it carries on to this day in plain sight but in a different form and people chose to ignore it - surely that is what needs dealing with not what our predecessors did.

I must admit I feel very unhappy about our railway heritage being pulled into the current trend for political correctness and "wokeism".

 

[Taunton]

You must understand that, like other similar movements, this one has developed its own momentum and supporters to scoop up funds for their own benefit. This one has collected £9,000 from the National Railway Museum budget, originally doubtless from funds originally approved by The Treasury for preserving railway items in a museum, but has managed to be diverted to a political group to keep them in the style to which they are doubtless becoming increasingly accustomed.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I think it is very good to re-evaluate the past.

Just got me wondering, who did the actual physical work building railways in India, for example? I bet quite a few laborers suffered, even died.

 

[ainsworth74]

You must understand that, like other similar movements, this one has developed its own momentum and supporters to scoop up funds for their own benefit. This one has collected £9,000 from the National Railway Museum budget, originally doubtless from funds originally approved by The Treasury for preserving railway items in a museum, but has managed to be diverted to a political group to keep them in the style to which they are doubtless becoming increasingly accustomed.

Erm no. I didn't include it in the original quote of the article as I didn't think it was going to be relevant but the funding has come from outside the NRM budget:

Further information:​

The research grant for £9,000 was awarded by The White Rose University Consortium, a strategic partnership between the Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York. For more information visit https://whiterose.ac.uk/

 

[gg1]

I think it is very good to re-evaluate the past.

Just got me wondering, who did the actual physical work building railways in India, for example? I bet quite a few laborers suffered, even died.

Undoubtedly, as was also the case with the 19th century navvies who built the railway system here in Britain.

 

[Bertie the bus]

There appears to be a desire to trash our historical heritage by finding links to slavery / exploitation / colonialism and in doing so tarnish its established reputation.

Exactly. I have no problem with history being told warts and all but do object to people deliberately setting out to find the warts. This will be very similar to the Channel 4 series Britain’s Most Historic Towns. The first couple of series were interesting and informative but the last series was just a tedious lecture about how everything and everybody can be tenuously linked to slavery and how we should all be ashamed.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Perhaps things than were long hidden/ignored shall be brought to light at last. Very good I think, as a member of a minority group.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Perhaps things than were long hidden/ignored shall be brought to light at last. Very good I think, as a member of a minority group.

Indeed. I don't understand why so many people are against the less salubrious elements of history being brought to light and examined academically. There's a lot of tilting at windmills going on here.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Perhaps things than were long hidden/ignored shall be brought to light at last. Very good I think, as a member of a minority group.

Why?

Engineering and building the railways today is very different to the 19th century...

 

[ainsworth74]

I have no problem with history being told warts and all but do object to people deliberately setting out to find the warts.

I mean, perhaps it was just me, but until the London Reconnections article I didn't even know that there were any warts to be found let alone taught on this subject. The only negative side to the building of the railways in this country seemed to be the slapdash approach to the welfare and safety of those that built it. Mostly the Irish navvies who lived in awful conditions and died in not insignificant numbers.

Going out and finding out more about the funding of the early railways seems quite an interesting exercise. I certainly don't feel that it's "tarnished" the reputation of the railway in any way. It simply acts as a reminder of quite how involved slavery was, in one way or another, in building the world we now live in. Equally I'm not sure that it is a "tenuous" link in the case of the railways (I can't comment on the examples given from that Channel 4 program you refer to as I've not seen it!). It seems that significant sums of money (£5.2m which in todays money would no doubt be hundreds of millions if not several billion) were invested by individuals who got that money from the payoffs they got as slave holders.

Does this mean that railways are now evil? That the railway has a tarnished reputation? I don't see how. It's simply a fact that a key part of the infrastructure of this country was built by people who had originally profited from the ownership of other people. That is surely something worth telling in the story of railway history? It is surely something worth researching further seeing as, until the last couple of years, it wasn't even included in the story of the railways at all!

History can't just be about the good stuff that we're rightly proud of and then we don't talk about the less wholesome parts of it. That, unfortunately, sometimes means confronting things which make us uncomfortable and challenging ideas that we hold about aspects of our past. Just pretending it didn't happen or that it's somehow "woke" and "PC" is rubbish excuse for denying what the historical record tells us.

 

[John Luxton]

I think it is very good to re-evaluate the past.

