Text 1: Historian Vega argues that the abolition of slavery in the British Empire (1833) was driven by moral conviction. Decades of organizing by Quakers, evangelicals, and freed slaves themselves transformed British public opinion until Parliament could no longer sustain the trade. Few historical reforms, Vega writes, owe more to moral activism.
Text 2: Historian Park accepts the importance of abolitionist organizing but argues that economics shaped its success. By the 1830s, sugar from the British West Indies was less profitable than sugar from emerging competitors; the Empire had less to lose by ending slavery. Moral conviction was real, Park contends, but it succeeded when economic interests no longer pulled the other way.
The authors most clearly disagree about
- A
whether sugar was produced in the West Indies.
- B
whether the British Empire abolished slavery in 1833.
- C
whether abolitionists organized in Britain.
- Dcheck_circle
whether moral conviction alone is a sufficient explanation for abolition's success.
Explanation
Both accept activism, the date, and sugar production. They differ on whether morality alone explains success. B captures the dispute.