Southern unionism

[atlantis]

Would southern unionism have faded away if there had been no conscription? Is it not fair to view southern unionism as merely a reaction to conscription after the enactment of the first conscript law in contrast to the southern unionism that existed during the debates over secession.
Southern unionists also felt the harsh hand of union troops as they the ravaged the land, plundering/burning.

 

[RedRover]

Simmons and Winn among others were also slave owners too . I wonder if they felt the same after the EP? Samuel Beck also had slaves too he was farming the war woman valley east of Clayton Ga. He got most of his land from fighting in the Indians in Fla.

Don't know what they thought of the EP, but all considered probably disliked it. However, it was abided, and Simmons partook in the Constitutional Convention of 1865 to recognize its effect, and ban slavery and involuntary servitude from Georgia henceforward.

At the commencement of that Convention, the provisional Governor observed that no matter how unpopular "sudden emancipation" was, it was an "accomplished fact..."

During that convention, some of the delegates proposed a resolution regarding the mode of extinguishing slavery in Georgia, by war powers, as unfortunate, but accepted...

Even if more or less reflecting the feelings of a majority of the delegates, a motion and vote to table such resolutions was quickly passed.

Regardless, in Art. I. para. 20 of the final Constitutional revision, was incorporated the following prayer for US Government compensation for lost service or labor...

The United States, however, declined to reimburse any Georgia slaveholders for the loss of "service or labor" related to the subject. The Freedmen's inquiry Commission report to the Secretary of War in 1864 had noted any such property/claim by an inhabitant of the insurrectionary districts, at the time of the EP took effect, was voided...

...

...

Ergo, any Southerner within the Confederacy, including Georgians, who had not taken the oath of allegiance to the USA by January 1, 1863 had no claim for compensation for lost service/labor that the US Government was inclined to consider in the slightest, irrespective to any subsequent return to a "loyal" legal condition. And Congress did not subsequently act otherwise.

Recall too, for example, that in the Constitution, the US Government only recognized the existence of such "service or labor" where it existed under the laws of a State. So that if slavery/involuntary servitude did not exist in the State of Georgia, as it most certainly did not per the 1865 Convention, then the subject was a moot point anyway; and especially so after the passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution in December, 1865 which banned slavery etc. among the United States generally.


The Georgia Constitution of 1868 removed the complaint and concern about possible compensation...

 

[G Low]

Don't know what they thought of the EP, but all considered probably disliked it. However, it was abided, and Simmons partook in the Constitutional Convention of 1865 to recognize its effect, and ban slavery and involuntary servitude from Georgia henceforward.

At the commencement of that Convention, the provisional Governor observed that no matter how unpopular "sudden emancipation" was, it was an "accomplished fact..."

View attachment 576172

During that convention, some of the delegates proposed a resolution regarding the mode of extinguishing slavery in Georgia, by war powers, as unfortunate, but accepted...

View attachment 576174

Even if more or less reflecting the feelings of a majority of the delegates, a motion and vote to table such resolutions was quickly passed.

View attachment 576175

Regardless, in Art. I. para. 20 of the final Constitutional revision, was incorporated the following prayer for US Government compensation for lost service or labor...

View attachment 576176

The United States, however, declined to reimburse any Georgia slaveholders for the loss of "service or labor" related to the subject. The Freedmen's inquiry Commission report to the Secretary of War in 1864 had noted any such property/claim by an inhabitant of the insurrectionary districts, at the time of the EP took effect, was voided...

View attachment 576179
...
View attachment 576180
...
View attachment 576182


Ergo, any Southerner within the Confederacy, including Georgians, who had not taken the oath of allegiance to the USA by January 1, 1863 had no claim for compensation for lost service/labor that the US Government was inclined to consider in the slightest, irrespective to any subsequent return to a "loyal" legal condition. And Congress did not subsequently act otherwise.

Recall too, for example, that in the Constitution, the US Government only recognized the existence of such "service or labor" where it existed under the laws of a State. So that if slavery/involuntary servitude did not exist in the State of Georgia, as it most certainly did not per the 1865 Convention, then the subject was a moot point anyway; and especially so after the passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution in December, 1865 which banned slavery etc. among the United States generally.


The Georgia Constitution of 1868 removed the complaint and concern about possible compensation...

View attachment 576177

What about northern states? Were slave owners compensated in Kentucky or West Virginia?

 

[RedRover]

What about northern states? Were slave owners compensated in Kentucky or West Virginia?

The principal wartime compensation for any lost "service or labor" to slave masters among the loyal citizenry like in Kentucky or West Virginia, etc., was contemplated in the form of potential fixed rate compensation for lost service where their bondsmen joined the Army during 1863-5, per Acts of Congress...

The Secretary of War's commission was to determine if the loyal master was owed compensation for loss of service/labor to Army service under the provisions of the Act. The States had no say in the determinations, whether or not they perceived the service or labor connected with State recognized slavery (or "property in man").

Many of the masters were not considered automatically fit for compensation where they had actively attempted to prevent the enlistment of their servants/laborers, or interfered in their military service after enlistment in a manner contrary to law...

The State of West Virginia abolished slavery and involuntary servitude on February, 1865, mooting the issue there.

By the December 6, 1865 general abolition of slavery nationwide by the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, there were legal slaves, under State laws, only in the States of Kentucky, Delaware, and few in New Jersey. There were political discussions about "compensated emancipation" in Kentucky. Some State authorities apparently demanded thereafter a compensated emancipation payment from the USA on principle...

The above was pressed in a manner, as the 1850 to 1891 Bill of Rights in Kentucky's Constitution observed:

From 1887, it was noted:

But again, largely a moot point, given it could only regard State slavery pre-1865, which "property in man" no longer existed in the State, given the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution.

However, the issue of the US compensation allowed by the US wartime law to former masters for the mere "service or labor" owed by colored Army recruits for the USCT continued...
However, in 1867 any more such claims on behalf of loyal masters for the 1863-65 period were suspended by the US Congress...

And shortly afterward, a Joint Resolution of Congress of March 30, 1867 suspended all further legislative proceedings upon the subject, including appropriations for the compensation of masters whose servants joined the Army...

On that score, on March 14, 1888, the State legislature of Kentucky, recognizing the US Governments' above actions, resolved to lobby for their repeal, and that the loyal masters whose servants joined the Army be compensated for the service/labor per the former wartime US Acts...

The suspending Acts and Resolutions were not repealed.

In 1891, the Constitution of the State of Kentucky was modified, and all references to (former) slave property, etc., struck out, and replaced with notice that slavery/involuntary servitude were "forbidden" in the State...

And consequently the issue was concluded.

In Maryland, slavery was abolished in 1864. But in 1867 the Constitution of the State's declaration of rights was modified to state:

The issue with the above being, that the State of Maryland had already abolished slavery on November 1, 1864, so that upon the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution in December, 1865, there were no legal slaves in Maryland to be emancipated, so the claim for a compensation by the USA was moot in general. And relative to any US compensation for loyal masters of colored recruits, the issue, was previously noted, was mooted by Congress itself in 1867.

The State of Maryland repealed the above provision in 1977, and modified the article the next year to read:

"Art. 24. That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land." (Amended by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).