You misunderstand. Slavery not being recognised as a condition means anyone arriving in Britain as a slave was automatically free. That was brought in under William the Conqueror but not tested in court until Somerset v Stewart in 1772
*You don't need to legislate that which didn't happen* - Slavery ended in England due to William the Conqueror almost a thousand years ago. Legislation against slavery was only created in 1833 for outside England. But in the early 1700s court cases denied slavery because there was no such state of being in England. Americans bringing their slaves with them had them released if they went to court in England. Because there was no such thing as slavery in England. However like anything else criminality occured in England because there wasn't a police force until the 1800s. So accessing the law was regional and relied upon regional authorities to enforce law.
I know this isn’t the point you are making but it is important to mention that the slave trade is still incredibly alive. There is estimated to be over 100k people trafficked as slaves in the UK alone. Its important to be aware and vigilant against modern slavery and trafficking There’s also a whole other point about economic slavery and the moving of slavery to servility with only really the name changing (i.e. if a slave is released with no education/skills, no money and no relatives, their only option might be to work for their former master for very poor wages).
@@Jack-lk7wk Since it was the British Empire at its height that stopped the slave trade and the British Empire is now gone, it's unfortunate that the new leaders didn't take up the burden and continue the campaign. But stopping a profitable enterprise is costly and no doubt counterproductive to profit orientated ideologues, and the world around us today is more interested in profit than Morality or Ethics.
William the Conquerer actually banned slavery in 1086 in England. The actual Legislation tidied things up in 2010 just to keep the paperwork up to date. Any slave who stepped on English soil since 1086 was automatically freed from slavery.
He only banned the sale of slaves to non-christians. It was the ecclesiastical Council of London banned the slave trade within England in 1102. Unfortunately slavery was replaced with serfdom where a serf was tied to the land that they worked for a feudal lord. When the land was sold the serfs remained with the land and served a new lord. You are right about a slave being free as soon as the step onto english soil, this was reinforced with cases such as Somerset v Stewart in 1772.
You were in the European Union from 1975 until 2010. It recognised slavery as a legal state of being until 2010, which meant that their laws overruled William the Conqueror's royal proclamation, which did not recognise it.
The reason for that law in 2010 was because of Saudi's bringing their slave to the UK, there was a case when a Saudi slave, fled to the police, and they handed her back to the Saudi family, this created a bit of a scandal and led to the law, there were virtually no slaves in Britain, one of the rare times a slave was brought back from the colonise, the slave owner was taken to court, and the slave was granted freedom
Nonsense. It will have been a provision of the Human Rights Act, which in turn is a consequence of the UK signing the Maastricht Treaty. I know of someone who was actually convicted in 2010 (conspiracy to traffic persons) their offences predated the HRA.
It didn't. As mentioned in the clip it attempted to end the AtlanticSlave trade. The motives are extremely dubious since it was still legal to own slaves in the British Empire. Britain had just tried, a failed, to quell the Haitian slave revolt.
@@ethelmini Um, it certainly did. It banned it through out it's empire. The clip is made up of left wing virtue signallers. Did all slavers want it banning, no, certainly not the black slave traders who the British slavers bought their slaves off. Haiti was a French colony, not British. It also involve French, Spanish, British, and Polish, not just the British has you try to imply. The date was also 1791 before the official ending of slavery. British were also on both side - something of course you fail to point out. The path to freeing slaves actually was due to British people finding out sweet stuffs were cheaper on the backs of slaves so they boycotted sweet stuffs. Your Brit hate and trying to dismiss Britains roll in ending slavery can be defeated with the simplest of googles.
@@ethelminiFrance was in charge of Hati, you’re getting your countries mixed up. Britain ended the trans Atlantic slave trade at great cost after buying all the slaves in the empire and freeing them. The actions of the British led to much fewer slaves making it to America making the Southern states introduce the runaway slave act leading to the civil war.
@@decrulez Britain also created the West African squadron(formed in 1808), which policed the African coast and had the right to board, inspect and seize the cargo of any vessel it suspected of carrying slaves. It increased the size of the squadron several times over a number of years as it's importance became realised, and eventually America signed a deal to consent to their ships being boarded and checked, and even sent their own little squadron to help police the coast. These actions helped to end the Atlantic Slave Trade, as although the squadrons didn't stop it entirely, it bled it down to a trickle to the point it was no longer profitable or worth the risk any more.
As a rule, countries don’t pass laws in areas they don’t believe needs them - putting into statute that it’s a criminal offence to walk your Martian iguana after 8pm would be considered a waste of time and money.
Yes, sadly, Stephen went into word manipulation in this question. Slavery has been illegal in England for almost 1000 years. This was why the anti-slavery abolition movement started in England because freedom from slavery was part of the English DNA and English people themselves began the revolution against slave trade. Also, do Remember that the slave trade was run by black Africans and had been so for almost 1000 years before Europeans arrived. Black Africans and Islamic nations traded black slaves following the defeat of tribal enemies. You are supposed to feel white guilt about an industry that was absolutely morally normal everywhere in the world up until England enforced gliberation from slavery through the British empire throughout the world. There is also the potential argument that Britain was coming back to the United States after the defeat of Napoleon to liberate the slaves in the United States and this is why Abraham Lincoln took his stance around slavery because he knew this was the case. Just an interesting area to explore perhaps. It has been a Woke trope to use lies and political manipulation to teach false histories both in the United States and more recently here in the United Kingdom. They are simply lies. It's an interesting difference between European descent Americans who want to explore their heritage by returning back to their ancestral homes to see where they descended from and the lack of interest fromBlack American people who, if they chose to go back to visit Africa and their own ancestral land, would receive an interesting education about how they arrived in the United States and was sold to traders. I think they might celebrate being American today had they allowed themselves intellectual freedoms as well as the legal freedoms that are an inheritance from White Culture and not from black culture. Without the intervention from the British Empire as it was, many societies in Africa would have continued slavery. Of course, many non-white countries do continue slavery today.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because tribal warfare included slavery is not an excuse for other much richer and more technologically advanced societies to capture and sell people as property. People shouldn’t feel guilty (it’s not being taught as “you should feel guilty”, that is culture war nonsense) and if kids learning about their country’s history do feel bad, the kid’s parents should have a talk with them about society changing and the importance of doing better and avoiding repeating mistakes. Kids shouldn’t be ignorant of history or have their ancestors actions downplayed, they should understand that their ancestors did bad things but that they shouldn’t feel guilty as long as they don’t make the same mistakes they did.
Except for attempting to put down the Haitian slave revolt (1793) Trading & supplying the Confederacy in the American Civil War. Having Brasil as a defacto economic colony when it still had slavery as late as 1888.
yes and no, there was no legislation. He just banned the sale of slaves from England to overseas and put a high tax on them. However his conquests was, by no means, the sole factor for slavery to turn into servility as it did so. Various religious, socioeconomic and political leanings were occurring in western Europe through out the 9-12th centuries. Already before the appearance of the Normans we can observe a slow growth of manorial practice in England with the attendant servility that comes with it (things like work obligations). Freemen were becoming tied to the land and at the same time we see an ongoing interest in manumission (freeing of slaves) brought about probably both for economic (for instance it is cheaper to let serfs feed themselves and support their own family on land that you own than to provide for them actively) and religious reasons (i.e. it is spiritually beneficial to free slaves). It is also worth noting that as England became more and more unified and "pacified" the central producer of new slaves, i.e. warfare and conflict, thus also began to wane. Effectively what the Norman conquest did do is speed up the process already occurring. Then it wasn't outright illegal to own a slave. Just massively expensive. So expensive many would be running at a loss. It wasn't until the abolitionists managed to convince parliament in 1797 to 1807 that the wording used by William the Conqueror meant that no man who walks on England's soil shall be a slave. Which is why people tend to think ol' Bill made slavery illegal outright. A common misconception to be sure.
William the conquer set things in motion in 1066 but years later it was challenged then laws were put in place, 2010 was them basically virtue signaling due to Saudi's.
That's extremely disingenuous. Our constitution is one of precedent, as Stephen knows full well. The slave trade was outlwed in England under William the Conqueror, in something like 1068 CE! Subsequent court cases, in later centuries upheld the principle that slavery was illegal in England. One famous case, of a runaway slavevs his American 'master' set the principle that a slave becomes free, as soon as he set foot on English soil! The 1804 and 1805 Acts of Parliament banned the transatlantic slave trade and the means to enforce it, as well as consolidating the legal position in England. The 1830 something Act abolished slavery throughout the Empire an Commonwealth. Though in practice it was already de facto illegal. The Act Stephen mentioned was to clarify the law re' sex trafficking and modern slavery. Effectively closing any loopholes. In reality, that law from the 1060s made England the first country in the World to effectively and legally outlaw slavery!
Carl/Sargon's 'The British Crusade Against Slavery'.. but he deleted that channel a while ago. Only way to watch it now is other people reacting to it.
If you look up the Domesday Book of 1086 commissioned by William the Conqueror, the first known census bans slavery in England, it was also put into affect in 1102 by the Ecclesiastical Council of London, which banned the slave trade within England. "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business of selling men like animals"
I adore your reactions, and Jodie cracks me up with her facial expressions to sexual innuendo. Please don't stop posting videos and reactions. I'm Dougie, From the UK (Frome, Somerset ... But I'm a Yorkshire man)
The 2010 Act of Parliament only drew together all the existing laws that had effectively outlawed holding another human "In bondage". Those laws began with an edict of William I - "William the Conqueror" - who ruled (when Monarchs DID actually "rule") from 1066 to 1087.
He's not saying that there WERE slaves in 2010 in the UK! He was pointing out that the law concerning slave ownership just hadn't been removed from the Statute-Book, due to some oversight! In fact, Magna Carta had quite a bit to say about not having slaves in the UK, & that was in the 11th Century!!
This topic is a bit more nuanced when you look into it, there are some semantics involved with the terms. Slavery was banned much earlier under 'English' law (1102, the church Council of London) before the introduction of 'British' law when it was redefined again (Somerset v Stewart in 1772). Again in 1807 and loose ends with the wording to cover 'modern slavery' in 2010 and again in 2015 (The Modern Slavery Act). No doubt there will be changes in the future to redefine the law, to cover new and unforeseen subtleties and language changes.
He's being a bit naughty. We never thought to abolish slavery as since the Magna Carta we haven't had slaves "Any person in slavery in that jurisdiction must therefore be free" . This was upheld in 1772 when a plantation owner from the now US brought his slave to Britain it was held that as soon as the slave set foot in "that jurisdiction" (England) he was a free man. I think the man was James Somerset
There were salves in England. It’s a misconception that there weren’t. The old English law outlawing it was forgot by this point until brought up in a court case that would lay the foundations (not cause) the abolition of slavery in the British Empire
Check out the William the Conqueror angle if you are interested (from the description I vaguely remember it seemed like a way to tax and penalize owners ?)
Sort of like mobile phone use in a car. The police already had perfectly good laws ( driving without due care and attention ) to prosecute it but it was decided to write a new specific law. More paperwork ! 😄
In that case, there was the potential to argue that *in that instance*, use of the phone wasn't careless driving. Making it a specific offence simplified things.
That's the funny thing about those kind of laws. Cannibalism wasn't illegal in Germany as well until one guy ate someone and suddenly they weren't able to convict him of anything.
@@4Kandlez The man who was eaten actively participated in the act and gave his consent to it. Both parties were in agreement and initially no crime could be proven. In the end he was convicted to manslaughter and later in a retrial to murder as well. But it took this special case to realize, that the law wasn't really prepared for such a situation. Google "Armin Meiwes" if you want to know more about this case.
As far as I know (I could very well be wrong if it's changed recently) it still isn't illegal in the UK for necro-cannibalism (eating dead flesh). Obviously homicidal cannibalism is illegal. Where the UK stands on eating human flesh without involving death I suspect depends on the circumstances and is more a case of shades of grey than black and white. Uraguyan Air Force Flight 571 is a good example of (presumed) necro-cannibalism where it was essential for survival. If that was wrong, it raises question marks over transubstantiation and the morality of people who genuinely believe they are ingesting human flesh and blood in a religious ceremony.
@@d34d10ck So the moral of the story is commit a crime that no-one else has committed and does not fall in the purview of lesser crimes and you can get away scot-free unless retried. Where does the law stand on the law changing making previous actions criminal, because that hardly seems fair? Not quite double jeopardy, but aspects of it would be similar.
Guys you should try checking out some of Eddie Izzards stand up routines. He is really funny and extremely clever too. He has a few specials and all of them are great my personal favorite special is Dressed to kill
One point not covered was that slavery has not been completely abolished in the USA yet! The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution states "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." . That exception means that you can, if convicted of a crime in the USA, be subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude. Thus the use of prison labour in the most imprisoned nation, the USA, flouurishes.
I think the point is that all the things we associate with slavery - forcing someone to work for you, abusing them if they did not, imprisoning them, separating them from their families, disposing of them like a sick race horse etc. - were already illegal. But if you decided to write up a contract to say that your wife technically owned you, it would not be illegal. But in spite of that, you could not be forced to do anything because of the other laws. So it would be in name only. So the 2010 law was merely a formality, just so a Conservative government could claim to have ended slavery. Also William The Conqueror outlawed the sale of slaves to foreign lands, which effectively ended much of the slavery in England. Then in 1772, A court ruling upheld the right of a slave (that had been brought to the Britain) to not be sold abroad. As a result, the slave was freed and set a legal precedent in which it was assumed that slavery itself was illegal (though in reality, there is evidence that slaves were still brought to England and kept there). By the time of the abolition of the slave trade, this pretty much came to an end. Our laws have a natural ebb and flow which naturally changes over time, rather than us getting hung up on a written constitution
It's not possible to enslave someone against their will without false imprisonment, abduction, deprivation of rights etc, which was already covered under several other laws, so really the passing of this law was more about making it publicly official just to avoid the embarrassment of not having such an explicit law. It kind of makes sense, because we were (at the time) a member of the EU, and of course we're a member of the UN, so not having such a law the way so many other nations do could very easily be taken out of context by a few who want to make a fuss about something that wasn't really an issue.
Serfs were traded, worked in the fields for no pay, poorly fed, disfigued (noses split, ears cut off etc) long before the Atlantic slave trade. Note: this is not a competition.
Totally, totally incorrect. Serfs could NOT be traded. They DID receive payment, if only in kind. Indeed, the landowners were obliged to provide living accommodation; poor it may have been but supply it they did. They were transferred with the land it it changed hands but nothing compelled them to stay with the new landowner. If and it’s a big if, disfigurement took place it would have been as a punishment for a crime committed. Writing “it’s not a competition “ doesn’t mean your false statements can go un corrected. Serfs can not be compared to slaves. William 1. did decree “Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business … of selling men like animals.” In 1080 and it was ratified by the court case in 1772, Somerset vs Stewart. Sadly, people seem to be getting their education from ‘A Game of Thrones’ type of entertainment. Please do not post ‘facts’ when you have not studied the past, as I have.
@barbarakendall5184 ..... In English law slavery was never legalised, it has never been legal to own slaves in England, The slavery act of 1833 was to make slavery illegal in the British empire, not in England, as slavery was never legalised here. If any slave was bought on English soil they automatically would become a free man/woman. As was the case in the Somerset case in 1772, Lord Mansfield ruled that, as slavery was not recognised by English law James Somerset a slave who had been bought to England and then escaped, could not forcibly be sent to Jamaica for sale, and he was set free.
@@SimSim-zf9if Sorry? Where did I say “Landlord’s were angels”? Merely pointing out that English serfs were not slaves and couldn’t be traded or disfigured on a whim of a baron or Lord, is not “whitewashing “! The fact you use the word “landlords” to describe a serf’s Lord, shows you are perhaps not totally Au Fait with genuine English history as you think. The woke mob may be happy to subvert genuine, source based history but I don’t have to play their games. I do not have to cow tow down to wokeness and “black washing”!
@@geoffersvoiceofreason2534 It's you who is rewriting history all that studying a complete waste of time you are just another right-wing bigot. Who sucks up to the rich and powerful. Bet you are a flat-earther and an anti-vaxxer.
Its like there is no law stating that you cant store nuclear intercontinental missiles in your back garden. Its specific and unnecessary as the laws surrounding arms ànd nuclear materials make the law superfluous. 2010s law changes nothing as such,it simply codified existing laws to be more specific.
It was only after many failed attempts that, in 1807, the slave trade in the British Empire was abolished. However, slaves in the colonies (excluding areas ruled by the East India Company) were not freed until 1838 - and only after slave-owners, rather than the slaves themselves, received compensation. from UK parliament web site .
Yeah this is a wonky one that needs a bit more than they covered here. I see in the comments corrections so i won't bother echoing other mentioning William the bastard, the Summerset case etc etc. Look at Thomas Sowells piece he covers this in a good amount of depth
Probably the reason there was no law prohibiting slavery in English soil is because for several centuries there had been a law saying that any man who sets foot in English soil automatically becomes a free man, therefore there would be no way for someone to legally be a slave in England. There's even been processes in the 1700s where American slave owners who brought slaves to England end up having to free them.
People focus on the fact that slavery was never a legal state in the UK, and gloss over the slavery that was permitted elsewhere in the British Empire. Activities that took place elsewhere in the Empire were the responsibility of the UK. I also think that the British have a degree of responsibility for the continuing slavery in the United States after independence as it was continuing a British Empire practice.
people also gloss over the fact that slavery was present in every country in the world long before the British empire, the British empire did not start the slave trade that is fact, yes they took advantage of the already existing practice of slaves as did every other nation on earth. Also fact is that the British empire ended slavery in most of the world not just in the British empire, they did this by both by persuation, financial compensation to slave owners and by force. Why do the British have any responsibility for the continuing slavery in the United States, there werent following British Empire practice, they were following the the practice of the rest of the world until the rest of the world ended slavery but they chose not to because finacially it was not in their interest to.
@@paulknox999 There is no doubt that the effort made by people in the British Empire to shut down slavery worldwide was a very good thing, and they deserve full credit for it. I'm definitely not trying to paint British Empire citizens as the only wrongdoers in all this, although British people were *very* efficient participants in the process. It is debatable how much responsibility the British Empire has for the actions of one of its offshoots after independence, but there would have been no United States without the British Empire.
@@Will-nn6uxdont dissagree, no one can be without guilt as far as slavery goes. I still dissagree about the united states Britain had 13 small colonies, a few more smaller areas that werent initially interested in independence the rest of the vast areas which is now the US was part of the French, Spanish and Russian empires. British controlled area was tiny in comparison to the rest of what is now USA.
" I also think that the British have a degree of responsibility for the continuing slavery in the United States after independence" I also think you're a person of diminished intelligence.
It’s not really a pro-white people statement to say that white people ended the slave trade since they were the ones who industrialised and made it international.
To explain where you guys got confused a little. 1802 slavery ended for Britain. 1834 abolished altogether throughout the British empire. 2010 only happened because of a rare case at the time to do with the Saudi royals where the law had to be made because we never had slaves here in the mainland during slavery,but throughout the empire at the time there was. Hope this clarifies things a bit more for you both!🙂😎
To be fair the FIRST time savery was abolished in England was after the "Norman Conquest of 1066"... The Norman conquest of England resulted in the gradual merger of the pre-conquest institution of slavery into serfdom, and all slaves were no longer recognised separately in English law or custom. By the middle of the 12th century, the institution of slavery as it had existed prior to the Norman conquest had fully disappeared... Then came the "Atlantic slave trade" and it all kicked off again.
One of those weird overlooked laws that hasn’t quite fallen into any category, and thusly; still exists. Similar to WW2 where every nation signed the Paris Peace Treaties in 1945 & effectively ended the war. But there was one tiny country that didn’t sign it (can’t remember which one), but they’re technically still fighting the nazi’s 😂
What you have to understand is that there would have been English slaves when we were being invaded by Vikings. It only stands to reason that we would have a natural aversion to slavery, so it probably ended along with the Danelaw.
1810 was when we banned people from selling other however Slavery wasnt allowed on UK soil could pass throw wasnt allowed to be kept in UK! and 2010 was they changed the wording in the Law remember its still punishable by death to attack the sitting Monac BUT they wouldnt inact it as we banned the death peniltey in the 50s
Slavery has never been legal in the UK, An English court case of 1569 involving Cartwright who had bought a slave from Russia ruled that English law could not recognise slavery. This ruling was overshadowed by later developments, particularly in the Navigation Acts, but was upheld by the Lord Chief Justice in 1701 when he ruled that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England. [67]
Slavery was banned in England in 1086 and passed by the synod in 1102 , it has been illegal to own a slave in England since that date , because we and most of the world were part of the slave trade around the world it seems to have obscured the fact that we didn't allow slavery in our land.
This is what frustrates me with the statue toppling mob. They will protest a statue of someone long dead in a country where slavery is long gone, but won't lift a finger to protest the slavery of 24 million people who need their help NOW, TODAY.
Agree completely. It's like people on social networking who follow a "trending" social topic to look good to their friends and family, and then conveniently drop any kind of valid tangible support further down the line. It's so superficial and self aggrandising.
