As a biracial person, I hired a geneologist to figure out my family's heritage. Like most African Americans (or, you know, half-African Americans), I expected that sooner or later it would turn out that one of my ancestors was a slave. Turns out, my mother's family is from Norway and Sweden, while my father's family is from Mali and Nigeria. And yes, we found a slave in my background. Thing is, it wasn't on my father's side of the family. Turns out that the first of my African ancestors to live in what would become America was a working sailor on a British cargo ship who, when he had made his purse and decided to retire, bought a house in Boston and moved his family to North America. Neither he, nor his wife, nor any of their descendants all the way down to me were ever enslaved. Its quite ironic. The side of the family you expect to find slaves in never had a single one. My Norwegian family, on the other hand, all descend from a married couple who, in the early 1500s, were enslaved to the Ordforer (mayor, in other words) of the town of Tysvaer. None of my black ancestors were ever enslaved, but several of my white ancestors were. Came as quite a shock.

Slavery in the time of William the Conqueror was all white slavery (the UK didn't acquire a significant non white population until after WWII). However Britain did have a problem with being raided FOR slaves, mainly by Barbary Pirates. The Irish coast, and the coast of South West England was particularly badly hit, even into the 17th Century. If you ever go to Morocco you will see a lot of blue eyed Arabs, the descendants of these English and Irish slaves.

I as an Englishman can truthfully say I helped pay to end the slave trade. The debt we accrued to end it was still being payed until only recently. It's mad when you think about it people from the past were only freed due to the actions of people that hadn't been born yet.

A few points... 1) You don't have to apologize for slavery because you had nothing to do with it. 2) If you're going to insist on being/allow yourself to be held responsible for slavery, you have to also be held equally responsible for ending it. 3) You're absolutely correct. When you judge yesterday with today's sensibilities you'll end up chasing your own tail.

You have to realize that no European country had State involvement in the slave trade. No nation was buying slaves and trading them with tax money. Nor was the British navy transporting them or the British army guarding them. These were private individuals trading. So placing blame on a nation for trading in slaves is a little nonsensical. Particularly when everyone else was doing it. However the nation did act with tax money to stop slavery. That is why, I believe, there are no valid counter arguments.

Taxes collected to pay for the costs of reparations to ensure the freeing of slaves. Extended until 2014. technically people who paid tax in the UK before 2015 actively paid to end the slave trade.

As a proud englishman 56 years old I can say that I have paid taxes that went to the debt of paying off slavery abolition.... so many times we have stood on principle and done the right thing. I'm thinking in particular of September 1939

Those court rulings against slavery in Britain in the 1760s and early 1770s were a major reason the slave holding colonies supported the revolution. They saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to free their slaves. Perversely, one of the drivers for British Imperialism in Africa was the desire to end the slave trade.

The differance was William's law affected only England, while the 1833 law afected the Empire.

It's definitely worth reacting to a video or reading further about the West Africa Squadron. While British ministers did order the blockade, they had some concerns about the cost and the impact on international relations. But the people of the country were very enthusiastic, and the sailors of the squadron felt even more strongly, having seen the trade up-close. They went as far as defying direct orders so they could take more and more action, which the government ended up retroactively endorsing because the whole country wanted it. At one point, the squadron's remit was to stop any ship, flying any flag, that was believed to be profiting from the slave trade, and to travel up and down the coast, burning down trading posts and other infrastructure of the slave trade.

Often misunderstood the line from the song Rule Britannia"'Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" is there not because of nationalistic jingoism but because the British navy was able to put a stop to the 300 year old trade of Barbary pirates raiding British coastal towns and taking slaves for the Arab slave markets in North Africa. Its estimated there are over 30 million slaves in the world today mostly women and children involved in the sex trade in Africa, Asia and South America but lets blame the British for everything.

Proud to be British 🇬🇧

To answer your question at 28:00 1086 - Slave trading illegal in England 1772 - Confirmed by the judiciary that no one could be a slave on British soil 1807 - Act of Parliament to ban the trading of slaves within the Empire 1833 - Act of Parliament to ban the practice of slavery within the Empire, and all slaves in the Empire were freemen

Campaign against slavery in Africa, included interventions in The Sudan, including Lt Winston Churchill participating in a famous cavalry charge at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898.

