• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"William Wilberforce was primarily responsible for the abolition of the Slave Trade in the British Empire" To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Extracts from this document...


Michael Hulbert - 2,690 words "William Wilberforce was primarily responsible for the abolition of the Slave Trade in the British Empire" To what extent do you agree with this statement? William Wilberforce has been accredited almost solely for the abolition of the Slave Trade throughout history, as is suggested in the statement. This view is supported by common misconceptions which the public have treated as facts, the views of some historians and predominantly, the media. The media has portrayed Wilberforce as a heroic and passionate figure, when in fact he only took up the cause when close friend, Prime Minister William Pitt, told him to make the abolition cause his own before 'the ground may be occupied by another'1. An example of this media includes the film 'Amazing Grace', within which it was even implied that Wilberforce was so passionate about the cause that the stress eventually killed him. In reality this actually occurred to Thomas Clarkson, and this idea of Wilberforce's passion for abolition is merely a myth created by the media. In this case its intention was merely entertain and entice the audience into a sympathetic view of Wilberforce, which is prevalent in times gone by. William Wilberforce was widely known as a highly prominent figure in the abolition movement, as the public face of the campaign and a popular figure throughout British politics. His 'charm, personal kindness, reputation for integrity and deep conservatism on most issues gave him influence with his fellow MPs that few others in parliament had'1 and this was essentially his primary reason for involvement with the committee. ...read more.


Clarkson capitalised on this and preached much about the conditions of the slaves, even carrying a box that contained examples of whips, chains and torture equipment to horrify listeners into signing petitions. The 'slaves' of the Northern factories backed abolition and Clarkson gathered 10,000 signatures to take to parliament. It was estimated that after 1787 he covered 35,000 miles by horseback3, an astounding achievement that was testament to his dedication. Crucially this allowed him to give the legal and political thinkers of the committee some strong evidence that proved the public's support for abolition, thus exerting pressure to pass the Slave Trade Act. Clarkson made a solid and significantly important contribution to the abolition movement though he, similarly to Wilberforce, cannot be considered the sole reason for abolition. Both Clarkson and Wilberforce were hugely interdependent; they could never have achieved emancipation of the slaves alone. Clarkson would never have been able to get his evidence or petitions into parliament were Wilberforce not in the committee, and thus slavery would have been unlikely to be questioned. Furthermore he owed much to other members of the committee for the printing of his literature and financial support as well as the public for supporting the cause through signing petitions and buying his literature. This would have resulted in both, a reduced awareness of the abolition movement due to a reduction in available literature, as well as lessening of pressure upon parliament to act on the issue of slavery, caused by a lack of support and evidence. Alone, Clarkson would have been virtually unable to spread the message against the Trade, nor affect any views within parliament and thus would have been rendered useless. ...read more.


He was merely a single piece of a much wider puzzle, which contained massive contributions from Thomas Clarkson, Cultural Changes, and Slave Rebellions. Wilberforce and Clarkson could never be singly attributed with the responsibility for abolition. They were all very interdependent and it was the sharing of their qualities that made the committee effective in raising awareness and support for abolition in Britain, yet primary responsibility could not be as confined as their campaign or attributes. Cultural changes within Britain also aided the anti-slavery cause, but once again it is not strong enough individually to be solely responsible. Without the campaigning of Clarkson and the Quakers these changes could never have been capitalised upon, and turned into support for the abolitionist cause and consequently they would have gone to waste. There is no doubt which factor is neither interdependent, nor confined. Slave rebellions shook the British and French colonies alike, which caused serious loss of life and most importantly capital. The Slave Trade was initially based upon its high profitability potential and without such an incentive there would have been no trade in the first place. It was the continuous determination of the slaves to fight for their freedom that created the need to police the trade, consequently resulting in an increase in expenditure and a decrease in profit. Without the slave rebellions it would have remained highly profitable, and with the support of the wealthy landowners within parliament it surely would never have been abolished. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that the Slave Trade was finally abolished, not for human rights, morality or justice, but due to the evaporation of the thing that was fuelling the greed; money. 1 www.bbc.co.uk/abolition 2 Pg. 123 - Adam Hochschild - Bury The Chains 3 www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Clarkson 4 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070323/ai_n18758172 ?? ?? ?? ?? I ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Resistance to slavery.

    In fact, slavery was abolished in 1833, the duties against East Indian sugar were removed in 1836 and trade in sugar was fully freed in 1846. The Abolition Bill would not have been passed in Parliament in 1833 without the full support of both lobbies.

  2. Within the context of 1880-1980, to what extent did British actions accelerate British decolonisation ...

    was both positive and negative. Ferguson has noted that the British Empire sacrificed itself to stop the spread of the evil empire of n**i Germany: indeed, the British Empire had "never had a finer hour"8 than when it was self-sacrificing.

  1. The Slave Trade

    By doing this, it would further streamline the efficiency of the slave trade3 and allowed thousands of slaves a year to be exported. Headquarters of the British East India Company meant that London supplied commodites to Liverpool slave traders and handled other items to cover the bills of the slave sales.

  2. To what extent was Whig/Liberal dominance 1846-68 a result of their free trade agenda

    People had more money in their pocket as a result of the Whig/Liberals' policy, so naturally supported them. The free-trade agenda helped the emerging Whig/Liberal party to win the support of what had become the largest single grouping within the electorate, the middle classes.

  1. Nell Gwyn (Playhouse Cretaures) essay

    The plan failed; reportedly, Gwyn asked �500 a year to be kept and this was rejected as too dear a price. Buckingham had a backup, though: he was also involved in successful maneuvers to match the King with Moll Davis, an actress with the rival Duke's Company.[25] Davis would be Nell's first rival for the King.

  2. Charlemagne Essay.

    This would have reduced Charles's size of cavalry. It is used to be thought that heavy cavalry was introduced by Charles Martel (Charles's grandfather) to counter Saracen invaders. It was Charles Martel who granted fiefs of land to nobility in exchange for military service on horseback. They then became the king's vassals or vassi.

  1. Why was Slavery Abolished in the British Empire by 1833?

    After this, with great courage he decided to hold this evidence to persuade people of how awful the trade was. He also showed very disturbing pictures to public people as they came in and out of suffering the thoughts of slavery and it's treatment.

  2. To what extent were the trading companies responsible for the growth of the British ...

    But later on, we see a large increase in trade: “average annual exports rose from £4.1 million in the 1660s to £6.9 million in 1720, £12.7 million in 1750, £14.3 million in 1770 and £18.9 million in 1790”[3]. One of the reasons for this magnificent increase is the soaring amount

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work