Ezekiel: valley of dry bones

The main purpose of Ezekiel’s message is to restore God’s glory before the people who had rejected it in view of the watching nations.

To explore this further, we need looking at the structure of the book. We see that it begins with a series of oracles orientated largely to judgement from chapters 1-24. Then the second half of the book turns from judgement to hope for Israel, with an extended section of oracles against foreign nations from chapters 25-32 and concluding with prophecies of blessings more oriented to a distant future from chapters 33-48.

As a result of God’s eternal covenant with his people, the Israelites have four pillars of security in their doctrine of security:

·         Yahweh, the divine patron of Israel, has entered into an eternal covenant with his people, the Israelites.

·         Yahweh has given the nation the land of Canaan as their eternal territorial possession.

·         Yahweh has chosen Jerusalem as his eternal residence, from which he exercises sovereignty over his people.

·         Yahweh, the divine patron of Israel, has promised the Davidic house eternal title to and occupancy of the throne of Israel.

But then they forgot that the promise is conditional to their obedience. So in the first one third of the book, Ezekiel’s main purpose is to warn the Israelites that they had departed from God, and smash these four pillars of security, even though no one would believe him. The Israelite had broken the covenant in being disobedient to God, so judgement is inevitable: the land is taken by the enemies, God’s glory left the temple of Jerusalem, and the Davidic king got removed from his throne and taken into exile.

On a positive note, we see a reconstruction of these four pillars in the last third of the book of Ezekiel, between chapters 33-48, with prophecies of blessings more oriented to a distant future.

The other recurrent theme is that of God’s glory. One of the key visions that recurs through the book, is Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of the Lord. In fact, God’s glory is so powerful it made Ezekiel fell down to the ground on his face several times!

Above screen shots taken from the following commentaries:
http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/ezekiel1-24-lbw.htm
http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/ezekiel25-39-lbw.htm
http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/ezekiel40-48-lbw.htm

The three visions of glory are:

·         Ezekiel 1 the glory appears in Babylon

·         Ezekiel 8–11 the glory leaves Jerusalem

·         Ezekiel 40–48 the glory returns to Jerusalem

It is clear from Ezekiel 43:3 that these three visions of glory are significant in this book: The vision I saw [chs. 40–48] was like the vision that I had seen when he came to destroy the city [chs. 8–11] and like the visions I had seen by the Kebar River [ch. 1]; and I fell face-down.

In the first vision we are introduced to the following main elements:

·         The glory of God has come from the North, which reveals itself as bright lightning.

·         Vision of the cherubim: The four creatures in the cloud in the shape of men with four faces and four wings. They reflect the power of God. They looked in all directions, showing that God has power over the whole earth. They carry the throne of God. The face of a man shows that the cherubim are intelligent. The face of a lion shows that they are very strong and powerful. The face of an ox shows that they are patient. They are servants of God. The face of the eagle shows how quick they can be. They immediately do what God wants. The Spirit of God controlled the Cherubim so that they move in one direction in perfect unity even though their faces looked in all directions.

·         Vision of the wheels: There was a high wheel by each of the four creatures. The vehicle did not travel on the ground but through the air. So, the wheels were not there to move the vehicle. It moved in all directions but the wheels did not turn. Instead of nails, there were eyes all round the edge of the wheels. There were many eyes. They looked in all directions. They could see all things. We can hide nothing from God. He sees and knows everything.

·         Vision of the throne: On the throne was a person who was like a man in form but not a man. God shows himself here in a form similar to a man. There was a bright light that shone with many colours around the throne which reflected the glory of God.

The fact that the chariot of God is mobile as he rides to the exiles mean that God is not confined to the temple of Jerusalem. It is not clear until Ezekiel 8-11 whether this coming of God to Babylon is a coming in salvation or judgement.

In the second vision we see the same elements again departing from the temple of Jerusalem, which is a death sentence for Jerusalem as she will not survive. It also throws light on the vision in Ezekiel 1, where the glory appears in Babylon, which is a message that the exiles in Babylon have not been forgotten by God. His presence is not localised in the temple, but is with them in exile.

The third vision shows the glory of God coming through the east gate of the temple filling the temple. This illustrates that the present troubles are temporary as God will return to Jerusalem. The prophets never record the fulfilment of this vision so this is something that will happen in the more distant future.

From these visions we also see that one of the key aspects of Ezekiel’s ministry is the work of the Spirit (ruach). The book begins with a stormy wind (lit. “spirit”) that comes out of the north (Ezek 1:4). As the vision unfolds, we learn that the wind is closely associated with Yahweh as it animates the living creatures and drives the wheels of the chariot (Ezek 1:20). In Ezekiel 2:2, a wind (or spirit) enters Ezekiel and sets him on his feet in order to hear God’s word and got him going with his ministry.

The character of God 

From the book of Ezekiel, we can see that God is a sovereign and jealous God.

• God’s sovereignty in revelation is seen in the opening of the book where the “heavens were opened” (1:1) and “the word of the Lord came” (1:3, cf. 1:25, 28). This vision didn’t come about by Ezekiel’s efforts. God took the initiative in making himself known.
• His presence and his rule are not limited to the temple in Jerusalem. God’s sovereignty is dramatically portrayed in the chariot visions, where he sits enthroned on the moving cherubim.
• God’s sovereignty is seen in judgment (Ezek 24:14). He is sovereign over the nations and uses them as an instrument to punish his people. God will also punish these same nations for their pride and corruption. Ezekiel’s temporary speechlessness (24:27; 33:22) is a way of demonstrating that there was no hope of averting the destruction since Ezekiel was unable to intercede on the nation’s behalf.
• God’s sovereignty is also seen in salvation. He is the one who will deliver his people from exile (Ezek 20:33-38). He is the one who will raise the nation from the dead (Ezek 37) and give them a new heart (Ezek 36:26-27).
• God’s sovereignty does not undermine human responsibility. In Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel argues that each generation is responsible for their response to God, and that the proverb about sour grapes will no longer be quoted in Israel. People are responsible for their own deeds.

Ezekiel 36 explores the motivation behind God’s intention to restore his people. Essentially, it is because God is jealous for what is rightly his (cf. Exodus 20:5). He will act in jealous wrath against those who touch and misuse what belongs to him.

God’s jealousy has two aspects:

·         God is jealous for his people who have been mistreated by the nations (Ezek 36:6-7).

·         God is jealous for his own name and reputation (Ezek 36:20-23, 32).

These two aspects are both related, but in Ezekiel’s theology, it is God’s concern for his own name which is fundamental. For example:

Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.’ (Ezek 36:22; cf. 39:25)

This underscores the fact that there is absolutely nothing about Israel that merited God’s salvation. They are saved by grace alone for God’s glory. There are no grounds for boasting.  

Messianic hope 

Although more than ¼ of Ezekiel’s preserved prophecies look forward to Israel’s glorious tomorrow, overt references to the Messiah in the book are relatively few. Examples of allusion to the Messiah include the topmost crown of the cedar in 17:22, and the horn in 29:21.

Ezekiel’s first explicit reference to the Messiah occurs near the end of an extended restoration oracle in which Yahweh poses a benevolent divine shepherd, rescuing his beleaguered human flock from the tyranny of exploitative rulers and bullying members within the flock (34:1-31). Ezekiel’s announcement of the appointment of a new David for Israel was intended to instil a new hope in the hearts of the exiles.  

To the nations, the exiles seemed to prove that God was weak and could not protect his people. But he announced to the house of Israel (36:16-38) that he will bring the exiles back to the country and it will become a nation again (this part of the prophecy is in the process of happening). When the return is complete, God will make them clean. When this happens, the nations will see it then all people will know that God is the Lord. This is illustrated by the vision of the valley of dry bones in 37:14. The dry bones illustrate that these people have been dead for a long time and could do nothing: they have lost their relationship (life) with God and are dead in their spirits. The four winds refer to four directions, north, south, east and west: in other words, the whole world. The Jews will return to the country called Israel from all countries - this is starting to happen even before they believe in Jesus as their Messiah. Then, God asked Ezekiel to prophesises to these bones so that the work of the “wind” (or the Spirit/ruach) occurs simultaneously. God’s power make them alive again and with a renewed heart they will know God is the Lord.

  

http://youtu.be/AHK69D_gUww

The second explicit reference to the restoration of the Davidic dynasty occurs in the interpretation of a sign act involving two pieces of wood which are inscribed the names Judah and Joseph. Ezekiel was instructed to unite these two sticks as a symbolic gesture promising the eventual reunification of all the tribe of Israel in one nation (37:15-28). There will be one Davidic king ruling this one nation. The people will obey God’s laws and there will be an everlasting covenant of peace, where their children and grandchildren will live there until the end of time.