My 3x Great Uncle was Involved in freeing Slaves in the Mediterranean in the 1830's and freed many slaves, one account says that whilst taking slaves to safety after seizing them from a slave ship, the slave traders tried to get the slaves back again whilst ashore and the crew had to fight them to stop them taking them back.

I love that you are the first person I have heard say (on the internet) the correct quote "the love of money is the root of all evil" when most people just say money is the root of all evil.

There was some cooperation between the Royal Navy and the United States Navy in blockading Africa, which ended in 1859. However the two navies had different objectives. The RN objective was to end the slave trade - full stop. The USN objective was to stop the import of fresh slaves into the US so as to maintain the value of slaves already there, a rather less altruistic motive.

Hi SoGal, If you haven't already done so, it might be worth you researching the Barbary slave trade in which North Africans sailed around the Mediterranean and up the Atlantic coastline, attacking and raiding small towns and villages capturing people to sell into slavery, along the coasts including England, Ireland, and once even got as far north as Iceland. They'd been doing this for centuries before the western nations finally managed to put a stop to it.

Part of my annual tax was still going to pay off our war debt in 2006 and our slave debt in 2016 So don’t think so bad of us Brits we have done our bit , while other countries have done pretty well out of us over the years

Africans weren't enslaving "Their own people" (6:25) that's just it, they were enslaving the people of rival tribes who had been defeated in war and conquest. They never considered them as 'their people' just as the Romans never considered Gauls or ancient Brits as their people. Having the same skin colour doesn't make you the same people.

Keep in mind that the 19th century Royal Navy was THE most powerful navy in world history. It was set up and designed to be able to defeat not only one but the next two biggest powers simultaneously. At its peak, the West Africa Squadron was actually the second strongest navy in the world, after the RN itself.

The first law was only pertaining to England the law of 1833 was the whole empire

And this is why I’m so proud to be British

I'm so proud of my country 😇

An important point to remember is that fighting for the abolition of slavery cost Britain such an astronomical amount of money that the debt for this was not finally paid off until around 2014.

The 10% of slaves amongst the English population in 1086 were the indigenous English themselves within society, the poor owned by the rich who were often used as ploughmen. Also, during the several hundred years prior that date, the English were often taken as slaves by others such as the Vikings and the Romans. These English slaves were taken overseas, which is probably why William tried to stop the export of his 'possessions'. 20 years after conquering, William's reason for conducting the Doomsday book survey was as a massive tax assessment and a way to determine how to carve up the country and allocate portions to his fellow Norman nobles and assign feudal rights, and basically enslave the entire English population as 'serfs' to the Norman nobility. It would be interesting if you were to delve into how English society was totally restructured following the Norman conquest and the implementation of serfdom, and how the whole country (land, belongings, animals and people) were taken into the possession of the ruling Norman elite. It is no wonder he was called 'William the B****' for many reasons. I reckon this is when the competitiveness between the English and French began.

From what I understand, Britain, at one point, purchessed the freedom of slaves at great expens. That debt was only paid off recently. Also, England is not Britain, it's just part of it and the British Empire is Britains territory around the world on which the sun never sets, such was it's size and scope. I'm British, I live in the North West of England, We wern't really taught about this but when we had to make the choce between history and geography I went with the latter, so maybe I missed out on a few things. Regardless, some of us pick up a few things here and there but only in the last decade or so have I formed a better understanding of my nation and it's history. It seems that too often we focus on the bad and not the good. Shame that.

Just a point I'd like to make the US has been doing the whole do what we say or get destroyed since the end of world war 2. The difference is the British were trying to protect people. The US does it for Oil. There's the difference. Also the 1833 law outlawed slavery in the entire British Empire. That's the difference

I'm always amazed by the way all of history seems to be counted as "Ancient" and not modern by Americans. 1086 is pretty modern history. A couple of miles down the road from me the "Venta Icenorum" Roman Town ruins are, laid down in about the year 200. But even Romans lived in towns, had politics, methods of transport, high streets and really weren't than different to us....

