Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 5th, 2012, 09:21 AM   #41

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,227

Were American slave-owners compensated for the loss of their property in any way?
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2012, 10:25 AM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,541

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
Were American slave-owners compensated for the loss of their property in any way?
When northern states abolished slavery, owners were allowed to sell the slaves to southern states. In some cases they could keep existing slaves. There were still a few slaves ("life apprentices") in New Jersey at the time of the Civil War.

During and after the Civil War, slave owners got no compensation for the slaves freed by the EP or 13th Ammendement.
betgo is online now  
Old December 5th, 2012, 12:27 PM   #43

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,583
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
Were American slave-owners compensated for the loss of their property in any way?
Betgo gave a nice, concise answer, but I just wanted to remark that it seems to me if anyone deserved to be compensated, it wasn't the slave owners.
Viperlord is online now  
Old December 5th, 2012, 01:01 PM   #44

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
During and after the Civil War, slave owners got no compensation for the slaves freed by the EP or 13th Ammendement.
And interestingly enough, during the war Lincoln had been trying to get the slave owners to accept compensation for freeing their slaves, but they would have no part of it, even when the writing was clearly on the wall.
Rongo is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 03:30 PM   #45

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
I'm trying to find figures for the population of free African-Americans in the years between the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation, any help would be most appreciated.
The US Census gives numbers for 1820 to 1860. The states with the most free balcks were Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio.
Fiver is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:03 PM   #46

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
.. if anyone deserved to be compensated, it wasn't the slave owners.
Why didn't the Union give each freed man and woman slave, money?
I know all about Freedmen's Bureau etc, but why not a small cash
bonus? The former slaves were set free, and later could vote, but
suddenly there were millions of unemployed people who could be legally
kicked off the land they used to work. (I know about share-cropping)
You'd think the Union would have given all of them a small stipend.
Seems the Union set them free, then said, "Good luck new US citizens
and don't forget to vote Republican in the next election."

Last edited by tjadams; December 5th, 2012 at 07:22 PM. Reason: Party error, thanks Betgo.
tjadams is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:14 PM   #47
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,541

There was talk about giving the slaves land, but it would presumably from their former owners. I think you meant "don't forget to vote Republican."

The value of all the slave was something like $4 billion, which would be like $400 billion in today's money. Don't think anyone had that money. Part of the reason emancipation went through was people in the north wanted the war to accomplish something. With all the heavy casualties, there is no way the federal government would borrow that kind of money to compensate traitors. The southern states were impoverished, had no money, and no one would think of trying to raise it to compensate their wealthiest citizens.
betgo is online now  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:26 PM   #48

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
Part of the reason emancipation went through was people in the north wanted the war to accomplish something. With all the heavy casualties, there is no way the federal government would borrow that kind of money to compensate traitors. .
No doubt it would have cost a lot of money, but then why did Lincoln
even broach the idea of gradual-compensated-emancipation early in
his office? Besides, I'm not talking about paying the civilians of the
South who lost property and were not compensated, I mean the former
bondsmen.
tjadams is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:28 PM   #49

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,583
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
Why didn't the Union give each freed man and woman slave, money?
I know all about Freedmen's Bureau etc, but why not a small cash
bonus? The former slaves were set free, and later could vote, but
suddenly there were millions of unemployed people who could be legally
kicked off the land they used to work. (I know about share-cropping)
You'd think the Union would have given all of them a small stipend.
Seems the Union set them free, then said, "Good luck new US citizens
and don't forget to vote Democrat in the next election."
Some did propose things along that line, such as the infamous "40 Acres and a Mule" order in Sherman's department that gave arable land to former slaves. It was revoked by President Andrew Johnson, who opposed the Radical Republican vision of Reconstruction, which was focused on guaranteeing black equality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams
No doubt it would have cost a lot of money, but then why did Lincoln
even broach the idea of gradual-compensated-emancipation early in
his office
Spending money was surely preferable to risking the war by alienating the border states early-on. And at the time, Lincoln thought the slave-owners would accept compensated emancipation.
Viperlord is online now  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:32 PM   #50

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Didn't Sherman just issue that field order to get rid of the blacks who
were tagging along within his units (old, women and the young), and slowing his march?
Didn't he just want to rid himself of that impediment?
And of course Johnson revoked Sherman's field order. Field Orders are not the official
policy of the president.
tjadams is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
african, americans, free


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A textbook says that thousands of African Americans fought for the South during the Civil War laketahoejwb American History 33 March 9th, 2013 06:19 AM
Henry Ford (1863 1947) Thessalonian American History 6 August 28th, 2011 04:47 PM
Why do few African Americans attend civil war events? CIowa General History 50 April 16th, 2011 03:17 PM
20th century free states, free cities and plebiscites larkin European History 0 October 24th, 2009 09:38 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.