@xizzy
>implying property rights didn't exist back then
>if you have a slave and its not a citizen but property it would still face a form of protection from the government
Case in point, indentitured slavery in places like London meant that you were not able to simply kill your own property as it stands because BANKS use their labor as a form of liquidity from the municipality to make work.
That is only one example of protective laws for slaves back in the sixteenth century, how about the fact that if physical abuse and murder of slaves was so rampant, how is it that well, there are ANY form of racial/ethnicities, religious and cultural settlements in a given country today and not the constant parroting of GENOCIDE against them? China, India, Vietnam, Korea and the countries that surrounded Burma besides itself at the time would castrate their slaves, do you think the east african or european people as we know traditionally where in said countries where you MIGHT be ignoring your defference of YOUR perspective of the slavery trade? Because again, it was a trade, not a crime back then, it had a value in culture and commerce that anyone who reads about the process of labor and trade in history would know why it happened, reasons that are apparent and aside from how demonized it seems to be, know this, no one in the US wanted to fight in the civil war to free slaves, it was because social security numbers BEGAN to exist back in those days as a promise for having engaged in their side of the war to earn a house, living expenses for food and accomodation later on, people were moved by money and progress of life conditions, not all that much focus on moral value.