Holding governments accountable 200 years after the event can't help those who suffered. Let's deal with slavery here and now.
Same same but different?
Interesting comment, Bodd.
Perhaps we should look at how democracies work. It is the acceptance of the decisions of the majority, by the whole population, of the electorate.
They work by the population electing someone ( or a group of someones) to represent them, make policies, laws, decisions, etc.
In that respect, the people (collectively, but not individually) have a responsibility of the actions, the direction, etc, of that government.
So if a government makes a decision, sets a policy, creates the environment, allows behaviour, etc, then the government, as the peoples' representatives are responsible, and so are the people (collectively) who elected them. Unless 'the people' take action to unseat the elected government because they are so discontented with their actions. But if the people do not take such drastic action, it suggests that their discontent is not widespread. (I'm not an anarchist and I'm not promoting anarchy!)
Now 'collectively' suggests that no individuals (other than the representatives themselves, who only act on the mandate given to them) but the people are responsible, the 'people' as a whole are responsible.
Now of course, one cannot identify any individuals that constitutes the people, because individuals come and individuals go.
But the notion of 'the people', 'the nation' remains, throughout the ages.
Therefore, if a nation and its people are responsible for reprehensible actions, committed by the elected government, then 'the people' are responsible, whether it is the people of yesteryear, or the people of today. Individuals, within 'the people' are not identifiable, but 'the people' collectively are, and therefore there is an argument that 'the people', collectively, should bear the responsibility of "the people's" actions and that of their elected government.