Lincoln Lincoln's plan in 1865

[MikeyB]

Recently read that in early 1865, Lincoln proposed to his cabinet a plan for $400mm in compensation to the Southern states for the losses of their slaves if they agreed to lay down their arms and come back into the Union. He justified the cost by saving the mere operation of the war to its finality would end up costing the same amount

This was unanimously rejected. As a modern day reader (but with the benefit of hindsight), I too was also taken aback.

So my question is. Was this a rare Lincoln bad idea? Or could this perhaps have brought some states back in faster and started Reconstruction and national healing on a stronger foot?

 

[major bill]

I have not seen much information that the Confederate government in 1865 was willing to accept this kind of offer. I am not sure any Confederate states were willing to make a separate peace.

I am not sure the concept was a poor idea, but because there was little chance of the Confederate government of accepting anything like this it was probably a waste of time and effort and there was a possibility that it could have had a negative impact on the Union War effort.

 

[NDR5thNY]

I have not seen much information that the Confederate government in 1865 was willing to accept this kind of offer. I am not sure any Confederate states were willing to make a separate peace.

I am not sure the concept was a poor idea, but because there was little chance of the Confederate government of accepting anything like this it was probably a waste of time and effort and there was a possibility that it could have had a negative impact on the Union War effort.

I believe it may have worked. It would have bailed out the New York banks as the slave owners could have paid off their debts. It would have saved thousands of lives and taken decades off the South's recovery from the ill conceived war.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

The compensation of slave owners had been approved once before by the U.S. Government in 1862 according to this article. This idea, as a means to end slavery, had been around for a while and was actively promoted by others beside Lincoln.

https://aas.princeton.edu/news/when-slaveowners-got-reparations

 

[Dead Parrott]

The compensation of slave owners had been approved once before by the U.S. Government in 1862 according to this article. This idea, as a means to end slavery, had been around for a while and was actively promoted by others beside Lincoln.

https://aas.princeton.edu/news/when-slaveowners-got-reparations

Definitely the right idea, in fact its what the slave states SHOULD have lobbied for, instead of starting a war to continue and expand the practice of slavery.

But once so much blood had been spilled, I'm not surprised the proposal was rejected - why compensate those who caused such bloodshed and loss?

I fully agree it was a great idea, before the shooting started.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Definitely the right idea, in fact its what the slave states SHOULD have lobbied for, instead of starting a war to continue and expand the practice of slavery.

It was interesting to me that according to the article, emancipation was achieved in the Northern states using a version of this process.

"After the revolution, as Northern states carried out gradual-emancipation plans, compensation was attractive to slaveowners seeking to ease their financial burdens. The 1804 Gradual Abolition Act in New Jersey, for example, did not free anyone immediately. It allowed children of enslaved women to be treated as "apprentices" (slavery by another name) until they reached a certain age and would be freed. The law included a clause that allowed slaveowners to gain compensation by letting their bondspeople go free and then reclaiming them as "bound out labor," which gave them access to state funds for their troubles."

 

[MikeyB]

I have not seen much information that the Confederate government in 1865 was willing to accept this kind of offer. I am not sure any Confederate states were willing to make a separate peace.

I am not sure the concept was a poor idea, but because there was little chance of the Confederate government of accepting anything like this it was probably a waste of time and effort and there was a possibility that it could have had a negative impact on the Union War effort.

I'm not sure exactly when in 1865 this happened but, even if it was Jan 1865. You don't think there would be any Southern states who'd jump at the chance to get compensated for their slaves in exchange for rejoining the Union? I would think the writing would be on the wall, but perhaps its a matter of honor for the constituent states to see it through.

 

[jackt62]

Lincoln's proposal for emancipated compensation was a long standing idea of his that was offered to the loyal slave states in 1862. Given that those states rejected the plan, it is highly doubtful that the Confederacy would have ever considered such a move at any time.

 

[MikeyB]

Lincoln's proposal for emancipated compensation was a long standing idea of his that was offered to the loyal slave states in 1862. Given that those states rejected the plan, it is highly doubtful that the Confederacy would have ever considered such a move at any time.

I understand how the CSA may not go for this, but what about peeling off individual states in Jan 1865? Curious if you think there were any states bordering on capitulation at that point and who might come back if they got a fat payout for their emancipated slaves.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

How much did the war cost the United States per day? How many people were dying per day that the war went on?

If you do the cold calculus then the answer might show compensated emanicaption in 1865 still had merits.

Given the delusional demands the Confederate government representatives made to Lincoln in 1865 I think the Confederates would have rejected any offer of compensated emanicaption thus rendering the question of Northern acceptance irrelevant

 

[jackt62]

I understand how the CSA may not go for this, but what about peeling off individual states in Jan 1865? Curious if you think there were any states bordering on capitulation at that point and who might come back if they got a fat payout for their emancipated slaves.

Lincoln had already tried to "peel off" Louisiana and Arkansas by providing for restored governments in those states if elected by 10% of voters who could prove Union loyalty but I don't believe there was any plan relating to compensated emancipation. If any Confederate state would have accepted such a plan it would probably have been North Carolina, but even that state remained true to the Confederacy to the end.

 

[jackt62]

If you do the cold calculus then the answer might show compensated emanicaption in 1865 still had merits.

Exactly what Lincoln thought.

 

[danny]

Definitely the right idea, in fact its what the slave states SHOULD have lobbied for, instead of starting a war to continue and expand the practice of slavery.

But once so much blood had been spilled, I'm not surprised the proposal was rejected - why compensate those who caused such bloodshed and loss?

I fully agree it was a great idea, before the shooting started.

Seems a bit one sided Mr Parrott

 

[Tony Z]

Pretty good idea, when viewed at how it could have affect those just lukewarm but still somewhat favoring secession, and rethinking fighting for many others.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Seems a bit one sided Mr Parrott

It's realistic. Britain, France, and most of Latin America had outlawed slavery decades earlier. There was a growing anti-slavery movement in the North and abolitionists, while still a small minority, were less fringe.

Rather than recognize the writing was on the wall and try to make the best of it through a gradual, compensated process the Southern states went all-in on slavery by attempting to establish a separate country. It would be far from the last time the South displayed obstinate stubbornness rather than roll with the changes. Sometimes they succeeded (Reconstruction), other times they didn't (1865 and the 1950s).

 

[Fairfield]

As I read it, the draft proposal wasn't that straight forward because there were strings attached: half would be paid if all armed resistance by CSA ceased by 1 April and the other half paid if the Thirteen Amendment was ratified by 1 July; restoration of the Union was required. Disapproval by the cabinet was unanimous (Seward, however, wasn't present)--for reasons that ranged from the conviction that slaves had already been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation to the belief that CSA would surrender only by force of arms.

The point was moot anyway: Jefferson Davis had already indicated that he wished a peace with separation from the Union and with slavery intact.

Lincoln must have suspected that the idea would be rejected by his own cabinet and he must have known that it would be unpalatable to the South. So why did he do it? IMO, he genuinely hoped to shorten the war: by early 1865 it was getting obvious that it would be ending--but even a few months would have saved a great many lives (and a good deal of money). Cynics might argue that he wished to take the moral high ground of "well, I tried"--all the while knowing that he wasn't going to be taken up on it.

 

[jackt62]

Lincoln must have suspected that the idea would be rejected by his own cabinet and he must have known that it would be unpalatable to the South. So why did he do it?

Various plans for peace negotiations were raised at one time or another, the final one being the Hampton Roads Conference in February 1865. Lincoln's non-negotiable points included restoration of the Union and emancipation; the Confederacy demanded independence and slavery. So the leaders of both sides had to know that any so-called "peace" plans were always doomed to failure. From Lincoln's view point, agreeing to meet or have subordinates meet with Confederate representatives was an easy way to appease northern opponents such as the Peace Democrats or Republican allies such as Horace Greeley who advocated for a way to end the bloodshed.