The Industrial Revolution was the transition from creating goods by hand to using machines. Its start and end are widely debated by scholars, but the period generally spanned from about 1760 to 1840.
It was only after many failed attempts that, in 1807, the slave trade in the British Empire was abolished. However, slaves in the colonies (excluding areas ruled by the East India Company) were not freed until 1838 – and only after slave-owners, rather than the slaves themselves, received compensation.
My understanding is that even poor Romans would have slaves and that their usage was ubiquitous. Slaves had slaves and the Roman world seemed consumed with always warring to produce even more slaves. I'd hardly say the world only a few generations away from slavery being abolished in major nations is a fair comparison to Rome at even it's most anti-slave, but I am always open to other thoughts on the subject. I am not an expert, but I do feel I have a reasonable understanding of the motivations of human people regardless of era.
> I was mainly stating that I think the absence of slavery is needed.
The Industrial Revolution began before slavery ended, there was no "absence of slavery" as a prerequisite.
The UK Abolitionists were a relatively small group of independantly wealthy relatively newly rich, rich on the back of wealth from India and the New World (cheap labour and slave labour) and from trade and shops.
Even after the end of direct UK involvement in the trading of slaves and the closing of their slave plantations in British territories the UK continued to supply copper for use in the slave trade [1] and take significant inputs from the North, Central, and South American slave plantations.
There's no clean break where first cheap labour (slavery or close to it) is eliminated and then machines take over.
At best there's a transition period, but as the world about us demonstrates even when automation and labor saving machinery is wiespread slavery and abuse of labor continues.