Answer: ik you said only one but couldent help it
Explanation:
1. Roman slavery was not based on race so sometimes it was hard to differ if someone was a slave or not (everyone looked similar).
2. Both roles are pretty similar except for the fact that slaves are forced into labor work and freed men work on their own free will and are treated better.
3. Slaves are abused and treated badly and freemen aren't.
4. Slaves were used in all forms of work except for public office.
5. Often times employed men and slaves would work together except that the free employed men would get paid and the slaves wouldn't (this usually happened when one cannot find enough slaves to work and can only conclude to using paid workers so that's when they end up getting mixed together).
The role of slaves and freemen seem very similar in a lot of aspects (despite the fact that slaves cannot work in public office) but they are ranked by their parents (if your parents are slaves then you're born a slave) and slaves can also be chosen out of something like a battle. If they lose they are taken in as slaves. What I'm trying to say is that freedom was not a right but a privilege for people in the Roman Republic. Things like battles were used to justify and confirm superiority over the losers and gave the winners divine right to rule over the losers (slaves) and treat them badly. At a point the slaves were practically invisible.
William Wilberforce, a member of Parliament was able to affect the future of slavery in Britain, because he helped pass the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and later on the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 which abolished slavery in all British colonies. This included slave trade and all other things related to slavery being abolished in the Indian subcontinent, African colonies and colonies in the Caribbean.
Answer: appellate jurisdiction
Because of the market crash of 1929
Tabacoo is the answer. Even though it isn't spelled that way.