@@Georgie_R What an absolute load of codswallop! Stop projecting your pathology on the rest of us. Celebrated? And if you think that the UK isn't Balkanised come and live in the north... Manchester, Rochdale, Oldham, Leeds, Bury, Huddersfield, Bradford... I'll drive you to the lines in the road where the ethnicities change! The Colston statue lot are just the virtue-signalling, progressive left and not one of them would be able to tell you in any detail the history of the British involvement in the slave trade. The judge who let them off with zero punishment was a joke as well. All against a backdrop of lockdowns as well remember.
How do you protest an illegal black market lol. People tear down statues because we shouldn’t celebrate people who were not good. The statues should be kept in museums for the sake of keeping historical record but they shouldn’t be in public parks or in front of goverment buildings etc. I’m sure if the collective human trafficking trade agreed to respect a petition, modern slavery would end.
Sure, that'll be what they were thinking 🙄 The Colston statue was erected in 1895 (by a society of former slavers). Colston died in 1721 Its purpose as always been political
I would like to see your reaction to QI - What did Sherlock Holmes do twice as much as Watson? Its fun watching Jodie get embarraessed and grossed out.
William the conqueror levied a fine on the sale of slaves, in 1082. Which just about wiped out the practice of slavery in England. So a specific law forbidding the owning of a slave seemed irrelevant, as no one owned slaves. And if the ownership of slaves was legal, why did a judge free a slave brought to the UK. This is the Somerset V Stewart court case of 1782. Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 (also known as Sommersett v Steuart, Somersett's case, and the Mansfield Judgment) is a judgment of the English Court of King's Bench in 1772, relating to the right of an enslaved person on English soil not to be forcibly removed from the country and sent to Jamaica for sale. According to one reported version of the case, Lord Mansfield decided that: 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 the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.[1]. So QI assertion that slavery was somehow legal in the UK is a blatant leftie lie look at the panel Izzard and Fry himself as Woke as Woke can be.
We need to be clear when we talk about when Britain Abolished slavery, and abolished the slave trade. we are not comparing apples with apples - particularly in the case of the United States. The historical context of Britain needs to be established as what is meant by 'Britain'. We know humans lived in the islands that make up modern Britain since Palaeolithic era from archeological records. But we do know from Roman records that historically, Iron Age Britons were enslaved in large numbers, typically by rich merchants and warlords who exported indigenous slaves from pre-Roman times. They took slaves from the many different tribes of indigenous ancient Briton. The Roman occupation of Britain had fully occurred around 47 AD. The Roman invasion was savage the Romans took slaves from the conquered tribes and expanded the practise. There can be no doubt that thousands of Britons were enslaved during the conquest. Calgacus, leader of the Caledonian tribes in the war against Agricola, stated that slavery was the consequence of defeat. Roman occupation and rule last up until around 409 AD - a period of nearly 4 centuries. Throughout the Roman occupation Barbarians and Vikings raided the island to plunder the wealth of Britannia - the vikings took Roman Britons as slaves as part of their plunder. Roman Rule ended in 409 AD. By 410 all Roman troops had been withdrawn, leaving the cities of Britain and the remaining Romano-British to fend for themselves. Without the Roman legions the Saxons were the next to conquer the island. Saxon warriors from what is now Northern Germany and Scandinavia brutally invaded the South and East coasts slaughtering men, women and children. A period of conquest lasting about a century saw migration of Saxons into Britain and the establishment of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and rule. The Vikings also continued their raids and in time established their own kingdoms. The Anglo Saxons and Vikings took slaves and practiced slavery. The Saxons taking slaves from the conquered lands of the Romano-British. The Vikings taking slaves from the same people and the Saxons. Then in 1066 it was the turn of the Normans, from what is now France. The Norman invasion was brutal - but it was the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon Britain the formal elimination of slavery occurred. In Anglo Saxon times slaves were often descendants of the conquered British population: the Anglo-Saxon word for “Briton” is used interchangeably for “slave”. Slavery was formally abolished under William the Conquerer and was written into law: In 1070 William the Conqueror deposed the elderly pre-Conquest Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, and replaced him with Lanfranc, one of the leading lights of the reform movement and William’s own moral tutor since boyhood. The new archbishop was soon urging his pupil to abolish the slave trade and the Conqueror complied. It was at Lanfranc’s insistence, explains William of Malmesbury, that the king ‘frustrated the schemes of those scumbags who had an established practice of selling their slaves into Ireland’. Malmesbury noted that William was somewhat reluctant, since he enjoyed a share of the profits, but the record of the king’s own legislation shows that a ban was indeed put in place and that William had found a way of squaring the matter with his conscience. ‘I prohibit the sale of any man by another outside of the country,’ says the ninth law of William the Conqueror, ‘on pain of a fine to be paid in full to me.’ William’s personal attitude towards slavery can also be surmised from his only recorded visit to Wales, glibly reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 1081: ‘The king led levies into Wales, and there freed many hundreds of people.’By the time William of Malmesbury was writing in the 1120s slavery was gone merging into Serdom. After Norman rule, we move into the era of the Plantagenets, originating from the a royal House in the French County of Anjou. beginning around 1153, which saw Monarchial rule established in England saw a redistribution of legislative power from the Church, to the monarchical state. The Normans were the last people to successfully invade and conquer Britain. Beginning the establishment of a unique British identity and political sovereignty. So the important point I'm making is that Slavery has never existed within the law what is technically 'Britain' and has not been recognised since the period of Norman Britain in 1100s - there has not been a period where slaves were owned and traded since the Anglo Saxons, which makes Britain fairly unique. The rise of the trans Atlantic slave trade around 1555 saw European slave traders and traders from Britain trading goods with African slave traders for slaves as well as gold, ivory and spices. British traders brought slaves from African slave traders - usually Kings or chiefs or wealthy African merchants. The Atlantic slave trade grew at a time when many African states were at war with each other, taking prisoners that could easily be sold to traders. Then exported in horrific conditions and sold into brutal conditions in the Caribbean, South America and North America. The slave trade was abolished in Britain with the 1807 Slave Trade , abolishing slavery and slave trading within the British empire. The Blockade of Africa began in 1808 after the United Kingdom outlawed the Atlantic slave trade, making it illegal for British ships to transport slaves. The Royal Navyimmediately established a presence off Africa to enforce the ban, called the West Africa Squadron. Although the ban initially applied only to British ships, Britain negotiated treaties with other countries to give the Royal Navy the right to intercept and search their ships for slaves.
No law was ever passed in England to legalise slavery. In the Somerset case of 1772, Lord Mansfield ruled that, as slavery was not recognised by English law, James Somerset, a slave who had been bought to England and then escaped, could not be forcibly sent to Jamaica for sale, and he was set free. The slavery abolition act 1833 was to ban slavery throughout the British Empire, In England it was illegal to own anyone long before that, and actually was never legal in law. In Scotland however slaves were still in use until 1799 when an act was passed which established their freedom and made slavery and bondage illegal. Any slave that was bought to England even as far back as the 16th century would have automatically become a free man.
William the conqueror 1086 outlawed selling humans "No man can profit from the sale of another man" punishment was a big fine which pretty much wiped out slavery in England and later accounts of slaves brought to England by their masters being set free through the judicial system but slavery was allowed in the rest of the Empire foreign territories until the early 1800's and Britain did set wheels in motion for abolishing slavery worldwide by force
From the 11th century there has been no slaves in England and the British ended slavery , this is a bit of an odd law and the clip needs a lot more explanation.
1066 William the conqueror took a census and after saw there were slaves ( 10%of population) and in 1135 said you couldn't sell/trade in slaves. This lead to slavery dying out in Britain in the 1100s this notion of slavery was frowned upon and we had a small detachment of the royal navy tasked with patrolling the Atlantic west coast seeking out and freeing slaves found on slave ships. The East Africa Squadron. This developed into a political position to stop slavery. The abolishion movement A couple of court cases involving runaway American slave brought from America resulted in a trial where it found slaves became free as soon as slaves set foot on English soil. The abolishion movement got stronger a few more ships were added to the fleet and we tried to abolish slavery in our colonies. In 1833 this was done in law. Then France followed suit, and other countries too were beaten into submission and outlawed it too! Due to the vagieries of the law specifics have to be acknowledged! It was only in 1970s that a small county in England signed a peace treaty with Russia! Due to it's disputed claim between Scotland and England it was accidently left of he original treaty!!!!! Another It was legal up to the 80s that you could kill a Scotsman with a bow and arrow within the walls of the city of York!!!!
Not-so fun fact: America never abolished slavery in its entirety, and it's still legal to this day. The 13th amendment made slavery illegal in the US... unless the person has been convicted of a crime, in which case it is a legal form of punishment.
Let me try to make it clear because I may not have earlier, no one in England has been allowed lawfully to own a slave since 1086 , we traded in slavery across the world alongside many others and voted to end slavery across the empire in the early eighteen hundreds , we then spent 70 years trying to end the practice through the Royal Navy and mostly succeeded even though most countries were not in favour of abolition. There is no other country in modern history that has done more to abolish this evil practice, not one .
Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1965 . However this law is not properly enforced as it’s always been against Islamic law for a Muslim to enslave another Muslim but not an offence to enslave a non-Muslim. If a non Muslim were to bring a case against a Muslim his testimony would not have the same value as the Muslim’s
Slavery was outlawed in England in the 11th century...any man woman or child setting foot on English soil was a free man, however it didn't stop us transporting slaves although we were the first to stop this practice as well and force other countries to stop via the Royal Navy....
In 1833, Britain used £20 million, 40% of its national budget, to pay compensation not to the slaves but the slave owners for the loss of their Property. The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn't paid off until 2015.
That's interesting. Wow. Being British and Caribbean decendint and I didn't know that. I studied slavery history. In all ages. . Here's important dates in Britain history.. Around 1066. William the conqueror made a law that slaves could not be exported overseas. But their was no law banning slavery. ..... 1555.1st slave bought to Britain.That started the slave trade in Britain. . 22,june,1772, a Court Case ... 1783, the Quakers ..1792.. 1807.Freedom Africa. . 1809 to 1869 the freedom of the Caribbean. . 1st,August, 1834. Britains colonies set free of all enslaved people. A good channel to watch on utupe is " the British Crusade against Slavery.". 2010.wow. Phew. 👽👍
There have been no slaves in England for almost 1000 years. So successive governments didn’t make time to legislate on a crime that didn’t exist. Well. That’s the claim. Serfdom existed until the late 14th century at least. Uk and USA history with slavery and race are very, very different. For a start, being a white person means you are indigenous here. Not so in the USA.