The British tax payer was still paying for this until 2015. Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation in 1862 ,well into the civil war. One of the reasons may have been to ensure Britain would not enter the war. The principal of slavery trumped the cotton trade. Britain would not enter a war on the side of slave owners.

I've always found the DS9 quote "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" to be particularly applicable when looking at morality and standards throughout history

This is kind of mind boggling to me that I've been a fan of Sargon since before this video came out, and now so many people are finally finding this video and learning about all this.

Don't know if it's already been said, but to clarify, the 1807 Act abolished the slave trade between Africa and the British Empire, so after 1807 no more Africans could be transported to the Americas, but the slaves already in the Empire remained slaves until the 1833 Act which abolished slavery itself, freeing the slaves in the Empire.

Brave choice of historical commentary lass, I applaud you! I have some thoughts for you; 1:10 Slaves have not been legal on British soil since the Norman conquest. Indentured servititude was though, which is arguably not dissimilar. In British colonies, however, there was no legislation that prevented it, so it happened up until the Abolition Acts (1807 and 1833). EDIT: You got this from the video at 19:00 onwards haha. 6:10 Correct. It's an inconvenient truth for these Black-Armband "historians" that Africans sold their own into slavery. 7:30 It's fundamentally wrong to view history through the lens of Modern mores. It is an inherent bias that prevents you from ever being able to understand historical events. 10:50 I know you need to be careful on KZfaq (Mama Susan is always watching) but don't apologise for objective historical commentary. See my point above haha. 23:25 British MERCHANTS were involved with it. There was no formal legislation outlawing the trade until 1807, but slaves most certainly were not allowed to be kept on British soil. 24:02 I think the video host's position that it was most likely to raise money for William's heavily depleted coffers is closer to the truth here. From such pragmatic motives and origins, however, can virtues arise. Law has a history of becoming fashionable. 27:30 It's worth mentioning that although the moral imperative was present in the British enforcement of the 1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade act, there would undoubtedly have been an economic aspect at work here aimed at French Merchants (and anyone else who might challenge Britain). Also worth understanding that in the first decade of the 1800s, the British Empire wasn't even as big as it had been after the Seven Years' War half a century earlier, which makes this enforcement all the more impressive. 28:15 The law of William the Conqueror was well and truly out of date (it was 800 years earlier) and muddled by almost a millenia of subsequent legislation and practice. England had also evolved from a Norman Duchy to a United Kingdom and Empire, so the scope of William's Law needed to be expanded upon. Finally, the Somersett case and the 1807 Act didn't explicitly ban the owning of slaves outside Britain. 31:22 The ignorance of people to history is why we are doomed to repeat it. In particular the BLM crowd and those attempting to make those of the Anglosphere feel constant "White Guilt" for our historical role and influence on the world should feel ashamed of their dishonesty. 33:19 Hear hear! Well said, that man. 35:09 A lot has been left out of this video. He didn't go into the British paying an approximate total of £20 million in compensation to slave owners to discourage and end the use of slaves. If you want to examine the issue of British and US diplomacy surrounding slaves, that's a topic in its own right and delves into a whole heap of other issues including International Freedom of Navigation, International Flag Signals, the extent of US sovereignty etc etc. Suffice to say it took a long time before the British and the US came to an agreement on slaves but there was constant communication on this issue (with a brief disruption 1812-1814) and your first official diplomatic victory is the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 which, among a whole heap of other issues between the British Empire and the US, calls for the end of the Slave Trade. There is no doubt, however, that no nation on Earth did as much as Great Britain to end the trade of slaves at a time when it was considered the norm and hugely profitable.

