At the time it was a legal right that some humans had, even though it came at the expense of others' moral right (that most people now believe they had, including myself) to be free. Please tell me you understand this. I don't think owning others is a human right in a moral sense, even if it was a legal right for some back then. There is a difference between legal rights and moral rights, because legality is not the same as morality. Sorry if that sounds obvious but I think it's necessary to clarify in order to approach this question with understanding.

Just as it imposed authority over them to take away their authority, right?

I agree, but technically it was both protecting human rights and taking away other human rights (to own slaves). Do you see what I mean?

Swearing is fine what the fuck (just demonstrating). It's more about trying to avoid offending demographics of individuals or upholding oppression/oppressive views.

Speciesist connotations

I was wondering if the cobalt mined for smartphones could be done ethically, even if they still needed to use children for it. What if the children clearly consent to working and are treated well in good conditions and paid fairly?