Anti-Slavery Campaigns in Britain and Their Impact on the Formation of the United States
The leaders of the 18 th century separatist movement from England were not motivated by a
genuine desire for freedom and equality
By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
African American History Month Series No. 2
Wednesday February 13, 2019
If the so-called American Revolution of 1776 was truly committed to breaking with monarchical
and autocratic rule from the United Kingdom then why did slavery grow at a rapid rate after the
achievement of independence of the former 13 colonies in North America?
This is an important political question since even in the 21st century there are repeated
references by elected officials in both houses of Congress, the White House and the Supreme
Court to the “Founding Fathers” and “Framers of the Constitution.” What is not mentioned by
these career politicians and lifetime jurists is that many of the authors of the U.S. Constitution
were large-scale slave owners themselves.
These wealthy landowners and slave masters did not see any reason to liberate the more than
700,000 Africans living in the former colonies by the conclusion of the 1780s. The existence of
slavery was quite profitable and with the discovery of the cotton gin in 1793, the expansion of
involuntary servitude across the South and extending further west empowered the planters to
the point where as a result of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 they were able to
dominate the House of Representatives through a provision declaring that enslaved Africans
could be counted as three-fifths of a person.
In an article published by Paul Finkelman of the Albany Law School in New York: “The three-
fifths clause provided the extra proslavery representatives in the House to secure the passage
of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (bringing Missouri in as a slave state); the annexation in
1845 of Texas, which was described at the time as an ‘empire for slavery’; the passage of the
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850; the law allowing slavery in Utah and New Mexico; and the passage of
the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 (which opened the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain
territories to slavery). None of these laws could have been passed without the representatives
created by counting slaves under the three-fifths clause.” (https://www.theroot.com/three-
fifths-clause-why-its-taint-persists-1790895387)
Some Aspects of the Anti-Slavery Movement in Britain in the Late 18th Century
While the descendants of the British colonialists were divorcing themselves from the Crown, a
burgeoning anti-slavery movement was taking hold in England. London was the largest center
of the Atlantic Slave Trade where enormous profits earned from the exploitation of African
labor was set to spawn the rise of industrial capitalism in the 19 th century.
An important episode in the history of jurisprudence related to the legal basis for African
enslavement was the case of Somerset v. Stewart which was heard and decided in London
during 1772. James Somerset was an African purchased in Virginia and held by a Scottish
merchant and customs officer.
(http://www.ouramericanrevolution.org/index.cfm/page/view/m0149)
Somerset was brought from Virginia to England by Charles Stewart with the intent to continue
his enslavement. Somerset fled from captivity and was later imprisoned. He filed suit in the
British courts demanding his freedom based upon the lack of sufficient English law recognizing
slavery within the unwritten constitution.
Although there were codes under British customary law which reinforced slavery, the courts
found that there was no legal basis for the ownership of Somerset by Stewart. The although
narrow ruling was not intended to free enslaved Africans from bondage it provided the impetus
for the abolitionist movement in both Britain and what later became known as the U.S.
A summary of the ruling states that: “In a decision handed down by William Murray, Baron
(later Earl) of Mansfield and Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, the court narrowly held that ‘a master could not seize a slave in England and detain him preparatory to sending him out
of the realm to be sold’ and that habeas corpus was a constitutional right available to slaves to
forestall such seizure, deportation and sale because they were not chattel, or mere property,
they were servants and thus persons invested with certain (but certainly limited) constitutional
protections.”
(http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/rights/slave_free.htm)
The decision was hailed by the African population and anti-slavery proponents in Britain.
Granville Sharp, a staunch advocate for the elimination of slavery had taken up the case on
behalf of Somerset advising his lawyers on the arguments put forward in the case.
Sharp had written a tract in 1769 entitled “A Representation of the Injustice and Dangerous
Tendency of Tolerating Slavery”, considered a foundational publication of the abolitionist
movement of the 18 th century. Gaining a reputation through the Somerset Case and previous
attempts at freeing enslaved Africans, Sharp was approached by Olaudah Equiano in 1781 to
seek his support in exposing the Zong massacre.
(https://www.britannica.com/biography/Granville-Sharp)
Equiano, also known as Gustavus Vassa, wrote in his autobiography that he was captured in
West Africa in the region now known as southeast Nigeria. He would be taken to Virginia where
he worked to purchase his own freedom. Later he would be a co-founder of the Sons of Africa,
an organization of emancipated people in Britain committed to the elimination of slavery.
(http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_25.html)
The Zong was a British slave ship from Liverpool which captured 400 Africans setting sail later
from Accra in West Africa. While traveling to the Caribbean island of Jamaica, many of the
people on board were sickened including both European sailors and enslaved Africans.