The pouring out of the Spirit in Ezek 39:29 ushers in the new order of things depicted in chapters 40–48, where we see a renewed temple in more distant future, though there is debate as to whether this is just a symbolic description or an actual temple. The river from the temple will produce pure water, and in it will be many fish (the river flowed to the south and east. Another words, it flowed into the valley of the Jordan River and into the Dead Sea. Today nothing can live in the Dead Sea because of the salt). Men will catch all kinds of fish! Where the river flows, it will bring life. Trees will grow along both sides of the river, producing all kinds of fruit, and their leaves will not die. There will be fruit every month which are good for food and the leaves will be good medicine to cure people. The description of the river is too far-fetched so many take these chapters as idealised and essentially symbolic in character and intention. In fact, if we look at John 2:18-22, we’ll see some important words about the way Jesus fulfils the temple. So some scholars interpret that the Glory which Ezekiel had seen depart from Jerusalem finally returned in Jesus, that true worship is “located” in Jesus and the water of life flows from Jesus himself. Regardless of the different scholarly views, for Ezekiel, the new age beyond judgment is essentially the age of the Spirit.

The Messiah can bring about true peace that will last (for many centuries, the capital city of Israel has been Jerusalem. That name means ‘the city of peace’. But the city has not often been peaceful. There have been many wars there). And when he does, people from all the tribes will live together peacefully in the capital city. And that city will have a new name, because the Lord will be present with his people. So, Ezekiel ends his prophecy with the name of the city. Its name will be ‘the Lord is there.’ The whole city, not just the temple, has the Lord’s name. This shows that there will be a new relationship between the Lord and his people Israel.

   

The English Reformation

Henry VIII

 

Henry VIII was one of the most fervent Catholic rulers of his day, honoured by the pope as ‘Defender of Faith’ for denouncing Lutheranism (he even wrote a book on that).

 

However, the friendly relations between monarch and papacy did not last. Henry’s primary concern was to safeguard the succession by producing a legitimate male heir but his marriage to Catherine of Aragon had failed to yield the desired son. A deeply religious man, the king concluded that God was withholding his blessing because his wife was his brother’s widow, a union forbidden in the book of Leviticus. He appealed to the pope to annul a marriage which God so clearly disapproved, implying that Julius II, an earlier pope, had been wrong to authorise it. Clement VII refused, because it would weaken papal authority, and antagonise Queen Catherine’s nephew, Charles V, the most powerful ruler in Europe.

 

Henry’s case was heard in London by a sympathetic archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, who freed him to marry Anne Boleyn, and the first Act of Supremacy (1534) was passed, which was a piece of legislation that granted King Henry VIII of England Royal Supremacy, which means that he was declared the supreme head of the Church of England. Henry abandoned Rome completely. He thereby asserted the independence of the Ecclesia Anglicana. He appointed himself and his successors as the supreme rulers of the English church. The 1534 Act is often taken to mark the beginning of the English Reformation. The Ten Articles were first published in 1536 by Thomas Cranmer. They were the first guidelines of the Church of England as it became independent of Rome and contains three sacraments. In 1537, ‘Institution of a Christian Man’ was published, which contains the other four ‘lesser sacraments’.

 

Although Henry had rejected the authority of the pope, this did not mean he had rejected traditional Catholic teaching. On the contrary he was a doctrinal Catholic and remained deeply antagonistic to Luther. He was more sympathetic to the ideas of humanist scholars and when he took charge of the English church, he concern was not to make it ‘Protestant’, but to implement humanist-inspired reforms. The influence of Thomas Cromwell, a leading politician, and the archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, was critical to the reshaping of the English church.

 

The break with Rome unleashed a torrent of speculation and debate. Young apprentices roamed the streets smashing up images and gave vent to anti-authoritarian feelings by jeering at priests, who, they claimed, had kept people in ignorance of the true faith revealed in the scriptures. In 1538 three German theologians were sent to London and held conferences with the Anglican bishops and clergy. The king, unwilling to break with Catholic practices, dissolved the conference. Henry drew back from reform, fearful that he had unleashed forces that were getting out of control. The Six Articles of 1539 reaffirmed traditional Catholic doctrine on six key issues, including condemning clerical marriage. It was a return to Catholic orthodoxy, except for papal supremacy. He executed Thomas Cromwell in 1540.