Just got me wondering, who did the actual physical work building railways in India, for example? I bet quite a few laborers suffered, even died.

Quite a few British / Irish Navvies died building railways in these islands. It goes without saying it would have also happened on lines overseas both in British and other nation's colonies. If any line histories have been published on these lines I am sure that the deaths / injuries will already have been recorded just as they have always been on line histories in these islands.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I strongly suspect the conditions suffered by those building railways in India were much worse than the bad conditions suffered by Irish navvies in the UK. Perhaps my speculation can be confirmed or refuted.

 

[John Luxton]

You must understand that, like other similar movements, this one has developed its own momentum and supporters to scoop up funds for their own benefit. This one has collected £9,000 from the National Railway Museum budget, originally doubtless from funds originally approved by The Treasury for preserving railway items in a museum, but has managed to be diverted to a political group to keep them in the style to which they are doubtless becoming increasingly accustomed.

Exactly it has - developed its own momentum - furthered by political agendas.

I spent 34 years as a teacher of history and geography and gradually saw this agenda coming in various forms, it was subtle and insidious. Quite quickly the term BCE started to replace BC in school text books long before it appeared in mainstream history books. A colleague asked me why I wasn't using it in my time line and wall displays. I told them where to go in no uncertain terms.

Perhaps I could be seen by some to be a victim of my own past and thus need re educating myself by some of these trendies?

I had three History teachers at school, one of whom was a rather jingoistic ex RAF type, and having come from a traditional patriotic British background was brought up on the "my country - right or wrong" basis. Thus one accepted the past as having happened and if it benefited the country and its people so be it.

Performing what are essentially muck raking exercises will not change my views at the age of 62, I see them as a sinister way of turning the younger generation into people who loath their own nation and forbears for what happened in the past.

Not everything was good about the past - but would it not be more constructive to spend money dealing with modern day slavery and exploitation which is more insidious?

I just want our railway history to be left as it is and not reinterpreted.

 

[WesternLancer]

Most of us just want our history left as it is yes it had its darker sides - and the information is there for people to find if they so care.

You make the point very well. But the problem is for many that means wanting history left 'as they believed it to be'... which is often really related to how it has been published in the past by those who were able to set down the record. And those who can set down the record are often (but of course not always) only coming from certain perspectives. The point about navvies in the thread is well made in this regard, as finding first hand accounts of their lives is not as easy as it might ideally be.

You are quite correct that there is other information there for people to find if they so care. But it takes time to find it sometimes, and time costs money. So this grant might be to help someone spend some time looking - and I see no harm in that.

 

[S&CLER]

Given the importance of the "Liverpool party" in promoting and financing early railway schemes, many of them well beyond Merseyside, I think the investigation is bound to find substantial links between railway finance and capital acquired from the slave trade.

 

[6Gman]

Exactly it has - developed its own momentum - furthered by political agendas.

I spent 34 years as a teacher of history and geography

I just want our railway history to be left as it is and not reinterpreted.

Surely the whole point of the study of history is to reinterpret it as new evidence is studied?

If somebody found, in an archive somewhere, some notes that provided conclusive evidence that City of Truro only reached 98.6mph or, alternatively, actually reached 103.5mph would you criticise that because it changed the 102.3 story?

(Oh, and I'm older than you and quite happy to revise my views as evidence emerges.)

 

[ainsworth74]

I just want our railway history to be left as it is and not reinterpreted.

At what point is history fixed? Ten years after the events? Fifty? A hundred? At what point should we stop looking into events and re-examining them and adding new information to the mix as it comes to light?

 

[O L Leigh]

I don’t particularly understand the resistance to this. I find it fascinating that our history is so multi-faceted and that the ideas and attitudes that allowed the existence of industries like the slave trade were pervading all levels of society and, therefore, business. There’s no question that the economic success of Britain in the past was at least in part bank-rolled by the slave trade and I think it will be interesting to find out to what extent the railway barons derived their great wealth from other sources.

I don’t even think that it necessarily devalues our history to be mindful and respectful of the darker aspects of the past when we lived in less enlightened times. The inhuman treatment of those classified as untermensch by the Nazis features large in the history of 20th century Germany, but I guess people see that it’s appropriate because this was meted out by others. We should be brave enough to be able to examine the darker corners of our own past too and to acknowledge to the role that those people that we wronged in the past played in making the country and society we live in today. Squeamishness should not be allowed to play any part in this.

