Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I have read 4 hundred million as compensation for emancipation.
I have also read 4 million slaves.
Does that come out to $400.00 a head? My math may be wrong, here...
A male field hand was bringing in $1000.00 a head.
Booker T. Washington, as a 9 year old boy, was bringing
$400.00 a head, according to the census.
That was equivalent to a female kitchen slave, or a child.
WAS THIS ADEQUATE COMPENSATION?
Thoughts?
Tory
Personal opinion: "the South" should have paid whatever was necessary to end slavery.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Personal opinion: "the South" should have paid whatever was necessary to end slavery.
Tim
Exactly, why should the hard working non-slaveholders in the US pay for the freedom of human beings, who are enslaved because of their race, after these slaveholders had leached off of the hard work of these very slaves, who were not compensated in any meaningful way? In the end 360,000 Union troops paid for the freedom of the enslaved with their very lives!
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
Don't you think that taking the 400 million would have been better then killing/maiming 600 thousand?
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Don't you think that taking the 400 million would have been better then killing/maiming 600 thousand?
Yes, but I dislike the first option also. I think the best situation would have been for the South to end slavery on their own, but instead they decided to make war on their government which had done nothing to end or threaten slavery in the South.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
Personal opinion: "the South" should have paid whatever was necessary to end slavery.
Tim
As I read these three comments, thus far, I am amazed.
You all really think that the South should have taken 50 cents on the dollar for their slaves, and then tried to get them to work at the same rate as before, all the while not even sure if they would even be there, or not, the next harvest?
And all the while having to feed, and clothe and shelter these obvious and absolute dependents?
And also try and pay their taxes on the land which is now no longer able to guarantee a harvest at all, and since the absolute worth of each plantation master is HALF of what it was? And borrowing money against that will be impossible?
If that is how the North thought then, I can see why the South was willing to fight a war against these insane Northern ideas.
They were offered $400,000,000 for the somewhat-less-than-four-million slaves still held.
Now, assuming that the numbers of slaves in question was 3.5 million...that's a bit over $100 ($114.29 by my calculator) a slave. Not what they were worth at "market value", but nothing to scoff at, as that's cold, hard, certain cash. Offering them up for auction would require someone being able to fork up money and interested in buying, and that's more chancy. So it balances out.
After taking this they could hire the slaves as laborers...those that were willing to work, that is, at say a dollar a day. Not too horrible a wage by the standards of the time. So that's $30 a month. Three months and then some from this sum.
As the slaves are now free, the masters are not responsible to feed, clothe, or shelter them any more than any other boss is to feed, clothe, or shelter his workers. So that expense doesn't exist. Bringing it up is unreasonable. Now, if they took any as wards, then yes, but there's $100 or so to spend. Not a bad sum.
As to borrowing money...as stated, with $100 a slave, and assuming one owns fifty slaves (including children), that's $5,000. Not a bad sum in those days at all. Quite a good sum, in fact.
So they can pay from that, quite readily. Taxes are not a problem. Borrowing money wouldn't be either, if it was necessary.
So, ignoring any moral judgments or any comments on anyone's insanity...the slave owners are in a very good position. Particularly since the alternative is losing the slaves and not getting anything for it (when slavery is outlawed and all slaves automatically freed without compensation for their former owners).
Seems fine to me. I'd take my $2,000+ if I was an owner.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
4 hundred million dollars for compensated emancipation 
Linear Mode
