Essay Two

Conventional wisdom would suggest that such a radical change in British policies would come from the left, from the voices of dissent perpetually railing against the perceived faults of government and society at large. In actuality, the chief opposition to the slave trade came from the very segment of society that would otherwise be seen as most loyal to the government and to the accepted practices of eighteenth century England. The conservative elements of society, those rooted deep in religion and what would seem to be the core of stable British society, were the very elements that brought forth the definitive victory against the slave trade in Great Britain.
The idea of conservative religious thinkers and activists coming together to protest the continuation of the slave trade appears to have become a reality for moral reasons, in sync with their own beliefs, and in that regard it suddenly becomes far less audacious a thought to think of the conservative segments of the population being the ones to demand such sweeping change on a national level. The slave trade is seen as a moral ill, not just a social one, and its abolition would go on to become a badge of honor for the English system of government and its national identity. That is not to say that the abolition of the slave trade was without its opponents, or that the process was itself one to be welcomed by all quarters of English society. The sheer economic impact of robbing the English port system of one of, if not its most vital trade was undoubtedly a dire consideration for those on both sides of the issue, both in parliament and among those personally invested in the struggle, on both sides.
Bristol, Liverpool and London each benefited immensely from the slave trade, experiencing periods of great economic and practical expansion. The desire on the part of abolitionists to do away with the slave trade certainly created a backlash throughout England and from all who were directly, or indirectly, invested in its continued survival. Not only the slavers themselves, but entire industries, entire ports were dependent upon the slave trade for their prosperity, and this could not have been an easy decision for the members of parliament to even contemplate, let alone commit to. That makes it especially important that the more conservative elements of English society would be the ones to call for such a significant change in policy, one that would simultaneously shatter the preconceived notions of economic prosperity for a handful of major English port cities, while at the same time cementing an important lasting aspect of the English national identity.