How did the arguments developed in the debate to abolish the slave trade help to construct a British national identity and character in the late eighteenth century? Srividhya Swaminathan examines books, pamphlets, and literary works to trace the changes in rhetorical strategies utilized by both sides of the abolitionist debate. Framing them as competing narratives engaged in defining the nature of the Briton, Swaminathan reads the arguments of pro- and anti-abolitionists as a series of dialogues among diverse groups at the center and peripheries of the empire. Arguing that neither side emerged triumphant, Swaminathan suggests that the Briton who emerged from these debates represented a synthesis of arguments, and that the debates to abolish the slave trade are marked by rhetorical transformations defining the image of the Briton as one that led naturally to nineteenth-century imperialism and a sense of global superiority. Because the slave-trade debates were waged openly in print rather than behind the closed doors of Parliament, they exerted a singular influence on the British public. At their height, between 1788 and 1793, publications numbered in the hundreds, spanned every genre, and circulated throughout the empire. Among the voices represented are writers from both sides of the Atlantic in dialogue with one another, such as key African authors like Ignatius Sancho, Phillis Wheatley, and Olaudah Equiano; West India planters and merchants; and Quaker activist Anthony Benezet. Throughout, Swaminathan offers fresh and nuanced readings that eschew the view that the abolition of the slave trade was inevitable or that the ultimate defeat of pro-slavery advocates was absolute.

At the height of the debate about the slave trade and its abolition in the 1780s and '90s, each side issued pamphlets in support of its position. This publication reproduces a selection of representative pamphlets encompassing the arguments put forward by each side. The pamphlets discuss many of the issues including humanitarianism and the Rights of Man, the economic well-being of Britain's colonial territories in the aftermath of the loss of the American colonies, the state of the British merchant marine and the Royal Navy, the condition of the poor in England, and, not least, the economic and moral condition of the slaves themselves, not only in the West Indies but also in Africa. Both sides drew freely on scriptural sources to support their case, thus providing a fascinating sidelight on theological debate of the time.The book includes pamphlets written by the Duke of Clarence, later King William IV, and by Sir John Gladstone (father of the Prime Minister) in support of the trade, and sets these against the leading abolitionists such as Wilberforce. It also includes a transcript of part of the unpublished journal of James Ramsay, a well-known abolitionist, in which he provides model answers for abolitionists asked to testify before a committee of enquiry.The introduction explains the background to each pamphlet and sets them in their collective historical and social context.Illustrated by the well-known engraving of the slaver Brookes, and by plans of Cape Coast slave castles, this book is a culturally fascinating read and will become a valuable source-book for students and scholars alike.

This is a reproduction of the original artefact. Generally these books are created from careful scans of the original. This allows us to preserve the book accurately and present it in the way the author intended. Since the original versions are generally quite old, there may occasionally be certain imperfections within these reproductions. We're happy to make these classics available again for future generations to enjoy!

"The American Debate over Slavery, 1760–1865 will be a superb resource for teachers and students of early American history. Editors Lubert, Hardwick, and Hammond have carefully assembled and introduced a rich collection of significant documents that bring the slavery debate into sharp and illuminating focus. This is easily the best book in its field." --Peter S. Onuf, University of Virginia and Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello)