It Was Normal Then

It was claimed that in the 18th century slavery was 'normal'. It was considered normal only by those benefiting from it, who also happened to control the government through their vast wealth derived from slavery. Obviously there were circles where it was not considered normal, else the abolitionist movement would never have existed. 

In a nation of self-professed and devout Christians, anyone who professed the Golden Rule of do unto others, could not, in all conscience, condone slavery and was guilty of hypocrisy on a grand scale - and bishops owned slaves. However, that was the equal to the 2nd paragraph of the United States declaration of Independence, which states that; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That statement obviously did not apply to black people.

In his judgment of 22 June 1772, Lord Mansfield held; "The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged. "

It was far from 'normal'.

Had a farm worker or villager of the time, of which there were many more than city dwellers, been asked as to whether slavery was good or bad, I somehow think they would not be on the side of slavery. They were practically slaves to the landed classes themselves. That the proceeds of slavery were used to build schools and hospitals in the UK was better than not is a rather specious justification - it condones El Chapo in the eyes of his cartel; the ends justify the means argument. Had the proceeds been used to recompense the enslaved or build hospitals and schools for them, that would have been infinitely better. However, greed precluded that, as it does in so many human endeavours. 

Once slave owners - which included widows, who had possibly been bequeathed just a single slave and depended on the income that slave generated - had been paid off with vast amounts of cash, the borrowing of which was some 40% of GDP and which only been paid off in 2015, only then could ex slave owners claim the moral high ground, however false that was, and the entire mood of the nation swing toward a more moral and ethical position aligned with its self-professed Christianity.

Given over £20m was paid to slave owners and there were over 40,000 claims, that averages out to £500 per slave, which in today's money is the equivalent of over £40,000. A powerful incentive to abolish slavery but, nonetheless, a prime cause of 19th century inflation.

The Africans who went out and caught the slaves were, to all intents and purposes, free market capitalists who spotted an opportunity to make money off the backs of the misery of others and as such, were no different to their European customers, but they were not the largest beneficiaries in the chain. My, God - they remind me of some politicians of today.

I keep hearing people say; "It wasn't my fault - I and my family had nothing to do with slavery." The all-inclusive 'we' in; "We beat the Germans in two World Wars," when they were not even a glimmer in their parents', grandparents' or great grandparents' eyes during either WWI or WWII, becomes a positive disassociation when slavery is mentioned; it's no longer 'we', but 'them'.

Accusations of rewriting history in respect of highlighting past heroes' links to slavery are logically incorrect and profoundly mistaken - they add to the history and complete it, rather than whitewashing it.