Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

Sure, but ultimately the slaveowners kept all their land after the war

I don't think this is a completely fair description, given that, although they kept their land, it had been pillaged and burned like a horde of vikings went through thinking every building was a church.

[scriver]

Legally it was not allowed for anyone to be enslaved in Britain, and hadn't been since the year 1102. In

Goddammit beat us by 200 years.

[wierd]

Sure, but ultimately the slaveowners kept all their land after the war

I don't think this is a completely fair description, given that, although they kept their land, it had been pillaged and burned like a horde of vikings went through thinking every building was a church.

Also not entirely correct on the face of it.

Many lands and other properties of value were forcibly taken and then redistributed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Field_Orders_No._15

[nenjin]

Sherman ties, anyone?

The North did make a pretty concerted effort to cripple the South as part of the war effort. At least on paper, there's the theory they did it to disadvantage them socio-economically in the following years too. Part of the reason railroad shipping in the North exploded after the war, while the South took decades to rebuild their infrastructure.

Then again, the South enslaved people and created a second class of non-citizen that is still paying for it in various ways today. So.

[Iduno]

Legally it was not allowed for anyone to be enslaved in Britain, and hadn't been since the year 1102. In

Goddammit beat us by 200 years.

Got us by over 900 so far.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think that some people used slavery as a means to an end. I mean FFS Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833 (I had to look it up; I new it was earlier) and they didn't even need a war to do it.

They ended slave-trading as well; Royal Navy ships were, well before the American Civil War, authorized to search any ship found on trade routes from Africa and search them for slaves. I believe they started this even before Britain actually made illegal the possession of slaves in their colonies, but I'd have to go look at it again.

Oh, great, you made me go look at it again

Legally it was not allowed for anyone to be enslaved in Britain, and hadn't been since the year 1102. In 1722 a court case in Britain confirmed that people enslaved elsewhere could not be brought onto British soil and remain slaves, since slavery was, y'know, illegal. Finally in 1807 the slave trade was officially banned by Britain. True to Britain's present "we rule the ocean and therefore our word is law" stance, they didn't really specify that foreign ships were actually exempt from this particular policy, and the British government would carefully look the other way when one of their ships boarded a foreign ship that happened to be carrying slaves. Also during the beginning of this period the British were more or less at war with everyone thanks to Napoleon and company, and at the end of the war they forced basically everyone to agree to end the slave trade as well, leaving slavers with very few options for safe flags to fly to escape Royal Navy (And later other nations' ships) inspection.

Chattel slavery in most of the world was on the way out just because the British were the foremost naval power on the planet (And would be for another 100 years (until the very end of WWI, more or less) and they could singlehandedly stop the slave trade...and they did exactly that, at great cost and with no real benefits to themselves.

It's a cool bit of history. Here's a video from Drachinifel concerning it.

Thats a tremendous oversimplification. Chattel slavery was on the way out because it was increasingly impractical as an economic system.

[scriver]

Legally it was not allowed for anyone to be enslaved in Britain, and hadn't been since the year 1102. In

Goddammit beat us by 200 years.

Got us by over 900 so far.

Meh, it's still only a technicality since we wanted in on the slave trade too

[Vector]

I would just like to mention that the fact we're arguing about history 1,000 years ago (or so) says MOUNTAINS about how much calmer the Biden presidency is so far, for better or for worse.

[scriver]

Haha, I haven't been this unangry at my news reporting too much american news in years

[Iduno]

I would just like to mention that the fact we're arguing about history 1,000 years ago (or so) says MOUNTAINS about how much calmer the Biden presidency is so far, for better or for worse.

He's what people wanted: Trump, except he shuts up.

[Vector]

I mean, it's no longer legal on the federal level to deny trans people health care in the middle of a pandemic,

Migrants with children will be held a maximum of 72 hours,

I'm not saying it's good. He's still an American president and he's still pro-cop and pro-prison. There is a difference, though.

[Rolan7]

Wait I can actually get HRT now?
I'm sure it's not that simple, probably still needs all the screening on my own dime/insurance, but anything that makes that arduous process a little less rough is welcome.

Doesn't make him socialist, that's for sure, but I've been relatively happy with his actions (outside the military strikes, obviously).

[Vector]

Wait I can actually get HRT now?
I'm sure it's not that simple, probably still needs all the screening on my own dime/insurance, but anything that makes that arduous process a little less rough is welcome.

I'm not sure about that part. It was previously legal by executive fiat issued on the anniversary of the Pulse shooting to deny whatever care a person decided they wanted to deny (including emergency "this person just got hit by a car" care).

[Bumber]

Migrants with children will be held a maximum of 72 hours,

At least on paper.

[Vector]

Migrants with children will be held a maximum of 72 hours,

At least on paper.

Yeah. Honestly, you're right to bring it up.