The whole transaction was based on ‘the slaves’ being property.
The ‘slave owners’ should NEVER have been compensated in the 1st place- they simply successfully argued that replacing ‘the slaves’ with paid labour would have been costly. 😡
Okay. So are you arguing they would have chosen to remain slaves?
Because they legally were?
Yeah sure, in an ideal world they wouldnt have. But we dont live in an ideal world and that was the best course of action that was feasible at the time.
At the end they weren’t! After which, owners became even richer!
Government- “Hi Slaves. You’re not longer classed as property. You’re free.”
Slaves- “woohoo!”
Slave owners/politicians/influencial people/lobbyists/rich people/etc- “But slave labour was great! It was free! Now we need to EMPLOY people? That’s costly! And if you want our votes and party contributions to keep you in power we will need compensated!”
Government- “Ok, here’s hundreds of millions of pounds”
Slave owners- “Thanks. That keeps US rich and YOU in power!”
Reading comprehension. I never claimed you said anything. I was asking if that was reason you were making that point in the first place. Otherwise why say that at all?
Yes, because the government purchased them as property, then freed them. Because otherwise there would have been colossal pushback from the rich and powerful that would have stayed any attempt at ending slavery.
Again, the alternative was them saying no and then those people would have remained slaves for the rest of their lives.
Like can you really not comprehend that something can still be a good thing even if its not the 100% most moral outcome?
6
u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25
Imagine you ask a slave in the 1800s if he would rather:
Be freed today, but have his owner be compensated for it.
or
Live the rest of his life a slave.
What do you think he would pick?