# "The British turned against slavery only after they didn't need it anymore" -True? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2006, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-british-turned-against-slavery-only-after-they-didnt-need-it-anymore-true/352514 "2006-04-13T13:26:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-british-turned-against-slavery-only-after-they-didnt-need-it-anymore-true/352514/21 "2006-04-15T20:48:40Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > If the British were opposed to slavery, why was the Enfield rifle musket the typical firearm of the Confederate Army? Because business is business. British firms produced quality weapons. The Confederacy needed them and was willing to pay for them. Companies in MOST countries do business with other nations of dubious morality. If you traded only with countries that shared all your values, you’d have to close up shop in a hurry. ---
**Author:** ![Askia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/96bed5/32.png) [@Askia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askia)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-british-turned-against-slavery-only-after-they-didnt-need-it-anymore-true/352514/22 "2006-04-15T23:24:02Z")
> [@Freddy the Pig](#): > > Slavery wasn’t like that. It never vanished of its own accord. In every country where it no longer exists, it had to be **abolished**. At the time of its abolition, it was still profitable enough to be widely practiced. If there were _no_ moral objections to slavery, it would probably still be practiced in a few niches in Western societies today. … with the global sex trade, child killers gangpressed into military service in guerilla armies, and textile sweat shops, it effectively still does. It’s probably not too farfetched to find any given African American owned clothing line today – all your FUBUs, PHAT Farms and Rocawear and the like – exploit black/latino workers in unsafe sweat shop conditions in a de facto economic slave situation… the chattel of former slave owners themselves exploiting slave labor. Welcome to irony. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-british-turned-against-slavery-only-after-they-didnt-need-it-anymore-true/352514/23 "2006-04-15T23:27:30Z")
And it’s still actually practiced in a number of countries, most notably Arab countries, today. Countries like the Sudan and Mauritania have an active slave trade. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2006, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-british-turned-against-slavery-only-after-they-didnt-need-it-anymore-true/352514/24 "2006-04-16T05:52:27Z")
. In Shanley v Hervey, 2 Eden 126 (Chancery, March 1762), a court said that “As soon as a man puts foot on English ground, he is free: a Negro may maintain an action against his master for ill usage [modern term, reparations], and may have a Habeas Corpus, if restrained of his liberty.” [http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm#2](http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm#2). This principle was subsequently affirmed in Somerset v. Stewart, in a ruling anounced from the Bench by the Great Lord Chief Justice Mansfield (May his cherished memory persist). Although the practice of slavery in the American colonies continued (albeit illegally), its abolition in England was not the result of any “business considerations” but the outcome of the application of the British Constituion, in granting a writ of Habeas Corpus to Somerset, who was thus forever made free, along with any other so-called slave who set foot on English soil. Those who have found it expedient to tamper with the Great Writ (this means you, Bill Clinton, you fat fraud, and you, G-Dub you mental and moral defective) will burn in the circle of hellreserved for tyrants who stand against the tide of human liberty. ---
**Author:** ![ASAKMOTSD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@ASAKMOTSD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASAKMOTSD)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2006, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-british-turned-against-slavery-only-after-they-didnt-need-it-anymore-true/352514/25 "2006-04-16T13:11:35Z")
We have \*\*not \*\*done away with the concept of slavery. At the turn of the last century, US businesses continued with the practice (extremely hard labor in dangerous work conditions with little pay) until the workers united into formal unions & gained enough political clout to force workplace reforms. Interestingly enough, the concept found a new home at the end of the last century and continues today in what we call “ **offshoring** ”. ---
**Author:** ![jake1964](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@jake1964](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jake1964)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-british-turned-against-slavery-only-after-they-didnt-need-it-anymore-true/352514/26 "2006-04-23T01:07:49Z")
FYI - Slavery did not completely end in the US until 1866. Almost 400,000 slaves lived in Northern states at the start of the war. Many of those slaves were not freed until the 13th Amendment was passed. In fact, it is commonly accepted that the last slaves freed were in Delaware, a staunchly Union state. The 13th Amendment, passed after the war ended, was approved by Southern states who had already seen their capital assets stripped away without compensation and who were considered occupied enemy territory by the Northern States at that time. North had slavery after the war at least until 1866 due to some holdouts. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-british-turned-against-slavery-only-after-they-didnt-need-it-anymore-true/352514/27 "2006-04-23T03:00:01Z")
> [@astro](#): > > “the British turned against slavery only when steam power and other advances made the harvesting and refining of sugarcane far less labor intensive” > > This passage from the Salon book review below makes the British decision to outlaw slavery seem a bit less connected to a moral epiphany in British society, and due more to the changes occurring because of industrialization. Does this observation have any historical merit? The author should look into just how few slaves there were in England in the centuries prior to the industrial age. Industrialization did not remove the need for slaves in England, for there had been no need at that time. Sugar plaintations in English colonies in the Carribean and South America had huge numbers of slaves. When England banned slavery in its colonies, it did so against the interests of the plantation owners, who were reliant on low cost labour and did not want to lose slave labour. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-british-turned-against-slavery-only-after-they-didnt-need-it-anymore-true/352514.md?page=1)