You’re delusional. The “church” of England’s royal inbreds figured out that it was more profitable to enslave people by other means than having them as livestock.
The demise of the overt human livestock trade was brought about by industrial economics, not by some religious epiphany.
So then, why aren’t you enslaved by these other means?
If it was more cost-effective, that includes the amount of people not subjugated to it.