 

So in conclusion, Henry VIII had been a very fervent Catholic who denounced Lutheranism but rejected papal authority out of political motivations, for the sake of producing a legitimate heir, which made the picture a lot more complicated than a simple struggle between Roman Catholics and Lutheran influenced Protestants.

 

http://youtu.be/1xW7BhEBeEA

http://youtu.be/aO_Ezs7YGM8

http://youtu.be/s0t7jytTphM

 

Edward VI

 

Edward was a sickly young man who lived only six years after his father’s death. When Edward ascended to the throne at nine years of age, Cranmer and like-minded officials who were reformist in thinking held the reins of power, and the scene was set for more radical change. The cup in communion was restored to the laity, members of the clergy were allowed to marry, and images were withdrawn from the churches. The Book of Common Prayer (1549), whose main author was Cranmer, gave the English people a liturgy in their own language for the first time. The revised version appeared three years later which has an even more apparent Zwinglian tendency. So there is definitely a swing towards Protestantism, though with a Zwinglian tendency. Cranmer also wrote the Forty-Two Articles in 1553, which intended to summarise Anglican doctrine. However, Edward did not live long enough for the reforms introduced in his name to be fully implemented, so these articles were never enforced, but later became the basis of the Thirty-Nine Articles in Elizabeth I’s reign. When it became clear that he was in a terminal condition, he and his Council drew up a “Devise for the Succession,” attempting to prevent the country's return to Catholicism. Edward named his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, as his heir and excluded his half-sisters, Mary and Elizabeth. However, this decision was disputed following Edward's death, and Jane was deposed by Mary within 13 days.

 

Mary Tudor

 

Mary had always been a Catholic, and furthermore, if Henry had been correct in proclaiming himself head of the church and his marriage to Catherine null and void, Mary was an illegitimate child and her succession would be cast into doubt. Therefore, for reasons both of conviction and political necessity, Mary was committed to the goal of restoring Roman Catholicism in England. Just as political pluralism is regarded as socially destructive in some eastern and third-world countries today, so sixteenth-century people of all beliefs accepted that states were endangered by religious pluralism. In this respect, Mary was no different from other rulers of her day. As soon as she felt herself secure on the throne, she began a series of increasingly repressive measures against Protestants. About three hundred Protestant leaders were burned, therefore she was known as Bloody Mary. Five years after Mary’s death, the suffering of Protestants under her reign was highlighted in John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. The most illustrious of the martyrs during her reign was Cranmer in 1556. Protestants considered Cranmer the great hero of their cause and insists on spreading Protestant teachings instead.

 

Elizabeth I

 

Elizabeth was a Protestant out of conviction and out of political necessity. If the head of the church in England was the pope, then she would’ve been an illegitimate child.

 

Within a few days of Elizabeth I’s accession, Protestants pinned their hopes on her and were heralding her as ‘Deborah’. So the Act of Supremacy, which was repealed by Mary, was reinstated again in 1559, with a slight change in wordings, to “Supreme Governor”. This changed wording avoided the charge that the monarchy was claiming divinity or usurping Christ, whom the Bible explicitly identifies as Head of the Church.

 

Elizabeth's reign saw the emergence of Puritanism, which encompassed those Protestants who, whilst they agreed that there should be one national church, felt that the church had been but partially reformed. Puritanism ranged from hostility to the content of the Prayer Book and "popish" ceremony, to a desire for church governance to be radically reformed.

 

Elizabeth was a protestant, but not radical. It was her political instinct which caused her to respond. She wanted to unite the nation. The basis of the Church of England is a middle way between the extremes of Catholicism and radical Protestantism. She wanted to include as many people as possible in the Church of England, as ideally everyone in England should be a part of Church of England to enable better unity in the nation.

 

The strength of conservative religious feeling, the tense international situation, and the rival claim of Mary Queen of Scots might well have made Elizabeth refrain from provoking papal hostility.Elizabeth was endeavouring to build bridges to the religious conservatives, and to woo them away from papal allegiance into conformity. The policy was largely successful because, although the appeal of Protestantism was limited, strong attachment to Rome was even more so.

 

In 1559 the Book of Common Prayer used a double formula to accommodate the divergent opinions on communion (of that communion was simply an act of remembrance versus those who insisted that in it one really partook of the body of Christ) so to increase inclusiveness. The same policy was seen in the Thirty-nine Articles, promulgated in 1562 in order to serve as doctrinal foundation for the Church of England. In them, several Catholic doctrines and practices are explicitly rejected, but there is no attempt to choose among the various Protestant views. The articles seek to achieve a via media in which all but Roman Catholics and the most radical Protestants could participate.

