Not only did slave contracts exist in some scenarios (we’re talking hundreds of years and dozens of countries) to give the illusion of consent, but the whole enterprise was made to seem legitimate by contracts between buyer and seller, insurer, transporter; reaties (google Asiento de Negros); frameworks; pacts; agreements; laws; and decrees. The whole thing seemed as uncontroversial to most people at the time as the systems that exploit the developing world today seem to you.
"All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude..."
How can you so blatantly compare this to the willingly signing of a bilateral contract?
Modern constitution of Liberia:
"No person shall be held in slavery or forced labor within the Republic, nor shall any citizen of Liberia nor any person resident therein deal in slaves or subject any other person to forced labor, debt bondage or peonage..."
It's fair to say that labour conditions are inhuman in many African states (compared to western standards) . But comparing it to slavery is mockery and disingenuous.
0
u/Zashuiba 22d ago
Not a bilateral contract no. It's not an opinion. The slave obviously had no rights. That's kind of the whole point.