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.
Related Insights
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.
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.
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.
Even if slavery became inefficient for industrial production, its core appeal is its malleability. Throughout history, it has served timeless human desires for sexual exploitation, luxury status symbols (owning people), loyal servants, and even government bureaucrats. This adaptability makes it a threat in any economic system, including modern ones.
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.
The idea that growing wealth and education automatically lead to more compassionate values is historically false. Wealthy societies, from the Roman Empire to 18th-century Europe and Belle Époque France, have often been the most deeply committed to slavery and colonialism, using their resources to create more efficient systems of oppression.
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.