>In the aftermath of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 with the Slave Compensation Act 1837, Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his business partner Moses Montefiore loaned the British Government £15 million (worth £1.8 billion in 2023) with interest which was subsequently paid off by the British taxpayers (ending in 2015). >This money was used to compensate the slave owners in the British Empire after slavery had been abolished. According to the Legacies of British Slave-Ownership at the University College London, Rothschild himself was a successful claimant under the scheme being a beneficiary as mortgage holder to a plantation in the colony of Antigua (present day Antigua and Barbuda) which included 158 enslaved Black people. He received a £2,571 compensation payment, at the time (worth £308,196 in 2023)Huh, i thought we ended slavery because it was moral?
That's not that much money for a banking jew
>>17995620>In 1815 alone, the Rothschilds provided £9.8 million (equivalent to about £850 million in 2023) in subsidy loans to Britain's continental allies.Damn you are right
>>17995618>Huh, i thought we ended slavery because it was moral?We did, but we needed money to compensate the slave owners to make it work practically.
>>17995618People can bitch all they like about taking on a massive debt to pay off slave owners rather than slapping them over the head, but it undoubtedly saved everyone a whole lot of trouble. Just look at how messy the American Civil War got.
The Southern states were quietly unhappy when slavery was abolished in the British Empire as it increasingly left them isolated.
It makes sense if you really think about it. The act compensated slave owners for the loss of their property, the enslaved people themselves.
>>17996097It was a sham A SHAM!
>Yes, we the British Empire definitely ended slavery because it was the right thing to do as what has directed every major change in law since the beginning of time
>>17995618>which was subsequently paid off by the British taxpayers (ending in 2015).Reminds me how the UK were still paying WW2 debt to America until 2010
>>17997393But if it was so immoral why would they be given compensation
>>18000756Because it will make them more likely to accept abolition, and it will help them adjust to a massive change in their economic environment.
>>17995618yeah no shit. abolition didn't really gain steam until industrialization started and slavery became less relevant to the economy
>>17999657income tax was first imposed, unconstitutionally, to pay for the civil war. What's kind of funny is the scotus likely would have upheld income tax as constitutional if it was during the new deal or civil rights era
>>18000756Is it immoral to have $1000?Is it immoral to use that $1000 to purchase a slave on the open market?At the time you have to understand that slaves were LITERALLY property, like a house is property. People bought and sold them, took out loans with slaves as collateral. The entire financial system was deeply integrated into the slave economy. If you were going to abolish slavery without compensation there would be numerous loans that were now unsecured and without the means to pay them back. Not to mention that people would try to sell the slaves off like a shitcoin to try to leave someone else holding the bagThe Civil War wasn't so much necessary to abolish slavery as it was necessary to create a situation chaotic enough that suddenly wiping out what on paper was a massive part of the financial system wouldn't seem like such a big deal. After wars there are usually massive debts and financial chaos that people rarely discuss and there was a long tail of US politics being dominated by the financial consequences of the civil war for decades afterwards.Just taking a big old loan to compensate the slave owners and paying it back gradually over time saves everyone a massive headache of dealing with what happens when property integrated into the financial system simply ceases to be.Think of the 2008 financial crisis and how the mortgage backed securities were "toxic assets" and you can begin to imagine that slaves on the verge of being abolished are identical to "toxic assets" and you can understand why the government might just opt to do a bailout to save the trouble.
>>18000756So they wouldn't foment rebellion against the government for having their property stolen. That's the British way of doing things. They wanted to end slavery, but didn't want to make a fuss about it or cause any trouble. So they threw money around to keep everybody happy.The American way killed over 600,000 white Americans because they didn't bother soothing the slave owners and just pushed for abolition until the south decided to secede over it.
>>18000769By that point the constitution barely meant anything anyway. FDR was almost as bad as Lincoln for wielding dictatorial power, but was far worse in creating lasting centralized power in the Office of the President which he created and still exists to this day. Lincoln's staff was tiny, he had fewer than 20 people on staff. FDR's staff numbered in the hundreds before he was done expanding the powers of his office, today it's in the thousands. Once given, it's very hard to claw back power from any government office.
>>17998111Hate you people
>>18001241yeah I don't disagree, I hate FDR and the unconstitutional expansion of the federal government
>>18001241>Once given, it's very hard to claw back power from any government officeNo? Government is a lawn that has to be mowed every once in a while or it gets overgrown and full of weeds and ticks.