 

In 1570, the pope sent out the Bull Regnans in Excelsis which excommunicated the queen and absolved her subjects from their allegiance. Thereafter, any refusal to accept the royal supremacy was potentially treasonable, as it had been in the reign of Henry VIII.

 

Adherence to the Articles was made a legal requirement by the English Parliament in 1571, and the law established was fully, and indeed aggressively protestant. The patriotic union between Church and state had become full and explicit. Those outside that union were regarded as public enemies.

 

It was Elizabeth’s longevity that ensured England eventually became a Protestant country as old beliefs and practices were not easily wiped out. Towards the end of Elizabeth’s life, Catholics were indicating that they were ready to distinguish between their religious obedience to the pope and their political and civil loyalty to the queen. On the basis of this distinction, they would eventually be allowed to practice their religion openly.

 

By the time of Elizabeth's death a third party had emerged, "perfectly hostile" to Puritans but not adherent to Rome. It preferred the revised Book of Common Prayer of 1559, which was without some of the matters offensive to Catholics. The new dispute was now between the Puritans (who wished to see an end of the prayer book and episcopacy), and this third party (the considerable body of people who looked kindly on the Elizabethan Settlement, who rejected prophesyings, whose spirituality had been nourished by the Prayer Book and who preferred the governance of bishops).It was between these two groups that, after Elizabeth's death in 1603, a new, more savage episode of the Reformation was in the process of gestation, leading ultimately to the English Civil War.

 

http://youtu.be/pV2GKPtnlTo

http://youtu.be/-pVWeyqMTQ4

http://youtu.be/05wAO-1XBLc

 

References:

 

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity Volume II: TheReformation to the Present Day, New York: Harper Collins, 2010.

 

Loades, David. Revolution in religion: the English Reformation, 1530-1570, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1992.

 

Rosman, Doreen. The evolution of the English churches, 1500-2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles#Ten_Articles_.281536.29

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_Religious_Settlement

 

 

Inspirational people: William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln in the Abolition of Slavery

Virtually the whole of Europe was involved in the slave trade in the 1700s.  British involvement expanded rapidly in response to the demand for labour to cultivate sugar in Barbados and other British West Indian islands. In the 1660s, the number of slaves taken from Africa in British ships averaged 6,700 per year. By the 1760s, Britain was the foremost European country engaged in the Slave Trade. Between 1793 and 1815, cotton exports from the U.S. grew from 500,000 tons to more than 80 million tons. Cotton from the U.S. was the fuel for the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the development of capitalism - and slavery was the key to producing cotton. As Karl Marx wrote from his vantage point in Britain, "Without slavery, there would be no cotton, without cotton, there would be no modern industry."

Some of the first public support for the abolition of slavery came from American Quakers, but it was in Britain that the decisive developments, which would ultimately lead to abolition throughout the Atlantic, took place. William Wilberforce, a well-connected young politician, became the spokesman and leader of the abolitionists in the British Parliament in 1787, taking advantage of his friendship with the Prime Minister, William Pitt, to promote their cause. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807. http://abolition.e2bn.org/people.html

 http://youtu.be/Q6Cv5P9H9qU

Wilberforce’s conversion and how he became involved in the abolition of slavery:

In October 1784, Wilberforce embarked upon a tour of Europe which would ultimately change his life and determine his future career. Wilberforce's spiritual journey is thought to have begun at this time. He started to rise early to read the Bible and pray and kept a private journal. Wilberforce underwent an evangelical conversion, regretting his past life and resolving to commit his future life and work to the service of God. Wilberforce's conversion led him to question whether he should remain in public life. Wilberforce sought guidance from John Newton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newton), a leading Evangelical Anglican clergyman of the day and Rector of St Mary Woolnoth in the City of London, who used to captain a slave ship but had a dramatic conversion during a storm on the ship. Both Newton and Pitt counselled Wilberforce to remain in politics, and he resolved to do so "with increased diligence and conscientiousness". Thereafter, his political views were informed by his faith and by his desire to promote Christianity and Christian ethics in private and public life. In 1783, Wilberforce, while dining with his old Cambridge friend Gerard Edwards, met Rev. James Ramsay, a ship's surgeon who had become a clergyman on the island of St Christopher (later St Kitts) in the Leeward Islands, and a medical supervisor of the plantations there. What Ramsay had witnessed of the conditions endured by the slaves, both at sea and on the plantations, horrified him. Wilberforce apparently did not follow up on his meeting with Ramsay. However, three years later, and inspired by his new faith, Wilberforce was growing interested in humanitarian reform. In early 1787, Thomas Clarkson, a fellow graduate of St John's, Cambridge, who had become convinced of the need to end the slave trade after writing a prize-winning essay on the subject while at Cambridge, called upon Wilberforce at Old Palace Yard with a published copy of the work. This was the first time the two men had met; their collaboration would last nearly fifty years.

