You seem to define slavery as the right to sell slaves. This is usually called “chattel slavery” because it is a very small fraction of all the people called “slaves” throughout history.
It is true that a Roman husband had great rights over his wife, but that has nothing to do with marriage. The husband simply assumed the rights previously held by the father, the same rights the father had over his sons.
This is true but also true that non-chattel slavery used to have a lot of other names as well, serfdom, indentured servitude etc. I generally don’t know many examples where non-chattel slavery did not have some other name as well.
No, I am not talking about serfs and indentured servants. I am talking people called slaves. Almost every example where you think slaves are chattel is because you are wrong about history. For example, the great diversity of slaves in the Bible are not chattel.
You seem to define slavery as the right to sell slaves. This is usually called “chattel slavery” because it is a very small fraction of all the people called “slaves” throughout history.
It is true that a Roman husband had great rights over his wife, but that has nothing to do with marriage. The husband simply assumed the rights previously held by the father, the same rights the father had over his sons.
This is true but also true that non-chattel slavery used to have a lot of other names as well, serfdom, indentured servitude etc. I generally don’t know many examples where non-chattel slavery did not have some other name as well.
No, I am not talking about serfs and indentured servants. I am talking people called slaves. Almost every example where you think slaves are chattel is because you are wrong about history. For example, the great diversity of slaves in the Bible are not chattel.