This is misleading because there trials way back on the 1800s when American slave owners got off their ships in British ports with a slave and were taken to court snd rhe slave freed because slavery was illegal and so the second a slave stepoed foot on british soil they were free
William the conqueror of 1066 fame. How slavery ended was by king William taxing those who had slaves and what work they did for slave owners. So the slave owners were taxed twice and after years of not making much money out of slavery after food, clothes and travel to the workplace that week or month. They set their slaves free under a term called ploughmen. These people could own land, have properties,buy and sell livestock and crops. There's a but to all this, they must help to bring in the harvest on church, monasteries and the local lord's lands. For this they had more rights than freemen another later term given to them by locals, who had never been a slave. As for ex-slaves could now work and ask for wages for the task given to them by the church, monasteries landowners and lord's. And with freemen they were not allowed to leave the county or shire. Until the plagues where workers could charge higher wages as hundreds of thousands of people died. This happened the plague bought by foreign ship's but these were English ships that went to English ports in France and came back with it. The plague was running rampant in most of Europe and king William Duke of Normandy and his decentants who owned lands in France by marriages to french nobles, Spanish, a certain Hungarian prince who fought and impaled Muslims soldiers who were rampaging across most of Europe for white slaves from the 7 to the 11 century in most European countries a quarter of France was occupied by Muslims almost all of Spain most of the blaken countries and Greece didn't become free from the Muslims until 1923/4. This Hungarian Prince you might know has Dracula or Vad the Impaler yes Britain Queen Elizabeth II and Charles and his sons have that bloodline from him. You will notice, I said Hungarian prince after the first world war parts of Hungary was chopped up and given to Romania Dracula country and other parts to now Czechoslovakia now Slovakia and the Czech republic, and maybe Italy and Poland . A few bits more when the virgin Queen died Elizabeth I in 1602/3 maybe James the sixth of Scotland was crowded king of both kingdoms and had two armies and needed to rise money so he tried to reintroduce slavery again in England that why the Scottish don't mention they came across our borders and took English people as slaves they don't mention that one that's why we had so many wars with the buggers and so we started to rebel against this first with petitions then non payment of taxes he died and his brother became king and things didn't get any better. So moving on to 1776 the British government didn't recognize the 13 colonial states and those who left America and came back to Britain found that the gold, silver, slaves and molasses wasn't good for them returning to the old country because any slave that set foot on English soil was a free person female, male or child free and every time a slave escaped from a foreign ship Britains would hinder the men from these ship to recapture that slave British people would club together and rise money for them to get passage home or set them up in business or train them our to be a carpenters or blacksmiths and they would sometimes marry white women or arrange for a black woman to be married to them and pay for their homes after 60 years or more or less it came to a vote 1807 end of slavery in Britain,1824 paid off all the slave owners in the West Indies or Caribbean to you even the black slave owners in the islands that they don't mention as well. Then a world wide slavery ban by us the British we attacked and blockaded every port we could we even falsed the US under the terms of their defeat by the British in 1814 when we destroyed parts of the DC government resistance or president home,what you call the white house because the burns marks was painted over with white wash and you get the white house the US gave a ship or two to help with the stop slavery campaign and because of the south moaning about the costs they recalled their ships and now we wasn't fighting France we had more ship and we boarded more US shipping carrier with slaves and took the slaves back and sold the US shipping and Spanish and Portuguese ships right up to quinine and other drugs to stop flies, diseases, night sickness, bad water, mosquitos and this was in 1860's when if you did not stop then your slavery days were over right up to the caliphate 1924 with french help this time, yes the same one that Isis tried to get back, so they could start up slavery again in the 2010's and does Britain get any thanks for stopping slavery when we run the world. And what about the slaves we put them in charge of those countries we trained them up to run courts, governments and military left them with railways, post offices, some towns and cities with electricity power and the ex-slave owners have been fighting to get back power ever since. With of course money and training from guess who, USA for mining rights as we see in films and documentaries on TV about the world Love mom
He's wrong. Playing word games.Slavery was outlawed by The Ecclesiastical Council of England in 1102. In the 18th century, when Britain ruled the sea, slaves were freed from their ships, setting foot on British soil, they would immediately become free men.
Of course there were tons of people in the south that didn’t want to end slavery. Just like every other political decision. Not everyone is in agreeable. It is actually a miracle the 14th amendment got passed after the Civil War. No easy task as so many voting members of Congress represented the south. But thank goodness it was passed and slavery was abolished.
#GabrielHenrique I leave above suggestions for your reaction, the talented Gabriel Henrique Gabriel covers Whitney Houston impeccably. I also suggest that I have noting in Gabriel's voice.
There’s a weird myth in the kind of far-right British culture that you find on RUclips that somehow Britain was innocent in slavery and the slave trade. It all stems from a misleading video on the subject called something like “The British Crusade to End Slavery”, which some people have latched onto as if it’s historically accurate. I’m sorry you got some comments from them on that previous video!
Are you referring to the video by Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon of Akkad. The owner and commentator on the ‘Podcast of The Lotus Eaters, described as ‘far right’ by the publicly edited fictional webpage ‘Wikipedia’?
@@phueal Podcast of the Lotus Eaters is one of the best podcasts out there. Fascinating historical content (usually military. Nelson, Spartan Hoplites etc) presented by well informed historians, and social and sometimes political debate from guests across the spectrum. I recommend it.
@@primalengland thanks, I do enjoy history podcasts. Currently listening to Rex Factor, Totalus Rankium, The Rest is History. If I get a moment I’ll look into Podcast of The Lotus Eaters.
@@phuealI wouldn’t Carl Benjamin/ “sargon of akkad” is not a good person and regularly pushes far right conspiracy theories which deny reality usually under the guise of history or intellectual content (just because a video looks good and the voice over sounds smart, doesn’t mean it is). I’d save yourself the hassle and avoid risking the alt right pipeline.
Don5 take QI as being correct. Under William the conquerer, slavery was outlawed, for financial gain, l3ts not mix words, William the conquerer didn't do it because he was a good man. Anyone living in England was considered a free person, because how under a country blessed by God would condone slaves. There's a famous story of an American arriving in England with his slave, who ran away, what his slave didn't understand was that under English law, he was free as soon as his foot touched English soil. When caught the courts immediately freed him as he could not be a slave in England. The American however was not so pleased. Look it up, the history is all there and there are youtube videos on when the English abolished slavery
Sorry, I have to correct you. Slavery was a way of life ever since the existence of mankind. It wasn’t something that the British invented. The ancient civilisations of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Japan, India, China, in AFRICA, had slaves. Everywhere you looked, IT EXISTED AND WAS ACCEPTED AS A WAY OF LIFE. Except that when William the Conqueror, invaded England in 1066, he outlawed it, in a roundabout way. Within 100 years, slavery was non-existent in England. So, from 1100AD, England was the ONLY country, possibly in the world, that did not have slaves. The British didn’t KIDNAP slaves from Africa to take to the Americas. There was ALREADY an existing slave trade between the African tribes in Africa. The British bought the slaves from these African slave traders (who actually went into the interior of Africa and captured native populations) and then brought them to the coastal towns in Africa to sell them to the British traders. And not all British people were traders in the slave trade. The majority of the British were in the poor category, living hand to foot existence. It was the upper classes that had the money to build ship and sail to Africa and the Americas. So, putting the entire British population in one giant bucket is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. It’s also a bit hypocritical since you two are the beneficiaries of this historical slave trade. Otherwise, you would probably not be living there in America. America today might be either Spanish or French, by now. Or…it may not even exist had it not been for the British and their inventions.🤷🏽♀️ And the British spent a LOT of money to FORCE other countries to abolish slavery in other countries around the world. They BORROWED this money in the early 1800’s. The last part of this debt was finally paid off in 2016. Yes…you heard that right!!! 2016!!! My taxes went into paying for that debt. So, you can imagine my surprise and disgust of a lot of talk in the USA about reparations. My taxes went into freeing EVERYONE in the WORLD from slavery and I am kind of proud about that fact…even though I am NOT white.
This is very much a manipulation of the truth, it fails to provide the necessary context and by not giving the context it infers a narrative than is just not true.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
You misunderstand. Slavery not being recognised as a condition means anyone arriving in Britain as a slave was automatically free. That was brought in under William the Conqueror but not tested in court until Somerset v Stewart in 1772
*You don't need to legislate that which didn't happen* - Slavery ended in England due to William the Conqueror almost a thousand years ago.
Legislation against slavery was only created in 1833 for outside England. But in the early 1700s court cases denied slavery because there was no such state of being in England. Americans bringing their slaves with them had them released if they went to court in England. Because there was no such thing as slavery in England.
However like anything else criminality occured in England because there wasn't a police force until the 1800s. So accessing the law was regional and relied upon regional authorities to enforce law.
Thanks Dave. Short and sweet. No point in having a law against something that doesn't happen.
I know this isn’t the point you are making but it is important to mention that the slave trade is still incredibly alive. There is estimated to be over 100k people trafficked as slaves in the UK alone. Its important to be aware and vigilant against modern slavery and trafficking
There’s also a whole other point about economic slavery and the moving of slavery to servility with only really the name changing (i.e. if a slave is released with no education/skills, no money and no relatives, their only option might be to work for their former master for very poor wages).
@@cahan557 A valid point made very well.
@cahan557 last I heard its 30,000,000 slaves today more then the height of the trans Atlantic slave trade
@@Jack-lk7wk Since it was the British Empire at its height that stopped the slave trade and the British Empire is now gone, it's unfortunate that the new leaders didn't take up the burden and continue the campaign. But stopping a profitable enterprise is costly and no doubt counterproductive to profit orientated ideologues, and the world around us today is more interested in profit than Morality or Ethics.
William the Conquerer actually banned slavery in 1086 in England. The actual Legislation tidied things up in 2010 just to keep the paperwork up to date. Any slave who stepped on English soil since 1086 was automatically freed from slavery.
He only banned the sale of slaves to non-christians. It was the ecclesiastical Council of London banned the slave trade within England in 1102. Unfortunately slavery was replaced with serfdom where a serf was tied to the land that they worked for a feudal lord. When the land was sold the serfs remained with the land and served a new lord.
You are right about a slave being free as soon as the step onto english soil, this was reinforced with cases such as Somerset v Stewart in 1772.
kinda disappointed in QI for not explaining this properly
You were in the European Union from 1975 until 2010.
It recognised slavery as a legal state of being until 2010, which meant that their laws overruled William the Conqueror's royal proclamation, which did not recognise it.
@@shauntempley9757
We were not in the European Union from 1975. Please get your facts right.
@@primusstovis3704 You were.
The reason for that law in 2010 was because of Saudi's bringing their slave to the UK, there was a case when a Saudi slave, fled to the police, and they handed her back to the Saudi family, this created a bit of a scandal and led to the law, there were virtually no slaves in Britain, one of the rare times a slave was brought back from the colonise, the slave owner was taken to court, and the slave was granted freedom
We used to see a lot of Saudis here on the streets of 🇨🇭
Many lawsuits later, it's now quite rare
@@rkw2917Eh? Are you suggesting that the number of Saudis walking in the U.K. is reduced because they’re unable to pay their help? 😆😆😆
@@stephennewton2777 They didn't pay them, they were confined.