 

[John Luxton]

At what point is history fixed? Ten years after the events? Fifty? A hundred? At what point should we stop looking into events and re-examining them and adding new information to the mix as it comes to light?

I am not actually against finding out more about purely railway history and many railway histories have been revised over the years.

For instance does it really matter if the Douglas-Pennant family that built the Penrhyn Railway to make the link with their associated quarries developed their industry out of compensation for giving up their plantations as part of the abolition of the slave trade?

Does it matter about Winston Churchill's colonial views? (The chap saved Britain from becoming a colony of another empire which would have certainly exploited us! - To many Winston will remain a hero for that alone - many people don't want him tarnished and the railways with him because his coffin was carried by train.)

Does where the promoters of the railways which the Stephensons' worked for obtained their capital?

There appears to be a growing need to place bad light on people who only participated in a trade which was perfectly legal up to one point.

It is the political overtones which correspond with certain "trendy" views being peddled by some parts of the media and society that I find objectionable and we all know what started the latest urge to reappraise our history, crazy really when the incident itself did not happen in the UK!

 

[Taunton]

Having actually gone to school (as you might guess from my name) at one of the now-despised places which was originally founded by traders, we learned of the trade, the triangle, and how it worked, from an early time. Traders like Colston did not actually travel on the ship, apart from maybe the pioneer one, but funded it. The crew were not paid, as such, but they were the ones who funded the provisions taken outwards, and bartered them for the slaves in Africa, taking them to America, where they traded them again for tobacco and cotton etc, which were brought back to Britain. These were Colston's, sold here which paid him for the ship. The crew had got their pay from what they sold the slaves for in the USA. Colston couldn't see what they sold them for, so this was the crew's pay. The substantial funds built up here were from selling cotton and tobacco. That was the key part of the enterprise. Without that, no triangle. The slaves were what would be known, in modern logistics terms, as a residual cost backload.

The slaves were sold to the crew by African chiefs, who were competent negotiators. They didn't get them for free. Ships were loaded with as many as the African chief wanted to sell. I don't see any criticism of these African chiefs doing this at all currently - although I remember us criticising it as 9 year olds in the class at the time. Strange, isn't it.

 

[John Luxton]

The slaves were sold to the crew by African chiefs, who were competent negotiators. They didn't get them for free. Ships were loaded with as many as the African chief wanted to sell. I don't see any criticism of these African chiefs doing this at all currently - although I remember us criticising it as 9 year olds in the class at the time. Strange, isn't it.

You make a very good point.

This is an issue I find crops up time and time again slavery would not have happened without the collusion of the African's themselves. - But this issue has never been addressed in public or is conveniently brushed under the carpet, ignored call it what you will. We vilify the British and other European traders who took part in the triangular trade and overlook the complicity of the Africans.

When I taught children about the slave trade I made these facts very clear.

As for Colston - he was a great benefactor to Bristol and used his wealth to benefit the city and its people. It appears a great shame that someone who did so much good has been vilified by what must be a noisy minority aided and abetted by the city council who will not restore and return his statue.

It is incidents like this, and the recent attempts to move statues to Rhodes and Baden-Powell which make me see red, and have turned me very much into a reactionary.

Whilst I am happy to express my feelings in words - fear that other reactionary people may go further than this.

Rewriting history can be dangerous it can push people to the extremes.

What we really need to is to maintain a calm middle ground less the prophecies of a certain former Tory MP and latterly Ulster Unionist MP do not come true.

 

[ainsworth74]

I am not actually against finding out more about purely railway history and many railway histories have been revised over the years.

But surely the source of funding for the building of railways is railway history? It might not be as interesting as other parts of the story but it is part of the story. After all if there had been no funding there would be no railway at all!

For instance does it really matter if the Douglas-Pennant family that built the Penrhyn Railway to make the link with their associated quarries developed their industry out of compensation for giving up their plantations as part of the abolition of the slave trade?

Does where the promoters of the railways which the Stephensons' worked for obtained their capital?

I'm not sure that it matters to any great degree but I think it is relevant to the history of the railway and indeed the UK in general to know where the funding for the things we enjoy came from. For those that wish to study the subject in any great detail anyway. And lets be real the results of this research are hardly likely to lead to a earth shattering changes to the national curriculum but they are of interest and can be included in a wider study of the origin of the railways.

