British Abolitionist Campaign: The Fight with Immorality and Sins

Emerging from the post-war imperial defeat, in a milieu where national pride was perpetually receding, the abolitionist campaign was able to gain momentum in the various echelons of society due to the multifarious advancements that it had the potential to enable. Various factors were integral to the British Abolitionists’ success in their campaign. The abolitionists outlined the outright cruelties of the slave industry and utilised Christian moral values in order to gain sympathy for their cause. Whilst these two arguments were inextricably intertwined, they represented two different motives, and thus will be discussed separately. This message was spread chiefly through various petitions to parliaments, freed-slaves accounting the brutalities that they suffered, and appeals to the public. Further, the political paradigm at the time, particularly the imperial defeat to America, created a crevice in British pride which the abolitionists exploited, appealing for Britain to become the powerhouse of freedom. This essay will explore that various arguments utilised by the abolitionists as well as how these ideas were conveyed to the wider public, which ultimately created a national demand for the Abolition of Slavery Act.

The promotion of moral and ethical virtues were fundamental to the British Abolitionist campaign, twinging the heartstrings of the wider British population and highlighting the inequities suffered by the slaves, quite a modern concept at the time. One need not delve deep into the slave industry before discovering the horrendous maltreatments and cruelties that many slaves suffered at the hands of their masters. Olaudah Equiano, a man who was kidnapped and enslaved as a child and ultimately earned his own freedom, provided the abolitionists with an irrefutable and reliable source of the outright inhumanity of the slave trade. Equiano travelled around England, preaching his story and selling his book that painted a picture of utter cruelty. In his book, he describes the long, and fatal for many, journey from Africa to England, in which “each had scarcely room to turn himself” and could constantly hear the “shrieks of the women and the groans of the dying men”. Equiano’s ability to eloquently portray his frightening experience certainly alarmed many Brits, and created an awareness for the blatant cruelties suffered by those in the slave industry. Many may have been blissfully ignorant, or simply assumed it was not a large issue, however Equiano was able to bring it into the spotlight and describe the precise brutalities that occurred, shaking the complacency of many Brits. Building upon this foundation, the abolitionists, on various occasions, placed sailors before Parliament in order to describe the maltreatment of slaves on the arduous journey from Africa to England that left many traumatised, or even dead. These criticisms held strong weight for the ministers of Parliament as the condemnations were coming from sailors within the industry, who understand its inner workings, rather than onlookers. During this period, many petitions were submitted to the House of Commons, intending to make tangible, legislative change. Between 1791 and 1792, the House of Commons received more than 500 petitions, the beared a total of more than 400,000 signatures, nearly half of the population of London at the time. Historian Anthony Page describes that many Brits signed these petitions with a moral reasoning, despite not caring all too much for the cause, they could simply “sign petitions and feel virtuous”. Nevertheless, a large proportion of these signatures were motivated by the ethical ideals presented by the abolitionists. Moreover, appeals to the public aimed to gain momentum by describing obvious human right violations of the “irresponsible, unconditional bondage and subjection to the will of individual man”, such as those created by the Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Association and the London Anti-Slavery Society. These appeals attempted to convince the masses of the horrendous cruelties of the slavery industry, often utilising strong moral values in order to gain sympathy for their cause. Thus, it is evident that morality and ethics were utilised at the forefront of the arguments by the abolitionists, and such propositions were conveyed through addresses and appeals to the public, as well as personal anecdotes by both the victims and the perpetrators of the industry.

Accordingly, the rise of the Quakers and Evangelical movements, who upheld the belief in the equality of men due to an ‘inner light’, added momentum to the abolitionist movement, convincing many that Christian morals oppose the enslavement of fellow men. Whilst not a physically large movement, they were able to extend their influence across various echelons of society. Some historians suggest that the abolitionist texts discuss a distinctive fear of divine interference, specifically referring to Exodus 3:7 in which God heard the cries of the Israelites in bondage and unleashed his wrath on the enslavers, being the Egyptians. Moreover, the evangelical description of impiety and ultimate longing for redemption was able to convert many from nonchalant positions into staunch abolitionists, wholly due to the influence of the Evangelical movements. Further, Scholar Christopher Brown suggests that the Quakers and Evangelicals viewed the abolitionist campaign as an opportunity to revolutionise and revitalise their movements respectively and, further, viewed it as an opportunity for wider reformation. Due to the abolitionists, such religious movements were able to gain supporters through the fear of sin and desire for redemption. The Rational Dissenters formed part of the leading force for the abolitionist movement, acting as strong critics of slavery in a religious sense, however, focussing equally as much on the other deterrents of slavery. William Wilberforce, a British politician and evangelical Christian, dedicated his life to social reform and was a considerably large contributor to the abolitionists’ parliamentary success. He was an indispensable leader for the abolitionist movement and was able to instigate large advancements in the political realm. One particular strategy, utilised by Rational Dissenter John Jebb, was a widely read pamphlet that defined slavery as an outright contradiction of “Christian society” and asserted that it “ought not to be tolerated”. Further addresses and appeals to the public were used, emphasising that “the buying, or selling, or holding, of our fellow men as slaves, is contrary to the Christian religion”. Thus, many supporters of the abolitionist movement were gained through the encouragement of religious values, particularly endorsed by the Quakers, the Evangelicals, and the Rational Dissenters, convincing many the slavery was contrary to Christian ethics.