So....Islam forced a Law change her in the UK? Whodathunkit
Nonsense. It will have been a provision of the Human Rights Act, which in turn is a consequence of the UK signing the Maastricht Treaty.
I know of someone who was actually convicted in 2010 (conspiracy to traffic persons) their offences predated the HRA.
That's pretty stupid. Even in the 16th century, any slave stepping on English soil was automatically a free man.
"English air is too pure for a slave to breathe"
I thought Sommersett was about not being able to forcibly removed from the country.
@@setonix9151 You sound better informed than I, but isn't the principle the same?
@@setonix9151 Semantics really. They couldn't put him on the boat as the law said he wasn't a slave.
That is not historically true. There were plenty of slaves in Britain. It was found to be the case after a court case.
More Americans not knowing UK ended slavery
It didn't.
As mentioned in the clip it attempted to end the AtlanticSlave trade. The motives are extremely dubious since it was still legal to own slaves in the British Empire.
Britain had just tried, a failed, to quell the Haitian slave revolt.
@@ethelmini Um, it certainly did. It banned it through out it's empire.
The clip is made up of left wing virtue signallers.
Did all slavers want it banning, no, certainly not the black slave traders who the British slavers bought their slaves off.
Haiti was a French colony, not British. It also involve French, Spanish, British, and Polish, not just the British has you try to imply. The date was also 1791 before the official ending of slavery. British were also on both side - something of course you fail to point out.
The path to freeing slaves actually was due to British people finding out sweet stuffs were cheaper on the backs of slaves so they boycotted sweet stuffs.
Your Brit hate and trying to dismiss Britains roll in ending slavery can be defeated with the simplest of googles.
@@ethelminiFrance was in charge of Hati, you’re getting your countries mixed up. Britain ended the trans Atlantic slave trade at great cost after buying all the slaves in the empire and freeing them.
The actions of the British led to much fewer slaves making it to America making the Southern states introduce the runaway slave act leading to the civil war.
@@decrulez Britain also created the West African squadron(formed in 1808), which policed the African coast and had the right to board, inspect and seize the cargo of any vessel it suspected of carrying slaves. It increased the size of the squadron several times over a number of years as it's importance became realised, and eventually America signed a deal to consent to their ships being boarded and checked, and even sent their own little squadron to help police the coast.
These actions helped to end the Atlantic Slave Trade, as although the squadrons didn't stop it entirely, it bled it down to a trickle to the point it was no longer profitable or worth the risk any more.
@@decrulezwe still tried to quash it
As a rule, countries don’t pass laws in areas they don’t believe needs them - putting into statute that it’s a criminal offence to walk your Martian iguana after 8pm would be considered a waste of time and money.
Yes, sadly, Stephen went into word manipulation in this question. Slavery has been illegal in England for almost 1000 years. This was why the anti-slavery abolition movement started in England because freedom from slavery was part of the English DNA and English people themselves began the revolution against slave trade. Also, do Remember that the slave trade was run by black Africans and had been so for almost 1000 years before Europeans arrived. Black Africans and Islamic nations traded black slaves following the defeat of tribal enemies.
You are supposed to feel white guilt about an industry that was absolutely morally normal everywhere in the world up until England enforced gliberation from slavery through the British empire throughout the world. There is also the potential argument that Britain was coming back to the United States after the defeat of Napoleon to liberate the slaves in the United States and this is why Abraham Lincoln took his stance around slavery because he knew this was the case. Just an interesting area to explore perhaps.
It has been a Woke trope to use lies and political manipulation to teach false histories both in the United States and more recently here in the United Kingdom. They are simply lies.
It's an interesting difference between European descent Americans who want to explore their heritage by returning back to their ancestral homes to see where they descended from and the lack of interest fromBlack American people who, if they chose to go back to visit Africa and their own ancestral land, would receive an interesting education about how they arrived in the United States and was sold to traders. I think they might celebrate being American today had they allowed themselves intellectual freedoms as well as the legal freedoms that are an inheritance from White Culture and not from black culture.
Without the intervention from the British Empire as it was, many societies in Africa would have continued slavery. Of course, many non-white countries do continue slavery today.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because tribal warfare included slavery is not an excuse for other much richer and more technologically advanced societies to capture and sell people as property. People shouldn’t feel guilty (it’s not being taught as “you should feel guilty”, that is culture war nonsense) and if kids learning about their country’s history do feel bad, the kid’s parents should have a talk with them about society changing and the importance of doing better and avoiding repeating mistakes. Kids shouldn’t be ignorant of history or have their ancestors actions downplayed, they should understand that their ancestors did bad things but that they shouldn’t feel guilty as long as they don’t make the same mistakes they did.
Except for attempting to put down the Haitian slave revolt (1793)
Trading & supplying the Confederacy in the American Civil War.
Having Brasil as a defacto economic colony when it still had slavery as late as 1888.
Fry's become a broken Woketard
Try again .
1066 William the Conqueror outlawed slavery in England.
I don't think he outlawed it, he taxed it out of existence
Wasnt outlawed, the quote was 'they will pay a fine to me' which was to be believed to be very heavy.
yes and no, there was no legislation. He just banned the sale of slaves from England to overseas and put a high tax on them. However his conquests was, by no means, the sole factor for slavery to turn into servility as it did so. Various religious, socioeconomic and political leanings were occurring in western Europe through out the 9-12th centuries.
Already before the appearance of the Normans we can observe a slow growth of manorial practice in England with the attendant servility that comes with it (things like work obligations). Freemen were becoming tied to the land and at the same time we see an ongoing interest in manumission (freeing of slaves) brought about probably both for economic (for instance it is cheaper to let serfs feed themselves and support their own family on land that you own than to provide for them actively) and religious reasons (i.e. it is spiritually beneficial to free slaves).
It is also worth noting that as England became more and more unified and "pacified" the central producer of new slaves, i.e. warfare and conflict, thus also began to wane.
Effectively what the Norman conquest did do is speed up the process already occurring. Then it wasn't outright illegal to own a slave. Just massively expensive. So expensive many would be running at a loss.
It wasn't until the abolitionists managed to convince parliament in 1797 to 1807 that the wording used by William the Conqueror meant that no man who walks on England's soil shall be a slave. Which is why people tend to think ol' Bill made slavery illegal outright. A common misconception to be sure.
Wasn't outlawed. And the fine wasn't well enforced either we have multiple accounts of slaves in British soil.
@VXGaming yes but there are cases way before 2010 that said slavery wasn't legal in England.
William the conquer set things in motion in 1066 but years later it was challenged then laws were put in place, 2010 was them basically virtue signaling due to Saudi's.
That's extremely disingenuous. Our constitution is one of precedent, as Stephen knows full well. The slave trade was outlwed in England under William the Conqueror, in something like 1068 CE! Subsequent court cases, in later centuries upheld the principle that slavery was illegal in England. One famous case, of a runaway slavevs his American 'master' set the principle that a slave becomes free, as soon as he set foot on English soil! The 1804 and 1805 Acts of Parliament banned the transatlantic slave trade and the means to enforce it, as well as consolidating the legal position in England. The 1830 something Act abolished slavery throughout the Empire an Commonwealth. Though in practice it was already de facto illegal. The Act Stephen mentioned was to clarify the law re' sex trafficking and modern slavery. Effectively closing any loopholes. In reality, that law from the 1060s made England the first country in the World to effectively and legally outlaw slavery!
Hardly surprising it's the BBC.
You need to watch a video entitled something like " How Britain helped end Slavery", it's quite an eye opener.
Carl/Sargon's 'The British Crusade Against Slavery'.. but he deleted that channel a while ago. Only way to watch it now is other people reacting to it.
As an Aussie from memory when it was newsworthy it was due to Saudis in the UK.
No - provision of the Human Rights Act. Which was a requirement of the Maastricht Treaty.
Yer we didn't keep slaves & we send our Crminals to Demonds Land for steeling Breed blood tealeafs RIGHT!
If you look up the Domesday Book of 1086 commissioned by William the Conqueror, the first known census bans slavery in England, it was also put into affect in 1102 by the Ecclesiastical Council of London, which banned the slave trade within England. "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business of selling men like animals"
introduced a law preventing the sale of slaves overseas.
I adore your reactions, and Jodie cracks me up with her facial expressions to sexual innuendo.
Please don't stop posting videos and reactions.
I'm Dougie, From the UK (Frome, Somerset ... But I'm a Yorkshire man)
Come home brother. Spending toi much time with Southerners is bad for you 😉
The 2010 Act of Parliament only drew together all the existing laws that had effectively outlawed holding another human "In bondage".
Those laws began with an edict of William I - "William the Conqueror" - who ruled (when Monarchs DID actually "rule") from 1066 to 1087.
He's not saying that there WERE slaves in 2010 in the UK!
He was pointing out that the law concerning slave ownership just hadn't been removed from the Statute-Book, due to some oversight!
In fact, Magna Carta had quite a bit to say about not having slaves in the UK, & that was in the 11th Century!!
The no slave rule on British soil Was actually introduced in 1215 in the magna carta.
Prove me wrong!
People do not want the truth they want to push there hate and lies
😂
Do enlighten me. Where in the magna carta does it say that?
Wasn’t feudal serfdom akin to slavery……just asking.
@setonix9151 a quick Google will answer your question
This topic is a bit more nuanced when you look into it, there are some semantics involved with the terms. Slavery was banned much earlier under 'English' law (1102, the church Council of London) before the introduction of 'British' law when it was redefined again (Somerset v Stewart in 1772). Again in 1807 and loose ends with the wording to cover 'modern slavery' in 2010 and again in 2015 (The Modern Slavery Act). No doubt there will be changes in the future to redefine the law, to cover new and unforeseen subtleties and language changes.
1086 WTC
Mississippi didn’t ratify the 13th Amendment until 2013… after Spielberg’s “Lincoln” came out.
He's being a bit naughty. We never thought to abolish slavery as since the Magna Carta we haven't had slaves "Any person in slavery in that jurisdiction must therefore be free" . This was upheld in 1772 when a plantation owner from the now US brought his slave to Britain it was held that as soon as the slave set foot in "that jurisdiction" (England) he was a free man. I think the man was James Somerset
The outlawing in the EMPIRE was earlier, there were no slaves in England so it didn't need outlawing.
And our People were to busy working 7-7 6 days a week with half day Sunday to have time to say anything
There were salves in England. It’s a misconception that there weren’t. The old English law outlawing it was forgot by this point until brought up in a court case that would lay the foundations (not cause) the abolition of slavery in the British Empire
Check out the William the Conqueror angle if you are interested (from the description I vaguely remember it seemed like a way to tax and penalize owners ?)
