The opponent is "wrong, not ignorant, irresponsible or evil": says Greg F . Well, how about that; the leopard can change his spots after all. It'll be interesting to see how long the "gentler, kinder" Greg F is with us.

My prediction:   not overly long. The Greg F. we know and love will be along presently.




One interesting aspect of the slave trade topic, which we have edged into, is that in both the American colonies and Britain itself, probably the decisive factor is not morality but economics.


According to The Slave Trade p 480, by British historian Hugh Thomas, Massachusetts did in fact try to stop the slave trade and was prevented by the Crown-appointed governor. "There before the war (Revolution) the Assembly had made two attempts to stop the import of slaves...But the idea was thwarted by the governor, General Thomas Gage."

The reason for this move by the Assembly, however, was "the usual ground that to have too many might risk a black rebellion", not the morality of the slave trade.

Similarly, when Britain finally managed to ban the slave trade in 1806, the situation for the pro-slave trade forces had changed drastically from earlier attempts by abolitionists.   By May 1806, "the West Indies were in debt, there was a large sugar surplus, and the 'saturated' old colonies did not want new slaves". (p 553) They also had the example of Haiti, as to what could happen with the huge black-white imbalance.   It appears clear that the reason abolition finally passed was that the pro-slave-trade forces no longer had the economic incentive to push against it, and the fear element was also high.