There was strong opposition from those profiting from the trade, who used political pressure and delaying tactics to maintain the status quo.

The two sides of the argument:

For slavery	Against slavery
The trade was necessary to the success and wealth of Britain. The merchants and planters warned that abolition would mean ruin for Britain, as the whole economy would collapse.	There were alternatives to the trade. Clarkson’s Box: Much of the evidence that Thomas Clarkson collected during his travels to many ports and trading vessels illustrated the potential for practical alternatives. One of the first African trading ships Clarkson visited was called the ‘Lively'. The ship was full of beautiful and exotic goods: carved ivory and woven cloth, along with produce such as beeswax, palm oil and peppers. Clarkson could see the craftsmanship and skill that would have been required to produce many of the items. The idea that their creators could be enslaved was horrifying. He used the contents to demonstrate the skill of Africans and the possibilities that existed for an alternative humane trading system.
If Britain did not engage in the trade then others would. If Britain ceased to trade in slaves with Africa, their commercial rivals, the French and the Dutch, would soon fill the gap and the Africans would be in a much worse situation. This was an argument used in a speech to parliament in 1777.	If something is wrong, it is wrong whether others do it or not. The anti-slavery supporters argued that just because other countries engaged in the trade this did not provide a valid reason for Britain to also participate, even if it was profitable.
Africa was already involved in slavery. They stated that Africans enslaved each other. Indeed, Britain was engaged in a moral trade because they were helping people, captured in African wars, who may otherwise be executed.	The slavery that existed in Africa was very different from the Transatlantic Slave Trade.  Those enslaved in Africa were usually prisoners of war or victims of political or judicial punishment. The enslaved people could keep their name and identity and slavery did not extend to future generations.
Taking Africans from their homeland actually benefited them.  They argued that African societies and cultures were unskilled, uneducated and savage.	The African people were in no way inferior and should be treated as equals. The Quaker teacher, Anthony Benezet, was always horrified at the suggestion that the Africans were in anyway inferior. His claimed his experiences, gained during 20 years teaching black pupils, proved this was not the case. However, it was the books and speeches of African writers of the time, such as Olaudah Equiano, that had the greatest impact in dispelling such misconceptions. Even some of those involved in the slave trade were willing to admit that raciest views were wrong, as illustrated by the writings of Captain Thomas Philips
The enslaved people were unfit for other work. Many people were very prejudiced in their beliefs. Many ordinary people in Britain were uneducated and travelled little further than their own village, making it easier for those involved in the trade to influence public opinion.	The trade was damaging to Africa. William Wilberforce summed this up in his speech of 1789: "...Does anyone suppose a slave trade would help their civilization? Is it not plain, that she must suffer from it?  ....Does not everyone see that a slave trade, carried on around her coasts, must carry violence and desolation to her very centre?
The enslaved people were not ill-treated unless rebellious. Conditions on the slave ships were acceptable.  Several of those involved in the trade, merchants, ships captains and plantation owners, provided evidence to parliament regarding this.	The Africans suffered greatly from being removed from their homeland.  They collected evidence to show that many resisted or preferred death to transportation. Many more died on the voyage to the Caribbean. Conditions on the ships were terrible, as illustrated and the speech made by William Wilberforce to parliament in 1789 and by testimony from people like ship's doctor James Ramsay.
Slavery was accepted in the bible. The pro-slavery supporters used the bible to suggest that the Slave Trade was tolerated and approved of by God in the days of Abraham.	It was morally wrong and, as a Christian country, Britain should not be involved. The anti-slavery society also used the bible to back up their arguments. They pointed to biblical text like Luke 16:13: "No man can serve two masters". In answer to the claims of the pro-slavery lobby, Granville Sharp, for example, wrote in his pamphlet 'The just limitation of slavery in the Laws of God': "... If we carefully examine the scriptures we shall find that slavery and oppression were ever abominable in the sight of God..."

