When the UK outlawed slavery they compensated the slaveowners. It was a distasteful compromise, but [edit: contributed to] slavery being outlawed much sooner than in other countries (ex: in the US it took another 32y and a war). To fund these payments the UK government borrowed money, and paid it back slowly over time. Describing paying back the loans as “paying money to former slave owning families as compensation for their financial loss when slavery was banned” is very misleading.
Slave owners were also compensated in the USA. There were other reasons (cultural, political, economic) that legalized slavery lasted longer in the USA than it did in Britain.
Additionally, the UK didn’t borrow from random people—they allowed slave owners to convert the payments into annuities. The UK could have decided to stop paying these annuities at any point.
That seems almost aggressively misleading. “Some of this category of debt may have been held by these descendants, therefore it should have been invalidated”, as you seem to be implying, proves far too much.
When the UK outlawed slavery they compensated the slaveowners. It was a distasteful compromise, but [edit: contributed to] slavery being outlawed much sooner than in other countries (ex: in the US it took another 32y and a war). To fund these payments the UK government borrowed money, and paid it back slowly over time. Describing paying back the loans as “paying money to former slave owning families as compensation for their financial loss when slavery was banned” is very misleading.
Slave owners were also compensated in the USA. There were other reasons (cultural, political, economic) that legalized slavery lasted longer in the USA than it did in Britain.
Additionally, the UK didn’t borrow from random people—they allowed slave owners to convert the payments into annuities. The UK could have decided to stop paying these annuities at any point.
Almost none of them, no? It looks like this was DC-only and very late (1862).
The annuities had become regular UK debt, though, no? And could be owned by anyone, not just descendents of slaveholders?
I absolutely misread that same Wikipedia article. My bad.
As for the annuities, while they could have been sold, some may have still been held by the decedents of the slave holders.
That seems almost aggressively misleading. “Some of this category of debt may have been held by these descendants, therefore it should have been invalidated”, as you seem to be implying, proves far too much.