Wilberforce’s Long Fight Against Slavery

We often believe that, with enough courage, we could die for a cause. Yet, the more challenging question is whether we’d stick around, year after year, facing defeat. Over 200 years ago, a young British politician named William Wilberforce confronted precisely this dilemma. His choice, in many ways, reshaped the moral landscape of Britain.

This young man, wealthy and well-connected, entered Parliament at just 21, quickly gaining fame as one of the best speakers in Britain. He was charming and witty—famed socialite Madame de Stael even labeled him “the wittiest man in England.”

However, everything changed after his spiritual awakening in 1785, a serious turn that altered his understanding of politics.

A Spiritual Shift

Politics began to seem shallow, and Wilberforce even considered resigning to pursue ministry. Had he followed through, history might’ve remembered him as just another Anglican clergyman.

Before making that leap, he sought advice from Pastor John Newton, at St. Mary Woolnoth, a humble church in London. Newton encouraged him to stay in Parliament, asserting that it was part of Wilberforce’s divine mission.

Newton, widely recognized for writing the hymn \”Amazing Grace,\” had once captained a slave ship and faced his own moral awakening, which pressed him to address the injustices he had previously overlooked.

This counsel proved pivotal for Wilberforce’s life.

Becoming an Abolitionist

Ironically, he hadn’t initially aimed to lead the abolition movement. After embracing his faith, he mingled with evangelical reformers who were increasingly alarmed by the slave trade.

At Barham Court in Kent, he listened to James Ramsay, a former naval surgeon, recount horrific accounts from the Caribbean. Simultaneously, activists like Thomas Clarkson were gathering evidence against the trade, interviewing sailors and collecting testimonies—around 900 pages of distressing evidence.

But they lacked someone to advocate for them in Parliament.

Spurred by Prime Minister William Pitt, Wilberforce accepted that role. Clarkson would gather the proof, and he would present it to the nation.

“Ignorance is no Defense.”

In 1789, he stood in the House of Commons, not far from where visitors today might gather, and delivered a speech that would echo through history. He declared, “The nature and all the circumstances of this trade are now clear to us; we can no longer plead ignorance.”

Describing the slave trade as “so huge, so terrible, so irreparable,” he vowed never to rest until it was abolished.

This three-hour effort was initially celebrated. Newspapers heralded his eloquence, and many began to think that abolition was within reach. Instead, opposition quickly shifted to legal maneuvers.

Powerful West Indian interests argued that the evidence was insufficient and sought further hearings. Parliament obliged. More witnesses were presented, more testimonies gathered, and months crept by. Eventually, the debate was pushed to the next session.

The following year, a special committee addressed the issue. However, with a general election on the horizon, parliament dissolved, forcing a restart.

By the time the House of Commons voted in 1791, nearly two years had elapsed since that iconic speech.

Wilberforce’s initial abolition bill fell flat, losing by 163 votes to 88. The momentum began to fade, as this cause could not be extinguished by a single defeat.

A “Scandal” in the Name of Christianity

Although Wilberforce might have interpreted the defeat as a signal that the country wasn’t ready, he instead made a promise that would define his public life.

“We will never stop until we eradicate this scandal that tarnishes Christianity and free ourselves from the guilt we carry.”

He was most troubled by the fact that slavery wasn’t merely an economic blunder. It was a “scandal” that drew into question British Christianity. While claiming to be a Christian nation, Britain prospered through the buying and selling of human beings. This contradiction needed resolution, not evasion.

Wilberforce continued to return to Parliament, submitting new motions and re-examining old arguments, refusing to let the subject fade amidst political upheavals.

There was a significant reaction in Britain. Hundreds of thousands signed petitions for repeal, with around 400,000 people involved in campaigns, often driven by women modifying their household purchases, like participating in a national sugar boycott.

This pressure ultimately bore fruit, as when Wilberforce returned to Parliament in 1792, the tide began to shift toward abolition.