However, the enthusiasm and organisational skills of the abolitionists saw the first ever campaign, in which people became angry about the treatment and rights of people they did not know and were prepared to support them in their struggle for freedom. To successfully end slavery, the abolitionists needed to do two things: make people aware of what was going on and put pressure on those with the power to change the law. They did this by introducing many of the ways of campaigning that we take for granted today. http://abolition.e2bn.org/campaign.html

The campaign to abolish slavery

·         Organising action groups: By the late 1700's, a number of people had stated their opposition to slavery. The Quakers had put the first petition to Parliament in 1783. The Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed on 22 May, 1787, to be the driving force behind the movement in Britain. It consisted of 12 men, nine of them Quakers. However Quakers were religious dissenters (disagreed with the doctrines of the Church of England) and banned from public life. To ensure a wider appeal and greater political influence, three Anglicans, Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson and Philip Sansom, were chosen to represent the committee. William Wilberforce was later recruited by Thomas Clarkson to be the voice of the movement in Parliament.

·         Obtaining support from influential people: For example, the Clapham sect is "a network of friends and families in England, with William Wilberforce as its centre of gravity, who were powerfully bound together by their shared moral and spiritual values, by their religious mission and social activism, by their love for each other, and by marriage".

·         Investigation and research: For example, Clarkson’s Box. The abolitionists also published eye witness accounts of the cruelty inflicted upon the slaves. Moving accounts by former slaves, such as Phyllis Wheatley and Olaudah Equiano. These personal testimonies were very powerful, as the people reading them saw the events through the eyes of a person they could relate to.

·         Giving the Campaign an identity: The approved design was the image of an African man, kneeling and in chains with the motto (or slogan) 'Am I not a Man and a Brother?'

·         Using a variety of media (the written word, the spoken word and images)

·         Petitioning and lobbying Parliament: William Wilberforce’s 1789 Abolition Speech to the House of Commons, in which he reasoned that the trade was morally reprehensible and an issue of natural justice. Drawing on Thomas Clarkson's mass of evidence, he described in detail the appalling conditions in which slaves travelled from Africa in the middle passage, and argued that abolishing the trade would also bring an improvement to the conditions of existing slaves in the West Indies. He putting forward twelve propositions for abolishing the trade, but made no reference to the abolition of slavery itself. However, supporters of the Slave Trade used delaying tactics. The first time a bill was introduced in 1791, Wilberforce lost the debate by 163 votes to 88. After the bill was rejected, the abolitionists flooded Parliament with petitions. A bill to cease the Slave Trade was passed in the House of Commons in 1792 - but with the amendment that the ban should be 'gradual', which effectively meant 'never'. A change in political tactics led to the first breakthrough in 1806, when James Stephens advised Wilberforce to propose a ban on British subjects participating in the Slave Trade with France and its allies. Britain was at war with France and this made it difficult to oppose the proposal, without seeming unpatriotic. The bill was passed, limiting the Slave Trade by about a third and paving the way for the Abolition Act, which was finally passed on 25th March 1807, abolishing the Slave Trade in the British colonies.

·         Consumer Action (boycotts of sugar and rum): An anti-sugar pamphlet by William Fox was published in 1791. Spurred on by pamphlets and posters, by 1792, about 400,000 people in Britain were boycotting slave-grown sugar. Some people managed without, others used sugar from the East Indies, where it was produced by free labour.

·         Election Campaigning and Supporting Parliamentary Reform: The abolitionists campaigned to get those who supported abolition, elected. The December elections of 1832 swept more than half of those who had supported slavery out of Parliament, paving the way for the 1833 act.

The 1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was a major achievement for the anti-slavery movement but the law did not go far enough:

• It did not outlaw slavery completely. Enslaved Africans on British owned plantations would not be set free. Only the trade had been abolished.

• The slave trade continued. Some traders risked being captured because profits were so high. Slave ships that were in danger of being captured threw slaves overboard before reaching British controlled waters.

• Other countries such as France, Portugal and Spain still traded in slaves.

