Arguments of the Abolitionists (SQA National 5 History): Revision Note

Summary

Abolitionist arguments focused on three main themes: humanitarian, economic and Christian. Arguments based on each of these themes had often been used to justify the trade in enslaved African people. Abolitionists sought to prove the pro-slavery arguments wrong and change the minds of the British public.

Enslavers, merchants and investors in the trade had spread racist ideas that Africans were ‘inferior’ and ‘less human’ than Europeans. The humanitarian arguments of abolitionists aimed to challenge these views, highlighting the human suffering caused by the trade.

Christianity had long been used to justify the trade. Supporters claimed that enslaved African people were ‘benefitting’ from the trade as they were forcibly converted to Christianity. Passages from the Bible were also used to promote the idea that slavery was acceptable to God. The Church of England had strong connections to the trade through investments in plantations. Religious groups like the Quakers sought to challenge these ideas and aimed to prove that slavery was going against the word of God.

Economically, enslavers argued that the trade was too valuable to stop. They claimed that jobs would be lost all over Britain if the trade ended. However, abolitionists argued that slavery was inefficient and sought to prove that money could be better invested away from the trade in enslaved people.

Humanitarian arguments for abolition

• Humanitarian arguments focused on issues of humanity and morality

• Abolitionists highlighted the violence and mistreatment enslaved African people faced during the middle passage and on plantations

  • They argued that it was morally wrong for any human to own another

• Humanitarian arguments centred on making the public aware of the realities and cruelty of the trade in enslaved people

  • Thomas Clarkson demonstrated the methods of torture used during the Middle Passage on his speaking tours

• Formerly enslaved African people like Equiano and Cuguano provided important firsthand accounts of the suffering experienced by enslaved people

  • Their autobiographies and public appearances were important in humanising African people in the eyes of the British public and challenging racist stereotypes held at the time

• Humanitarians believed that ending the trade in enslaved African people would also help improve the lives of enslaved people on plantations

  • It was believed that enslaved people in the Caribbean would have to receive better treatment, as enslavers would now struggle to replace those people who died

• Humanitarian arguments also focused on drawing attention to the suffering faced by others during the Middle Passage

  •  Abolitionists pointed out that there were high death rates among crew members

    • Many died from diseases or from armed revolts

• In the view of many abolitionists, the slave trade brutalised and dehumanised all who took part in it

Christian arguments for abolition

• Passages from the Bible had been used to justify the trade in enslaved people

• The Church of England owned several Caribbean plantations, so it had profited from the trade

• In the late 1700s, a growing number of religious groups were beginning to use the word of God to challenge the trade

• Christian abolitionists saw slavery as unjust and evil

  • They feared the wrath of God over the sin of slavery, as it broke the 10 commandments

• Quakers and Methodists were among the main groups of Christians to oppose the trade in enslaved Africans

  • Methodist founder John Wesley denounced slavery as ‘the sum of all villainies’ in a pamphlet in 1774

• Religious groups argued that if man was made in God's image, then enslaving anyone was like enslaving God

  • It was also argued that enslaving another person was going against God's will, as all men were created equal

• Many of the leading abolitionists were deeply religious

  • Both Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson were Anglicans, while Wilberforce was an Evangelical

  • Religious arguments had a significant impact on public opinion, as religion was much more important in everyday lives

• John Newton, who had previously been involved in the trade, became an abolitionist following what he described as an ‘intense religious conversion’

  • Newton argued that when he was involved in the trade, he ‘had not been a Christian in the full sense of the term’

• Newton became a clergyman and regularly spoke out against the trade in enslaved people in his church services

Economic arguments for abolition

• By the late 18th Century many people were beginning to question the economic profitability of the trade in enslaved people

  • The economist, Adam Smith, argued that slavery was the most inefficient and unproductive form of labour that could be used

• By the 1790s, sugar could be produced more cheaply by paid workers in India

  • The availability of Indian grown sugar helped to contribute to the sugar boycott

  • This further damaged the profitability of the trade in enslaved African people

• The price of buying captive people was also increasing

  • In 1800, the average captive was bought for £25 in Africa and sold for £35 in the Caribbean

  • This meant falling profit margins for slave merchants and investors, meaning some became less willing to fund the trade

• Other people argued that the trade in enslaved people was not a reliable investment, as profits were affected by:

  • Fluctuation in sugar prices

  • The risks of revolts and boycotts

• By the late eighteenth century, many investors were taking their money out of businesses or industries linked to the trade in enslaved people

  • Instead, they invested in new opportunities linked to the industrial revolution

• The most effective economic development in supporting abolition was a 1806 Bill proposed by James Stephen

  • This banned British subjects and businesses from participating in the trade in enslaved people with France and any of its colonies or allies

    • This was popular because Britain was at war with France

    • The Bill passed and meant that roughly two-thirds of British involvement in the trade was stopped