Slavery was never legal in Britain and was abolished (bloodlessly and willingly) in 1833- a generation before the US.
Not quite. More like new pussy to be had, legal age or not – and believe you me that’s what keeps driving many a Spaniard and Italian to these shores now a days. They just need not come in Santa Maria type ships…
No that was because Indian cultures and civilizations in Spanish America had larger populations and better organized along with being in climates less suited to Europeans )hence areas amenable to European settlers such as Argentina and Chile are far whiter than other parts of Latin America).
You forgot the Portugese.
Rather both systems reflect the evolving constitutional theories of the time. The state constitutions vary from radical (in this sense basically meaning distrust and weakening of the executive) to conservative (distrust/weakening of legislative power) as time passes. The earlier a state drafted a constitution the more likely it was to have radical features such as plural executives and unitary legislatures. The revolutionary constitution of Massachusetts looks the most like a modern state constitution (as well as our federal system) because it was the last to be enacted. It took so long not because the people of that state had some special insight or interest in government building but rather because it just wasn’t that pressing a matter. The state already had a complete government which could function independently. Other states in the same situation (Rhode Island, Connecticut) didn’t bother with new constitutions at all but mostly went on as they had during the decades of British neglect.
This is the first time I’ve heard this claim. Usually it is only claimed that the state has the oldest continually functioning written constitution. This broader claim is subject to all of the objections already stated in this thread concerning President Obama’s claim.
But didn’t those cotton mills love the product of slave labour. Without the ‘workshop of the world’, slavery would have had a very different story.
Well, slavery was abolished in Massachusetts in the 1780’s. As for women’s suffrage, you got me there. However, in the colloquial sense of “democracy,” which is clearly how Obama was using it (he doesn’t think everything is up for nationwide referendum), it stands.
In the broader sense a democracy is one where the people exercise real political power (generally by electing those who govern). Determining exactly at what point the electorate includes enough of the population to consider them generally as “the people” is a difficult task and one I happily leave to the rest of you.
Well, if you go WAY back to Cassivellaunus and the time of the first contact with Julius Caesar, I believe the Britons had certain forms of slavery. Getting captured in war was a pretty sure way to become one.
This is obviously a nit-pick, but, well, you said “Never.”
(“What never?” “No, never!” “What never?” “Well, hardly ever!”)
What about indentured servitude and work houses?
Bob Cratchett didn’t have AFL/CIO going to bat for him, either. 
Heh, we gotta be clear about what we mean by “slavery”. There are lots of forms of coerced labour (how about the dreaded ‘press gang’? Or for that matter, modern conscription?).
To my mind, “slavery” in this context means “chattel slavery” only - which means one person owning another like a piece of property.
Well, they did have impressment, which is a little hard to distinguish from slavery. According to Wikipedia, the laws authorizing impressment have never been repealed.
See post above yours. 
How did the British manage slavery in the West Indies?
As far as I know, chattel slavery was legal in the West Indies but not in the UK proper, after court decisions in England held that (chattel) slavery did not exist under the Common Law of England.
That sounds sort of used car salesman, begging your pardon, Sir.
I … don’t get it. 
If it wasn’t legal, why did it need to be abolished?
That’s the problem with skimming the Wiki article for 10 minutes before hitting the “Submit Reply” button :).
-
Never legal in Britain itself;
-
Abolished in those parts of the Empire outside of Britain where it was legal.