After the deaths of 70 slaves and sailors on board, the captain Luke Collingwood authorized the
throwing of Africans overboard resulting in the brutal deaths of another 133 people. This was
done for the purpose of collecting insurance on the enslaved. The incident was widely
publicized and consequently mobilized the Free African community and abolitionist movement
in Britain.
Claims for the payment of the insurance were denied by the Baron of Mansfield who had ruled
in the Somerset decision. Nonetheless, despite gallant attempts by abolitionists, the European
crew was never convicted of murder. The ruling in the case said the killing of Africans was
warranted under such circumstances as the purported lack of water, food and the prevalence
of disease.
An historical website, blackpast.org, said of those in authority related to the attempt to
prosecute the responsible individuals: “Great Britain’s The Solicitor General, Justice John Lee,
however, refused to take up the criminal charges claiming ‘What is this claim that human
people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Blacks are goods and
property; it is madness to accuse these well-serving honorable men of murder… The case is the
same as if wood had been thrown overboard.’” (https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-
history/zong-massacre-1781/)
Just a decade later after the acquittal of the perpetrators of the Zong massacre, Captain John
Kimber was placed on trial for the torture and murder of an African woman aboard the slave
ship Recovery. Through the efforts of the abolitionists in Britain, Kimber was brought before the
court, even though he was not convicted.
These developments illustrated the inherent racism within the British legal system. Such
occurrences prompted the persistence of the anti-slavery campaigns. Africans such as Equiano
and Ottobah Cugoano through the Sons of Africa grouping spread the consciousness related to
the humanity of Black people. (https://face2faceafrica.com/article/sons-of-africa-the-early-
political-group-formed-in-the-1700s-by-freed-slaves-in-london)
The Sons of Africa worked closely with the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Thomas
Clarkson, a co-founder of the Society, along with ten other anti-slavery advocates, persuaded
parliamentarian William Wilberforce to introduce legislation demanding the end to human
bondage. However, it would take decades of work to bring about the abolition of slavery in the
British Empire.
Cugoano was kidnapped by the British in the West Africa region of today’s Ghana in 1770 being
taken to England. He would win his emancipation and publish a book in 1787 entitled:
“Thoughts and Sentiments on the Evil and Wicked Traffic of the Slavery and Commerce of the
Human Species.” (http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_26.html)
As opposition to slavery increased through political actions along with mass rebellion, the
British parliament would pass the Slave Act of 1788 and Amelioration Act of 1798 related to the
treatment of Africans in bondage under the control of England. Later in 1807, the British
parliament would pass the Slave Trade Act, ostensibly outlawing the transatlantic trade. The
trade would continue illegally and the domestic production and trade in enslaved Africans
satisfied the demands for unpaid labor within the growing cotton plantations of the southern
U.S. Later in 1833 the Slavery Abolition Act was passed by the British parliament. Nevertheless,
Africans in the Caribbean were forced to undergo a period of apprenticeship leading to years
more of virtual enslavement and consequent rebellion.
Other events such as the Haitian Revolution against France from 1791-1803 resulted in the
founding of a Black Republic in the Caribbean, heightened the fears of the slave owning class
which maintained its political advantage through the American legislative system. It would take
a series of slave rebellions in the U.S. from 1800 through 1859 to escalate the intransigence of
the planters provoking their secessionist ambitions leading to a civil war from 1861-1865, which
created the conditions for the legal abolition of African slavery in the U.S.
(https://www.questia.com/library/7253938/american-negro-slave-revolts)
The Legacy of Slavery Extends Into the 21 st Century
African American historian Gerald Horne published a study on the impact of the anti-slavery
movement in Britain and the motivations for independence by the founders of the U.S. during
the late 18 th century. The book entitled: “The Counter-revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and
the Origins of the United States of America”, advances a thesis which conflicts with the
conventional assumptions fostered by the educational system related to the separation of the
13 colonies from Britain.
An abstract of the Horne research project released in 2014 says: “Prior to 1776, anti-slavery
sentiments were deepening throughout Britain and in the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were
in revolt. For European colonists in America, the major threat to their security was a foreign
invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. It was a real and threatening
possibility that London would impose abolition throughout the colonies—a possibility the
founding fathers feared would bring slave rebellions to their shores. To forestall it, they went
to war.” (https://nyupress.org/books/9781479893409/)
154 years since the legal abolition of involuntary servitude in the U.S., the descendants of
Africans formerly enslaved are still facing national oppression and economic exploitation. Today
the criminal justice structures serve as the principal mechanism of social containment and
institutional repression. Inevitably it will take a revolutionary struggle to complete the genuine
emancipation of the African people in America.
genuine desire for freedom and equality
By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
African American History Month Series No. 2
Wednesday February 13, 2019
If the so-called American Revolution of 1776 was truly committed to breaking with monarchical
and autocratic rule from the United Kingdom then why did slavery grow at a rapid rate after the
achievement of independence of the former 13 colonies in North America?
