Two Question to Discuss

[coltshooter1]

If a policy of Compensated Emancipation had been developed by a strong Presidential Administration what could have been its result and would sectional differences still lead to a war if the question of slavery had been removed. Try to give a good discussion and exchange of information and not start sniping at each other please.

 

[Robtweb1]

I believe there would a period of instability as Southern planters would have either taken the money and gotten out of farming or gone through years of low return as the switch to other methods was made (we were still picking cotton by hand when I was a kid, 100 years later). This last one on a large scale would have affected the world market. A split was still inevitable, though, because of the vast cultural differences, the imbalance of power in Washington, tariffs, and the influx of European manufactured goods.

 

[rpkennedy]

If a policy of Compensated Emancipation had been developed by a strong Presidential Administration what could have been its result and would sectional differences still lead to a war if the question of slavery had been removed. Try to give a good discussion and exchange of information and not start sniping at each other please.

I think the Southern planters would never accept compensated emancipation, at least not in the 1850s or '60s. They showed they were willing to fight tooth and nail to keep slavery. But if for some reason they did accept it, there would be a time of instability but there would be no war. There just wasn't the divisiveness with any other issue.

R

 

[rhp6033]

I agree that the southern slave-owners would never accept compensated emancipation. There is too much talk of their cherished "way of life" which revolved around the manoral/plantation system. Compensated emancipation might have avoided war, but at a cost to their way of life. Also, much of the "wealth" of the South was tied up in slave labor, considered a "capital asset". Would any compensation be considered sufficient - could money replace a perpetual supply of unpaid labor for the slave-holder and his heirs? Wouldn't the plantation owner's status in society be diminished when their worth could no longer be measured by the number of slaves they held?

Also, there is little discussions these days about how the Federal government would have paid for compensated emancipation. Where were the funds to come from? Before the war the Federal government had very low revenues and abilities to tax, mostly through tariffs (which was already a sore point between the southern and northern states). Would the government raise the tarriffs, which would have ended up taxing the slaveholders to raise the money to compensate them for the loss of their slaves? (A neat trick, but one which would have been readily apparant). There was no authority for an income tax at the time, Lincoln's income tax was very modest and limited by today's standards, and came through wartime powers allowing it to circumvent the proportionality clause of the Constitution. Again, would this tax apply to the slave-holders as well?

Finally, any compensation would not come in the form of an immediate payment of hard currency. Instead, the slave-holders would probably get a note or bond which allowed them to collect over a period of years, perhaps decades. The immediate years in which the former slaves would need to be paid wages would be very difficult, as the initial payments of compensation would be unlikely to provide enough cash to pay wages to the former slaves. The economy would suffer a depression as fields went out of production.

Of course, if the slave-holders could have seen four years into the future, they would have realized that they would have suffered all these problems, while receiving NO compensation. But they thought they could prevail, harkening back to the revolutionary war struggle. But they simply didn't understand the size of the armies and the logistics burden which the war would impose, a challenge which the North could meet, but not the South.

 

[ForeverFree]

If a policy of Compensated Emancipation had been developed by a strong Presidential Administration what could have been its result and would sectional differences still lead to a war if the question of slavery had been removed. Try to give a good discussion and exchange of information and not start sniping at each other please.

The result would have been that it would not have been accepted by slaveholders.

Lincoln tried to push the idea of compensated emancipation to the Union slave states during the war, and they wouldn't go for it.

As a more practical matter, any plan for compensated emancipation would have failed due to lack of funding. Slaves were valued between $3-4 billion in 1860, and the US had nowhere near that kind of money. See here for a discussion of that.

 

[jpeter]

Just to add to ForeverFree and rhp6033 said.... gradual emancipation couldn't answer the problem of where emancipated slaves would live once they were free.

If there wasn't enough money and interest in sending emancipated slaves at least out of the state that agreed to it, then there was no reason to really take the bait.

The emancipators did not want free blacks living anywhere near them.

 

[Old_Glory]

If a policy of Compensated Emancipation had been developed by a strong Presidential Administration what could have been its result and would sectional differences still lead to a war if the question of slavery had been removed. Try to give a good discussion and exchange of information and not start sniping at each other please.

I think compensated emancipation was the only good answer to end slavery. It had to come before Lincoln though, no one in the South trusted him. It would have been a sweet deal for slave owners, but tough on the North. Get a lump sum of money, then work them as free men for dirt cheap. As someone else said though, the problem was neither the North nor the South wanted free black people living among them. Plus, the North would be paying (enriching at their expense) the wealthy Southern population for the slaves which I'm certain would not have gone over very well. There is no guarantee that paid emancipation would have stopped a war, but it would have helped a lot. Even if you free the slaves through payment, the vast hatred between the political parties is still there.

It's a great question that really doesn't have a good answer.

 

[cash]

If a policy of Compensated Emancipation had been developed by a strong Presidential Administration what could have been its result and would sectional differences still lead to a war if the question of slavery had been removed. Try to give a good discussion and exchange of information and not start sniping at each other please.

Lincoln tried compensated emancipation. It got nowhere.

 

[cash]

I believe there would a period of instability as Southern planters would have either taken the money and gotten out of farming or gone through years of low return as the switch to other methods was made (we were still picking cotton by hand when I was a kid, 100 years later). This last one on a large scale would have affected the world market. A split was still inevitable, though, because of the vast cultural differences, the imbalance of power in Washington, tariffs, and the influx of European manufactured goods.

The slave states weren't interested in emancipation, compensated or otherwise.

 

[FourLeafClover]

If the black population of the South were overnight freed. The plantations would find alternative cheap labour. Chinese and Indian workers were substituted for freed slaves on the Carribean island plantations after the British abolition of the slave trade. As the freedmen considered that land their home. Immigrant workers were brought in to supplement the labour shortage. Then, as now, immigrants seem to be prepared to work for low, low wages in often deplorable conditions. There is a good reason to believe this precedent would have been followed by Southern businessmen.
But then the question remains. Where would the free Black population go? As no rights were bestowed upon them, other than freedom. There would be a high possibility that those same folks would then be in competition for the same jobs they had just vacated. A wages undercutting war which I could only imagine would benefit the plantation owners. Leaving them quids in for the compensation. And retaining a largely intact workforce, working for next to nothing, and no more rights than before.

Just my thinking. Could be way off the mark. But compensation is a scattergun approach to what was ultimately a complex issue. Anyways I think to put a $/£ value on a human being is more than a wee bit insensitive

 

[ole]

If we accept that there were about 4,000,000 slaves in the country, and that roughly half worked, there would have been about 2,000,000 jobs filled by slaves. Would the jobs go away just because slaves were freed?

Consider reconstruction. A lot of former slaves went right back to work where they were.

 

[Old_Glory]

Would the jobs go away just because slaves were freed?
.

I think they would have been filled by the former slaves. Plus, the slaves would also need the right to vote as well since the 3/5th rule would no doubt be removed after the slaves were emancipated. If they can't vote, then the Southern states would lose a great deal of representation.

 

[rpkennedy]

I think they would have been filled by the former slaves. Plus, the slaves would also need the right to vote as well since the 3/5th rule would no doubt be removed after the slaves were emancipated. If they can't vote, then the Southern states would lose a great deal of representation.

Why would this be the case? After all, women were counted in regards to representation and why couldn't freed slaves be considered on that same level?

R

 

[cash]

If the black population of the South were overnight freed. The plantations would find alternative cheap labour. Chinese and Indian workers were substituted for freed slaves on the Carribean island plantations after the British abolition of the slave trade.

Didn't happen after the 13th Amendment was ratified, why would it happen in your scenario?

As the freedmen considered that land their home. Immigrant workers were brought in to supplement the labour shortage. Then, as now, immigrants seem to be prepared to work for low, low wages in often deplorable conditions. There is a good reason to believe this precedent would have been followed by Southern businessmen.

I would say there is no reason at all to believe it would have been followed by southern businessmen. Look at what happened when slaves were suddenly freed by the 13th Amendment.

But then the question remains. Where would the free Black population go? As no rights were bestowed upon them, other than freedom.

You should read the 14th and 15th Amendments.

There would be a high possibility that those same folks would then be in competition for the same jobs they had just vacated. A wages undercutting war which I could only imagine would benefit the plantation owners. Leaving them quids in for the compensation. And retaining a largely intact workforce, working for next to nothing, and no more rights than before.

You should read about Reconstruction.

 

[cash]

I think they would have been filled by the former slaves. Plus, the slaves would also need the right to vote as well since the 3/5th rule would no doubt be removed after the slaves were emancipated. If they can't vote, then the Southern states would lose a great deal of representation.

Representation is not dependent on who has the right to vote.

 

[FourLeafClover]

Points taken Cash . I will be the first to admit there are huge holes in my knowledge of US history. I will try to remedy this in time. But the question here was regarding a payment of compensation to the the masters of slaves, not the granting of citizenship or rights to the slaves. As were those gained under the constitutional amendments at the end of a 4 year fight.

Whether such payments would have avoided the conflict is the debatable point. Then the need for reconstruction would be moot if there were no war. Or would it have to come to pass inevitably where any race or creed were denied an equal standing in society.

 

[rpkennedy]

Points taken Cash . I will be the first to admit there are huge holes in my knowledge of US history. I will try to remedy this in time. But the question here was regarding a payment of compensation to the the masters of slaves, not the granting of citizenship or rights to the slaves. As were those gained under the constitutional amendments at the end of a 4 year fight.

Whether such payments would have avoided the conflict is the debatable point. Then the need for reconstruction would be moot if there were no war. Or would it have to come to pass inevitably where any race or creed were denied an equal standing in society.

The two biggest problems, as have been pointed out, are where would the government get the money to compensate the slaveowners and would they be able to convince the slaveowners to accept that compensation in exchange for emancipation. In all honesty, I don't see either of these being at all feasible.

R

 

[Samuel.Sohm]

I think the Southern planters would never accept compensated emancipation, at least not in the 1850s or '60s. They showed they were willing to fight tooth and nail to keep slavery. But if for some reason they did accept it, there would be a time of instability but there would be no war. There just wasn't the divisiveness with any other issue.

R

I have to agree with this as well. I think it was simply tied to the souths "peculiar institution" mentality. Much like eat lutefisk in Minnesota or the hog roast in Georgia (without the oppression of another human being thing of course) it's just something "you have to do" or your not part of the in crowd. Also remember that slaves were a status symbol as well. But it is hard for me to think that educated people (as many slave owners were the most educated people in their area) would ignore the history of slavery and the evidence that inevitably they always got their freedom somehow, whether by and uprising or by emancipation. Of course this is years before Russia emancipated the serfs as well so their still were some examples of pseudo-slavery around for American eyes.

 

[TerryB]

The average price of a slave in 1860 was around $900. If there were 3 million of them, that means their total value was just under 3 billion dollars. The judgement of historians who have tackled this issue is that the country did not have that kind of money and Lincoln knew it.

 

[Bob Owen]

Real slavery is alive and well in many areas of Africa today. White slavery exists in the US and all over Central and South America as well as the arab countries and all the other parts of the world.