Ron's claims about civil war.

[silverhandorder]

I have a liberal that says they did try to buy the slaves out but the slave owners refused. If anyone who is familiar with that period has anything to say about this? Because I took Ron at his word.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I have a liberal that says they did try to buy the slaves out but the slave owners refused. If anyone who is familiar with that period has anything to say about this? Because I took Ron at his word.

There was SOME discussion, but nothing ever came of it.

[Ricky201]

I have a liberal that says they did try to buy the slaves out but the slave owners refused. If anyone who is familiar with that period has anything to say about this? Because I took Ron at his word.

I believe the confederacy refused, because the other condition of Lincoln's offer was for them to rejoin the union.

[jazzloversinc]

I have never read that anywhere.

[cindy25]

they offered to buy the slaves of the Union slave states (DE, KY, MO, and MD) where the emancipation proc did not apply

[jmdrake]

I believe the confederacy refused, because the other condition of Lincoln's offer was for them to rejoin the union.

The offer was made to the states that didn't secede.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335189,00.html
http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=570

The idea was that if it was successful in these states, others might follow. But the deal was rejected. (I read somewhere that the slaveholding states wanted more than the $400 a piece being offered and congress wasn't willing to pay that much.)

Here's the real problem. In the other countries where this had been done successfully, slavery was not an issue that divided regions. Lincoln's proposal required taxpayers from non slave states to bear the cost of slave owners in slave holding states doing what they morally should have been willing to do for free. Sure it would have been cheaper to pay even more than $400 a piece than to fight a long bloody war (just like it would have been cheaper to pay the Taliban to eject Al Qaeda), but that doesn't resonate the same emotionally.

One proposal that might have worked is if the tarriffs that the south hated so much was the mechanism used to pay to free the slaves. That would have been a win/win for everybody. Northern industry would have still been protected, the south would have had the funds to transition to a new economy, the slaves would have been freed and the northern taxpayers wouldn't have been out any extra money. The only losers would have been the international bankers. Alas that was not to be.

[jmdrake]

they offered to buy the slaves of the Union slave states (DE, KY, MO, and MD) where the emancipation proc did not apply

True. But it was made before the emancipation proclamation.

[Ricky201]

The offer was made to the states that didn't secede.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335189,00.html
http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=570

The idea was that if it was successful in these states, others might follow. But the deal was rejected. (I read somewhere that the slaveholding states wanted more than the $400 a piece being offered and congress wasn't willing to pay that much.)

Here's the real problem. In the other countries where this had been done successfully, slavery was not an issue that divided regions. Lincoln's proposal required taxpayers from non slave states to bear the cost of slave owners in slave holding states doing what they morally should have been willing to do for free. Sure it would have been cheaper to pay even more than $400 a piece than to fight a long bloody war (just like it would have been cheaper to pay the Taliban to eject Al Qaeda), but that doesn't resonate the same emotionally.

One proposal that might have worked is if the tarriffs that the south hated so much was the mechanism used to pay to free the slaves. That would have been a win/win for everybody. Northern industry would have still been protected, the south would have had the funds to transition to a new economy, the slaves would have been freed and the northern taxpayers wouldn't have been out any extra money. The only losers would have been the international bankers. Alas that was not to be.

Thanks for the clarification, I probably should have mentioned that I was a bit foggy on the subject.

[silverhandorder]

Thank you for the information I needed this in order to get anywhere with my argument.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The offer was made to the states that didn't secede.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335189,00.html
http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=570

The idea was that if it was successful in these states, others might follow. But the deal was rejected. (I read somewhere that the slaveholding states wanted more than the $400 a piece being offered and congress wasn't willing to pay that much.)

Here's the real problem. In the other countries where this had been done successfully, slavery was not an issue that divided regions. Lincoln's proposal required taxpayers from non slave states to bear the cost of slave owners in slave holding states doing what they morally should have been willing to do for free. Sure it would have been cheaper to pay even more than $400 a piece than to fight a long bloody war (just like it would have been cheaper to pay the Taliban to eject Al Qaeda), but that doesn't resonate the same emotionally.

One proposal that might have worked is if the tarriffs that the south hated so much was the mechanism used to pay to free the slaves. That would have been a win/win for everybody. Northern industry would have still been protected, the south would have had the funds to transition to a new economy, the slaves would have been freed and the northern taxpayers wouldn't have been out any extra money. The only losers would have been the international bankers. Alas that was not to be.

Heaven forbid the entire northern Slave Trade of exporting rum and other goods to Africa and importing slaves to the south be included in responsibility.

Heaven forbid the entire northern Slave Trade that built ships, paid lawyers, produced exported goods, and subsistence goods for slaves (like 50% of clothing) be included in responsibility.

Heaven forbid the entire northern Slave Trade that continued exporting goods to Africa and supporting the Slave Trade in defiance of 1808 be included in responsibility.

