“I argue that colonies as crown-subject organizations lacking in free will when attempting to do away with slavery were halted by a royal veto, a claim I an prove with the original source.”
So the colonists lacked free will?
That is an interesting comment.
My understanding is the successful bidder at slave auctions was the one willing to pay more than the other bidders.
You paint the picture of Red Coat soldiers yanking a random yeoman farmer from his field, ordering him to the bank to borrow money, and forcing him to bid high for a slave against his will.
Slave traders were shipping slaves from Africa to points where there was a market demand. I find it hard to believe slave traders were pursuing an economic model where they would repeatedly ship valuable cargo across an ocean to a place where there were no customers.
I am not following your thinking.
The colonists' free will led them to pass abolitionist laws.
The empire had a little something to say about that.
"That is an interesting comment."
They are interesting historical events.
"I am not following your thinking."
Agreed. You're not following at all, you have your own agenda to push.
"My understanding is the successful bidder at slave auctions was the one willing to pay more than the other bidders."
Again with the excessive levels of deceit.
Your understanding borders on anti-Americanism shilling for the empire who hurt us in at least the 27 different ways listed in the Declaration of Independence. I am clearly the first person who has ever mentioned to you that the Declaration says that Britain treated Americans badly. It is obvious that that's a new concept for you and you are struggling to put your arms around it. It is true though, Britain hurt America and we have a recorded statement of the facts. The Founders all put their signatures on the parchment. You might not want to believe that because you're more loyal to Britain than the U.S. but that is how it is.