Theres no source in this opinion piece

Bayly, C. A. (ed.), The Raj: Indian and the British 1600-1947, London, 1990

Edwards, P. and Walvin, J., Black Personalities in the Era of the Slave Trade, London, 1983

Fryer, P., Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain, London, 1984

Newington-Irving, N., 'The Cumbrian (Whitehaven) Slave Trade', in Black and Asian Studies Association Newsletter No. 29, January 2001

Oldham, J., 'New Light on Mansfield and Slavery', Journal of British Studies, 27, 1988

Shyllon, F., Black People in Britain 1555-1833, London, New York, Ibadan, 1977

Visram, R., Asians in Britain: 400 years of History, London, 2002

He is easily one of the most radical racialists on the server

FuRtHeR rEaDiNg

I mean pretty much everyone was against slavery who wasnt super rich...

Is it daily racism hour again?

Eh not true

what kind of revolt do you think would happen?

Slavery was a complex issue

That doesn't mean they were in favour of eroding property rights

Many people in the UK oppose slavery on principle

I really dont think people were like... ending slavery.. but muh property rights!....

You're wrong

simply

you are

They were more like

Im sure people were more like... muh freedom rights

That is precisely how they viewed it

"Ending slavery? Do you know how much I spent on them?"

muh freedom > muh property

Don't conflate the US with the UK

Think about the pushback it would have caused if the government forcibly seized what was seen as property at the time

Their right to not have their property arbitrarily seized by the government was their primary form of freedom

In fact there were many court cases that because the UK was a place where slavery couldn't happen basically the judges ruled that if you brought a slave to the UK they became free.

Im not sure property is even the right term they would have used

I mean, chattel is more likely.

To refer to slaves? It absolutely is

Which is property.

chattel was always illegal in britain

Yup.

A fact that modern lefties ignore because they think American history is UK history.

Yes, but the britain based merchants with ledger books telling them they had 80 slaves on their distant plantation regarded those slaves as their lawful property

and they were until that law

it still doesnt matter anymore - nobody alive today owned slaves

Well the debt mattered

I like the way they frame the debt though

They frame it as debts to slave owners.

I mean I'm arguing that the state seizing property for moral reasons without compensation is not good ever for anything

Rather than a debt to free huge numbers of slaves peacefully.

When has that happened in history?

Rarely.