This is an important political question since even in the 21st century there are repeated
references by elected officials in both houses of Congress, the White House and the Supreme
Court to the “Founding Fathers” and “Framers of the Constitution.” What is not mentioned by
these career politicians and lifetime jurists is that many of the authors of the U.S. Constitution
were large-scale slave owners themselves.
These wealthy landowners and slave masters did not see any reason to liberate the more than
700,000 Africans living in the former colonies by the conclusion of the 1780s. The existence of
slavery was quite profitable and with the discovery of the cotton gin in 1793, the expansion of
involuntary servitude across the South and extending further west empowered the planters to
the point where as a result of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 they were able to
dominate the House of Representatives through a provision declaring that enslaved Africans
could be counted as three-fifths of a person.
In an article published by Paul Finkelman of the Albany Law School in New York: “The three-
fifths clause provided the extra proslavery representatives in the House to secure the passage
of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (bringing Missouri in as a slave state); the annexation in
1845 of Texas, which was described at the time as an ‘empire for slavery’; the passage of the
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850; the law allowing slavery in Utah and New Mexico; and the passage of
the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 (which opened the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain
territories to slavery). None of these laws could have been passed without the representatives
created by counting slaves under the three-fifths clause.” (https://www.theroot.com/three-
fifths-clause-why-its-taint-persists-1790895387)
Some Aspects of the Anti-Slavery Movement in Britain in the Late 18th Century
While the descendants of the British colonialists were divorcing themselves from the Crown, a
burgeoning anti-slavery movement was taking hold in England. London was the largest center
of the Atlantic Slave Trade where enormous profits earned from the exploitation of African
labor was set to spawn the rise of industrial capitalism in the 19 th century.
An important episode in the history of jurisprudence related to the legal basis for African
enslavement was the case of Somerset v. Stewart which was heard and decided in London
during 1772. James Somerset was an African purchased in Virginia and held by a Scottish
merchant and customs officer.
(http://www.ouramericanrevolution.org/index.cfm/page/view/m0149)
Somerset was brought from Virginia to England by Charles Stewart with the intent to continue
his enslavement. Somerset fled from captivity and was later imprisoned. He filed suit in the
British courts demanding his freedom based upon the lack of sufficient English law recognizing
slavery within the unwritten constitution.
Although there were codes under British customary law which reinforced slavery, the courts
found that there was no legal basis for the ownership of Somerset by Stewart. The although
narrow ruling was not intended to free enslaved Africans from bondage it provided the impetus
for the abolitionist movement in both Britain and what later became known as the U.S.
A summary of the ruling states that: “In a decision handed down by William Murray, Baron
(later Earl) of Mansfield and Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, the court narrowly held that ‘a master could not seize a slave in England and detain him preparatory to sending him out
of the realm to be sold’ and that habeas corpus was a constitutional right available to slaves to
forestall such seizure, deportation and sale because they were not chattel, or mere property,
they were servants and thus persons invested with certain (but certainly limited) constitutional
protections.”
(http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/rights/slave_free.htm)
The decision was hailed by the African population and anti-slavery proponents in Britain.
Granville Sharp, a staunch advocate for the elimination of slavery had taken up the case on
behalf of Somerset advising his lawyers on the arguments put forward in the case.
Sharp had written a tract in 1769 entitled “A Representation of the Injustice and Dangerous
Tendency of Tolerating Slavery”, considered a foundational publication of the abolitionist
movement of the 18 th century. Gaining a reputation through the Somerset Case and previous
attempts at freeing enslaved Africans, Sharp was approached by Olaudah Equiano in 1781 to
seek his support in exposing the Zong massacre.
(https://www.britannica.com/biography/Granville-Sharp)
Equiano, also known as Gustavus Vassa, wrote in his autobiography that he was captured in
West Africa in the region now known as southeast Nigeria. He would be taken to Virginia where
he worked to purchase his own freedom. Later he would be a co-founder of the Sons of Africa,
an organization of emancipated people in Britain committed to the elimination of slavery.
(http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_25.html)
The Zong was a British slave ship from Liverpool which captured 400 Africans setting sail later
from Accra in West Africa. While traveling to the Caribbean island of Jamaica, many of the
people on board were sickened including both European sailors and enslaved Africans.
