Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4656717-20130820115709/@comment-32656-20130830095441

Incorrect, David - only some of the British colonies had slaves. There were none, officially, in the UK itself by that point, and it had been illegal, by and large, for centuries there (though, many conflicting legal opinions in that era on that one) - something put to rest for good in 1772, citing legal decisions dating back to 1559.

Basically, no slaves at all there. That is what lead to the overall abolition movement - not a "lot of slaves." You actually see the exact opposite result in societies with a lot of them. In this scenario, no one will see "wrongness."

Anglican Church bishops were often enough worse than the Catholic Church, mind - while the church itself did not support it like the Catholic Church, several bishops were among those paid for when slaves in the colonies were freed in 1834.

Guns, the legend of a female pope predates even medieval times. And even then, no one actually believed it. The circumstances, dates, times, etc. have never been the same. Just one of those stories, you know?

Yeah, the French did abolish it for a couple years during the revolution. Did not stick, and it took until 1848 for to actually happen.

The Spanish "abolition" was only in their mainland colonies, and in 1542. Only effected the natives still in such servitude. And, even then, was more of a "in theory" thing than anything. In addition, Spain itself had the largest number of slaves in Europe, only banning slaves there in 1811. Their island colonies kept it outright until 1886, and, realistically, kept them until the US took them over.