The debate on the abolition of slavery

On the lawfulness and expediency of Slavery, particularly that of the Negroes

In 1778, James Beattie, Professor of Moral Philosophy and Logic at Marischal College, wrote about both the moral and economic arguments against slavery. He described enslavement as ‘detrimental to virtue and industry’ of both the enslaved and the enslavers. Beattie did not like public controversy and never published his arguments, but he effectively mobilised people in Aberdeen against slavery.

Click here to read an extract of the document.

A severe kind of service, called slavery, has prevailed in many countries, and in many does still prevail; but its forms are so various, that one cannot express its general nature in a definition. Of that species of it, which it is my design to consider at present, the following particulars will convey a pretty just idea.

1. In establishing this kind of service, the will of the master only is consulted, and no regard is had to that of the slave 2. It lasts during the life of the slave, if the master is pleased that it shall last so long; and in some countries even the master himself cannot dissolve it, without the consent of certain judges appointed by law 3. No efforts of virtue or ability can ever change his condition to the better withoutout the master’s consent; which in all ordinary cases he may refuse without assigning any reason 4. The master may correct his slave as severely, and in other respects use him as cruelly as he pleases, provided he do not deprive him of his limbs or his life; and, in many countries, even these are not protected, except some trivial punishment or fine; which can be no effectual restraint upon the passions of a tyrannical and wealthy master 5. The slave labours for his master’s benefit only; and in some parts of the world can acquire nothing for himself but what his master may, if he pleases, take from him 6. The master buys a slaves and sells him with as little concern as we do an ox, or a piece of household stuff; and separates the husband from the wife, and the child from the parent, when by so doing he thinks he can promote his own advantage 7. The children of slaves are born and bred in slavery, and their children, and all their posterity for ever; unless it is the master’s pleasure to give them liberty; which he is seldom or never obliged to do, and which the law of some countries will not, in certain cases, permit him to do 8. The life or death of slaves, in the eyes of the slave monger, is of no more value than the money for which they may be sold: of their health, in this world, he probably will for his own sake take some care, but is not obliged to take much (and it is certain takes only little); and their happiness or misery, in the world to come, is a consideration in which he does not think himself interested at all.

After this account, which I have reason to believe is not exaggerated, it must be unnecessary to add that slavery is inconsistent with the dearest and most essential rights of man’s nature; that it is detrimental to virtue and industry; that it hardens the heart to those tender sympathies which form the most lovely part of the human character; that it involves the innocent in irretrievable hopeless misery, in order to procure gratification for the authors of that misery; that it seeks to degrade into brutes those beings whom the Lord of heaven and earth endowed with rational souls, and created for immortality: in a word, that it is utterly repugnant to every principle of religion, reason, conscience, and humanity. In protesting against such a practice, it is not easy to preserve that lenity of language and coolness of argument, which philosophy recommends: and a certain author has not sought to preserve it, but explicitly declares, that he who can argue seriously in vindication of slavery deserves no other answer than the stab of a poniard. I am not, however, so bloody-minded; and shall endeavour to justify what I have said, by an appeal to reason, rather than to the passions, of the reader.

To my shame and sorrow, and to the disgrace of human nature, I must confess that slavery is of ancient date; and that there are few countries in the world where at one time or other it has not prevailed. It probably took its rise among savages, or men half-civilized, who condemned their captives to this condition; and was afterwards adopted, in the way of retaliation perhaps, by more enlightened societies. We find in the Old Testament and in in Homer, that in early times it was customary to carry away into captivity, and sell for slaves, those who had been made prisoners in war. Those slaves, however, were not always treated barbarously in other respects but, on the contrary, often became the favourites of their masters. Yet this was not universal. In Athens and Rome the slaves might lead lives that were not uncomfortable; but at Sparta they were used with a degree of rigour which is hardly conceivable; although to them, as their husbandmen and artificers, their proud and idle masters were indebted for all the necessaries and conveniences of life. The Lacedemonian youth were actually trained up in the practice of deceiving and butchering those poor men; and to show their proficiency in the arts of stratagem and massacre, were from time to time let loose upon them. And once, without the least provocation; and merely for their own amusement, we are told that they murdered three thousand in one night.

In arguing against slavery, it may perhaps be though that I dispute without an opponent; for that no man in his senses could ever be so absurd, as to offer reasons in vindication of a practice so unjust and inhuman. But they who think so are mistaken. I myself have met with a native * of Great Britain, a person of some rank and learning, who maintains, that the lower orders of people in this country ought still to be, as they once were, slaves; and to be annexed as in some miserable parts of Europe they still are, to the soil, and bought and sold along with it. Philosophers, lawgivers, and others who thought themselves wonderfully fully wise, have laboured, in good earnest, to prove the lawfulness, and expediency, of that very practice, which every person worthy of the honour of being born a Briton holds in utter abomination.

Letter by ‘Africanus’ (1788)

In 1788, someone who called themself ‘Africanus’ wrote to James Beattie encouraging him to support a parliamentary petition by the Society for the Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. ‘Africanus’ was anonymous because they believed ‘ruin, or at least persecution, would be the consequence of speaking freely’ due to their close links with the trade.

Click here to read an extract of the document.

