After the defeat of the imperial war in 1945, the country was in decline and the abolitionist campaign emerged. The multiple advancements it was capable of enabling helped the campaign gain momentum. The British Abolitionists’ campaign success was due to many factors. The British Abolitionists used Christian moral principles to win support for their cause. 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. The political paradigm of the time, especially the American imperial defeat, created a gap in British pride that the abolitionists capitalized on, appealing to Britain to be the country’s powerhouse for freedom. This essay will examine the arguments used by the abolitionists and how they were communicated to the wider population, which eventually led to a national demand for The Abolition of Slavery Act.
British Abolitionists promoted moral and ethical virtues. This campaign was a powerful tool for stirring the hearts of the British population. It also highlighted the injustices suffered by slaves, a very modern concept in that era. It doesn’t take long to discover the horrific cruelty and maltreatments that slaves were subjected to by their masters. Olaudah Equiiano, who was abducted and enslaved as an infant and later gained his freedom, provided the abolitionists with a reliable and irrefutable source on the brutality of slavery. Equiano traveled all over England to tell his tale and sell his book. He recounts the tragic, long journey from Africa in his book. It was a difficult one. Each person had to make every effort to get to the other. 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. On several occasions, the abolitionists brought sailors before Parliament to explain the cruel treatment of slaves in the long, difficult journey from Africa into England. Many were traumatised and even died. 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 period to seek legislative change. Between 1791-1792 the House of Commons received over 500 petitions. The total number of signatures was nearly half of London’s population at that time. 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.” However, large numbers of signatures were motivated by ethical ideals set forth by abolitionists. Appeal to members of the public to promote human rights were made in an effort to get momentum. Appealing to the public to expose the horrors of slavery, these appeals often relied on strong moral values to garner 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 Evangelical Movements was also instrumental in converting many to abolitionist positions. Scholar Christopher Brown also suggests that Quakers and Evangelicals saw the abolitionist campaign not only as an opportunity, but also as a chance to reform the world. 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 in the abolitionist revolution. They were staunch opponents of slavery religiously, but they also stressed the importance of 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 of “Christian Society” and stated that it “oughtnt to 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 faith. Many people became supporters of the abolitionist cause by encouraging religious values. This was particularly true for the Evangelicals, Quakers, and Rational Dissenters.
Accordingly, the British people’s shock at losing the imperial war shaken their national pride. This made it difficult for them to trust the government and required that parliamentarians make efforts to restore their faith. The abolitionists further pushed for democracy to be enhanced by parliament’s involvement in slavery policies. Britain’s loss at the hands of its North American colonies caused great economic and cultural losses. This defeat was shock to the nation. It allowed citizens to convert their concerns about Britain’s largest labour source into political action. Many people lost confidence in the decisions made by the monarchy and parliamentarians. This created a crisis in British authority which the abolitionist movements were able use to their advantage. The future looked promising if slavery was 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 government’s attitude to slavery is illustrated in the Zong massacre (1781), in which 132 African-slaved people were thrown onboard the ship Zong. It was the result of poor supply management and lack of water. Subsequently the owner of the ship attempted to obtain insurance for the ‘cargo. The case was finally brought to a court in 2002, but this time it was for insurance fraud rather than murder. Olaudah Egiano, an abolitionist leader, made numerous efforts to have the case tried as a mass-murder case. However, the court found that the “case for Slaves” was treated as an insurable claim. Eight years later, this case became a well-known story. The abolitionists were then able publicize the case to emphasize the abhorrent treatment of slaves. Granville sharp was an early critic of the laws and legal implications surrounding the slave trade. Sharp, in his book ‘Areation of the Injustice, Dangerous Tendency of Accepting Slavery’, famously stated that artificial laws can not alter the fact that all humans are created equal. Therefore, the laws must change to conform with this fact. The refusal of the government change the law after the defeat of Imperial Japan caused widespread discontent in the British public. 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 slaves. This shows the government’s surrender to the plutocracy.
Although they acknowledged the difficulty of defending slavery’s ethical code, those who supported slavery used racial as well as religious arguments to justify it. 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 were probably “famed because of their wisdom”. Priestley then turned his attention to the more complicated economic arguments. Priestley criticized the sugar industry’s commodification and the increased prices that would result from the removal of free labour. This would make sugar expensive and force the industry to increase its cost. Priestley suggested that people who can’t afford sugar should not consume it. Priestley said that they could just as easily avoid it as they do 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 the slavery trade did not result in a lower value or view of it. Rather, the public demanded it which forced the government into “econocide.” While the case for London’s economic decline was still strong, the proslavery movement began to lose support. This was due to both the fear and mass acceptance of abolitionism.
The mass production propaganda detailing the sinfulness of slavery was ultimately a way for the abolitionists to gain support. The Quakers Evangelicals, Rational Diktators, and Evangelicals maintained that slavery was directly related to sin because of the inhumane treatment others, as well fear mongering in religious communities. 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 elements eventually resulted the Abolition of Slavery Act (1833). Granville, Sharp’s reaction when he learned that both Houses of the Parliament had passed the Slave Trade Act 1807 in 1807, was a moment of pure joy. He fell to his knees, offered a prayer of thankfulness, and then he passed the Abolition of Slavery Act.
