An analysis of women's roles in the abolition movement and sugar boycotts examining how their roles and actions were gendered.
Token with “Am I Not a Woman and Sister,” Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture
The Early Modern period in Great Britain saw an expansion of the empire into far-reaching parts of the world, completely transforming the relationships people had with the wider world around them. One place where this type of importance is clear is in the recipe books women created in this time period, where food products that would have previously been unavailable to them were becoming featured parts of these recipes. One good that had become a staple of most early modern households by the 18th century was sugar. Sugar itself relies on the existence and expansion of empire even though it was often seen as vital to every part of British life.1 For it to become such a staple, the production of sugar cane in the West Indies had to expand, and the use of slave labor under horrifying conditions was how this became possible.2 This essay aims to address how women’s prescribed role of running the household impacted how they interacted with abolition and how abolition was gendered in response to their participation.
The rise of the abolitionist movement also began to gain traction in the late 18th century into the 19th, and with it various campaigns to bring attention to the issue and to encourage public outrage.3 Between anti-slavery medallions worn on clothing and published pamphlets, one of the most significant ways abolitionists revolted against the institution of slavery was by boycotting the use of sugar that was produced using slave labor.4
Sugar Bowl; Box, 1820-1830 from The British Museum
Sugar Bowl; 1820-1830 inscribed with “EAST INDIA SUGAR/not made by/SLAVES” from The British Museum
Since sugar was so crucial to the profitability of empire and to the daily life of many British households in this period, women were looked to as both the audience for these boycotts and the most important participants because of their role of purchasing and making the food in their household.5 Women became a target of a lot of abolitionists’ writing as it was understood how their positions in the household and their assumed temperament made women crucial to the success of abolition and shows the political agency women were able to negotiate.
Even though women during this time were not seen as political agents, their position still made them crucial to the success of abolitionist boycotts and the audience for this literature. Although many pamphlets on the subject of abstaining from West Indian sugar and rum were directed at a male audience, the importance of women to this cause was recognized;
“The English ladies have patronized it; to their kind and softering protection it is much indebted. The heaven-born daughters of our isle, with all that delicate sensibility which is their distinguished characteristic, were pierced to their heart with the sufferings of the oppressed Africans and, with a fortitude which does them the highest honor, refused to enjoy those sweets, which the supposed to be the price of blood” 6
This quote demonstrates how these gendered views on sentiment gave them the moral upper hand and is contrasted with the work that the author discusses that Englishmen had been doing all across Europe.7 This contrast between the men doing philanthropic and anti-slavery work outside of Britain with the women doing the domestic work of these boycotts reflects the wider enlightened view of women and men being virtuous in different ways and in entirely different spheres.8 In this instance, however, women’s example is being used to encourage their male counterparts to do the same and push their wives if they are not doing so, and since it is an address for public consumption, it is speaking to men in their sphere to bring it home for their wives to take up this cause. In addresses with portions directed at women, the author uses images of enslaved women with children or infants to draw their sympathy and appeal to their womanhood to garner their support showing this assumed divide in what appeals are better suited for either sex.9
Deciding to participate in these boycotts would not have been entirely simple since sugar was in so many recipes used by the early modern household, and identifying where sugar came from was not entirely simple.10 The Anti-slavery Society in London in meetings, spoke about how households could go on to purchase sugar from the East Indian territories, still participating in Empire but was cultivated using free, although still exploited, labor.11 One of the most effective voices in the promotion of boycotts and in condemning slavery was Elizabeth Heywick, a Quaker woman who published a rousing work titled Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition in 1824. Her work continued to show the way that women were able to assert political agency through actions like sugar boycotts but also how effective the moral messaging was for women. Women were encouraged to be virtuous and almost maternal towards those less fortunate than them, and this led to them being such ardent supporters of the abolitionist movement.12
Elizabeth Heyrick in her writing, is every bit as vehement in her condemnation of the practice as any of her male counterparts, and in comparison to ones that speak on women, even more.13 Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition was not meant just for a female audience which is clear in her word choice and the overall tone of the book.14 Early on she states,
“The wealth obtained by rapine and violence, — by the deep groans, the bitter anguish of our unoffending fellow creatures; — we must purge ourselves from the pollutions.”15
This is not the language expected from a woman of the time, let alone it being published. The essay uses religion to critique slavery, and she condemns more than just male planters in its upkeep, she puts the blame on all of the British people for allowing slavery to persist in any form.16 She herself was not participating in a gendered view of abolition, Heyrick saw bringing about slavery’s end as all people’s responsibility.17
As sugar had become more common in the household through the consumption of it by women of all social classes, they were also seen as a key part of dismantling the slave system this consumption had helped profit.18 Clare Midgley explains this connection between women, sugar, and Empire through these separate spheres;
“Tea parties formed a central component of a new culture of civility among the middling ranks that was linked to the rise of consumer society. They were the domestic-based, woman-centred counterparts to the rise of masculine coffeehouse culture and of male sociability around the drinking of rum punch.”19
Empire was pervasive in both spheres, and each was highly gendered, as were the approaches to promoting abolition. The reach of empire made it so that engaging with it was unavoidable. There were not only men in the public sphere acting as abolitionists, and both male and female abolitionists believed they needed women to dismantle a crucial part of slavery’s reach.20
Beyond just women being ideal targets for abolitionist movements, there is a substantial amount of agency women had over their involvement. In order to understand women’s choice to become involved, it is important to understand their religious contexts. The abolitionist movement generally was taken up by religious groups, the most prominent being Quakers, Unitarians, and Baptists.21 Many of the prominent female abolitionists were Quakers or Unitarians (which is not too dissimilar to Quakerism), and the teachings of each help explain why women were themselves motivated to act the way figures like Elisabeth Heyrick did.22 Quakerism taught equality in female and male education as well as rationality and often rational dissent.23 Rationality and education encouraged all members of the church to take action against moral wrongs, which, when combined with the normality of female Quakers preaching, led many to feel empowered to take a stand and break into the public sphere.24
Image of The Sheffield Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society, “The Fifth Annual Report of the Sheffield Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society, for 1830.,”
There are many cases of women’s groups discussing slavery, and women were advocating for their role in these movements largely through their religious connotations, but they moved to public action.25 The Sheffield Female Anti-Slavery Society is an example of this internal push. Most of the women involved were deeply religious and are taking a public role in ending slavery.26 They were not just releasing these reports, they were taking action around Sheffield, going door to door and encouraging the usage of East Indian sugar over the West Indian sugar that was synonymous with the slave system.27 They were doing the important groundwork not just to promote these boycotts but also to teach other women how to identify East Indian sugar, taking the movement and its expansion entirely into their own hands.
The abolitionist figures that most get remembered may have been the male leaders who spoke publicly and published widely, the men who went to court to take on slavery or petitioned parliament, but their success could not have happened as it did without the work of female abolitionists. As important as these moments were, even the male leaders knew that women were who drove consumption and would push them to take actions like boycotting West Indian sugar.28 However, women were emboldened by this movement and felt it their moral role to take it on in turn claiming political roles themselves. Although abolition is not remembered as a feminine movement, there were clear messages about gender in the movement and who took action.