Does it matter about Winston Churchill's colonial views? (The chap saved Britain from becoming a colony of another empire which would have certainly exploited us! - To many Winston will remain a hero for that alone - many people don't want him tarnished and the railways with him because his coffin was carried by train.)

Ah Churchill. Hero to many, villain to others. Fascinating character who would be diminished if we airbrushed his story to only focus on the good bits and ignore the far more complex reality of his views many of which, whilst repugnant now, were typical then. It seems bizarre to me to just pretend that he was just a virtuous soul who never did anything wrong.

There appears to be a growing need to place bad light on people who only participated in a trade which was perfectly legal up to one point.

I'm not sure how the railway is placed in a "bad light" by acknowledging a slightly less shiny part of it's past. Indeed surely trying to pretend it didn't happen or just outright ignoring it is worse?

The slaves were sold to the crew by African chiefs. They didn't get them for free. Ships were loaded with as many as the African chief wanted to sell. I don't see any criticism of these African chiefs doing this at all currently - although I remember us criticising it as 9 year olds in the class at the time. Strange, isn't it.

This is an issue I find crops up time and time again slavery would not have happened without the collusion of the African's themselves. - But this issue has never been addressed in public or is conveniently brushed under the carpet, ignored call it what you will. We vilify the British and other European traders who took part in the triangular trade and overlook the complicity of the Africans.

I mean for one thing if we hadn't have created a market for millions of slaves to be transported across the Atlantic they wouldn't have been able to sell millions of people into slavery. But for another that sounds like something that those African states need to reconcile for themselves. That's part of their history that they sold their fellows into slavery for a handsome profit and it's for them to deal with that. After all I'd imagine that if the African chiefs that did sell their fellows into slavery didn't exist or had refused we'd have just gone and captured them ourselves anyway. The profit margin would just have likely been slimmer.

But I don't think it absolves us from acknowledging our part in the trade (both enabling it and ending it) and the money that was made from it.

Convenient though as a deflection of the blame for the slave trade though.

 

[O L Leigh]

Whilst I am happy to express my feelings in words - fear that other reactionary people may go further than this.

Rewriting history can be dangerous it can push people to the extremes.

What we really need to is to maintain a calm middle ground less the prophecies of a certain former Tory MP and latterly Ulster Unionist MP do not come true.

OK, so how about we allow the story to be told from both sides and acknowledge that each has as much claim to their part of the story as the other. Throwing up our hands in protest with cries of "Revisionism!!" isn't going to help that.

 

[WesternLancer]

The slaves were sold to the crew by African chiefs, who were competent negotiators. They didn't get them for free. Ships were loaded with as many as the African chief wanted to sell. I don't see any criticism of these African chiefs doing this at all currently - although I remember us criticising it as 9 year olds in the class at the time. Strange, isn't it.

Well that was explained and covered pretty fully on a C4 programme that I saw the other week in eve prime time (1,000 years a slave I think) - just because it does not get as much coverage in the Gruaniad or the Telegraph (to cite 2 ends of the newspaper spectrum where views on 'woke' are often set out) does not mean it's not being explained.

 

[O L Leigh]

This is an issue I find crops up time and time again slavery would not have happened without the collusion of the African's themselves. - But this issue has never been addressed in public or is conveniently brushed under the carpet, ignored call it what you will. We vilify the British and other European traders who took part in the triangular trade and overlook the complicity of the Africans.

When I taught children about the slave trade I made these facts very clear.

European traders were basically exploiting the existing African practice of selling conquered peoples into slavery, which previously they would have done amongst themselves. The difference here is that the European traders were very happy to take advantage of this, but the scale of their demand for slaves probably did mean an escalation in the enslavement of people.

The triangular nature of the trade is certainly historically interesting and I'm glad that you gave your students a full appreciation of the picture, but is that enough to excuse our part in the trade. There were narratives current in our society at that time that excused the enslavement of people and allowed it to become socially acceptable, in much the same way as the Holocaust was excused by narratives current in Nazi society, for example. That's not to say that our forebears were as bad as the Nazis, but our society had a role to play in allowing the slave trade to exist and for that we are complicit. We have materially prospered on the back of it and, while characters like Churchill and Colston did a lot of good from one perspective, I see no reason why we can't also recognise that their money and their views are, while not unusual in their time, questionable now. We cannot excuse ourselves on the basis that we didn't start the trade and neither can we blame any others for having taken full advantage of it.