Accordingly, the shock of the imperial defeat shook the national pride of the British people, which created doubt in the government, subsequently creating a need for the parliamentarians to take steps to regain the trust of the people; further, there was more of a push from the abolitionists for democratic ideals to be augmented by parliament in relation to slavery policies. Britain’s loss of its colonies in Northern America held great economic losses, especially regarding its slave trade, as well as wounding their national pride. The defeat created shock throughout the nation and was able to transform qualms about Britain’s largest form of labour into real political action. Many citizens began to lose confidence in the decision making of the parliamentarians and the monarchy, creating a crisis for the British authority, which the abolitionist movement were able to use to their advantage in order to gain support for their cause by intensifying the doubts in the oligarchy and suggesting the implementation of anti-slavery policies as the anecdote for British pride. The abolitionist movement held a promising perspective of the future, if slavery were to be abolished, in which Britain would emerge as the international powerhouse of freedom, restoring national pride. However, following the outright rejection of a widely signed petition by the House of Commons in 1783, the Quaker’s began to spread public discontent, and casting doubts on parliament’s concerns for democratic practices, an all pervasive qualm that seemed to be actualised in the House of Commons rejection of the petition. Perhaps one of the most horrifying aspects of the government’s perspective on slavery is outlined in the Zong massacre in 1781, in which 132 African slaves were thrown overboard the ship ‘Zong’, due to poor management of supplies and a lack of water. Subsequently, the ship’s owner attempted claim insurance on the ‘cargo’. Whilst the case did eventually come before a court two years later, it was as an insurance fraud case, rather than a case of murder. Despite enormous efforts by the abolitionists’ movement, especially by Olaudah Equiano, to urge the courts to try the case as a mass murder, the court held that the “case of Slaves was the same as if horses had been thrown overboard”, and was therefore treated as an insurance claim. It was only eight years later that this case became truly notorious, and the abolitionists were able to widely publicise it to highlight the outright abhorrence of the laws dictating the treatment of slaves. In the earlier days of the movement, Granville Sharp was one of the largest criticisers of the legal implications and laws regarding the slave trade. In his book entitled ‘A Representation of the Injustice and Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery’, Sharp famously argued society’s artificial laws do not change the fact that all men are created equal, and thus, as man’s nature cannot be changed, the laws must be changed in order to align with this fact. Hence, it can be ascertained that the government’s refusal change the law, especially in light of the imperial defeat, created wide public discontent with a “system which has so long prevailed in violation of all the principles of the British Constitution”. These doubts permeated British society, perpetuated by the abolitionists’ wide publicization of parliament’s nonchalance regarding public dissatisfaction in their propaganda. However, it ought to be noted that the there was an incredibly large payout to the slave-owners, and yet not to the slaves themselves, which illustrates the capitulation of the government to the plutocracy.

Acknowledging the difficulty of defending the ethics of slavery, those in favour of slavery defended it on the grounds of its strategic and economic necessity, whilst also utilising racial and religious arguments. Perhaps one of the most respected rebuttals to such arguments is outlined by Joseph Priestley in a sermon in 1788 that was later transcribed. Priestley contends, foremost, that many of the barbaric practices discussed in the bible were now outlawed, and that modern religious views encouraged empathy and compassion. Priestley highlighted the absurdity of racial arguments that contended an inferiority of Africans, suggesting that the Ancient Egyptians “famed for their wisdom” were probably of colour. Moving to the more difficult economic arguments, specifically addressing the widely commodified sugar industry and the increased price that would accompany the abolishment of free labour and certainly force the sugar industry to greatly increase the cost, Priestley controversially claimed that sugar was an unnecessary luxury; Priestley suggested that those that could not afford it, should simply abstain from it “as they do with respect to other things”. Accordingly, due to the persistent arguments put forth by various religious sects, such as the Quakers and Evangelicals, many men of commerce were confronted with the conundrum of reconciling their economic prosperity with their religious values. This ultimately caused a decline of public support from the commercial class who benefitted most from the slave trade. Historian and scholar, Seymour Drescher, has contended that the abolition of the slave trade was not caused by a reduced worth or view of slavery, but rather, was caused by the public’s demand for it, which forced the government to commit “econocide”. Thus, whilst the argument for the detriment to London’s economy remained strong, the pro-slavery movement gradually lost its support due to the fear of divine retribution, as well as the mass popularity of abolitionism which steadily silenced those in favour of slavery.

Ultimately, the abolitionists were able to gain public support for their cause through the mass production of propaganda that outlined the immorality and religious contradictions of slavery. The Quakers, Evangelicals, and Rational Dissenters emphasised that sin was directly associated with slavery due to the inhumane treatment of other men, mongering fear in the religious milieu. The cause was able to gain immense momentum due to the widespread loss of confidence in the monarchy and government, following the imperial defeat that shook Britain’s national pride, arguably an element of luck that acted in favour of the movement. As the abolitionist movement gained traction and eventually became all pervasive, the pro-slavery drive was gradually silenced. These intertwined factors ultimately resulted in the Abolition of Slavery Act (1833), and thus the abolitionist movement had succeeded, whose absolute joy is epitomized in Granville Sharp’s reaction to the information that the Slave Trade Act had been passed by both Houses of Parliament in 1807, who famously fell to his knees and offered a prayer of Thanksgiving.