You didn’t see it to the end where he is talking about the ongoing cost………As English this is the first time I have heard about this crusade of the Navy. I had heard of the court cases of the 18th century. As for this being a part of the Domesday Book and William the Conqueror. This is very new……We are having a lot of Empire bashing at the moment. It is so good to hear this….I must find out more

It's important for a nation to be taught about the bad parts of their history, but I did think it's also important to be taught about the good parts. We have an issue with pride in Britain, and I believe it's largely because we're constantly being taught and told we should be ashamed of our history, by both our own education and media from other countries, something Hollywood certainly doesn't help with by constantly making Britain out to be the bad guys. It's sad when there's so much to be proud of.

Your 100% correct you can't judge the past by today's standards.

That is the benefit of having the biggest baddest navy. What we said went when it came to the high seas. A great film to watch is Amistrad. 1833 was Empire wide

I really like your balanced and questioning approach in all of your videos. When you don't know the full background, you ask for explanation and clarification. You clearly have an open/learning mind and forego pre-conceptions to get to the reality/truth. Respect 👏👍

Just came across your work. Well done, I hope you are still doing it. I particularly like your approach.

What he means by that is the English word for slave came from that reference. Obviously every culture had slaves since the beginning of human history and have their own words for them. It's merely pointing out that the modern English word came around for this reason that so many were taken that it just became a byword for someone who gets displaced from their lands to work under someone as their property. Much like the word vandalism which roots back to the Germanic Vandal tribes who looted and pillaged Rome and caused destruction of many of their arts after which such acts were seemed as acting 'like the Vandals' or 'Vandalism' But yeah totally agree with your thoughts mate

Sadly the narrator in the original video doesn't say it alloud, but the source he is reading from reports that 6 out of every 10 of the African slaves castrated by the Arabs bled to death (timestamp: 11:15). Also it is worth mentioning the British fight against slavery forced the UK to take out a loan, with they were still paying off until 2015!

thank you SoGal from a fan of yours from Wales.

I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!!!!

It’s an uncomfortable subject and I’m not proud of our history in the slave trade during the empire. But I am proud that we banned it, took out a massive loan than we only stopped paying back in 2016 and used the Royal Navy to actively stop other countries’ slave ships. I saw a video about an island off the coast of Georgia that the Carnegies once owned, before they had it, the island was a cotton plantation with 100’s of slaves. During the war of 1812 the Royal Navy landed on the island and freed the slaves and took them back with them and dropped them off free in the Caribbean

2015 was the year we finally finished paying the bill for ending the slave trade. The US made it more difficult to end the trade by providing clipper ships to the slavers which were faster than Royal Navy ships also we weren’t best of friends at the time.

The Somersett case was one of the key turning points in the lead-up to the American revolution. His owner, Charles Stewart, had been the chief customs officer of Boston, Massachusetts, so the news of the case was widely reported in the colonies. This galvanized the slave-owners to call for independence, to sever ties with Britain before the Abolitionist movement mounted legal challenges which would have affected the colonial economy: there is a reason that two thirds of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were slave-owners.

@SoGal at 19:25 I think you are getting a little confused, in that you are assuming that the slaves in 1066 are African slaves, outlawed by William the Conqueror, the narrator is referring to Anglo Saxon slavery

Slavery has always existed. Slavery in the new world is a bit unique as Christian Europe had abolished slavery but when buying african slaves was so cheap and government control in the colonies poor Slavery reemerged.

We actually had a huge boycott of slave-produced items from the US. Many Brits refused to buy cotton that was produced using slave labour. Some slaves from the US escaped to Britain and began lives of freedom.

Brittan had what was called a 2 power navy meaning that it was big enough to beat the next 2 biggest navy's combined

Lanfranc was William the Conqueror's teacher and mentor, back in Normandy. He was against slavery and got William to start the process of outlawing slavery. William made Lanfranc ( a priest ) the first norman archbishop of canterbury. He also taught his successor as archbishop of canterbury, Anselm who outlawed slavery completely in 1102. Both Lanfranc and Anselm were Italian.

SoGal reminds me of Jodie Foster. ❤️. Thanks for your reactions.

Good one, liked, Glad you better. stay safe.