A Troubling Compromise

Then, Henry Dundas proposed a compromise, suggesting a gradual phase-out of the trade. While it seemed reasonable, it merely prolonged the process.

On paper, Parliament voted for abolition, but in essence, nothing changed.

The movement faced further setbacks with the war against Revolutionary France, which allowed opponents to label abolitionists as radicals influenced by French ideals. Suddenly, governmental priorities shifted towards war financing and maintaining domestic order.

In 1793, Wilberforce’s motion faced another near miss, losing by a mere eight votes. Public enthusiasm waned. Clarkson, exhausted, stepped back from campaigning, leaving Wilberforce increasingly isolated in Parliament.

“Permanently Scarred”

The worst blow came in 1796 when, after years of promises about gradual abolition, Wilberforce pushed again for decisive action. The bill failed by a slim margin of four votes.

He discovered several allies missed the vote because they attended a trendy opera. In his diary, he lamented, “I’ve had enough of the opera. I’ve been scarred for life by the slave trade.” After seven years of fighting, he felt no closer to achieving his goal, leaving him both physically weary and mentally distressed.

Renewed Determination

Once again, Wilberforce turned to John Newton. Years prior, Newton had dissuaded him from leaving Parliament; now, he provided different guidance.

The message wasn’t that victory was imminent. It was about redefining the nature of success.

“You don’t just represent Yorkshire,” Newton said, “you represent the Lord in a place where many are unaware of Him.”

This perspective altered how Wilberforce viewed his political role.

Newton drew parallels with other biblical figures like Daniel, who, though facing adversaries, remained steadfast and proved trustworthy to the Lord.

While he recognized that Wilberforce might never realize all his aspirations, he insisted that the value of his efforts shouldn’t be measured solely through legislative wins.

“We can’t accomplish all the good we’d like, but some good can likely come from our actions,” Newton concluded.

Persistent Efforts

Wilberforce stayed at his post. Over the next 11 years, his progress was a rollercoaster of fleeting victories and crushing disappointments. Some years, Parliament outright rejected reform. In others, it chose lesser measures that merely regulated the trade. A barrage of political crises and shifting alliances repeatedly sidelined abolition efforts.

In 1804, after 15 long years, he successfully passed a bill to abolish slavery in the House of Commons, only for it to stall in the House of Lords, which claimed to need more time to review the data—echoing the same procedural strategy he’d encountered years prior. Yet, Wilberforce remained undeterred, returning each year to present familiar evidence and pressing questions.

Resolution and Reward

In 1806, however, the political landscape shifted. William Pitt had passed away, and the new government, led by Lord Grenville and Charles James Fox, prioritized abolition—not due to personal sympathy, but out of a necessity for reform.

On February 23, 1807, after nearly two decades of fighting, Parliament voted overwhelmingly to abolish the British slave trade.

As applause erupted, Wilberforce remained seated, head bowed, with tears streaming down.

This recognition wasn’t just for the speeches; it was for the quiet perseverance of 20 years.

Many contributed to this success: Thomas Clarkson for accumulating evidence, John Newton for his advice, Quakers for organizing petitions, and countless everyday people who altered their buying practices.

Had Wilberforce decided that enough was enough after 20 years of frustrations, that moment may never have occurred.

Today, Christians are still engaged in discussions about the best approaches to interact with an increasingly antagonistic culture. Some focus on institution-building; others ponder retreat. These are pressing issues.

Yet, Wilberforce offers a vital reminder: he never discovered an ideal political strategy nor enjoyed favorable conditions. Most of his public life was spent in a landscape devoid of optimism. But he never postponed his duty awaiting a better situation. He simply remained steadfast in the position God had placed him.

For many of us, loyalty is envisioned as a single, grand action. Wilberforce illustrates that it often unfolds in quieter, less dramatic terms. Perseverance, particularly after years of battling for the same cause, can indeed make success feel elusive, yet it is through such grace that the moral fiber of an entire empire was transformed.