The abolition movement in Britain during the 18^th century can be expressed as “left wing” or “right wing for a variety of reasons. One reason is the motivation for abolition and another is the political orientation of the abolitionists themselves. The two articles that most emphasize either end of the political scale are Walvin’s Questioning Slavery and Hudson’s “Britons Never Will Be Slaves”.

Walvin argument can be seen as an expression of left wing politics. The motivations he lists can easily be deemed left wing. He continually sites Enlightenment thinking as “specifically critical of slavery”, especially such concepts as freedom of labour and economics. There is also a Marxist element to Walvin’s case (which is about as left as you can go). “It was at once, an argument about gender, about class—and about freedom.” (p 163) He even singles out an argument by the proletariat “To working people, it represented an oppression far worse than their own.” (p163). As for the Abolitionists themselves, Walvin gives much of the credit to Quakers and women’s groups as the spearhead of the movement. Both of these groups are seen a more liberal selection of the British population.

Hudson, on the other hand, claims that England’s Abolitionists were far more conservative than given credit for. The largest part of his argument entails which “right wingers” were anti-slavery. In fact most of his essay is either name dropping conservatives or denouncing the left. He will have you believe that the Anglican church, not the Quakers, were more responsible for the demise of slavery. He identifies the left as “dissenters, radicals, and nonestablishment groups and repeatedly tries to associate them with the commerce of slavery. (p562) More time is spent refuting a leftist theory of abolition than explain a right wing movement. “..Abolition was not a rearguard action by an embattled cadre of morally progressive dissenters and radicals.” (p570) The two components of a rightwing abolition movement that he does embrace are the moral stance by the Anglican Church and the actual legality of slavery itself. He sums up, “British antislavery had far more to with how Britons wished to view themselves and their historical destiny than with adherence to truth and justice” (p571)

Now as to the cost-benefit analysis of the slave trade in Britain, we need to reconcile both arguments. Slavery cost England the title of International Good Samaritan, meaning that after abolition the English were able considered themselves a force of global good. The main cost of slavery was the inhumane treatment the slaves suffered. The morality of kidnapping people, separating them from their families, and forcing them to do hard labor was a cost that could not be measured. The benefit could be measured. Merchants, bankers, insurers and others profited immensely from the trafficking in humans. All of England also benefited from the cheap labor that was supplied by African labor. “I pitty them greatly, but I must be mum, for how could we do without sugar or rum” (Williams 594)