Why was Britian so far ahead of the curve in terms of abolitionism?

Why was Britian so far ahead of the curve in terms of abolitionism?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because of the industrial revolution, slaves were simply not necessary anymore.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Worthless reply.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's the truth. Also Victorian morality played an important role.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Saying "it's the truth" is a badge of stupidity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty stupid you keep trying to hit him with zingers and haven’t refuted a thing tho

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well done jidf.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I have no arguments and I like to suck cock.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Slavery was never profitable.
        All replies below are spam. All posters below are mentally retarded and have Down syndrome, and cannot read.
        All replies below are spam. All posters below are mentally retarded and have Down syndrome, and cannot read.
        All replies below are spam. All posters below are mentally retarded and have Down syndrome, and cannot read.
        All replies below are spam. All posters below are mentally retarded and have Down syndrome, and cannot read.
        All replies below are spam. All posters below are mentally retarded and have Down syndrome, and cannot read.
        All replies below are spam. All posters below are mentally retarded and have Down syndrome, and cannot read.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If cotton was so unprofitable why did they keep growing it?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Capitalism was never profitable.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You know, I didn't believe you but now that you've shown me an image talking about the soviet car industry and a screencap of a reddit thread I'm convinced. I haven't a doubt in my mind that Southern plantation owners bought people and had them toil away growing a plant that didn't even make them money.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Correct, it was a dumb pyramid scheme created by israelites.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This and Christian morality never really being easily compatible with slavery.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        British philosophy wasn't. Christian across cultures, across time were perfectly fine with slaves for millennia prior
        abolitionist just cited the book to convince other christians

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not really, the idea was floating around europe for centuries and the French and Haitians were first to actually ban it

      There were no slaves in the British isles, and no industry in the caribbean. The main produce of caribbean slavery was sugar, not exactly something that could be produced in a factory or which industralisation reduced the demand of.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and the French and Haitians were first to actually ban it
        ...You mean Haitians.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          France abolished it in 1793, but Napoleon brought it back when he became Emperor.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If that counts, then China was the first to ban slavery.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              If that counts then I fucked your mother. Go bring up non sequiteurs somewhere else maggot.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fuck off. French were bitter about abolition until the 1950s.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Probably bitter about the genocide.
                Not the abolition.
                Robespierre abolished slavery in 1793 and you cannot change that fact to prop up and lionize your niggos more than is reasonable.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Probably bitter about the genocide.
                Oh, I'm sorry. What do you call throwing people in a meat-grinder for over a century? The French might as well thank a second Christ for saving them from justice.
                >Robespierre abolished slavery in 1793
                Doesn't mean anything if it doesn't go anywhere.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, ,

      [...]

      , and the fact that the unpaid slave labor was a short term profit that did not have a long-term support. All of that unpaid labor could have been paid, taxable jobs for citizens, watching the long run is better for the country.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >All of that unpaid labor could have been paid, taxable jobs for citizens, watching the long run is better for the country
        In theory yes, in practice they just replaced all those slaves with labour that had very meagre pay and worker's rights.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Three reasons:
    They'd just lost their largest slaveholding colony and most related investments, making it politically and economically painless to bend the knee to abolitionists.
    They'd just gained near-total control over the wealthiest part of India, meaning they'd have a massive agricultural and tax base even if they abolished slavery.
    Their rivals still allowed the practice, and opposing it on moral grounds would allow them to cripple the competition

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What did they gain from abolishing slavery?
      White people enjoy stomping on other races, the only reason a white empire would abolish something that stomps on other races would be if there was an advantage to it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        See the second reply. Everything else in the thread is worthless.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How did Romans run their empire with slaves if it wasn't profitable?
          Does history really become less efficient the further back you go?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What did they gain from abolishing slavery?
        Political approval from abolitionists at home and abroad.
        >the only reason a white empire would abolish something that stomps on other races would be if there was an advantage to it
        It gave them an excuse to throw a spanner into their neighbors' politics and economics while they used India as a substitute.
        >407
        Slaveholders weren't responsible for feeding slaves, and cotton didn't always go directly to the international market. Artisan slaves existed. Drop the conspiracy theory already.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty pathetic justification. Show your math that slavery was profitable.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm mentally retarded and can't do math to show slavery was profitable.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What did they gain from abolishing slavery?
        fucking over the rivals that had big income in slave exportation. Being able to shift towards other means of labour that don't require you to feed and clothes workers since slave rebellions were a risk.

        Probably bitter about the genocide.
        Not the abolition.
        Robespierre abolished slavery in 1793 and you cannot change that fact to prop up and lionize your niggos more than is reasonable.

        >Probably bitter about the genocide.
        haha france gave no shits about those. A lot of the push to punish Haiti or reintroduce slavery was done by rich plantation owners butthurt over their loss of slaves.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        abolition was simply a lever to destabilize the USA and other European powers' American possessions.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They wanted to weaken the power and influence of slave-trading African nations such as Dahomey and Ashanti so they would be easier to colonize

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Spain did it first.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was in their economic interests to weaken rival nations.
    They still praticed slavery in India and some of their colonies.
    They just wanted to end Atlantic slave trade for economic reasons.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Britain wanted to weaken France.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Massachusetts abolished slavery as early as the early 1780s.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You didn't buy bread for slaves, you bought, or produced yourself the bare ingredients and had the slaves make their own food. The price of slaves also peaked due to the restrictions on importation. This made slaves even more profitable because you could breed them and sell the extra. There was an entire industry of slave rentals for things like domestic servitude, they were also used in factories and mills.
    Slaves were a risky investment due to the volatility of human assets, the ties to agricultural cycles, and the high up front initial costs, but it paid off for countless people right up to the civil war.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Industrialization makes slave economy obsolete
    >Cotton being provided by India and Egypt
    >Rivals like Spain still profit off of slavery in places like Cuba
    >Christian Evangelicals make a massive campaign in Britain to advocate for abolitionism on a moral basis ("God's Image cut, or carved in Ebony" being a striking slogan of the era)

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A black eye in France's history is that they were the first great power to reintroduce slavery

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Victorian morality

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    homosexual

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excellent work jidf.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whites are high individualism, high trust and high empathy. Anglos are sort of "super-whites", being the superior stock of the white race.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Except Americans, who are the lowest iq of all races. As can be seen by a quick browse of any LULZ board.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Weren't most of the American immigrants in the 19th-century German?

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Germanic blood made them more empathetic.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm gonna comment and not answer.
    europe backslid into slavery from about 1526-1819 and engaged in slavery. Slavery faded away with the spread of christianity and by 1100 is was virtually nonexistent. when the age of empires emerged, greed and persuit of power created the need to justify enslaving other human beings. we are still paying for this grave sin to this day. It won't last forever. but for now. we suffer consequences.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Slavery faded away with the spread of christianity

      What?! It was predominantly Christian people who participated in slavery. Christianity was even used to justify slavery by several people.

Your email address will not be published.