Asher Sisneros

Slavery existed as an institution for thousands of years, but the West miraculously abolished it, with Great Britain leading the charge. By the late 18th century, England displaced Portugal as the largest slave trader. However, opposition grew strong. By 1833, slavery was completely abolished in Great Britain, and the rest of the West quickly followed suit. Although abolition happened in a relatively short time, it was only possible because of the West’s ideological shifts and three arguments working in conjunction. Through those arguments, the abolitionists made a miracle happen, and one of the world’s oldest institutions was crumbled.  

Before any political shift can take place in a nation, there must be an ideological shift among the people. It is, after all, ideology and morality that guide politicians’ actions, not politicians who guide their electorate’s ideology. Thus, when a nation’s ideology changes, its politicians act accordingly. In political science, this phenomenon is called the Overton window. According to the theory, there are two radical forces pushing against each other, and public policy reflects the middle ground between those two extremes. For public policy or a nation’s ideology to shift, one of the radical forces must become even more radical and push the window in their direction. That is why, historically, the conservatives in Western politics have routinely lost, time and time again, becoming more and more moderate and conserving nothing. Meanwhile, their liberal opposition has grown more radical and thus gained more traction. Within a matter of years, what once seemed absurd and immoral—like men using women’s restrooms—then became commonplace. But all of this is only possible because of ideological shifts, which always precede change in public policy.

In the case of the spread of “Woke” policies in America, this was largely due to a rejection of Christian morality. The very concept of right and wrong was attacked to the point where everything became a matter of subjective opinion. The radical coup d’etat to overturn Christian morality and subject a once-Christian nation to unchristian principles came, first and foremost, from the notion that there is no right and wrong; that there is no objective truth. In essence, it came from a rejection of the authoritative word of God. Meanwhile, many Christians cowered and clung to neutrality on these social issues. But the Bible does not speak neutrally on these issues. It speaks authoritatively. And all people, whether they realize it or not, wave the banner of Christ or Satan in all of their words and deeds, because all actions subscribe to an underlying moral worldview. To quote R. J. Rushdoony, “There are no neutral facts, no neutral thoughts, no neutral man nor reason. All men, facts, and thinking either begin with the sovereign and triune God, or they begin with rebellion against Him.”¹ It is therefore incumbent on all Christians to obey the Great Commission, to be the salt of the earth, and to build a city on a hill by proclaiming obedience to Christ in thought, word, and deed. The remedy to lawlessness is not political. Fundamentally, any reliance on political salvation will disappoint. For the law to reign supreme, the ideology of the West must be altered and reformed. As Rushdoony said, “Law rests on morality, and morality on religion. Whenever and wherever you weaken the religious foundations of a country or people, you then weaken the morality also, and take away the foundations of its law. The result is the progressive collapse of law and order, and the breakdown of society.”² 

The point is that when a nation’s public policy shifts radically, it is because of a prior shift in the nation’s ideology. The historian and economist Robert Higgs sums it up concisely when he says, “Ideologies perform an important psychological service because without them people cannot know, assess, and respond to much of the vast world of social relations. Ideology simplifies a reality too huge and complicated to be comprehended, evaluated, and dealt with in any purely factual, scientific, or other disinterested way.”³ Thus ideology and worldview are the backbone of public opinion and, consequently, public policy. 

For the abolition of slavery, it was necessary to shift the ideology of the West. It had, after all, virtually existed as an institution since the beginning of time. So any attempt to dismantle it required a radical ideological shift from the past. For William Wilberforce and the other abolitionists to expect fruitful results, they needed to shift the public opinion on slavery. 

The historian Thomas E. Woods largely credits the abolition to the spread of natural rights theory.⁴ He argues that with the work of John Locke in his “Second Treatise” and the Levelers during the English Civil War, the populace accepted the notion of self-ownership. No longer did serfdom or slavery seem morally acceptable. Instead, people began to believe that self-ownership is the most basic human right. This, of course, does not discount the religious principle that God supremely owns all things.⁵ Of course, that is true. But on a human-to-human level, no man can exercise ownership over another man, and that natural rights idea changed the ideology of Great Britain to allow the spread of the abolitionist movement. 

The second ideological argument against slavery was a humanitarian one. Not only was the kidnapping of Africans objectively immoral, but many of them died and endured inhumane conditions through transportation. And that excludes the cruelties slaves endured after they were brought to Europe or North America. In transportation, African slaves were cramped in tight quarters where diseases spread. When slaves became sick, they were thrown overboard because slave traders could collect insurance premiums on their dead slaves. However, insurance companies would not cover sick slaves who did not sell in the marketplace. So it was more cost-effective for slave traders to kill the slaves instead. Thus the slave trade promoted economic interests over the value of human life. 

The final argument against slavery was not ideological, it was economical. This is the argument that persuaded all parties, from the abolitionists to the slaves, to the slave owners and those profiting from the slave trade, to ultimately agree on abolition. Many politicians feared an economic collapse if slavery was abolished. There were, after all, many workers whose jobs were dependent on the slave trade. But the abolitionists dissected the economics and argued that not only would the economy not collapse, but rather, it would be stronger. Their reasoning was simple: slavery was not actually an efficient means of labor. The majority of slaves worked in agricultural jobs, but farming did not take place year-round. But the plantation owners needed to support those slaves for the entire year, through food, lodging, clothing, etc. One might counter that slave owners seldom cared about the physical health of their slaves. While that argument does bear some credence, it leaves out one valuable point: even if the slave owners did not care about their slaves’ lives for ethical reasons, they surely cared about their lives for economic reasons. Slaves were expensive, and needlessly letting one die is poor business management. So there were three options: (1) use slaves and (uneconomically) support them all year round; (2) use slaves, but do not provide for them, letting them die, and throwing away the enormous sum of money spent to buy them in the first place; or (3) use hired labor instead of slaves. The abolitionists argued that the latter was far more cost-effective and that economic argument, in conjunction with the other two ideological arguments, allowed for the abolition of slavery. 

The abolitionists needed all three arguments to abolish slavery: the natural rights argument, the humanitarian argument, and the economic argument. The natural rights argument touched on the logical ideological argument, arguing that all men are equal, have the same rights, and cannot own each other. The humanitarian argument also targeted the ideology of the West, but in contrast with the natural rights argument, it gave an emotional case for abolition instead of a logical one. Finally, the economic argument was also vital because, at the end of the day, special interests still retain immense sway, even when the Overton window has shifted heavily in favor of one side on a given issue. None of these arguments would have abolished slavery on their own. For abolitionism to be successful, they needed all three to work in conjunction together.

1. R. J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology: Volume I (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1994), 60 ↩︎
2. Rushdoony, Law & Liberty (Vallencito, CA: Roos House Books, 2009), 4 ↩︎
3. Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 2012), 37-38 ↩︎
4. Thomas E. Woods, “Slavery and Its Abolition,” Western Civilization From 1493 (class lecture, The Ron Paul Curriculum, 2013) ↩︎
5. a) Asher K. Sisneros, “Levellers,” (Houston, TX: Ashersisneros.wordpress.com, September 13, 2024), web. https://ashersisneros.wordpress.com/2024/09/04/the-levellers/
   b) Sisneros “John Locke: Property Ownership, Monarchy, and the Purpose of Government,” (Houston, TX: ashersisneros.wordpress.com, September 4, 2024) web. https://ashersisneros.wordpress.com/2024/09/13/john-locke-property-ownership-monarchy-and-the-purpose-of-government/ ↩︎