Compensated Emancipation

[cash]

Originally Posted by ole

It is understood, by me at least, that the war was not one between the "north" and the "south." It is the reason many of us rarely use "south" when "Confederacy" works better. There is a difference.

The Confederacy was the slave-owning south. Not the whole south. That a whole bunch of non-owners got rooked into shooting at a whole bunch of other non-owners is the unfortunate shorthand we get into. But it remains that it was the slave-owners that pushed the edge too far. So, if you sometimes feel put-upon because you are included, don't worry about it, no one really includes the entire south in their rants.

ole

"I have no slaves to lose, but I neither want to live nor leave my posterity to live in any country where African slavery does not exist." [J. Henly Smith to Alexander H. Stephens, 16 Nov 1860]

"It is very certain that the immediate cause of the political agitation which culminated in the dissolution of the Union was the institution of slavery. The controversy arose between the extreme advocates and opponents of that institution, and the moderate people of both sections were drawn into the dispute. While the war raised other issues more vital to the Southern people than the continuance of slavery, there can be no doubt that they were fighting to maintain slavery or prevent its overthrow by the hands of their enemies." [Col. Charles Marshall, _An Aide-de-Camp of Lee: Being the Papers of Colonel Charles Marshall, Assistant Adjutant General on the Staff of Robert E. Lee,_ p. 39]

Regards,
Cash

[ole]

Very much along the lines of Chandra Manning. Makes good sense. Just have to absorb it some more.

ole

[samgrant]

Another take from the Atlantic.com:

"Newly released letters reveal that Abraham Lincoln considered trying to halt the war by buying slaves from the South for $400 apiece.

It would have been a pricey time for Lincoln to go bullish. At the time of the Civil War, one slave cost as much as five oxen. Nowadays in India, it's down to about five slaves per one ox, the result of a long decline in the price of human chattel.
Try to buy a slave today, and you could end up either behind bars, or feted after you "redeem" the slave (for what? cash and prizes?), or criticized for creating demand for more slaves. Nearly all human-rights organizations advise against buying other human beings. But the economics of buying slaves out of bondage turns out to be complex, with serious economists suggesting that the practice is not entirely insane. Inelastic supply -- there just aren't many potential slaves out there -- makes slave-buying at worst a way to slow the rate at which slavers replace their inventory.
Lincoln's slave-buying gambit was actually a carefully mulled plan, and even though he ultimately rejected it, his pondering the possibility speaks to his fitness for the job of chief executive. He recognized the moral imperative to free slaves, and considered slave-buying only while stipulating that the Southern states abolish slavery soon after. He calculated the problem economically, too, noting the huge hit the Treasury would take, and comparing the cost of slave-buying to the enormous human and monetary cost of the ongoing Civil War. In the end, it's not surprising that he scrapped the plan and went ahead with emancipation six months later. Virginia alone had 491,000 slaves, and it would have been unfeasible to buy and free 40 percent of a state's population. But the whole incident makes one long for a time when presidents thought creatively and ethically about hard problems, rather than just doing the same **** thing over and over again, and expecting different results. — Graeme Wood "

-

[elektratig]

Originally Posted by ole

We know that compensated emancipation for Union slaveholding states was proposed by Lincoln in 1862 and considered in Congress.

What do you suppose was the purpose of this offer? A reward for remaining loyal?

ole

Ole,

I happened to listen yesterday to a podcast in which Allen Guelzo discussed Lincoln's offer of compensated emancipation. Highly recommended for a sympathetic explanation as to Lincoln's motives. As Guelzo describes it, the offer was certainly tactical, but not a reward or a bribe.

Guelzo, "Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation":
http://gilderlehrman.org/wp/?p=20

[ole]

Thanks for the heads-up. If I don't have the book, I'll certainly get it.

ole