Bridges of Liberation: Jewish Contributions to Anti-Slavery

This is Article 2 of the seven-part series, “Bridges of Liberation: Jewish & African Paths to Freedom.” The full disclaimer regarding my independent views is contained in the preceding article: Article 1: We Want You Back.

Article 1 – “We want you back” established that Zionism is Pan-Africanism, and opposing the Jewish Law of Return is an anti-Black, anti-African act that delegitimizes global indigenous restitution.

The abolition of the transatlantic slave trade is a testament to the triumph of moral conviction over economic greed. Central to this transformation is the infamous Zong massacre, a tragedy exposing slavery’s barbarity and igniting widespread outrage. Though diverse activists led the movement, Jewish ethical principles, rooted in ancient scriptures, served as a guiding light, influencing key figures and framing the debate in terms of universal human dignity. Despite their marginalized status in 18th-century Britain, these moral teachings profoundly influenced the aid extended to enslaved Black Africans. I explore the Zong case, its tangential Jewish connections, and how Jewish values embodying justice helped propel the end of the slave trade, positioning Jews as an inspirational force for liberation.

The Zong Massacre: A Horrific Catalyst for Change

The Zong massacre, culminating in Gregson v. Gilbert (1783), remains a chilling episode in Atlantic slave trade history. In September 1781, the British slave ship Zong departed Accra (in present-day Ghana) with approximately 442 enslaved Africans bound for Jamaica. Overcrowded and poorly navigated, the vessel’s water supplies dwindled after missing its destination. On November 29, 1781, Captain Luke Collingwood ordered the crew to throw over 130 people overboard (54 women/children, 42 men, and 36 more over ensuing days).

The rationale was claiming insurance for jettisoned “cargo” destroyed to save the ship, as insurance didn’t cover deaths from “natural causes.” Owners, led by William Gregson, filed a claim for £30 per drowned person, treating humans as insurable goods. Insurers contested, leading to the trial. Lord Mansfield presided; the focus was on whether the drownings were a “peril of the sea,” not mass murder. The jury initially sided with the owners, but a retrial was ordered—it never occurred, as the owners withdrew amid scandal.

The slave trade was a vast enterprise built upon the complicity of European finance and African slavers, the primary source of initial human cargo. While Europeans financed transport, African slavers were often the source of sale, complicating the monolithic view of historical guilt.

News of the atrocity leaked through court reports, horrifying the public. Olaudah Equiano, a freed enslaved African, alerted Granville Sharp in March 1783. Sharp tried to prosecute the crew for murder but was thwarted because enslaved people were viewed as property. Nonetheless, Zong publicity shifted public opinion, contributing to the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787 and the subsequent Slave Trade Act of 1807.

Tangential Jewish Links: Cultural Parallels and Scriptural Echoes

No direct Jewish individuals were involved in the Zong incident. However, subtle Jewish connections underscore shared suffering and moral resistance.

Equiano drew parallels in his 1789 autobiography between his Igbo heritage and ancient Jewish practices (circumcision, dietary observances). He posited this evidence of shared ancestry to counter European racism and affirm African humanity. This cultural bridge humanized the enslaved, resonating with Jewish narratives of exodus.

More profoundly, Granville Sharp invoked Jewish biblical principles in his anti-slavery advocacy. In his 1776 pamphlet *The Law of Retribution*, Sharp cited Mosaic laws from the Torah—prohibitions against “man-stealing” (*Exodus 21:16*) and the oppression of strangers (*Exodus 23:9*)—to condemn the slave trade as a divine offense. These scriptures provided the moral framework, arguing enslaved Africans deserved human protections under God’s law.

Modern reflections, such as M. NourbeSe Philip’s *Zong!*, analogize the massacre to Jewish experiences (Ezekiel’s exile and the Holocaust), reinforcing universal empathy using Jewish motifs.

A People Forged in Chains: Jewish Enslavement Across History

Jews stood on the Zong’s moral side not as outsiders, but as a people forged in chains:

* Assyrian conquest (732–722 BCE) deported the Northern Kingdom.

* Babylon (597–586 BCE) emptied Jerusalem.

* Rome’s annihilations (70 CE, 135 CE) flooded imperial markets with Jewish flesh (Josephus tallies 97,000 captives from the First Revolt alone).

* Medieval Europe repeated the pattern (Verdun’s slave fairs trafficked Jewish captives).

This unbroken chain etched the command “you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger” (*Exodus 23:9*) into bone. Sharp, quoting *Exodus 21:16* against man-stealing, quoted a people who had been the stolen.

The Precarious Position of Jews in 18th-Century Britain

In 18th-century Britain, Jews were highly vulnerable. Readmitted in 1655, the community numbered only 6,000–8,000 by the late 1700s, concentrated in London. They faced entrenched prejudice (caricatured as outsiders), occasional mob violence, and discriminatory laws. The 1753 “Jew Bill” sparked riots and was swiftly repealed amid antisemitic furor. Politically, Jews were disenfranchised—barred from voting, Parliament, universities, and public office until the mid-19th century. This marginalization fostered deep empathy for the enslaved.