We took my 9yr. old Granddaughter to the William Wiberforce Museum in Hull. The visit turned out to be very important for her. She was shocked to learn how slaves were transported and sold. However, what surprised us most was her reaction to the room which dealt with modern slavery - human trafficking. She was horrified and really distressed to think that this is happening today. For her, the slave trade had been something back in history and had been stopped. In this section of the Museum she learned that it is still happening today and was very wrong. Although the experience for her was upsetting, I'm glad we took her there, because she began to realise the importance of respecting the lives of other human beings. She is now a Doctor and her compassion and respect for others is humbling. I like to think that the visit to that Museum helped to built that respect into her character, because she remembers that visit to this day.

Hi SoGal, nice to meet you. I wanted to comment not to answer your questions, plenty of fine and thoughtful comments below have already done that and more, but rather to just say kudos to you for your quest for knowledge, enlightenment, and perhaps most importantly understanding. Best of wishes to you on your quest, I look forward to hearing about your journey.

Early on, you say that Africans enslaved their own people. This is incorrect, Africans enslaved other African people. You could equally say that when Danes, Saxons or Franks enslaved other European peoples, they were enslaving their own people. There is no one European people or any one African people.

The key thing with the 1833 was the abolition of slavery as an instutition, emancipation of existing slaves and the slave trade not just on UK soil as had been the case, but across the British Empire (except for specific carve outs for the East India Company).

Re. Britain's attitude during the Civil War - esp. with regards to the cotton trade. Confederate agesnt and diplomats tried very hard, and repeatedly, to persuade the British government to back them - and failed. The reason? The Prime Minister of the time certainly felt sympathetic to the South, BUT he knew damn well that if he came out in favour - even if only with words - he would stir up a hornet's nest of opposition in Britain. When the Confederacy imposed a ban on exports of cotton to England, thinking that cotton mill workers would force the government's hand, it backfired spectacularly. The mill workers held rallies in Lancashire, but NOT to demand that the government give way to Jeff Davis. On the contrary; despite the fact that thousands of them had been thrown out of work and were desperate for money, they declared they would no longer touch cotton that had been picked by slaves! Certainly, British owned and crewed ships continued to carry slaves after the prohibition - just as modern smugglers still ship prohibited drugs around the world - but British slave traders were treated the same as any other slavers by the Royal Navy. Finally, I grant you that the slave trade from Africa to the Middle East continues, but we no longer have the money or the manpower to stop it - and neither the African nations concerned NOR the Middle Eastern nations from which the Arab slave traders come are taking ANY effective action to stop it. Come to that; when people of colour are abusing we English for our involvement with the slave trade, and DEMANDING reparations, do you ever hear ANY ethnic African or Arab breathe a word of apology for their nations' past OR PRESENT involvement in the slave trade? No chance.

Hi from Sunny Scotland, enjoy your videos, regarding slavery, it still goes on today but is called human trafficking with people being offered jobs and ending up locked into prostitution, the Salvation Army in the UK is working with authorities to try and rescue those trapped in this modern form of slavery.

The distinction between the earlier and later laws is in that they early ones abolished the trade, the later ones abolished the institution

No matter what anyone says, about the author or the video itself, always make sure you do your own research. I'm sure you shall.

Can I just say I am so glad you got that love of money quote right...

In answer to one of your questions - the court case of 1772 set a legal precedent, making slavery illegal in the England; the Act of 1807 made the slave trade illegal for any British subject; the Act of 1833 made even the possession of slaves illegal in the whole of the British Empire. HTH

Great Britain compensated every slave owner in the British Empire by buying the freedom of every slave At a cost of £20M back then

To be added this was a moral campaign, that cost this country, financially, dearly. The debt for it was only paid off in recent years, about 10 years ago.

