Message from @Zaczac121
Discord ID: 681838479075704843
Britain took the moral high ground
Britain always has the moral high ground
actively policed the slave trade and won
One British ship (Which was actually a captured Brazilian slave ship) captured more than 7 slave ships and freed hundreds of slaves
its not without stain though, the royal family financed "the african company"
the British empire banned slavery after trafficing almost three million people to the americas, and did so because slavery became unprofitable
Ofcourse, but theres always stains in imperial records
But the fact is that Britain banned it first and policed it
is very commendable
cant remember if it was george II or III
It could've just banned it and not policed it
But the fact Britain actively with the US blockaded Africa
but we must not kid ourselves that european empires stopped slavery because they suddenly realised how awfull it was
oh... Charles II ... completely wrong 😛
Actually
Anti-slavery movement in the UK came about during the Enlightenment
As more people in high places realised that that the practice was barbaric
There definitely was a moral component seperate from economic
that's when abolitionism became big, but there were always minorities against slavery, from the very beginning
Europeans always knew it was immoral, they just rationalised it
"The Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed in 1787 by a group of Evangelical English Protestants allied with Quakers, to unite in their shared opposition to slavery and the slave trade. The Quakers had long viewed slavery as immoral, a blight upon humanity. By 1807 the abolitionist groups had a very sizable faction of like-minded members in the British Parliament. At their height they controlled 35–40 seats. Known as the "Saints", the alliance was led by the best known of the anti-slave trade campaigners, William Wilberforce, who had taken on the cause of abolition in 1787 after having read the evidence that Thomas Clarkson had amassed against the trade. These dedicated Parliamentarians had access to the legal draughtsmanship of James Stephen, Wilberforce's brother-in-law. They often saw their personal battle against slavery as a divinely ordained crusade. On Sunday, 28 October 1787, Wilberforce wrote in his diary: "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners."
🤔
"The slave trade had been banned in England in 1102. In a 1569 court case involving Cartwright, who had bought a slave from Russia, the court ruled that English law could not recognise slavery, as it was never established officially. This ruling was overshadowed by later developments. It was upheld in 1700 by Lord Chief Justice Sir John Holt when he ruled that "As soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free"."
this guy looks like a meme waiting to happen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox#/media/File:Fox_by_Lely_2.jpg
Yeah
size of that head.... clearly big brain big pp
In his 1776 A Dissertation on the *Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals*, the clergyman Humphry Primatt wrote, "the white man (notwithstanding the barbarity of custom and prejudice), can have no right, by virtue of his colour, to enslave and tyrannize over a black man."
If we want to maintain good standards, then we should be using the UK as a reference point, not the EU
yknow the more the far left attacks priti, the more I think she is going to become the next PM... first non-white woman PM
I'm sure the progressives would be thrilled
she cant be worse than may or maggie
but havent you heard? according to the leftwaffe she is a monster!
my kind of girl tbh
for the imperium of course
She'd make a good pm
Maggie was fine tbf
But I can see Pritti Patel becoming PM after Boris’ terms