In
this week’s reading, Davis explored the Explanations of British Abolitionism.
Davis begins the reading with an interesting question: “whether groups of
reformers and even nations can succeed in eliminating deeply entrenched forms
of human oppression, and if so, by what methods, misconceptions, and under what
conditions?” (231). Indeed, the question for Abolitionists was how to go
against a structure of slavery that had been held up for so long in Britain and
supported some degree of their economy. My first question involves this: what
do you think really started the Abolitionist movement in Britain, and how did
the influence of other countries, such as the United States and France,
contribute to their need to emancipate slaves?
Davis then goes on to talk about
servants—a topic that I think relates to slavery in an interesting way. While
servants were considered “free” they face similar oppression to slaves, and
were forced to work in terrible conditions as well. This notion made me wonder:
can we group servants into a similar group as slaves because of the similarities
they shared, or did the fact that servants maintained “freedom” set them into
an entirely different category from slaves?
Then, Davis goes on to talk about
the chronology of how Abolitionists grew in number and power over time, staring
in the 1780s with petitions to end the slave trade and ending in the eventual
emancipation of British slaves. The argument of morality comes up here, as
Abolitionists began to talk more and more about the cruelty of slavery. They
slowly began to have success as the British slave trade was ended. From there,
emancipation was the next big step, which British Abolitionists fought for into
the 1800s. Similarly to the United States, gradual and complete emancipation
were heatedly debated amongst the British. Davis notes that, “In the early
1830s, as in the late 1780s, early 1790s, and mid-1810s, there were far more
petitions for the abolitionist causes than for any other issue” (238). What it
is about the Abolitionist movement do you think made it so important for each
of these listed time periods and cause it to be petitioned for so much—moral
issues or another variable?
By the late 1880s, Britain was
considered the world’s pioneer for slave emancipation. Indeed, Britain’s
actions seemed to have had influence on other countries, including the United
States. After looking at the reading, how much do you think British
Abolitionism influenced Abolition for the United States—also, would you define
British Abolitionism and American Abolitionism as two parts of the same whole,
or entirely different?
Sorry everyone, I seem to have had a mix-up in what we were supposed to read and wrote my post on the wrong chapter.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I've changed it to the correct one. Comment away.
DeleteIn this week’s reading, Davis offers an interesting comparison between the abolitionist movements in Britain and the United States. Davis notes that it is important to recognize that the British Parliament abolished the slave trade (with the 1807 Slave Trade Act) when the “British slave system was expanding, not declining,” which is a common misconception (242). So why would the British abolish the slave trade at a time when they could nearly monopolize the growing world market for sugar and coffee? Davis credits this decision, in both British and American slave trade abolition, to three major factors: one, changes in moral perceptions of slavery; two, “antipathy towards a growing African American population”; and three,“the population growth rate of enslaved African Americans in North America.” For me, the most compelling argument was the change in the moral perceptions of slavery, which he reinforces with evidence such as Seymour Drescher, who said the main opposition to British slavery, was “class, party, and religion” (246). Similarly, Davis also writes many of the most prudent American abolitionists were largely influenced by the Second Great Awakening and saw “slavery as the great national sin” (252). In response to Kayla’s last question, I do believe that British and American abolition were somewhat synonymous because they were both influenced by a group of reverent intellectuals that could spread political consciousness and activism of abolitionism through shrewd propaganda.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the emancipation of slaves in Britain had an effect on the emancipation of slaves in the United States but it was somewhat delayed because of the nature of the revolution. As we have already discussed it would have been very hard to abolish slavery immediate after the revolution (which became one of the driving forces behind abolition in Britain). I don’t believe that abolition overseas really affected the US until the Civil war when it became one of the deciding factors behind which side England was going to back. Despite the fact that the South supplied them with a large amount of their raw materials they could not defend them when they were fighting for the institution of slavery. So in a way the divide led to the far reaching abolition of slaves.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Kayla’s second question I believe that servants were in a completely different category than slaves. The very concept of freedom is what slavery is defined by. Servants had some semblance of freedom despite the fact that they were routinely abused that’s different than attempting to take away someone’s humanity, which was an impact of the institution of slavery. Because of that difference it would be a mistake to group the two into the same category despite the fact that some of the abuses were the same.
I thought the part in the reading about servants was especially interesting. While it is obviously false to equate the two institutions of servitude and slavery, the general opinions held on the two systems by the British populace was rather revealing. Their system of servitude was essentially a significantly less severe version of American chattel slavery in that the workers were under a domestic system and had reduced economic and personal freedoms from that of a wage laborer in a different setting. In addition, the British system of servitude was in essence a way of upholding their traditional class system that they had held for hundreds of years, just like slavery was to the Americans. The fact that the British were so vocal about abolition and American slavery but not their servant system is potentially indicative of their desire to distance themselves from Americans and create a new identity for themselves separate from the former colonies.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Julia, I agree with her first statement that the US was affected by Britain’s abolishment of slavery, but not until much later due to the recent revolution. An interesting thought came to mind, though, in regard to the time Britain abolished slavery. While the US suffered economic and overall structural damage, wasn’t Britain also greatly affected by the war, resulting in a large amount of debt? Therefore, how was it that Britain was able to abolish slavery during their poor economy while the US couldn’t?
ReplyDeleteAlso, although I agree servants should be categorized separately from slaves, one aspect to take into the account goes back to the beginning of the Davis readings. Based on how we define slavery, couldn’t one look at servitude as a form of slavery, exploiting people because they simply have nowhere else to go?
Lastly, in response to Kayla’s question regarding the similarities/differences between US and Britain abolitionism, I would say although they held the same ideals, the ways they both arose were different since the US had more of a regional and cultural dichotomy between slave owners and abolitionists.
The progression towards abolition in Britain was described as "unostentatious" and "virtuous" by W.E.H. Lecky. Davis discusses how many people in Britain took a positivist view on how slavery was abolished and how they influenced other European countries to follow in their lead. Personally, I find it hard to believe that their motives were guileless but leading up to the Slave Trade Act there seems to be a change in racial perception and ideology where people question if slavery is morally wrong and realize how inhumane it is. The intriguing dichotomy between the abolitionist movement and a country where the concept of freedom as the ideas from the Enlightenment were not as prevalent as in the United States show a clear contrast. I question why a country that went so far as to considered the French as a different race and seemed so heavily influenced by racism, was so eager to abolish slavery and push for the abolition of slavery in other countries.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kayla's question, I believe that Industrialism moved Britain away from slavery and that capitalism pushed the English away from tradition and the dependence on slaves. Davis quotes Williams when he says, "slavery was doomed by the transition from mercantile to industrial capitalism and free trade."
American and British abolitionism did have differences because of the prevalent ideas of freedom in the United States that did not have the same influence in the latter. However, both countries were connected and I agree with TJ that the political consciousness spread through both of the countries.
In response to Kayla's last question, I would say that, at first, American and British abolition movements were quite similar for a while. Britain diverged, however, in being successful at abolishing slavery first (in 1833). Naturally, because of the differences in culture and geography (i.e. the fact that slavery existed in the US itself and not just in a colony) caused American abolitionism to take a completely different turn. American abolitionism also differed from British in that the Americans, sometimes being outnumbered by slaves in their own country, just wanted Africans sent back to Africa--much less noble than the British claim their abolition to be.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference between British and American abolition would be the different country's economies. Britain used colonialism in several different countries in addition to their own as a source of profit, while the Americans were stuck with the land they had--that is, until colonialism became popular in the late nineteenth century. The British also began to become involved with industrialism. Because slave labor held the half the United States together, abolition was seen as more radical, and was slower to change the law.
In response to Kayla's first question, I agree with Julia that Britain most certainly did affect America's abolition, but I think it may have possibly for a different reason. Although I agree about her depiction of the civil war, I also believe two fold, one that Americans who were just starting out on their own did not really know another system that they could effectively impose, and two, they were in a state of mind where they wanted nothing to do with what Britain was doing. By this I mean, if Britain was going to abolish slavery, Americans would want to be rebellious and stick to their guns. I also agree however that it also could likely have caused a pretty serious upset with tensions so hight and they did not want to risk that.
ReplyDeleteIn response to her question about servants v. slavery, I believe that they are not equal, however I don't think that the freedom described is as large of a factor as previously stated in this blog. Because although the servants were technically "free" if they left their master, they did not really have many other options, so their standing in society locked them into a certain type of lifestyle. I agree that this lifestyle was not as terrible as it was for the slaves, but I think it is more similar than it was made out to be.
In response to Kayla’s question regarding servants, slaves, and whether or not they should be grouped into the same category, I think that it depends on the lens that is being used. Personally, I think from our twenty first century perspective, the servants were most certainly slaves. Regardless of what freedoms they may have had, they were held quite brutally and treated as if they weren’t humans. Reversely, at the time, what freedom they had would put them in a separate category from slavery because of this freedom they had as a key defining factor of their labor. At the same time it adds another push towards these British servants being slaves when you consider the harsh legal boundaries put in place. The fact that the Poor Laws of 1601 made it possible for a worker to be imprisoned if they quit their job, and relating specifically to the servants, if they broke their contracts they were punished even worse. By the time the end of their contracts would roll around, they would be forced to again sign their labor for however long. For this reason, I think that stepping back and viewing this institution from a modern perspective, it certainly should be grouped as a horror of slavery, but in the contemporary time period, it appears as a compelling alternative to being enslaved.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of “eliminating deeply entrenched forms of human oppression” is a difficult task for both the United States and Britain (231). Although both countries were facing different circumstances, the U.S avoided the issue of slavery because they were trying to build a new country, so comprises were made, but no real solution was created for it, and the British were at the height of their slave trade but philosophical intellectuals influenced the change in the views of slavery. This week’s reading reminded me of how we had previously talked about how some believed that part of the reason for abolition in Britain was so they could seem like they were “better” than Americans, but after doing the reading you can see that the two countries actually had a lot of the same reasons for wanting the abolition of slavery, one of them being religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Kayla’s second question, I think that servants and slaves belong to completely separate categories. Although they were both a type of labor where they didn’t have much of a say, I think that the biggest difference between servants and slaves was that with servants, it was more of a separation of wealth or class that distinguished them from the wealthy, but with slaves it was a more complex issue of race, economics, classes, and many other features.
America and Britain to me seem like two parts of the same whole because they seem to be different and are often interpreted to address abolition in a different way, but in reality they share a lot of the same ideas.
In response to the question of slaves and servants, I agree with with Jacob that we place our own lens on it today that may differ from how the two systems were seen during their respective times. However, I think that in the moral sense, indentured servitude was significantly more “free” than racial chattel slavery. Perhaps the biggest difference is that with indentured servitude, the servant has a set goal. If they work a set amount of time, they get their freedom and some land and such. However, with slavery, it was a completely different. For a slave, not only do they have no free will, but also, there is there no promise of freedom. Moreover, a slaves children will also be slaves, thus adding to the difference between indentured servitude and slavery.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the two forms of abolition–American and British¬–there seem to be key differences. For example, in the second chapter of the Davis reading about American Abolition, it seemed like a lot of the motivation behind the abolitionist movement was based off of religion (260-261). Thus, I think the reasons behind American Abolition were more related to the inherent immorality of slavery. Whereas in Britain, the reasons behind abolition may have been more politically and economically based.