"It seems to me like Britain like just kinda like applied that law to the rest of the world and just expected everybody to go along with it.." Yes, actually. That's exactly right - because they COULD. Just like the USA does in the modern day, because at the time (up until WW2) they were THE world power. At one stage they owned 1/4 of all land on the entire Earth. That's how truly powerful the British Empire was. It took 2 back to back world wars - the largest and most destructive conflicts in all of history - right on their doorstep, to deplete them enough to knock them out of the top spot for the USA, who's homeland was untouched by war because of geographical location. For reference; the USA didn't even enter either of these wars until at least 2 years later than the other nations (WW1 officially started on June 28, 1914 with Austria-Hungary invading Serbia, after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand a month earlier - but the US entered the war on April 2, 1917.. and WW2 started 1 September 1939, when Nazi Germany, under Adolf Hitler, invaded Poland. While the USA only formerly entered WW2 after December 7, 1941 because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.) This is like joining in a football game at half time after everyone else is exhausted... And Americans claim to have solely "won the war". No British might along with all the other allied nations like france, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, rest of Europe, South East Asia and China ground both Germany and Japan to a halt. USA was the fresh manpower push to break the stalemate. Trust me, I'm not even British and even I know that if it weren't for WW1 and 2 Britain would probably still be the dominant economic and military power centre of the entire civilised world.

When they talk about 'they' continued with the slave trade, they are talking about private companies who, as they do today, move the slavery offshore to countries that still allow it such as China, Africa and the Middle East.

Thanks great video

The Stadiums for the next world cup in Bahrain are being built with Slave Labour,many have died in the process!

Well done for the facts Mr Akedaily 👏 .

I was in the Royal Navy and one of the first things you learn when you join is the history of the Navy in defeating slavery. Therefore it was with great sorrow in recent years that I heard a journalist issue the words that Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square should be torn down. Afua Hirsch, a journalist for Sky News, said it is time to 'look at our own landscape' following a number of campaigns to remove similar statues in the US. She said that Nelson's Column should be torn down because the 18th Century naval hero was a 'white supremacist', even though there were black sailors in Nelson's fleet as free men - and this is celebrated on the base of the column, showing the sailors who fought alongside Nelson at Trafalgar. Nelson is regarded as the greatest hero of the Royal Navy. An ordinary man with extraordinary qualities and loved by all sailors who know of his deeds. So it was extremely hurtful for a journalist to call him a white supremacist. No Organisation has given more in blood, sweat and tears to end slavery than the Royal Navy. That's why so many blacks joined the Royal Navy as free men - because they knew that they would not only be treated and paid as equals - but because they would be freeing other black people as well.

Slaves were with us from ancient times but many of those slaves came from Slavic countries. The Romans for example had huge numbers of Slavic trades. Hence the name of slaves in recent times. Prior to the Romans there were slaves, you only need to look at the Old Testament to see this but they were known as bondsmen/ bondswomen or similar terms.

The origin of the concept of slavery is as old as history. But the origin of the word comes from a different origin. The most simple explanation is simple, different languages had their own word and phrases for the concept of slavery. It doesn't matter what word or phrase was used in what language, slavery is slavery. Different cultures of course had their own traditions, but it is not something I would line up to do in any culture.

have you reacted to the fallen of WW2 or any of lemmino's videos? they are brilliant

I might have missed any reference to William Wilberforce, 1759 - 1833 , a British politician, who led the movement to abolish the slave trade. Your video was really interesting ; I have known from various sources, literature, documentary etc that slave trade had always existed throughout the world, but the video has filled a lot of gaps in my knowledge. Once again your perceptive contributions contributed to the narrative. Thanks again.

The word "slave" originates from the ,9th century. The Romans used the word "servi" which I think is the derivation of servant.

I recommend 'Sweet Water and Bitter: The Ships that Stopped the Slave Trade' by Sian Rees for a proper historical analysis.

simple history... now a days no one knows even that! :) nice original video altought made to make a point... and nice reaction here

The point being made by the video is that Britain was the first nation to outlaw slavery on their own soil. Britain could not force other nations to do the same at the time because we lacked the power or authority to do so. Britain did profit from the North Atlantic Slave Trade in the transportation of slaves from Africa to the West Indies and the Americas. In the settlement of the War of the Spanish Succession, Spain gave up her rights to the slave trade to Britain. The slave trade continued until the 19th century when the British people decided that it was inhuman for other nations to continue the trade. After the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812, Britain was finally in a position to end slavery through the Pax Britannica. Britain's navy ruled the waves and no slave ship could continue to operate where our ships sailed. To summarize, Britain was the first nation to outlaw slaves within their own borders and then they used their power of Empire to end the slave trade. We could not end slavery in individual nations which is why the United States had to reach their own conclusion in a bloody civil war, but the ideals of anti-slavery were inherited by the Americans through their Anglo-Saxon heritage.

