Quote:
Originally Posted by grean
It was banned within the british empire by the Slave Trade Act of 1807. The 1833 law expanded the 1807 ban to include British territories as well.
Britain was promising freedom as early as 1776, the year isn't coincidental, to any American slave who would fight for the Crown.
I would imagine a different outcome here had slave owners chose not to secede. No, I'm not trying to inferring the civil war was fought over slavery, relax you hillbillies. I'm simply suggesting compensation may have been brought to the negotiating table in an effort to avoid war. Lincoln himself, said he'd allow slavery to remain intact if it would save the union. It likely was brought up.
Lincoln won the presidency without carrying a single southern state. The tarriffs being imposed on southern goods to make northerners more competitive also didn't help the issue. Those two issues had a bigger influence than slavery on the decision to secede.
Slaves absolutely got a raw deal. Many black folks today could use a little help. I'm not sure if reparations, in the form of cash, is the way to go, however.
|
you have to go back a little further. british abolitionist had a hard time getting slavery abolished. they were up against some very powerful and wealthy people with slave interest.
1806 is where the end of slavery begins. Foreign slave trade act 1806, sponsored by William Wilberforce, was responsible for destroying 80% of the British slave trade on foreign ships. Shipping by US or French ships were cheaper than English ships. many slave owning interests went bankrupt as they couldn't make money on expensive British shipping. It broke the back of the Slave owning class as they no longer had the funds to donate to the politicians in UK. It was a brilliant legislative move by William Wilberforce.
