Compensated Emancipation

[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

[unionblue]

ole,

Partly.

But I also think this might also show just how little Lincoln understood the South and the hold the institution of slavery had on the region.

Lincoln had it in his mind during this time, and quite a long time after, the twin ideas of compensated emancipation and colonization with the idea of making the US an all-white nation.

Some Lincoln scholars and historians say this was all a front, that Lincoln knew that it would be physically impossible to transport 4,000,000 blacks in the US back to Africa, but it gave him time for this realization to sink in with those who were against emancipation.

Each time Lincoln offered compensate emancipation he ran into resistance, mainly from slaveowner, but also from Northern abolitionists and fellow Republicans. It appears to me Southerners simply did not wish to give up the social and racial controls slavery encompassed along with a system of cheap labor. Northerners did not want to compensate those who had begun the war over the institution and had reeked so much havoc to the nation.

There's Lincoln in the middle of that mess. I think he was trying anything in 1862 to ensure the loyalty of the Border States and when he offered compensate emancipation in 1864 he was trying to shorten the war by at least giving something to slaveholders who were going to lose out anyway by wars end.

By that time it had went to far, the death and frustration, the loss of life, and the North wanted victory, not compensation.

IMO.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[5fish]

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

THAD had it right we should have emancipated them all or enforce the "second confiscation act" once within union control freedom for slaves.

With the "2nd confiscation act the south was ripped for it slave culture to be torn from it.

Compensation emancipation is just sucking up to slavery again. This evil cycle of sucking up to slavery had to end.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by 5fish

THAD had it right we should have emancipated them all or enforce the "second confiscation act" once within union control freedom for slaves.

With the "2nd confiscation act the south was ripped for it slave culture to be torn from it.

Compensation emancipation is just sucking up to slavery again. This evil cycle of sucking up to slavery had to end.

5fish,

Perhaps, but if there was a way to spare a single human life, Northern or Southern, a few dollars would have been worth it.

IMO.
Unionblue

[cash]

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

A test of the concept on a smaller scale. If it had worked with the border states it could be offered to the seceded states. Lincoln had always been in favor of compensated emancipation.

Regards,
Cash

[samgrant]

Yes, it applied to those border states still in the Union and was not meant as a substitute for prosecuting the war (as migh be implied by the language on another thread). It was a way to remove the problem which kept the border states on the fence.

-

[5fish]

Maybe Lincoln was trying to cajole the Border states into staying but the whole concept of Compensation Emancipation is bogus for it was never even accepted by southern slaveholders. It was always offered by parties looking for reason to solve the issue of slavery.

The more I learn the politics of that era the more Thad Stevens was right. The south was not looking for reason it was looking for a fight and they got one.

Compensation for slaves is just appeasement and appeasement does not save lives or stop wars. It only makes aggressors more aggressive.

Thaddus was right in 1862 for total war upon the south and he was right the south should have been considered conquered land and redivided.

The more I read the politics of that era the south should have paid a higher price.

My fellow board members you all want to embrace the notion for compensation for slaves for you all trying to bring reason to solve slavery but slavery is inhumanity to man and reason can not solve it only the sword.

[unionblue]

5fish,

As the old saying goes, "there are many ways to skin a cat" even inhumane ones.

If the slaves could have been freed through compensation and thereby shorten the war and the loss of life, I would have been all for it.

I don't think the majority of people who have never served in the military actually realize just how dirty, nasty, expensive and energy-expending it is to kill your fellow human beings in combat, for whatever the cause or reason.

This is not to say that I agree with the idea that money could solve every problem when it comes to confronting evil. I'm quite sure Hitler would not have considered a payment plan not to invade Poland or France. Sometimes the last recourse is the only one available, no matter how distasteful or how horrible the price in human life.

But we should be slow to employ such and I think Lincoln understood that if he could not use compensation, he would use the sword.

But I think he would have rather used the greenback before expending more human lives.

IMO.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

The more I learn the politics of that era the more Thad Stevens was right. The south was not looking for reason it was looking for a fight and they got one.

That's a bit strong! I usually figure the south was convinced that the north wouldn't fight. However, I guess I can't deny that there were those in the south looking for a fight.

ole

[J_Man0507]

Compensated Emancipation, I do agree, was appeasment, but as Lincoln himself said (and I paraphrase), that if he could have prevented the war by freeing all of the slaves, he would have, and if he could have done it by freeing none, he would have done that as well, and if he could have done it by freeing some and leaving others enslaved, he would have stood for that too. He was throwing a bone out there. When he talked on the subject during the war, he was speaking to the Border States who had stayed loyal, but they weren't listening at first. It took awhile for these states to pass abolition laws. But by the time 1863 rolled around, compensated emancipation for the states in rebellion was out of the question, I think.

Many Americans, including a good deal of Southerners, saw that slavery was on its way out. It wasn't going to last much longer, as much as they wanted it to. With the ascendancy of the Republican party, there was a pretty good chance that slavery would be kept out of the territories, and it would die off state by state, just as it had in the North. The public and international outcry would have gotten greater, and the pressure would have built to the point that slavery would be abolished. Compensated emancipation was just a nice way of giving back what the plantation owners and others had thrown so much money into. A practical idea, but one I don't think would have been accepted. I think the South wanted to do it on their own, and not have it forced upon them.