I find it interesting that people are going back in history from a few years to hundreds of years and explore those making comments that were exceptable then but not now . That appears illogical because it is history and this generation has no connection other than living in the country. Some people are so obsessed with a particular political system or party that it becomes the catalist to their passion to demand that which is illogical. How many years and at what point should one draw a line ,and does that line indicate that whatever went before is not worthy of judgement. Should Italy and its Roman past pay for making Britons slaves? I see more division now than ever . I even see a very violent summer to come.One can not but think we get what we deserve.

"slave" might be a later word coming from Eastern Europe ("Slav"). "vassal", "serf", ... were from the middle ages or earlier.

As someone who's ancestors served in the West African squadron I'm very happy to see you stumble across this part of our history. I do think the video really missed the effect of the magna carta in the way the British people picked up the cause of abolishing slavery. I think it was this principle ingrained in people that made, what was normal to everyone else at the time, so offensive to the British ideals.

Really glad i watched your vid on this, even tho i really agree on Carls take i really appreciate your point of view n thats why im gonna sub to your youtube, i want to to hear more what you have to say

I'd ove to see you react to the Commonwealth after this - that's the real modern legacy of the Empire in its most tangible form

In Britain serfdom was mostly broken by the Black Death of 1348 suddenly placing labour at a bit of a premium...and partially motivating the Peasants Revolt... Frankie Boyle suffers from the common modern misapprehension that expertise in one field qualifies one to comment validly on any or every subject known to mankind...regrettably this is far from true...he's a very funny comedian but I'll continue to treat any other subject he spouts on with caution until research proves him correct...

I have a copy of this on hard drive to show my daughter. British schools teach that this period was a shameful example of the rapacious nature of the British empire. I want her to take pride in the fact that although all humanity participated in slavery she is directly descended from those men and women who ended it. Not for gain or power but simply because it was evil.

I would suggest drachinifel’s video on west africa squadron he goes more into the actual actions of the Royal Navy in this time and he even touches on the US UK relationship on this a little bit (actually there’s quite a few of his videos that I think would be interesting to see your reaction to)

in the viking times we called them thralls "slaves" and most of them came from what we call the UK now ! =D

I agree with the idea that "Presentism" (judging the past by the standards of the present) is a very unsuitable way to discuss history....

Not mentioned was in the early days of the transatlantic trade; the difference between 'British' government sanctioned behaviour and the behaviour of private companies & entrepreneurs taking advantage of the trade outside of Britain and her laws, like a modern day tax loophole, they would have opperated with a fairly autonomous ability until compelled by the Navy. Also didn't mention the Islamic trade from North Africa & the rest of the Ottoman Empire in taking European slaves (Barbary slave trade). At one point the early US gov was spending 20% of it's annual budget paying bribes and tributes to North African states to ward off attacks on its merchant ships. Loosing ships + passengers and crews to the rowing decks Ottoman Galleys, as slaves, pretty much inspired the formation of the US Navy.

Proud to be BRITISH !

Last time I was this early, slavery was legal in England.

I think the controversy is arising because there were no slaves in Britain but there were quite a few British who owned plantations in America and the Indies which used slave labour and the profits were sent back to Britain

Great to see you back beautiful. And then you go straight into heavy duty serious history! The Lady's back.x Cheer's 🇬🇧

7:19 You are spot on. Well said 👏

Greetings young lady I am original from Birmingham in England and we made guns for both sides in your civil war. Birmingham's historic gun trade Some Brummies made a lot of money during the American Civil War - selling guns to the south not so much in the north.

“The air of Britain is too pure for a slave to breathe.”

I never learn any American history back in school except from the war in the pacific, but to be honest the British (the colonies) was involved in the pacific as well.

Roger! Taking on the touchy subject of human misery with style!