Lably
Skip to content

Free-produce movement

Boycott of goods produced by slave labor

  • 7 min read
  • 3 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Boycott, Slavery and French Revolution

In this context, free signifies "not enslaved" (i.e. "having the legal and political rights of a citizen"). It does not mean "without cost". Similarly, "produce" does not mean just fruits and vegetables, but a wide variety of products made by slaves, including clothing, dry goods, shoes, soaps, ice cream, and candy.

18th century

The concept originated among members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), in the late 18th century. Quakers believed in pacifism and in the spiritual equality of all humankind. Quakers opposed slavery, and by about 1790 had eliminated slaveholding from among their membership. Radical Quakers such as Anthony Benezet and John Woolman went further, voicing their opinion that purchasers of slave-derived goods were guilty of keeping the institution of slavery economically feasible. They argued for a moral and economic boycott of slave-derived goods. The concept proved attractive because it offered a non-violent method of combating slavery.

In the 1780s, the movement spread beyond Quaker circles. British abolitionists, most of them also Quakers and some of them former slaves, formed the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787. In 1789, the Abolition Bill was introduced in parliament (by William Wilberforce; Quakers were not allowed to stand for parliament). Plantocratic interests slowed its adoption. By 1791, it had still not been passed, and frustration at parliamentary delaying tactics lead to boycott actions. William Fox published a pamphlet urging a boycott of slave sugar; this became the most popular pamphlet of the century, with over a quarter million copies printed (on both sides of the Atlantic). The pamphlet solidified and concentrated abolitionist efforts.

The pamphlet made a case for consumer complicity in slavery: "If we purchase the commodity we participate in the crime. The slave dealer, the slave holder, and the slave driver, are virtually agents of the consumer, and may be considered as employed and hired by him to procure the commodity ... In every pound of sugar used we may be considered as consuming two ounces of human flesh." Rhetoric describing slave produce as figuratively contaminated by the blood, tears, and sweat, of slaves, and as morally polluting, was widely used. Further pamphlets on the same theme followed.

Boycotts were waged by both individual consumers and by shopkeepers and merchants. Also in 1791, an English merchant named James Wright published a newspaper ad to explain why he would no longer sell sugar until he could procure it through channels "more unconnected with Slavery, and less polluted with Human Blood." Women, who could not vote, could promote and participate in a slave sugar boycott. The British boycott, at its height, had more than 400,000 participants. However, as the French Revolution turned violent in mid-1792, grassroots movements lost support which they did not regain until it became known that Napoleon Bonaparte opposed emancipation.

Sign in to keep reading

2 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in From Lably lessons