After the deaths of 70 slaves and sailors on board, the captain Luke Collingwood authorized the
throwing of Africans overboard resulting in the brutal deaths of another 133 people. This was
done for the purpose of collecting insurance on the enslaved. The incident was widely
publicized and consequently mobilized the Free African community and abolitionist movement
in Britain.
Claims for the payment of the insurance were denied by the Baron of Mansfield who had ruled
in the Somerset decision. Nonetheless, despite gallant attempts by abolitionists, the European
crew was never convicted of murder. The ruling in the case said the killing of Africans was
warranted under such circumstances as the purported lack of water, food and the prevalence
of disease.
An historical website, blackpast.org, said of those in authority related to the attempt to
prosecute the responsible individuals: “Great Britain’s The Solicitor General, Justice John Lee,
however, refused to take up the criminal charges claiming ‘What is this claim that human
people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Blacks are goods and
property; it is madness to accuse these well-serving honorable men of murder… The case is the
same as if wood had been thrown overboard.’” (https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-
history/zong-massacre-1781/)
Just a decade later after the acquittal of the perpetrators of the Zong massacre, Captain John
Kimber was placed on trial for the torture and murder of an African woman aboard the slave
ship Recovery. Through the efforts of the abolitionists in Britain, Kimber was brought before the
court, even though he was not convicted.
These developments illustrated the inherent racism within the British legal system. Such
occurrences prompted the persistence of the anti-slavery campaigns. Africans such as Equiano
and Ottobah Cugoano through the Sons of Africa grouping spread the consciousness related to
the humanity of Black people. (https://face2faceafrica.com/article/sons-of-africa-the-early-
political-group-formed-in-the-1700s-by-freed-slaves-in-london)
The Sons of Africa worked closely with the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Thomas
Clarkson, a co-founder of the Society, along with ten other anti-slavery advocates, persuaded
parliamentarian William Wilberforce to introduce legislation demanding the end to human
bondage. However, it would take decades of work to bring about the abolition of slavery in the
British Empire.
Cugoano was kidnapped by the British in the West Africa region of today’s Ghana in 1770 being
taken to England. He would win his emancipation and publish a book in 1787 entitled:
“Thoughts and Sentiments on the Evil and Wicked Traffic of the Slavery and Commerce of the
Human Species.” (http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_26.html)
As opposition to slavery increased through political actions along with mass rebellion, the
British parliament would pass the Slave Act of 1788 and Amelioration Act of 1798 related to the
treatment of Africans in bondage under the control of England. Later in 1807, the British
parliament would pass the Slave Trade Act, ostensibly outlawing the transatlantic trade. The
trade would continue illegally and the domestic production and trade in enslaved Africans
satisfied the demands for unpaid labor within the growing cotton plantations of the southern
U.S. Later in 1833 the Slavery Abolition Act was passed by the British parliament. Nevertheless,
Africans in the Caribbean were forced to undergo a period of apprenticeship leading to years
more of virtual enslavement and consequent rebellion.
Other events such as the Haitian Revolution against France from 1791-1803 resulted in the
founding of a Black Republic in the Caribbean, heightened the fears of the slave owning class
which maintained its political advantage through the American legislative system. It would take
a series of slave rebellions in the U.S. from 1800 through 1859 to escalate the intransigence of
the planters provoking their secessionist ambitions leading to a civil war from 1861-1865, which
created the conditions for the legal abolition of African slavery in the U.S.
(https://www.questia.com/library/7253938/american-negro-slave-revolts)
The Legacy of Slavery Extends Into the 21 st Century
African American historian Gerald Horne published a study on the impact of the anti-slavery
movement in Britain and the motivations for independence by the founders of the U.S. during
the late 18 th century. The book entitled: “The Counter-revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and
the Origins of the United States of America”, advances a thesis which conflicts with the
conventional assumptions fostered by the educational system related to the separation of the
13 colonies from Britain.
An abstract of the Horne research project released in 2014 says: “Prior to 1776, anti-slavery
sentiments were deepening throughout Britain and in the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were
in revolt. For European colonists in America, the major threat to their security was a foreign
invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. It was a real and threatening
possibility that London would impose abolition throughout the colonies—a possibility the
founding fathers feared would bring slave rebellions to their shores. To forestall it, they went
to war.” (https://nyupress.org/books/9781479893409/)
154 years since the legal abolition of involuntary servitude in the U.S., the descendants of
Africans formerly enslaved are still facing national oppression and economic exploitation. Today
the criminal justice structures serve as the principal mechanism of social containment and
institutional repression. Inevitably it will take a revolutionary struggle to complete the genuine
emancipation of the African people in America.
No comments:
Post a Comment