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.

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.

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.

The fact that slavery abolition was a highly contingent event demonstrates that moral progress isn't automatic. This shouldn't be seen as depressing, but empowering. It proves that positive change is the direct result of deliberate human choices and collective action, not a passive trend. The world improves only because people actively work to make it better.

The "Prize Cases" reveal the legality of Lincoln's naval blockade of the South was a precarious constitutional question. Because blockades are an act of war between nations, his authority was challenged. A 5-4 Supreme Court decision validated his actions, retroactively saving the entire Union war effort from being declared unconstitutional.

An effective strategy during a government shutdown is to avoid a broad debate and instead focus public attention on one clear, emotionally resonant issue, like the loss of healthcare subsidies. By targeting voters in the opposition's territory, this tactic aims to divide the other party's base and claim the moral high ground.

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.

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.

The common theory that slavery ended because it became economically inefficient is a myth. Economic historians argue that, absent political intervention, the slave economies of the British Empire would have continued to thrive well into the 19th century. Slaveholding societies never voluntarily gave up the practice because it was unprofitable.