I won’t try to diminish or defend the massive hypocrisy or numerous ethical problems presented by the way the British government handled abolition. I’ll only say that it was better than doing nothing at all.
The other option is violent revolution because groups of people can only be abused for so long before they end up at a point where they realize they either die enslaved or die trying to be free.
I think the Brits saw what happened in France earlier on and realized that you can’t abuse people too much, too far, for too long … because at one point, masses of people will start killing one another.
I won’t try to diminish or defend the massive hypocrisy or numerous ethical problems presented by the way the British government handled abolition. I’ll only say that it was better than doing nothing at all.
Better than a kick in the balls, as we like to call it
Unless you’re into that
The other option is violent revolution because groups of people can only be abused for so long before they end up at a point where they realize they either die enslaved or die trying to be free.
I think the Brits saw what happened in France earlier on and realized that you can’t abuse people too much, too far, for too long … because at one point, masses of people will start killing one another.