초록 열기/닫기 버튼

After the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, it took time for a new purpose to emerge: the abolition of slavery. Antislavery politicians believed that once the slave trade was completely abolished, the treatment of slaves would improve and they could eventually be granted real freedom. To this end, the British government pursued a policy of suppressing the slave trade in other countries, but this did not achieve much success until the 1830s. With the formation of the Anti-Slavery Society in 1823, the position of the antislavery forces shifted towards direct government intervention in slavery. Initially, many members favoured gradual abolition, arguing that slaves needed to be taught Christianity and civilisation in order to use their freedom. However, the Society’s Reports revealed the limitations of this gradual approach, as they continued to report abuses on slave plantations and light punishment for the perpetrators. These examples suggest that by 1832, the opinion of antislavery politicians had evolved from gradual abolition to immediate abolition. In addition to the shift in the position of antislavery forces, the electoral reforms of 1832 set the stage for the rise of the argument for immediate abolition. The reforms abolished the ‘rotten boroughs’ and led to an increase in the number of urban constituencies in favour of abolition. This change in the political landscape also affected the government, with the Cabinet adopting the principles of immediate abolition and compensation for slave owners. Slavery was finally abolished in the British Empire in August 1833. However, the Act was only a half success in that it only abolished slavery immediately, but recognised apprenticeship and paid compensation to slaveholders. This shows that the discourse of property rights remained strong in Britain. The abolition of slavery was a direct infringement of personal property, making emancipation unthinkable without some concessions. Moreover, there was less of a national crisis in 1833 than in 1807, and consequently less moral prestige attached to participation in abolition. In the end, the antislavery forces opted for a political compromise that gave them the maximum amount of moral capital that could be gained under the circumstances.