From Abolition to Emancipation

The depiction of a kneeling slave was commonly used as a banner for abolitionist groups in Great Britain.

Take notice of the gender specifications in the logos

In a previous post to this blog titled Birmingham Ladies’ Society for Relief of Negro Slaves, I briefly discussed upper class women’s groups in the 1800s, and their effect on the spread of abolition in Great Britain. In that post I presented an argument by Clare Midgley that interpreted these groups as, “kneeling enchanted women who were pathetically appealing for their freedoms.”₍₁₎ For critics like Midgley, these women’s groups had questionable impact on influencing real social and political change. This stance does find validity in the short term historical analysis of eighteenth and nineteenth century society. However, when analyzing broader scope of historical events their efforts do find greater influence.

The anti-slavery movement gave women the opportunity to take an opinionated stance in a more formal political and social forum. Many historians argue that, “the historical intersection of a feminist impulse with anti-slavery agitation helped secure white British women’s political self-empowerment.” ₍₂₎ Women like Emma Courtney began to connect with the struggle behind abolition with that of emancipation.₍₃₎ The general goal of equality was shared and respected by these two groups.

While it is true that upper-class women’s groups were not actively and aggressively pushing anti-slavery ideology, their effect on a broader historical context should not be mitigated just because they were not as outspoken as some of their abolitionist counterparts. Do you agree more with Midgley’s perspective or the counter argument that was presented in this post?

 

~WDL

References

1. Midgley, Clare. “Anti-Slavery and Feminism in Nineteenth-Century Britain.” Gender & History3(1993): 343-62. Web.
2. Ferguson, Moira. Subject to Others British Women Writers and Colonial Slavery, 1670-1834. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014. Print.
3. Ferguson, Subject to Others, 196.

Birmingham Ladies’ Society for Relief of Negro Slaves

 

Although Mary Prince was eventually granted freedom in Great Britain she still struggled for true independence from her former masters even after she stopped working for them. Abolition in the British Empire was gradual. Even after the institution of slavery was completely abolished by the Slave Trade Act of 1807, British society resisted complying with the new laws._[1] Many former slave owners acted to prohibit their former slaves from getting jobs, forcing them to work as a form of indentured servants. Mary Prince’s former master John Wood wrote a letter that granted her de jure freedom, however suggested that no one hire her. Essentially ensuring that Mary Prince remained in a de facto state of servitude.

There were however, certain groups of English society that gained respect and influence by speaking out on behalf of former slaves. One such group that directly relates to the history of Mary Prince is the Birmingham Ladies’ Society for Relief of Negro Slaves. _[2] The group was founded by Lucy Townsend and Mary Lloyd. The two women quickly increased the group’s numbers reporting seventy-three new independent organizations by 1831. _[3]  This Ladies Association wrote propositions on behalf of Mary Prince and her character in hopes of helping her secure a job.

A depiction of Amelia Opie, leader of the Anti-Slavery Female Society in Norwich. Norwich was greatly influenced by the organization and message of the Birmingham Ladies’ Society.

While groups like the Birmingham Ladies’ Society attempted to influence the spread of abolition in Great Britain, some interpretations question the real impact of these associations. Critical interpretation argues that these groups portrayed former slave women as kneeling enchanted women who were pathetically appealing for their freedoms. _[4] Academics supporting this school of thought portray the writings of Mary Prince as an, “impassioned and articulate call of a woman who had broken her own bonds.” _[5] The idea that Mary Prince grasped her own success without the help of white upper-class women’s associations creates a conflict between historical interpretations. What representation is more accurate? If Mary Prince really did act alone did she consciously disregard help from other groups because of difference in race? In a broader analysis, what does this interpretation lead us to believe in terms of race relations in Great Britain following the abolition of slavery?

~WDL

References

1. Prince, Mary, and Thomas Pringle. The History of Mary Prince, a West Indian Slave. London: F.Westley and A.H. Davis, 1831. Print.

2. Todorova, Kremena. “”I Will Say the Truth to the English People”: The History of Mary Prince and the Meaning of English History.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 43.3 (2001): 285-302. Project MUSE. Web.

3. (john@spartacus-educational.com), John Simkin. “Spartacus Educational.” Spartacus Educational.Spartacus Educational, n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2017.

4. Midgley, Clare. “Anti-Slavery and Feminism in Nineteenth-Century Britain.” Gender & History3(1993): 343-62. Web.
5. Anti-Slavery and Feminism, p. 355