The multifarious advancements that the campaign could enable enabled the abolitionist camp to grow momentum after it emerged from the post-war empire defeat. The British Abolitionists’ campaign success was due to many factors. The British Abolitionists used Christian morality to win sympathy and exposed the cruelties of slavery. These arguments were interconnected, but they had two different motivations. We will discuss them separately. This message was spread primarily through petitions to parliaments and freed-slaves describing the cruelty they suffered. Further, the political landscape of the time, including the defeat of America at its imperial epoch, created an opportunity for British pride to be exploited by the Abolitionists. They urged Britain to become the nation’s freedom-loving powerhouse. This essay will discuss the various arguments used by the Abolitionists, as well as how they were communicated and acted upon by the wider public. The result was a national demand to abolish slavery.
British Abolitionists emphasized the importance of moral and ethics virtues. This appealed to the hearts of the British public and highlighted the inequities that slaves faced. It doesn’t take long to discover the horrific cruelty and maltreatments that slaves were subjected to by their masters. Olaudah Equiano was a slave who was kidnapped, enslaved, and eventually freed. This provided the abolitionists an undisputed and reliable source for the inhumanity of the slave industry. Equiano traveled all over England to tell his tale and sell his book. He wrote a book about the tragic, long journey from Africa through England. It was a difficult one, as many had to travel. Equiano’s ability and skill to describe his horrific experience with such clarity shocked many Brits. Many people might have believed it was minor, or were blissfully unaware of the issue. However, Equiano was able highlight the horrific events and explain them to their horror, which shocked many Brits. Abolitionists used this foundation to place sailors before Parliament multiple times to detail the cruelty to slaves on their long journey from Africa in England. Many of these people were either traumatized or killed. Ministers of Parliament were able to hold firm on these criticisms because they received them from sailors who are more familiar with the industry’s inner workings than just looking. Many petitions were submitted to Parliament during this time in an attempt to achieve tangible, legislative reform. Between 1791-1792 the House of Commons received 500 petitions. It received nearly half of London’s signatures between 1791-1792. Anthony Page, historian, says that many Brits signed petitions for moral reasons. Although they didn’t care too much about the cause, they could just “sign petitions and feel good.” A large number of signatures were motivated by ethical ideals set forth by abolitionists. Appeal to public were also designed to generate momentum. These appeals described human rights violations like the “irresponsible. unconditional bondage” and “subjection to the will to individual man”. Such appeals included those made by the London Anti-Slavery Society (Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society) and the Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society. Appeal to the public was used to inform the public about the horrific cruelty of slavery. They also utilized strong moral values to win sympathy. 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. Although they weren’t a large organization, they managed to spread their influence throughout the society. According to historians, the abolitionist texts mention a distinct fear of divine interference. This is specifically Exodus 3-7, in which God hears the cries from the Israelites held in slavery and unleashes his wrath upon the Egyptian enslavers. The influence of the Evangelicals was a major factor in the conversion of many from nonchalant positions to steadfast abolitionists. Scholar Christopher Brown believes that Quakers saw the abolitionists as an opportunity in revolutionizing and revitalising their movements, and that Evangelicals saw it as an opportunity for greater reform. These religious movements gained support because of the abolitionists. They were motivated by the fear and the desire to redeem themselves. Rational Dissenters was a major force behind the abolitionists. They were strong opponents of slavery in religious terms, but also made a point of focusing equally on the other deterrents. William Wilberforce, an English politician and evangelical Christian, was a significant contributor to the abolitionists’ success in parliament. He was a vital leader of the abolitionist movement. He was also able to make significant political advances. Rational Dissenter John Jebb utilised a specific strategy. This pamphlet, which was widely read, defined slavery in a clear contradiction to “Christian Society” and stated that it “ought to not be tolerated”. The public was also addressed and appealed to with further addresses. These included a statement that “the buying or selling of slaves or the holding thereof” is against the Christian religion. Many supporters of the abolitionist struggle were attracted to the promotion of religious values. Evangelicals, Quakers, Rational Dissenters and Evangelicals all endorsed this, convincing many that slavery was not in line with Christian ethics.
