But since there was no interest in it on the part of the slave holders then there was no solution at all.
The problem wasn’t that it was rejected, the problem is that market compensation of the owners was not even tried. Because that was never the point. The point was to crush the South.
So what you are saying is that you would jump at the chance to sell all your guns to the government and forgo any future gun ownership if they offered market price? If so then you would be a complete idiot and I suspect that you are not.
Market price is not the issue. If so then the everyone in the country would gladly disarm themselves at the right price. People don't want to give up their guns, for any number of reasons. Likewise, in 1860 there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that slave owners were willing to give up their chattel, even if offered market price. Slave owners were not interested in giving up their property. So half your equation is missing.
Again, it was tried in the UK and it worked. It meant that those who were involved in the slave trade were not crushed. They were able to ‘cash out’, so to speak. This is why the UK was able to eliminate slavery and avoid a bitterly divided civil war and why black folks in the UK did better than they ever did in America.
You're overlooking one thing, well two things really. The first is that the slave owners in Britain did not have a choice. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 mandated the terms of emancipation and the compensation. There was nothing voluntary about it.
The second thing you're overlooking is that Britain did not have a large part of their population willing to launch a bloody rebellion to protect their right to own slaves. The U.S. did.
You gonna answer my question since I answered yours?
“Market price is not the issue.”
Market price is and was the issue. Had they been offered market value many would have taken it and it would have taken the wind out of the sails of those who stuck with it. That’s how it was done in the UK. Successfully, I might add and years before the States got around to doing it.
“Slave owners were not interested in giving up their property.”
Not for a dime on a dollar.
“You’re overlooking one thing, well two things really. The first is that the slave owners in Britain did not have a choice. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 mandated the terms of emancipation and the compensation. There was nothing voluntary about it.”
Compensation was negotiated over a period of years and they found a compromise that was acceptable to both parties. They agreed to shut things down and received payment which was acceptable to them. They were not left with nothing. They were not crushed by the power of the almighty state and Lincoln. They did not lose half a million good men and women.
That is because in the UK - the issue *was* slavery. The issue wasn’t nullification and the conflict between states and the federal government.
“The second thing you’re overlooking is that Britain did not have a large part of their population willing to launch a bloody rebellion to protect their right to own slaves. The U.S. did.”
They also didn’t have a large part of their population willing to vote to crush the economic livelihood of southerners. Again - if it were about slavery why wasn’t it until the 60s that black folks were actually allowed to vote?