London 26 Jan 1788

Sir I take it for granted that, in common with every benevolent mind, you rejoice at the progress made by the humane society here in their laudable design of bringing the African slave trade before Parliament. Their very praiseworthy efforts will be sounded by some of the most respectable corporations in England who have determined to petition the Legislature for the abolition of a species of traffic so horrid in itself and so peculiarly disgraceful to this free country; and which, it is certain would insure a milder treatment to the slaved now surviving in our Colonies. I am surprized that no body of men in Scotland seems to have taken this resolution, especially when I consider that that part of the island has, comparatively but little concern in the slave trade. This leads me to think that it would be no very difficult matter from some gentlemen of consideration to promote Petitions from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paisley, Aberdeen & the universities &c, and to prevail on them to join their very respectable suffrages to those of Norwich, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield the clergy of this diocese and some other bodies of men no less respectable than humane, among whom the Quakers have taken the lead both in Europe and America. The liberators of their slaves in Pennsylvania should no longer bear the derisive name of Quakers. They should be called philanthropists, or by some other name descriptive of their unprecedented virtue and humanity. What a badge is this for a religious sect to be known by? And what an example for other denominations of Christians to follow? There is certainly no description of men, in the kingdom, so little interested in this odious traffic as the people of Scotland: consequently the established Church and the universities in that part of the island, might one would think, with much propriety, and much unanimity intercede with Government for some melioration of the present miserable state of the slaves in our Colonies. I therefore submit to you, Sir, and to some other eminent men in your Church and universities, to whom I am writing on this occasion, whether Petitions, from your very respectable and learned Bodies, could not be promoted & expedited, so as to be presented to Parliament, along with the rest. There is not much time, to be sure, for the business; but the expedient has but just occurred to me. At the same time, I thought of another: that of writing a kind of circular letter to the most distinguished literati, in the kingdom, which, I know, could do no harm & might do much good, by suggesting to them the idea either of writing expressly on the subject of slavery, or of mentioning in in their publications and discourses with the detestation becoming indignant Britons; And, that their thoughts might appear to flow voluntarily and unsolicited from themselves. I have chose to address them in this private manner, rather than the public papers. Nothing but the magnitude of the object, and the persuasion that you have it much in your power to contribute to the attainment of it, could have prompted me to write to you on this occasion _ sensible, as I am too, that thought I cannot be suspected of any sinister view, yet my character must appear to you in a questionable shape. Must appear, I say, for I am under the mortifying necessity of concealing my name. I am a native of England; but have spent upwards of 20 years in the W Indies and the southern Colonies (now states) of America. “Fate may, again, command me to those distant barbarous climes, where the sun’s setting beam of flames on the Atlantic Isles.” I cannot add “tis nought to me” for I should certainly suffer most severely – not in my character, which, I trust, is invulnerable but in my affairs, for daring to question what out Colonists in general (blinded by the god of this world) regard as their undoubted right – the right of cultivating their lands with the toil and I may almost literally say watering them with the tears – with the blood – and manning them with the famished and lacerated carcasses of a wretched race of man. The truth is few are inclined and fewer dare to speak their real sentiments on this subject.

King’s College minutes recording an abolitionist petition

In 1792, King’s College voted not to send a petition to Parliament supporting the abolition of the trade in enslaved people. Defeated staff members James Dunbar and Gilbert Gerard objected, saying that policy should be informed by morality, and that slavery was ‘dishonourable to the British name, degrading to human nature, & diametrically opposite to the genius of Christian religion’.

Aberdeenshire Anti-Abolition petition

This draft petition of 1831 shows many of the anxieties of people living in Aberdeenshire who opposed the abolition of supported slavery and opposed its abolition. They feared that emancipation would violate their ‘property rights’ – meaning enslaved people – and lead to disorder in the colonies. The petition is from the papers of William Shand, who held around 20,000 people in slavery in Jamaica from 1791 to 1823.

Click here to read a transcript of the document.

To the Right Honorable and Right Reverend the (*) Lords spiritual and Temporal of Great Britain and Ireland In Parliament assembled

The petition of The undersigned proprietors, landholders And others in the County and City of Aberdeen

Humbly Sheweth

That your petitioners entertain serious apprehensions as to the results likely to ensue from the sudden and momentous change in regard to the negro population in our West India Colonies urged by many who are ignorant of the real state and condition of these Colonies. That the present immoral and unsettled state of the Island of St. Domingo is an alarming precedent of what may be contemplated and of the irremediable evils likely to ensue to the class of people whom it is intended to benefit. That your petitioners would shield the honour of the nation by due respect to the legally constituted rights in the Colonies and elsewhere, but are not less solicitous that your Honourable House by earnest attention to the propagation of religion, morality and industry may prepare the slave population for participating in such rights and immunities as are enjoyed by other subjects of this Empire.

That your petitioners cannot perceive in the event of deterioration or destruction to West India property by precipitate and violent measure from what source in the present state of the National finances the colonists can be compensated, and are equally ignorant in cases of the annihilation of colonial trade and all the consequent evils to the mercantile shipping and manufacturing interests of society what provision can be made for remedying such losses or in what manner the decrease of revenue so occasioned to the mother country could be repaired.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House may be pleased to take these premises into consideration investigate into the present state of the negro and slave population in the West India colonies and adopt such measures as in your wisdom may seem fit in conformity to the resolutions of your Honourable House (and similar resolutions passed in the House of Commons) declaring that the period when a change was to be effected in the civil rights of the slaves should be that which could be compatible with the well being of the slaves themselves with the safety of the colonies and with a fair and equitable consideration to the interests of private property.

Legacies of Slavery

The debate on the abolition of slavery

Some staff, students and graduates of Marischal College and King’s College played notable roles in the campaign for the abolition of slavery from the 1780s to 1830s, while others resisted it. Marischal College sent two petitions for abolition to parliament while King’s College refused to do so.