Gosh darnit! Bob heard that! He just upped and left!
I need to do all the housework myself now!
Thanks guys!
Sort of like mobile phone use in a car. The police already had perfectly good laws ( driving without due care and attention ) to prosecute it but it was decided to write a new specific law. More paperwork ! 😄
In that case, there was the potential to argue that *in that instance*, use of the phone wasn't careless driving. Making it a specific offence simplified things.
That's the funny thing about those kind of laws. Cannibalism wasn't illegal in Germany as well until one guy ate someone and suddenly they weren't able to convict him of anything.
Murder?
@@4Kandlez The man who was eaten actively participated in the act and gave his consent to it. Both parties were in agreement and initially no crime could be proven. In the end he was convicted to manslaughter and later in a retrial to murder as well. But it took this special case to realize, that the law wasn't really prepared for such a situation.
Google "Armin Meiwes" if you want to know more about this case.
As far as I know (I could very well be wrong if it's changed recently) it still isn't illegal in the UK for necro-cannibalism (eating dead flesh). Obviously homicidal cannibalism is illegal. Where the UK stands on eating human flesh without involving death I suspect depends on the circumstances and is more a case of shades of grey than black and white.
Uraguyan Air Force Flight 571 is a good example of (presumed) necro-cannibalism where it was essential for survival. If that was wrong, it raises question marks over transubstantiation and the morality of people who genuinely believe they are ingesting human flesh and blood in a religious ceremony.
@@d34d10ck So the moral of the story is commit a crime that no-one else has committed and does not fall in the purview of lesser crimes and you can get away scot-free unless retried. Where does the law stand on the law changing making previous actions criminal, because that hardly seems fair? Not quite double jeopardy, but aspects of it would be similar.
Morning from the UK have you watched Candice Owen’s talk on slavery ?
Guys you should try checking out some of Eddie Izzards stand up routines. He is really funny and extremely clever too. He has a few specials and all of them are great my personal favorite special is Dressed to kill
One point not covered was that slavery has not been completely abolished in the USA yet! The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution states "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." . That exception means that you can, if convicted of a crime in the USA, be subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude. Thus the use of prison labour in the most imprisoned nation, the USA, flouurishes.
I think the point is that all the things we associate with slavery - forcing someone to work for you, abusing them if they did not, imprisoning them, separating them from their families, disposing of them like a sick race horse etc. - were already illegal. But if you decided to write up a contract to say that your wife technically owned you, it would not be illegal. But in spite of that, you could not be forced to do anything because of the other laws. So it would be in name only. So the 2010 law was merely a formality, just so a Conservative government could claim to have ended slavery. Also William The Conqueror outlawed the sale of slaves to foreign lands, which effectively ended much of the slavery in England. Then in 1772, A court ruling upheld the right of a slave (that had been brought to the Britain) to not be sold abroad. As a result, the slave was freed and set a legal precedent in which it was assumed that slavery itself was illegal (though in reality, there is evidence that slaves were still brought to England and kept there). By the time of the abolition of the slave trade, this pretty much came to an end. Our laws have a natural ebb and flow which naturally changes over time, rather than us getting hung up on a written constitution
It's not possible to enslave someone against their will without false imprisonment, abduction, deprivation of rights etc, which was already covered under several other laws, so really the passing of this law was more about making it publicly official just to avoid the embarrassment of not having such an explicit law.
It kind of makes sense, because we were (at the time) a member of the EU, and of course we're a member of the UN, so not having such a law the way so many other nations do could very easily be taken out of context by a few who want to make a fuss about something that wasn't really an issue.
Serfs were traded, worked in the fields for no pay, poorly fed, disfigued (noses split, ears cut off etc) long before the Atlantic slave trade. Note: this is not a competition.
Totally, totally incorrect. Serfs could NOT be traded. They DID receive payment, if only in kind. Indeed, the landowners were obliged to provide living accommodation; poor it may have been but supply it they did. They were transferred with the land it it changed hands but nothing compelled them to stay with the new landowner. If and it’s a big if, disfigurement took place it would have been as a punishment for a crime committed. Writing “it’s not a competition “ doesn’t mean your false statements can go un corrected. Serfs can not be compared to slaves. William 1. did decree “Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business … of selling men like animals.” In 1080 and it was ratified by the court case in 1772, Somerset vs Stewart.
Sadly, people seem to be getting their education from ‘A Game of Thrones’ type of entertainment. Please do not post ‘facts’ when you have not studied the past, as I have.
@barbarakendall5184 ..... In English law slavery was never legalised, it has never been legal to own slaves in England, The slavery act of 1833 was to make slavery illegal in the British empire, not in England, as slavery was never legalised here. If any slave was bought on English soil they automatically would become a free man/woman. As was the case in the Somerset case in 1772, Lord Mansfield ruled that, as slavery was not recognised by English law James Somerset a slave who had been bought to England and then escaped, could not forcibly be sent to Jamaica for sale, and he was set free.
@@geoffersvoiceofreason2534 The landlords were Angels and treated their serfs with such compassion. Talk about whitewashing
@@SimSim-zf9if Sorry? Where did I say “Landlord’s were angels”? Merely pointing out that English serfs were not slaves and couldn’t be traded or disfigured on a whim of a baron or Lord, is not “whitewashing “! The fact you use the word “landlords” to describe a serf’s Lord, shows you are perhaps not totally Au Fait with genuine English history as you think. The woke mob may be happy to subvert genuine, source based history but I don’t have to play their games. I do not have to cow tow down to wokeness and “black washing”!
@@geoffersvoiceofreason2534 It's you who is rewriting history all that studying a complete waste of time you are just another right-wing bigot. Who sucks up to the rich and powerful. Bet you are a flat-earther and an anti-vaxxer.
Its like there is no law stating that you cant store nuclear intercontinental missiles in your back garden. Its specific and unnecessary as the laws surrounding arms ànd nuclear materials make the law superfluous. 2010s law changes nothing as such,it simply codified existing laws to be more specific.
It was only after many failed attempts that, in 1807, the slave trade in the British Empire was abolished. However, slaves in the colonies (excluding areas ruled by the East India Company) were not freed until 1838 - and only after slave-owners, rather than the slaves themselves, received compensation. from UK parliament web site .
If it doesn't happen, you don't need a law. If it starts, then you need the law.
Yeah this is a wonky one that needs a bit more than they covered here. I see in the comments corrections so i won't bother echoing other mentioning William the bastard, the Summerset case etc etc. Look at Thomas Sowells piece he covers this in a good amount of depth
Probably the reason there was no law prohibiting slavery in English soil is because for several centuries there had been a law saying that any man who sets foot in English soil automatically becomes a free man, therefore there would be no way for someone to legally be a slave in England. There's even been processes in the 1700s where American slave owners who brought slaves to England end up having to free them.
People focus on the fact that slavery was never a legal state in the UK, and gloss over the slavery that was permitted elsewhere in the British Empire. Activities that took place elsewhere in the Empire were the responsibility of the UK. I also think that the British have a degree of responsibility for the continuing slavery in the United States after independence as it was continuing a British Empire practice.
people also gloss over the fact that slavery was present in every country in the world long before the British empire, the British empire did not start the slave trade that is fact, yes they took advantage of the already existing practice of slaves as did every other nation on earth. Also fact is that the British empire ended slavery in most of the world not just in the British empire, they did this by both by persuation, financial compensation to slave owners and by force. Why do the British have any responsibility for the continuing slavery in the United States, there werent following British Empire practice, they were following the the practice of the rest of the world until the rest of the world ended slavery but they chose not to because finacially it was not in their interest to.
@@paulknox999 There is no doubt that the effort made by people in the British Empire to shut down slavery worldwide was a very good thing, and they deserve full credit for it. I'm definitely not trying to paint British Empire citizens as the only wrongdoers in all this, although British people were *very* efficient participants in the process. It is debatable how much responsibility the British Empire has for the actions of one of its offshoots after independence, but there would have been no United States without the British Empire.
@@Will-nn6uxdont dissagree, no one can be without guilt as far as slavery goes. I still dissagree about the united states Britain had 13 small colonies, a few more smaller areas that werent initially interested in independence the rest of the vast areas which is now the US was part of the French, Spanish and Russian empires. British controlled area was tiny in comparison to the rest of what is now USA.
" I also think that the British have a degree of responsibility for the continuing slavery in the United States after independence" I also think you're a person of diminished intelligence.
Please watch the short about "how white people ended slavery" by Candice Owens
It’s not really a pro-white people statement to say that white people ended the slave trade since they were the ones who industrialised and made it international.
I thought it was 1066 etc William etc banned it in England but the BE also aka USA allowed it longer
introduced a law preventing the sale of slaves overseas.
To explain where you guys got confused a little.
1802 slavery ended for Britain.
1834 abolished altogether throughout the British empire.
2010 only happened because of a rare case at the time to do with the Saudi royals where the law had to be made because we never had slaves here in the mainland during slavery,but throughout the empire at the time there was.
Hope this clarifies things a bit more for you both!🙂😎
To be fair the FIRST time savery was abolished in England was after the "Norman Conquest of 1066"... The Norman conquest of England resulted in the gradual merger of the pre-conquest institution of slavery into serfdom, and all slaves were no longer recognised separately in English law or custom. By the middle of the 12th century, the institution of slavery as it had existed prior to the Norman conquest had fully disappeared... Then came the "Atlantic slave trade" and it all kicked off again.
You don't need a law were there isn't a problem. You bring a new law in when the problem arises.
One of those weird overlooked laws that hasn’t quite fallen into any category, and thusly; still exists.
Similar to WW2 where every nation signed the Paris Peace Treaties in 1945 & effectively ended the war.
But there was one tiny country that didn’t sign it (can’t remember which one), but they’re technically still fighting the nazi’s 😂
Slave was an ugly word for the British, indentured servitude was more fitting that's why it lasted until 1917
William the Conquerer actually banned slavery in 1086 in England...!
There are laws that can be used today that may appear "useful " to politicians or lawyers that go back to the 13th century .
What you have to understand is that there would have been English slaves when we were being invaded by Vikings. It only stands to reason that we would have a natural aversion to slavery, so it probably ended along with the Danelaw.
1810 was when we banned people from selling other however Slavery wasnt allowed on UK soil could pass throw wasnt allowed to be kept in UK! and 2010 was they changed the wording in the Law remember its still punishable by death to attack the sitting Monac BUT they wouldnt inact it as we banned the death peniltey in the 50s
Slavery has never been legal in the UK, An English court case of 1569 involving Cartwright who had bought a slave from Russia ruled that English law could not recognise slavery. This ruling was overshadowed by later developments, particularly in the Navigation Acts, but was upheld by the Lord Chief Justice in 1701 when he ruled that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England. [67]
Slavery was banned in England in 1086 and passed by the synod in 1102 , it has been illegal to own a slave in England since that date , because we and most of the world were part of the slave trade around the world it seems to have obscured the fact that we didn't allow slavery in our land.