Extending Limited Power and Jewish Abolitionists in Action

From this weakness, Jewish morals extended hope to Black African slaves. Guided by Torah imperatives like “tzedek tzedek tirdof” (pursue justice), Jewish teachings emphasized compassion. These principles fueled abolitionist fervor, seen in Sharp’s scriptural arguments. The profound takeaway is that a tiny, politically powerless minority influenced dominant British morality.

Some British Jews actively supported abolition, signing petitions and aiding anti-slavery efforts through philanthropy, reflecting a commitment to ethical trade.

This moral extension persisted into the 19th century. Adolphe Crémieux in France advocated for abolition, drawing parallels to Jewish emancipation. Crémieux helped pave the way for French abolition in 1848, linking Jewish civil rights advocacy with broader human freedoms.

In the United States, Jewish abolitionists were more visible. Despite the small Jewish population (150,000 by 1860) and internal divisions, a minority risked their lives to oppose slavery. Their efforts contributed to the Union’s victory and the 13th Amendment in 1865. Notably, an estimated 9,000 Jews fought for the Union (a disproportionate commitment), including seven Medal of Honor recipients.

Prominent figures included:

* Ernestine Rose: Denounced slavery as incompatible with human rights, linking women’s suffrage and abolition.

* August Bondi: Fought alongside John Brown in “Bleeding Kansas,” operated an Underground Railroad station, and served in the Union Army.

* Rabbi David Einhorn: Preached against slavery in Baltimore, fled after mob threats, and continued advocacy in Philadelphia.

* Michael Heilprin: Published refutations of pro-slavery arguments in the *New York Tribune*.

* Moritz Pinner: Distributed antislavery literature and founded an abolitionist newspaper in pro-slavery Kansas City.

Contemporary Restitution and Parallels: Ghana’s “Right of Return” and Israel’s Law of Return

Modern restitution efforts illuminate the shared ethos of liberation. In Ghana, the Zong’s site of departure, the “Year of Return” evolved into the “Beyond the Return” program. Ghana’s “Right of Abode” law allows African descendants to apply for residency or citizenship, recognizing historical injustices. By November 2024, Ghana had granted citizenship to 524 individuals, strengthening Pan-African unity.

This Ghanaian restitution parallels Israel’s Law of Return (1950), granting any Jew citizenship. Both policies underscore that Zionism (Jewish national liberation) is fundamentally akin to Pan-Africanism (African emancipation). Zionism emerged as an anti-colonial response, restoring indigenous rights; Pan-Africanism fights European exploitation. Both are anti-colonial liberation movements prioritizing return to ancestral lands and justice after historical traumas.

Legacy: Jews as a Guiding Light for Humanity

The Zong massacre was a turning point, but the infusion of Jewish moral light—scriptural justice, empathy, and advocacy—helped illuminate the way forward. The British Empire, despite sanctioning the slave trade, mobilized a powerful movement to end it, demonstrating complex, multi-racial alliances in the fight for liberation. This legacy reminds us that true power lies in unwavering commitment to human dignity. As a people forged in adversity, Jews have consistently been a guiding light, proving that morality can reshape the world even from the margins.

Unifying Liberation: Zionism as Pan-Africanism

The narrative of Jewish contributions to anti-slavery, centered on the moral catalyst of the Zong massacre and the profound scriptural influence of Jewish ethical principles, serves as a powerful historical affirmation of the claim that Zionism is Pan-Africanism. As established in Article 1, both are fundamentally liberation movements driven by the same imperative: the reclaiming of indigenous rights and the return to ancestral lands following historical trauma. The Zong exposé demonstrates that Jewish morality, forged through centuries as a “people forged in chains”, provided the moral framework for the broader abolitionist movement, influencing key figures like Granville Sharp with Mosaic laws against “man-stealing” (Exodus 21:16). This historical solidarity—where a vulnerable, politically powerless Jewish minority extended hope to enslaved Black Africans—is the deepest expression of this shared path to freedom.

This moral consistency finds its modern legal parallel in the Ghanaian Right of Abode and Israel’s Law of Return. Both policies represent acts of restitution, recognizing historical injustices and strengthening Pan-African and Jewish national unity, respectively. Therefore, any political stance that delegitimizes one is an attack on the moral foundation of the other. The assertion in Article 1 that opposing the Jewish Law of Return is an anti-Black, anti-African act becomes an inescapable, logical conclusion. When a public figure like mayor-elect Mamdani chooses to denounce the Jewish Law of Return as a violation of international law, he fundamentally undermines the shared global struggle for indigenous peoples to restore their sovereignty and security in their homelands. Such a selective denunciation constitutes a racist betrayal of liberation principles by denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination that is justly sought and defended by all oppressed peoples.

This legacy of moral light affirms that the Jewish fight for national liberation is intrinsically linked to the African fight for freedom. Our collective enemies—colonialism, racism, and jihadism—are indeed the same, and our future must be one of unbreakable freedom, where the right of return and national self-determination are universal and non-negotiable for all indigenous peoples, including the descendants of both the Zong victims and the victims of Jewish enslavement.