The end of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, however, did not see the end of slavery and abolitionists continued to lobby Parliament for a total ban, which was not achieved until 1833. In July 1833, a Bill to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire passed in the House of Commons, followed by the House of Lords on 1st August. Factors that contributed to the final success of the bill:

·         A change in economic interests.  After 1776, when America became independent, Britain's sugar colonies, such as Jamaica and Barbados, declined as America could trade directly with the French and Dutch in the West Indies. Furthermore, as the industrial revolution took hold in the 18th century, Britain no longer needed slave-based goods. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, the West Indies were becoming less important to Britain, which could get cheaper sugar from Cuba and Brazil. Also, Britain was becoming less dependent on the sugar trade for profits, as other important industries, such as iron, cotton and coal, had grown. Cotton, rather than sugar, became the main produce of the British economy and English towns, such as Manchester and Salford, became industrial centres of world importance.

·         Resistance by enslaved people. Enslaved people had resisted the trade since it began. However, the French Revolution brought ideas of liberty and equality, which inspired those seeking an end to slavery. Major slave revolts followed: they gave a strong indication that, regardless of political opinion, the enslaved people were not going to tolerate enslavement. The revolts shocked the British government and made them see that the costs and dangers of keeping slavery in the West Indies were too high. In places like Jamaica, many terrified plantation owners were finally ready to accept abolition rather than risk a widespread war.

·         Parliamentary reform. When parliament was finally reformed in 1832, more than half of those who supported slavery were swept from power. The once powerful West India Lobby had lost its political strength.

·         Abolition campaigns and religious groups. The demand for freedom for enslaved people had become almost universal. It was now driven forward, not only by the formal abolition campaign but by a coalition of non-conformist churches as well as Evangelicals in the Church of England.

·         The act, however, did not free enslaved people immediately; they were to become "apprentices" for 6 years. Compensation of 20 million was to be paid to the planters. Protests finally forced the government to abolish the apprenticeship system on 1st August, 1838.

·         Economists, such as Adam Smith, argued that slavery was less profitable than paying workers. He argued that slaves who were forced to work for no money would not work anywhere near as hard as those people who were paid to work. Smith also argued that slaves who were paid would buy goods from Britain and this would create more jobs in the country. Smith’s ideas had a big impact on how politicians thought about trade. Some plantation owners even began to believe that it was cheaper to employ ex-slaves as paid labourers than to house and feed enslaved Africans.

·         Some historians argue that abolishing slavery also gave Britain ‘an excuse’ to interfere with the trading of their two big rivals, France and America. For example, the British Royal Navy could stop French and American ships, claim that they were looking for slaves to trade.

The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833, where William Lloyed Garrison was the most prominent activist. At first antislavery sentiments were equally strong in both the North and South. Then the abolitionist movement gained strength in the North, where slavery was of less economic importance. In the South, the economic and social system was based on slave labor and took the opposite tack. Soon, many in the South were preaching that slavery was an institution sanctioned by God, and that conversion, not emancipation, is what the slaves need. By 1843, over a thousand Methodist ministers and preachers owned slaves. Other denominations were equally ambivalent.

The Lincoln–Douglas Debates of 1858 (also known as The Great Debates of 1858) were a series of seven debates between Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate for the Senate in Illinois, and Senator Stephen Douglas, the Democratic Party candidate. The main issue discussed in all seven debates was slavery. After losing the election for Senator in Illinois, Lincoln edited the texts of all the debates and had them published in a book. The widespread coverage of the original debates and the subsequent popularity of the book led eventually to Lincoln's nomination for President of the United States by the 1860. Lincoln said that the American Declaration of Independence apply to blacks as well as whites. With very little support in the slave states, Lincoln swept the North and was elected president in 1860. No compromise or reconciliation was found regarding slavery. The slave states declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America, thus the American Civil War commenced. Lincoln’s primary goal was to reunite the nation.

The Emancipation Proclamation: Abraham Lincoln signed this on January 1, 1863. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free." However, it applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. The proclamation used the Army to protect escaped slaves, encouraged the border states to outlaw slavery, and helped push through Congress the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which permanently outlawed slavery.  (Because prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States Constitution (adopted in 1789) did not expressly use the words slave or slavery but included several provisions about unfree persons.)

His Gettysburg Address of November 1863 became an iconic statement of America's dedication to the principles of nationalism, republicanism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy. In just over two minutes, Lincoln reiterated the principles of human equality espoused by the Declaration of Independence and proclaimed the Civil War as a struggle for the preservation of the Union sundered by the secession crisis, with "a new birth of freedom", that would bring true equality to all of its citizens. Lincoln also redefined the Civil War as a struggle not just for the Union, but also for the principle of human equality.

References:

http://abolition.e2bn.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

Clarke, Duncan. History of American Slavery, JG Press, 1998.