[jmdrake]

Heaven forbid the entire northern Slave Trade of exporting rum and other goods to Africa and importing slaves to the south be included in responsibility.

Heaven forbid the entire northern Slave Trade that built ships, paid lawyers, produced exported goods, and subsistence goods for slaves (like 50% of clothing) be included in responsibility.

Heaven forbid the entire northern Slave Trade that continued exporting goods to Africa and supporting the Slave Trade in defiance of 1808 be included in responsibility.

:rolleyes: The slave trade had long ended by the time of the civil war. Anyway, I'm not getting embroiled in another one of these stupid civil war threads. I gave the OP enough info to answer his liberal friend. Also the plan I stated even factored in the "hated" tariffs. But it's not really about the tariffs is it? It's all about playing the victim card in any way possible. Oh the poor southerners. They were forced to buy slaves against their will.

[BuddyRey]

It's called Compensated Emancipation, and unless I'm mistaken, it's the solution that Lysander Spooner supported.

Weird how we're taught to worship the Union and their aggression on the south during the War Between the States, even though no other Western nation had to go to war over the slavery issue.

[jmdrake]

It's called Compensated Emancipation, and unless I'm mistaken, it's the solution that Lysander Spooner supported.

Weird how we're taught to worship the Union and their aggression on the south during the War Between the States, even though no other Western nation had to go to war over the slavery issue.

Well Lincoln tried and failed. I gave my idea of how he could have done it better. Do you have any other suggestions? Also do you know of any nation, Western or otherwise, that was regionally divided on the slavery issue? IMO that's what wrecked compensated emancipation here.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

:rolleyes: The slave trade had long ended by the time of the civil war. Anyway, I'm not getting embroiled in another one of these stupid civil war threads. I gave the OP enough info to answer his liberal friend. Also the plan I stated even factored in the "hated" tariffs. But it's not really about the tariffs is it? It's all about playing the victim card in any way possible. Oh the poor southerners. They were forced to buy slaves against their will.

I am not playing the victim card. I am playing the reason card. If we are going to talk about economic solutions let's have a real conversation about the economics of slavery including the slave trade.

Since you asserted the slave trade had ended long before the civil war how long are you talking about. Can you provide a year so I can envision the concept of "long before".

[sratiug]

If Lincoln's Union wanted to end slavery they could have passed a constitutional amendment banning slavery after the South seceded. But they didn't. Instead they nearly passed an amendment favored by Lincoln saying that slavery could never be ended by the federal government. Instead they used their own slaves to support an invasion of another country. The Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of slavery, it is an impossibility. Two slave owners killing each other is not a war to end slavery.

It would be more logical to say the North was fighting to keep escaped slaves out of the North. With the South out of the Union they would have had no excuse to send them back home when they fled North, unless they escaped from union slave states.

Lincoln brought up the subject of buying the slaves in the South after the war was going badly and it was rejected out of hand by his cabinet.

If the Union did not invade the South slavery possibly could have ended in the South before it ended in the Union.

[kylejack]

Lincoln was inaugurated in March 1861 and said he had no intention of ending slavery where it already existed. On April 12, 1861 the South attacked Fort Sumter. How could Lincoln have made any such offer? The war had already begun.

[sratiug]

Lincoln was inaugurated in March 1861 and said he had no intention of ending slavery where it already existed. On April 12, 1861 the South attacked Fort Sumter. How could Lincoln have made any such offer? The war had already begun.

Ummm, Fort Sumter is in South Carolina... The war started when Lincoln invaded Virginia.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I think it's more like this if we were to boil it down to utter simplicity.

Jackson killed the Hamiltonian's national bank. Lincoln revived it.

[jmdrake]

I am not playing the victim card. I am playing the reason card. If we are going to talk about economic solutions let's have a real conversation about the economics of slavery including the slave trade.

Since you asserted the slave trade had ended long before the civil war how long are you talking about. Can you provide a year so I can envision the concept of "long before".

The slave trade act of 1808 effectively ended the (legal) trans-Atlantic slave trade. Are you actually looking for "economic solutions" or are you looking to assign blame? Lincoln tried compensated emancipation and failed. I gave my potential solution of how he could have made it work. If you have your own potential solution then just lay it on the table and be done with it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The slave trade act of 1808 effectively ended the (legal) trans-Atlantic slave trade. Are you actually looking for "economic solutions" or are you looking to assign blame? Lincoln tried compensated emancipation and failed. I gave my potential solution of how he could have made it work. If you have your own potential solution then just lay it on the table and be done with it.

I hold a view that in order for ideas whose time have come and reason to prevail the facts must be objectively presented and positions thoroughly debated until there is a clear consensus on why (ie why ought a person believe something).

If the facts are based on distortion or bias the why will not be correct.

Fair enough I can recognize the act of 1808 but I don't think it ended the slave trade just like prohibition did not end alcohol consumption or the CRA did not end discrimination.