The shock at the defeat of the empire shaken the British nation’s pride, and the parliamentarians had to make steps to restore that trust. Further, there was more pressure from the abolitionists to have democratic ideals bolstered by parliament regarding slavery policies. The economic and national pride of Britain was hurt by the loss of its colonies in North America. The defeat was shock to the nation. It allowed citizens to convert their concerns about Britain’s largest form labor into political action. Many people began losing confidence in the decision-making process of the parliamentarians. The future looked promising if slavery were abolished. Britain would then be an international powerhouse for freedom and national pride. The House of Commons rejected a petition signed by many people in 1783. This caused public discontent and cast doubts on parliament’s concern for democratic practices. One of most concerning aspects of the government’s attitude to slavery is the Zong massacre (1781), in which 132 African-slaved people were thrown onboard the ship Zong. The Zong massacre was a result of poor management of supplies. In the following months, the owner of the ship attempted to obtain insurance for the ‘cargo. The case did eventually reach a court in two years, but that was for insurance fraud, not murder. Olaudah Equiiano, an abolitionist, made great efforts to get the court to consider the case as mass murder. However, the court ruled that the “case against Slaves” was not a case of mass murder and treated it as an insurance claim. Eight years later, this case became a well-known story. The abolitionists were then able publicize the case to emphasize the horrible laws that dictate how slaves should be treated. Granville Sharp, one of the most vocal critics of the laws and implications of slavery trade legislation in the early days was Granville Sharp. Sharp wrote in his book “A Representation of the Justice and Dangerous Tendendency of Tolerating Savagery” that artificial laws did not alter the fact of all men being created equal. Accordingly, the laws must also be modified to match this fact. It can be concluded that the refusal to change the law by the government, especially after the loss of the war, created widespread discontent about a system that had long been in violation all the principles of British Constitution. These doubts were engendered by British society’s indifference to the abolitionists’ extensive publicization of parliaments indifference to public dissatisfaction in its propaganda. It is important to note that the payouts to slave-owners were astronomical, but not to the slaves. This shows the government’s surrender to the plutocracy.
While acknowledging the difficulties of defending slavery’s ethics, those who supported it argued that it was strategic and economically necessary, while also using racial or religious arguments. Joseph Priestley’s 1788 sermon, which was later transcribed, is perhaps the most well-known and respected response to these arguments. Priestley argues that the majority of barbaric practices mentioned in the bible are now banned and that modern religious views encourage empathy and compassion. Priestley pointed out that racial arguments claiming inferiority to Africans are absurd. Priestley suggested that Ancient Egyptians “famed because of their wisdom” were likely of color. Priestley moved to the more difficult economic arguments. Priestley criticized the sugar industry’s commodification and suggested that sugar is an unnecessary luxury. Priestley said that people who can’t afford sugar should avoid it “as they do for other things.” Due to the constant arguments of religious sects such as the Quakers, Evangelicals and others, many commercemen were forced to confront the difficult task of reconciling economic success with religious values. The result was a decrease in public support for the commercial class that benefited most from the slavery trade. Seymour Drescher (historian, scholar) has argued that the end of slavery was not due to a diminished value or view of it. Rather, the public demanded it which led to “econocide” by the government. Although the arguments for London’s economic detriment were strong, the proslavery movement lost its support over time due to the fear and mass popularity that abolitionism was gaining momentum, which in turn led to those in favor of slavery being silenced.
The mass production and distribution of propaganda detailing the morality and religious contradictions associated with slavery helped the abolitionists win support from the public. The Quakers as well the Evangelicals and Rational Dissidents stressed the direct association between sin and slavery through the inhumane treatment other men and the fearmongering within the religious milieu. After the defeat of the empire, Britain’s national pride was shaken, the cause gained immense momentum. The pro-slavery movement was slowly silenced as the abolitionist movement gained momentum and became more widespread. These interrelated factors ultimately led to the Abolition of Slavery Act (1833), which was the final product of the abolitionist movement. Granville Sharp’s reaction when he learned that both Houses of Congress had passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807, is a remarkable example of Granville Sharp’s joy. He was seen kneeling and offering a prayer of appreciation.
