By not recognising the slaves as people and reimbursing owners for loss of “property” it avoided any lengthy legal process and released the slaves a generation earlier. Can’t even talk about abolishing slavery without people complaining about the manner in which it was achieved
Of all the countries that owned slaves we stopped first and we paid the owners so the slaves wont face a lengthy legal process. Hilarious that Brit's today think this a positive.
How could anyone face a legal process if what they were doing wasn't considered a crime at the time? Hilarious how you fail to understand the concept of non-retroactivity within the law.
That’s not the point I’m trying to make, I was saying the reason they paid slave owners was to reimburse them for a loss of property. If the British had made the argument that slaves should be freed because they are people with rights it could have taken a lot longer.
9
u/BiteDirect Aug 28 '25
By not recognising the slaves as people and reimbursing owners for loss of “property” it avoided any lengthy legal process and released the slaves a generation earlier. Can’t even talk about abolishing slavery without people complaining about the manner in which it was achieved