Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Letters Suggest Lincoln Wanted to Buy Slaves for $400 Apiece in 'Gradual Emancipation'
Fox News ^

Posted on 03/05/2008 11:23:56 AM PST by Sub-Driver

Letters Suggest Lincoln Wanted to Buy Slaves for $400 Apiece in 'Gradual Emancipation'

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

AP

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Barely a year into the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suggested buying slaves for $400 apiece under a "gradual emancipation" plan that would bring peace at less cost than several months of hostilities.

The proposal was outlined in one of 72 letters penned by Lincoln that ended up in the University of Rochester's archives. The correspondence was digitally scanned and posted online along with easier-to-read transcriptions.

Accompanying them are 215 letters sent to Lincoln by dozens of fellow political and military leaders. They include letters from Vice President Andrew Johnson and Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who both succeeded Lincoln in the presidency in the 12 years after his assassination in 1865.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; emancipation; letters; presidents; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

1 posted on 03/05/2008 11:23:57 AM PST by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
But I thought all whites were evil racist slaveholders...
2 posted on 03/05/2008 11:25:32 AM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
I’m glad he didn’t take this route. It would not have solved the problem and it would have just justified the continual traffic of humans as commodities.
3 posted on 03/05/2008 11:26:53 AM PST by mnehring ("Ronald Reagan has made Jimmy Carter look like a conservative..."- Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

In hindsight, $400 apiece could have proven a real bargain.


4 posted on 03/05/2008 11:27:09 AM PST by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghill mi do dhuine. Fg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Corporate welfare.


5 posted on 03/05/2008 11:27:41 AM PST by bmwcyle (I am the watchman on the tower sounding the alarm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter
It would have been a tremendous bargain. Perhaps even better, it would have avoided the disastrous 14th Amendment under which all states suffer today.
6 posted on 03/05/2008 11:29:30 AM PST by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

It’s like the gun buy-backs. People only bring in old, worn out or broken stuff that won’t work anymore!


7 posted on 03/05/2008 11:30:36 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

he wanted to buy them , he also wanted to set them up in either Liberia, or Nicaragua where he expected them to be friendly to US interests.


8 posted on 03/05/2008 11:31:35 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Interesting approach. I’ll need to read up later.

This could have applicable parallels with the prolife movement.


9 posted on 03/05/2008 11:32:42 AM PST by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. Its a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Interesting. I know there’s been a lot of debate on here during the various WBTS threads regarding whether the Federal government would or could have done something like this pre-War. Trouble is, I don’t see how this could’ve possibly shortened the war—by 1862, with the battle as fiercely joined as it was, the Confederate forces saw it as defense of the South against an invading army. Emancipating slaves would have done nothing to speed an end to that. Besides, at that point, Southern slaveholders probably wouldn’t have sold their slaves to “the enemy” who was busy trying to invade their land.

}:-)4


10 posted on 03/05/2008 11:32:54 AM PST by Moose4 (Hey GOP...don't move toward the middle. Move the middle toward us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

As I suspected, the article points to this being a proposal prior to issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. I believe I’ve read of this before, but would have to do a lot of research to find the volume it was in.

Lincoln put forth a number of proposals both before the war, and after it began, trying to limit the carnage and the effects of succession. For various reasons none took hold.


11 posted on 03/05/2008 11:34:14 AM PST by bcsco (To heck with a third party. We need a second one....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I thought this was well known. Are there any thoughts about whether slave holders would have accepted such an offer? Something tells me that many would have resisted.


12 posted on 03/05/2008 11:35:08 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Lincoln stated early in his Presidency that his main aim was to preserve the Union. He said it didn’t matter if all of the states were slave, all free, or some free and some slave. Preserving the Union was what mattered.

BTW the Emancipation Proclamation freed NO SLAVES!!!
The Proclamation only applied to the areas of states then in rebellion that were not controlled by the Union army. Therefore, it only freed slaves in areas where the North was not in power.

Because of that war, so much power was stripped from the individual states and taken over by the Federal government that the whole makeup of our nation changed.

13 posted on 03/05/2008 11:35:56 AM PST by fredhead (4-cylinder, air cooled, horizontally opposed......THE REAL VW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moose4

Agreed. After firing on Sumter, the Rebs weren’t in a mood to compromise.


14 posted on 03/05/2008 11:37:42 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

This wasn’t aimed at the Confederate States. I was meant for Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Washington, D.C, per the article. While these were slave holding states (as were some other of the Northern states although of no real numbers), they didn’t secede.


15 posted on 03/05/2008 11:38:15 AM PST by bcsco (To heck with a third party. We need a second one....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Oops! I meant secession, not succession. Sorry.


16 posted on 03/05/2008 11:38:57 AM PST by bcsco (To heck with a third party. We need a second one....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Then I wonder what was the point.


17 posted on 03/05/2008 11:39:18 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I am descended from several slaveholders through various branches of my family. It has occurred to me in the past that my family invested a great deal of money in a practice that was completely legal, and that money was lost to them with no remuneration.


18 posted on 03/05/2008 11:40:06 AM PST by Burkean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
This is News? I learned about the letters 30 Yrs ago when i went to High school in GA where Ol’ Abe wasn’t held in too High regard. I have read where resentment over this failed policy caused him to exempt all the slaves in the U.S. in the emancipation proclamation.
barbra ann
19 posted on 03/05/2008 11:40:20 AM PST by barb-tex (Why replace the IRS with anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fredhead
Because of that war, so much power was stripped from the individual states and taken over by the Federal government that the whole makeup of our nation changed.

Agreed. What a foolish issue to make a stand for States Rights over. A total shame all the way around. Of course had they tried to settle that issue earlier they might never have gotten the Constitution ratified.

20 posted on 03/05/2008 11:42:24 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson