Quaker activists opportunistically leveraged the political language of the American Revolution. As colonists argued for their 'natural rights' against British rule, abolitionists like Anthony Benezet co-opted this discourse, pointing out the hypocrisy and applying the same logic to the rights of enslaved people, forcing the issue into the public sphere.
The current conflict between universal rights and ethno-nationalism isn't new; it is a direct resurgence of a counter-narrative crafted in the 1830s by Southern intellectuals who argued that only the Anglo-Saxon race could handle liberty, in order to defend slavery.
While public support is vital, movements don't just happen. They require specific individuals who act as catalysts. The British abolitionist movement, for example, is inseparable from Thomas Clarkson, who was the first person to envision a national public campaign and dedicate his life to it, turning a latent issue into a powerful political force.
According to Ken Burns, democracy was not the revolution's intention but its consequence. Initially an "elitist program," the leaders realized they needed to enlist the masses to win. This forced them to extend the language of liberty to everyone, which, once spoken, could not be taken back and ultimately applied to all.
Anti-slavery movements thrived in 'societies with slaves,' like Pennsylvania, rather than 'slave societies,' like Barbados. In Pennsylvania, slavery existed, so people were confronted with its morality, but the economy wasn't dependent on it. This allowed for questioning without risking the collapse of the entire socio-economic order.
Ken Burns argues that beyond taxes and representation, the American Revolution was propelled by escalating media rhetoric. The more colonial newspapers labeled the crown tyrannical, the more tyrannical it acted, creating an inflammatory feedback loop that pushed both sides toward conflict.
The first organized anti-slavery movement among the Quakers was initially focused inward. They used opposition to slavery as a way to define their collective religious identity and reinforce their values of pacifism and simplicity, not as a campaign to change broader society.
There's a vast distance between knowing something is wrong and acting on it. Like modern people walking past the homeless or eating meat despite ethical concerns, societies for centuries possessed the moral insight that slavery was wrong but did nothing. Successful movements are the rare exception, not the norm.
The successful anti-slavery movement in Britain was founded primarily by entrepreneurs who applied their skills in scaling companies and operations to a moral cause. This historical example shows that business acumen is a powerful, and perhaps essential, tool for large-scale social change.
Social movements build on one another. The campaign against slavery was not an isolated event; it directly inspired and provided the organizational template for the 19th-century women's rights movement. Similarly, the US Civil Rights movement created the model and momentum for the gay rights movement, showing how progress on one issue makes progress on others more likely.
During the American Revolution, Britain and the colonies used slavery to attack each other's character. Each side accused the other of hypocrisy without any genuine commitment to abolition. This political mud-slinging was crucial because it transformed slavery from a normal fact of life into a blameworthy, immoral act in the public consciousness.