 

[WesternLancer]

For instance does it really matter if the Douglas-Pennant family that built the Penrhyn Railway to make the link with their associated quarries developed their industry out of compensation for giving up their plantations as part of the abolition of the slave trade?

Actually quite an important one, and thanks for flagging it - as it means quite a lot in my view. eg the conventional view in the UK is that the railway network creation was a private enterprise activity compared with on the continent where govts took a greater strategic view (driven IiRC by at least in part military reasons) - but if in the case you cite this railway was built with such funds it shows that the state provided a fair bit of investment funding for the activity. Albeit down tot he private owners to decide how to invest it. So that is at least of tangential relevance.

At what point is history fixed? Ten years after the events? Fifty? A hundred? At what point should we stop looking into events and re-examining them and adding new information to the mix as it comes to light?

Point well made - reminds me of some work I did recently on a social history project (narrative of a growth of a neighbourhood). When covering some info for a book the 'old stuff' was relatively contentious - mainly because there were received historical narratives to draw on which were generally accepted - or no one alive knew differently.

This was in stark contracts to a session I organised with older people to talk about matters in the area within their lifetimes. On asking why did such and such happen (nothing controversial I might add) it was v interesting to hear that immediately people had very different understandings and explanations of the reasons behind such and such happening.

This was thought provoking to say the least.

This one has collected £9,000 from the National Railway Museum budget, originally doubtless from funds originally approved by The Treasury for preserving railway items in a museum, but has managed to be diverted to a political group to keep them in the style to which they are doubtless becoming increasingly accustomed.

That is not how I read it at all

The links posted say:

the project has received a grant from the White Rose University Consortium.

So I suspect the money is from here:

Collaboration Fund - How To Apply - White Rose University Consortium

whiterose.ac.uk

and the project is one of several very varied projects funded:

WHITE ROSE COLLABORATION FUND SPRING 2021 AWARDS - White Rose University Consortium

We are delighted to announce the projects which were successful in securing a Spring 2021 Collaboration Fund award. As always we were impressed by the diversity and breadth of the […]

whiterose.ac.uk

That strikes me as money provided by the universities (if anything to the NRM, not from it....) which will probably be money that comes from the universities own investment funds, or from the fees their students pay to the universities concerned. The prospect of that money being re-directed into 'preserving railway items' is, IMHO (sadly) pretty slim - tho University engineering departments and other parts of universities do in fact have a good history of helping preserve railway and engineering items in the past.

And I doubt it's going to a political group to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed. I suspect it's going to other academics or perhaps some part of a PhD researcher's income or some such.

In other words it sounds to me like it is university money being paid to university staff to research something and the NRM are co-operating in the research or involved in some way. This is not to say political motivation is not at play - but that's because political motivation is always at play (even in comments that say such research is not needed or of no interest or of no relevance.)

 

[Flying Phil]

Interesting and thought provoking range of opinions on here. However mention is made of Navvies working in poor conditions and it certainly was true - from our perspective. But what was the alternative at the time? I don't think that the bucolic life of a farm worker was idyllic for many, serving in the armed forces was not pleasant for much of the time etc. for many people the reality would have been work or starvation.

 

[WesternLancer]

Interesting and thought provoking range of opinions on here. However mention is made of Navvies working in poor conditions and it certainly was true - from our perspective. But what was the alternative at the time? I don't think that the bucolic life of a farm worker was idyllic for many, serving in the armed forces was not pleasant for much of the time etc. for many people the reality would have been work or starvation.

Absolutely, point well made - they would have done it on the whole as they saw it as a better option than the alternatives available to them. Same for many people who gave up rural life to flock to cities where standards of housing and health would have been appalling by any consideration - but must have seemed better at the time to the alternatives.

After all, they weren't slaves so no one could force them to do it...

 

[6Gman]

Ah Churchill. Hero to many, villain to others. Fascinating character who would be diminished if we airbrushed his story to only focus on the good bits and ignore the far more complex reality of his views many of which, whilst repugnant now, were typical then. It seems bizarre to me to just pretend that he was just a virtuous soul who never did anything wrong.

Exactly.

Those at the extremes seem unable to accept that a person can be both hero and villain at different times during their lives and, indeed, on different issues at the same time.

And, frankly, both hero and villain are loaded terms - most people spend their lives wobbling in the middle ground.