it was bad they made them drink out of a toilet
occoding to my calculations your stupid
according to my world history book englands attitude towards slavery was really strict in fact some people even were punished depending on their crime
The attitude towards slavery in the Southern colonies was that slavery was good and necessary. Slave owners felt that slaves were treated better than free laborers.
Slavery existed in the New England Colonies, primarily in the form of domestic servitude and agricultural labor. The attitudes towards slavery varied among colonists, with some supporting it for economic reasons while others saw it as a moral issue. Some New England colonies gradually abolished slavery in the late 18th century, influenced by Enlightenment ideals and the growing abolitionist movement.
It depends on which region. There were many regions where people were opposed to slavery, and some where they accepted it. Slavery was a very contentious and divisive issue, and it contributed
you tell me i asked you
New England region in United States is regarded as the birth place of anti-slavery movement. According to historians by 1804 slavery had been abolished in New England region. However ,some historians believe that despite abolishing slavery many people continued to practice slavery in New England. This assertion is not regarded as confirmed though.
Most of the North was against it but there were a few who supported it.
When Sojourner Truth refers to her culture's attitude towards slavery, she is emphasizing the acceptance and perpetuation of the institution within her community. She highlights the need for awareness and action to challenge these beliefs and advocate for freedom and justice.
Slavery developed in the Chesapeake colonies because its economy was largely agricultural. It required intensive labor for cultivation of tobacco and other crops, thus the Chesapeake planters turned towards slavery.
The Dutch saw them as trading partners. . The Dutch were not interested in converting them.
he thought that the people were his property, and that he would get more money with taxing more people.