Your both wrong. It was actually around 1086. By William the Conqueror. If your talking about England. If your talking about the whole world, um well.
This is what frustrates me with the statue toppling mob. They will protest a statue of someone long dead in a country where slavery is long gone, but won't lift a finger to protest the slavery of 24 million people who need their help NOW, TODAY.
Agree completely. It's like people on social networking who follow a "trending" social topic to look good to their friends and family, and then conveniently drop any kind of valid tangible support further down the line. It's so superficial and self aggrandising.
Completely agree.
@@Georgie_R What an absolute load of codswallop! Stop projecting your pathology on the rest of us. Celebrated?
And if you think that the UK isn't Balkanised come and live in the north... Manchester, Rochdale, Oldham, Leeds, Bury, Huddersfield, Bradford... I'll drive you to the lines in the road where the ethnicities change!
The Colston statue lot are just the virtue-signalling, progressive left and not one of them would be able to tell you in any detail the history of the British involvement in the slave trade. The judge who let them off with zero punishment was a joke as well. All against a backdrop of lockdowns as well remember.
How do you protest an illegal black market lol. People tear down statues because we shouldn’t celebrate people who were not good. The statues should be kept in museums for the sake of keeping historical record but they shouldn’t be in public parks or in front of goverment buildings etc.
I’m sure if the collective human trafficking trade agreed to respect a petition, modern slavery would end.
Sure, that'll be what they were thinking 🙄
The Colston statue was erected in 1895 (by a society of former slavers). Colston died in 1721
Its purpose as always been political
I would like to see your reaction to QI - What did Sherlock Holmes do twice as much as Watson? Its fun watching Jodie get embarraessed and grossed out.
William the conqueror levied a fine on the sale of slaves, in 1082. Which just about wiped out the practice of slavery in England. So a specific law forbidding the owning of a slave seemed irrelevant, as no one owned slaves. And if the ownership of slaves was legal, why did a judge free a slave brought to the UK. This is the Somerset V Stewart court case of 1782.
Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 (also known as Sommersett v Steuart, Somersett's case, and the Mansfield Judgment) is a judgment of the English Court of King's Bench in 1772, relating to the right of an enslaved person on English soil not to be forcibly removed from the country and sent to Jamaica for sale. According to one reported version of the case, Lord Mansfield decided that:
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 the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.[1].
So QI assertion that slavery was somehow legal in the UK is a blatant leftie lie look at the panel Izzard and Fry himself as Woke as Woke can be.
you should watch a video on how Britain ended the slave trade interesting watch
Wasn’t feudal serfdom akin to slavery.
...and debentured labour - how Indians were sent to replace freed Caribbean slaves.
We need to be clear when we talk about when Britain Abolished slavery, and abolished the slave trade. we are not comparing apples with apples - particularly in the case of the United States.
The historical context of Britain needs to be established as what is meant by 'Britain'.
We know humans lived in the islands that make up modern Britain since Palaeolithic era from archeological records. But we do know from Roman records that historically, Iron Age Britons were enslaved in large numbers, typically by rich merchants and warlords who exported indigenous slaves from pre-Roman times. They took slaves from the many different tribes of indigenous ancient Briton.
The Roman occupation of Britain had fully occurred around 47 AD. The Roman invasion was savage the Romans took slaves from the conquered tribes and expanded the practise. There can be no doubt that thousands of Britons were enslaved during the conquest. Calgacus, leader of the Caledonian tribes in the war against Agricola, stated that slavery was the consequence of defeat.
Roman occupation and rule last up until around 409 AD - a period of nearly 4 centuries. Throughout the Roman occupation Barbarians and Vikings raided the island to plunder the wealth of Britannia - the vikings took Roman Britons as slaves as part of their plunder.
Roman Rule ended in 409 AD. By 410 all Roman troops had been withdrawn, leaving the cities of Britain and the remaining Romano-British to fend for themselves. Without the Roman legions the Saxons were the next to conquer the island. Saxon warriors from what is now Northern Germany and Scandinavia brutally invaded the South and East coasts slaughtering men, women and children. A period of conquest lasting about a century saw migration of Saxons into Britain and the establishment of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and rule.
The Vikings also continued their raids and in time established their own kingdoms.
The Anglo Saxons and Vikings took slaves and practiced slavery. The Saxons taking slaves from the conquered lands of the Romano-British. The Vikings taking slaves from the same people and the Saxons.
Then in 1066 it was the turn of the Normans, from what is now France. The Norman invasion was brutal - but it was the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon Britain the formal elimination of slavery occurred. In Anglo Saxon times slaves were often descendants of the conquered British population: the Anglo-Saxon word for “Briton” is used interchangeably for “slave”.
Slavery was formally abolished under William the Conquerer and was written into law: In 1070 William the Conqueror deposed the elderly pre-Conquest Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, and replaced him with Lanfranc, one of the leading lights of the reform movement and William’s own moral tutor since boyhood. The new archbishop was soon urging his pupil to abolish the slave trade and the Conqueror complied. It was at Lanfranc’s insistence, explains William of Malmesbury, that the king ‘frustrated the schemes of those scumbags who had an established practice of selling their slaves into Ireland’. Malmesbury noted that William was somewhat reluctant, since he enjoyed a share of the profits, but the record of the king’s own legislation shows that a ban was indeed put in place and that William had found a way of squaring the matter with his conscience. ‘I prohibit the sale of any man by another outside of the country,’ says the ninth law of William the Conqueror, ‘on pain of a fine to be paid in full to me.’ William’s personal attitude towards slavery can also be surmised from his only recorded visit to Wales, glibly reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 1081: ‘The king led levies into Wales, and there freed many hundreds of people.’By the time William of Malmesbury was writing in the 1120s slavery was gone merging into Serdom.
After Norman rule, we move into the era of the Plantagenets, originating from the a royal House in the French County of Anjou. beginning around 1153, which saw Monarchial rule established in England saw a redistribution of legislative power from the Church, to the monarchical state. The Normans were the last people to successfully invade and conquer Britain. Beginning the establishment of a unique British identity and political sovereignty.
So the important point I'm making is that Slavery has never existed within the law what is technically 'Britain' and has not been recognised since the period of Norman Britain in 1100s - there has not been a period where slaves were owned and traded since the Anglo Saxons, which makes Britain fairly unique.
The rise of the trans Atlantic slave trade around 1555 saw European slave traders and traders from Britain trading goods with African slave traders for slaves as well as gold, ivory and spices. British traders brought slaves from African slave traders - usually Kings or chiefs or wealthy African merchants. The Atlantic slave trade grew at a time when many African states were at war with each other, taking prisoners that could easily be sold to traders. Then exported in horrific conditions and sold into brutal conditions in the Caribbean, South America and North America.
The slave trade was abolished in Britain with the 1807 Slave Trade , abolishing slavery and slave trading within the British empire.
The Blockade of Africa began in 1808 after the United Kingdom outlawed the Atlantic slave trade, making it illegal for British ships to transport slaves. The Royal Navyimmediately established a presence off Africa to enforce the ban, called the West Africa Squadron. Although the ban initially applied only to British ships, Britain negotiated treaties with other countries to give the Royal Navy the right to intercept and search their ships for slaves.
I dont think slavery is outlawed in most European countries as slavery. Just other laws automatically make it impossible.
No law was ever passed in England to legalise slavery. In the Somerset case of 1772, Lord Mansfield ruled that, as slavery was not recognised by English law, James Somerset, a slave who had been bought to England and then escaped, could not be forcibly sent to Jamaica for sale, and he was set free. The slavery abolition act 1833 was to ban slavery throughout the British Empire, In England it was illegal to own anyone long before that, and actually was never legal in law. In Scotland however slaves were still in use until 1799 when an act was passed which established their freedom and made slavery and bondage illegal. Any slave that was bought to England even as far back as the 16th century would have automatically become a free man.
Except the basis of the Common Law is that free men can do anything that isn't specifically proscribed.
Having read the comments I’m not watching as it’ll just wind me up as it’s clearly inaccurate
Prove it
William the conqueror 1086 outlawed selling humans "No man can profit from the sale of another man" punishment was a big fine which pretty much wiped out slavery in England and later accounts of slaves brought to England by their masters being set free through the judicial system but slavery was allowed in the rest of the Empire foreign territories until the early 1800's and Britain did set wheels in motion for abolishing slavery worldwide by force
we did not need a law to know it was wrong ......................................
From the 11th century there has been no slaves in England and the British ended slavery , this is a bit of an odd law and the clip needs a lot more explanation.
Is it Luke and Yoda nest time...
You could have a slave but not own one. The slave could work for you, but is 'employed/owned' by someone else who 'loans' the slave to you.
1066 William the conqueror took a census and after saw there were slaves ( 10%of population) and in 1135 said you couldn't sell/trade in slaves. This lead to slavery dying out in Britain in the 1100s this notion of slavery was frowned upon and we had a small detachment of the royal navy tasked with patrolling the Atlantic west coast seeking out and freeing slaves found on slave ships. The East Africa Squadron. This developed into a political position to stop slavery. The abolishion movement
A couple of court cases involving runaway American slave brought from America resulted in a trial where it found slaves became free as soon as slaves set foot on English soil. The abolishion movement got stronger a few more ships were added to the fleet and we tried to abolish slavery in our colonies. In 1833 this was done in law. Then France followed suit, and other countries too were beaten into submission and outlawed it too!
Due to the vagieries of the law specifics have to be acknowledged!
It was only in 1970s that a small county in England signed a peace treaty with Russia! Due to it's disputed claim between Scotland and England it was accidently left of he original treaty!!!!!
Another
It was legal up to the 80s that you could kill a Scotsman with a bow and arrow within the walls of the city of York!!!!
Actually it's maths so on that technicality Jodie is correct. 🤪😂🤣.
There was no law against it because slavery has always been abhorrent to us. It never happened here.
Not-so fun fact: America never abolished slavery in its entirety, and it's still legal to this day. The 13th amendment made slavery illegal in the US... unless the person has been convicted of a crime, in which case it is a legal form of punishment.
Let me try to make it clear because I may not have earlier, no one in England has been allowed lawfully to own a slave since 1086 , we traded in slavery across the world alongside many others and voted to end slavery across the empire in the early eighteen hundreds , we then spent 70 years trying to end the practice through the Royal Navy and mostly succeeded even though most countries were not in favour of abolition. There is no other country in modern history that has done more to abolish this evil practice, not one .
Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1965 . However this law is not properly enforced as it’s always been against Islamic law for a Muslim to enslave another Muslim but not an offence to enslave a non-Muslim. If a non Muslim were to bring a case against a Muslim his testimony would not have the same value as the Muslim’s
Slavery was outlawed in England in the 11th century...any man woman or child setting foot on English soil was a free man, however it didn't stop us transporting slaves although we were the first to stop this practice as well and force other countries to stop via the Royal Navy....
No, Nick. You weren’t closest. You can’t just toss out 2010.
Maybe you should watch the video again.
;-)
More a case of the slave owner being liable to be prosecuted, I'd have thought.
in britain itself slavery was banned 1000 years ago
Watch the video, 'When England outlawed slavery'
In 1833, Britain used £20 million, 40% of its national budget, to pay compensation not to the slaves but the slave owners for the loss of their Property. The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn't paid off until 2015.
And now today the Slaves anstiers who were always Free and it no way affected are on a Grift
That's interesting. Wow. Being British and Caribbean decendint and I didn't know that. I studied slavery history. In all ages. . Here's important dates in Britain history.. Around 1066. William the conqueror made a law that slaves could not be exported overseas. But their was no law banning slavery. ..... 1555.1st slave bought to Britain.That started the slave trade in Britain. . 22,june,1772, a Court Case ... 1783, the Quakers ..1792.. 1807.Freedom Africa. . 1809 to 1869 the freedom of the Caribbean. .
1st,August, 1834. Britains colonies set free of all enslaved people. A good channel to watch on utupe is " the British Crusade against Slavery.". 2010.wow. Phew. 👽👍
There have been no slaves in England for almost 1000 years. So successive governments didn’t make time to legislate on a crime that didn’t exist.
Well. That’s the claim. Serfdom existed until the late 14th century at least.
Uk and USA history with slavery and race are very, very different.
For a start, being a white person means you are indigenous here. Not so in the USA.
how would you aquire a slave if human trafficing and kidnapping is outlawed? ...asking for a friend.
This is misleading because there trials way back on the 1800s when American slave owners got off their ships in British ports with a slave and were taken to court snd rhe slave freed because slavery was illegal and so the second a slave stepoed foot on british soil they were free
the question is the word slave as it seems the saudis brought one in the country .
USA was the 3rd country to ban slavery. So one of the very first
America fought to keep slavery now that appalling. William the conquerer outlawed slavery on British soil .
William the conqueror of 1066 fame. How slavery ended was by king William taxing those who had slaves and what work they did for slave owners. So the slave owners were taxed twice and after years of not making much money out of slavery after food, clothes and travel to the workplace that week or month. They set their slaves free under a term called ploughmen. These people could own land, have properties,buy and sell livestock and crops. There's a but to all this, they must help to bring in the harvest on church, monasteries and the local lord's lands. For this they had more rights than freemen another later term given to them by locals, who had never been a slave. As for ex-slaves could now work and ask for wages for the task given to them by the church, monasteries landowners and lord's. And with freemen they were not allowed to leave the county or shire. Until the plagues where workers could charge higher wages as hundreds of thousands of people died. This happened the plague bought by foreign ship's but these were English ships that went to English ports in France and came back with it. The plague was running rampant in most of Europe and king William Duke of Normandy and his decentants who owned lands in France by marriages to french nobles, Spanish, a certain Hungarian prince who fought and impaled Muslims soldiers who were rampaging across most of Europe for white slaves from the 7 to the 11 century in most European countries a quarter of France was occupied by Muslims almost all of Spain most of the blaken countries and Greece didn't become free from the Muslims until 1923/4. This Hungarian Prince you might know has Dracula or Vad the Impaler yes Britain Queen Elizabeth II and Charles and his sons have that bloodline from him. You will notice, I said Hungarian prince after the first world war parts of Hungary was chopped up and given to Romania Dracula country and other parts to now Czechoslovakia now Slovakia and the Czech republic, and maybe Italy and Poland . A few bits more when the virgin Queen died Elizabeth I in 1602/3 maybe James the sixth of Scotland was crowded king of both kingdoms and had two armies and needed to rise money so he tried to reintroduce slavery again in England that why the Scottish don't mention they came across our borders and took English people as slaves they don't mention that one that's why we had so many wars with the buggers and so we started to rebel against this first with petitions then non payment of taxes he died and his brother became king and things didn't get any better. So moving on to 1776 the British government didn't recognize the 13 colonial states and those who left America and came back to Britain found that the gold, silver, slaves and molasses wasn't good for them returning to the old country because any slave that set foot on English soil was a free person female, male or child free and every time a slave escaped from a foreign ship Britains would hinder the men from these ship to recapture that slave British people would club together and rise money for them to get passage home or set them up in business or train them our to be a carpenters or blacksmiths and they would sometimes marry white women or arrange for a black woman to be married to them and pay for their homes after 60 years or more or less it came to a vote 1807 end of slavery in Britain,1824 paid off all the slave owners in the West Indies or Caribbean to you even the black slave owners in the islands that they don't mention as well. Then a world wide slavery ban by us the British we attacked and blockaded every port we could we even falsed the US under the terms of their defeat by the British in 1814 when we destroyed parts of the DC government resistance or president home,what you call the white house because the burns marks was painted over with white wash and you get the white house the US gave a ship or two to help with the stop slavery campaign and because of the south moaning about the costs they recalled their ships and now we wasn't fighting France we had more ship and we boarded more US shipping carrier with slaves and took the slaves back and sold the US shipping and Spanish and Portuguese ships right up to quinine and other drugs to stop flies, diseases, night sickness, bad water, mosquitos and this was in 1860's when if you did not stop then your slavery days were over right up to the caliphate 1924 with french help this time, yes the same one that Isis tried to get back, so they could start up slavery again in the 2010's and does Britain get any thanks for stopping slavery when we run the world. And what about the slaves we put them in charge of those countries we trained them up to run courts, governments and military left them with railways, post offices, some towns and cities with electricity power and the ex-slave owners have been fighting to get back power ever since. With of course money and training from guess who, USA for mining rights as we see in films and documentaries on TV about the world
Love mom
He's wrong. Playing word games.Slavery was outlawed by The Ecclesiastical Council of England in 1102. In the 18th century, when Britain ruled the sea, slaves were freed from their ships, setting foot on British soil, they would immediately become free men.
I believe that the US didn't want to abolish slavery especially the south
Of course there were tons of people in the south that didn’t want to end slavery. Just like every other political decision. Not everyone is in agreeable. It is actually a miracle the 14th amendment got passed after the Civil War. No easy task as so many voting members of Congress represented the south. But thank goodness it was passed and slavery was abolished.
Weren´t wifes been considered to be their husband´s property?
#GabrielHenrique I leave above suggestions for your reaction, the talented Gabriel Henrique Gabriel covers Whitney Houston impeccably. I also suggest that I have noting in Gabriel's voice.
Misleading. You have to dig deeper to gain a proper understanding.
There’s a weird myth in the kind of far-right British culture that you find on RUclips that somehow Britain was innocent in slavery and the slave trade. It all stems from a misleading video on the subject called something like “The British Crusade to End Slavery”, which some people have latched onto as if it’s historically accurate. I’m sorry you got some comments from them on that previous video!
Are you referring to the video by Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon of Akkad. The owner and commentator on the ‘Podcast of The Lotus Eaters, described as ‘far right’ by the publicly edited fictional webpage ‘Wikipedia’?
@@primalengland Carl Benjamin aka Sargon of Akkad, yes. I wasn’t aware of the podcast or Wikipedia stuff.
@@phueal Podcast of the Lotus Eaters is one of the best podcasts out there. Fascinating historical content (usually military. Nelson, Spartan Hoplites etc) presented by well informed historians, and social and sometimes political debate from guests across the spectrum. I recommend it.
@@primalengland thanks, I do enjoy history podcasts. Currently listening to Rex Factor, Totalus Rankium, The Rest is History. If I get a moment I’ll look into Podcast of The Lotus Eaters.
@@phuealI wouldn’t Carl Benjamin/ “sargon of akkad” is not a good person and regularly pushes far right conspiracy theories which deny reality usually under the guise of history or intellectual content (just because a video looks good and the voice over sounds smart, doesn’t mean it is).
I’d save yourself the hassle and avoid risking the alt right pipeline.
Don5 take QI as being correct. Under William the conquerer, slavery was outlawed, for financial gain, l3ts not mix words, William the conquerer didn't do it because he was a good man. Anyone living in England was considered a free person, because how under a country blessed by God would condone slaves. There's a famous story of an American arriving in England with his slave, who ran away, what his slave didn't understand was that under English law, he was free as soon as his foot touched English soil. When caught the courts immediately freed him as he could not be a slave in England. The American however was not so pleased. Look it up, the history is all there and there are youtube videos on when the English abolished slavery
William the conquer out lawed slavery in the 11 century so qi is wrong on that 1
thays not to say that it was so!!!!!!
Slavery wasn't a thing in england so was no law needed
Sorry, I have to correct you.
Slavery was a way of life ever since the existence of mankind. It wasn’t something that the British invented. The ancient civilisations of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Japan, India, China, in AFRICA, had slaves. Everywhere you looked, IT EXISTED AND WAS ACCEPTED AS A WAY OF LIFE.
Except that when William the Conqueror, invaded England in 1066, he outlawed it, in a roundabout way. Within 100 years, slavery was non-existent in England. So, from 1100AD, England was the ONLY country, possibly in the world, that did not have slaves.
The British didn’t KIDNAP slaves from Africa to take to the Americas.
There was ALREADY an existing slave trade between the African tribes in Africa. The British bought the slaves from these African slave traders (who actually went into the interior of Africa and captured native populations) and then brought them to the coastal towns in Africa to sell them to the British traders.
And not all British people were traders in the slave trade. The majority of the British were in the poor category, living hand to foot existence. It was the upper classes that had the money to build ship and sail to Africa and the Americas. So, putting the entire British population in one giant bucket is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
It’s also a bit hypocritical since you two are the beneficiaries of this historical slave trade. Otherwise, you would probably not be living there in America. America today might be either Spanish or French, by now. Or…it may not even exist had it not been for the British and their inventions.🤷🏽♀️
And the British spent a LOT of money to FORCE other countries to abolish slavery in other countries around the world. They BORROWED this money in the early 1800’s. The last part of this debt was finally paid off in 2016.
Yes…you heard that right!!! 2016!!! My taxes went into paying for that debt. So, you can imagine my surprise and disgust of a lot of talk in the USA about reparations. My taxes went into freeing EVERYONE in the WORLD from slavery and I am kind of proud about that fact…even though I am NOT white.
This is very much a manipulation of the truth, it fails to provide the necessary context and by not giving the context it infers a narrative than is just not true.
You're a slave to money then you die.
1086