Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address Saturday, March 4,1865
Posted on 03/04/2008 1:31:51 PM PST by mdittmar
"March 4,1865 in Washington was a bleak day. Low clouds hung in the sky,the wind blew in heavy gusts,and the carriage wheels sank in the mud of Pennsylvania Avenue. On the portico of the capitol Lincoln arose to deliver his Second Inaugural Address. In a quiet voice he read these immortal words."
Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address Saturday, March 4,1865
ML/NJ
Thanks for your lovely post.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
I happen to be one of those people. Compensated emancipation would have been considerably less expensive and certainly a great deal less bloody than the WBTS. It was implemented reasonably effectively and peacably by the British Empire.
Unfortunately, it would never have been accepted by either side. Northerners would not be willing to tax themselves heavily to emancipate a bunch of blacks. It should be remembered that the capital value of slaves in 1860 was somewhere between $2B and $4B. To put this into context, the federal budget for 1860 was $60M.
Slaveowners rejected the very idea of emancipation, compensated or not. In 1864, when any semi-intelligent person could clearly see that slavery was doomed, at least in the Union, Union slaveowners rejected Lincoln's plea to accept compensated gradual emancipation. How much more would hardcore Confederates have rejected the idea?
BTW, I yield to no one in my detestation of slavery, as per my tagline. Getting rid of a detestable practice should be done by any convenient means. You don't have to kill 640,000 young men to make your point that slavery is a bad thing.
Thanks mdittmar.
ML/NJ
But it was impossible. Compensated voluntary emancipation would have required the cooperation of the slave owners themselves, who as you pointed out were not interested in ending their institution through any means. A compensated plan forced on the slave owners would have required a constitutional amendment. Any such amendment, assuming the 15 slave holding states all opposed it, would have required 46 states to ratify it. Mathematically impossible, even today.
It was implemented reasonably effectively and peacably by the British Empire.
The difference being that a large section of the UK wasn't willing to launch a rebellion to defend their slaves.
A little earlier Lincoln had summed up the cause of the war in as complete and accurate a manner as anyone has when he noted: "Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."
I have always felt that Lincoln’s second inaugural address was his finest speech; even greater than his Gettysburg address.
It also cost them just 20 million pounds, 10% of your low-end figure for the book value of slaves in the US.
You are quite correct.
Another reason compensated emancipation would not have worked is that it is highly unlikely the northerners would have been willing to tax themselves heavily to pay slaveowners for the freedom of black people. Most of them disliked both the slaveowners and the slaves.
Of course they wound up paying a much higher price in both money and lives, but for some reason people are willing to pay for things during war that they won’t even consider during peacetime.
The compensation was not intended to, and did not, provide the slaveowners with the full capital value of their slaves if slavery had continued in effect.
I’ve been unable to determine the total number of slaves in the British Empire in the 1830s, which has significant impact on how much the $100M provided in compensation per slave. There were 4M slaves in the US in 1860. The $100M spent by the British, assuming your numbers to be correct, would have provided $25 per slave, not much in the way of compensation.
As far as I know, slavery in the Empire in the 1830s was largely limited to the Caribbean and South Africa. I suspect the numbers involved were well under 4M.
From the Emancipation Act
XXIV. 'And whereas, towards compensating the Persons at present entitled to the Services of the Slaves to be manumitted and set free by virtue of this Act for the Loss of such Services, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled have resolved to give and grant to His Majesty the Sum of Twenty Millions Pounds Sterling;' be it enacted, That the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland may raise such Sum or Sums of Money as shall be required from Time to Time under the Provisions of this Act, and may grant as the Consideration for such Sum or Sums of Money Redeemable Perpetual Annuities or Annuities for Terms of Years (which said Annuities reflectively shall be transferable and payable at the Bank of England), upon such Terms and Conditions and under such Regulations as to the Time or Times of paying the said Sums of Money agreed to be raised as may be determined upon by the said Commissioners of the Treasury, not exceeding in the whole the Sum of Twenty Millions Pounds Sterling:I found a reference to someone with 665 slaves getting 12,700 pounds--19 pounds and change each.
I just ran across some numbers with regard to the number of slaves freed by the Empire’s emancipation: 700,000.
Unfortunately I promptly lost the link.
This works out to about $140 (c. 35 pounds) per slave, although there was obviously a good deal of administrative expense, which was probably taken out of the $100M.
There were 4M slaves in the US, a problem of infinitely greater difficulty and complexity. The Empire’s experience doesn’t have a great deal of applicability to the USA.
One crucial issue is that nowhere in the Empire was there a group of slaveowners capable of contesting the emancipation militarily. Most were scattered on islands, where they could be isolated from each other and defeated in detail, if necessary. Most were also in locations where they were heavily outnumbered by their slaves. The total number of slaveowners and those interested in protecting the institution was probably much smaller than the number of slaves.
FYI, I was just reading about the last few months of the War in Catton. Around January Lincoln proposed to his cabinet that the federal government pay $400M to slaveowners as compensation if their states returned to the Union within 2 months. He pointed out this much would be spent anyway if the war lasted only another hundred days, which is about what happened.
His entire cabinet was against him and he dropped it, but I think the proposal should be interesting for those who believe Lincoln gloried in the slaughter.
I also did some other poking around in the details of British Empire emancipation and found some reference to the money not being intended to replace the capital value of the slave, but the value of his labor for a couple of years, since the former slaveowners would now have to pay wages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.