[2banana]

But I thought all whites were evil racist slaveholders...

[mnehring]

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.

[DieHard the Hunter]

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

[bmwcyle]

Corporate welfare.

[camle]

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.

[Kevmo]

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

This could have applicable parallels with the prolife movement.

[Moose4]

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

[bcsco]

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.

[rhombus]

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.

[fredhead]

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.

[Burkean]

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.

[fight_truth_decay]

The motivations behind "gradual emancipation" were complex. Keeping slaves had ceased to be cost-effective as the slaves grew older, for a servant's labor had become cheaper than the cost of caring for the servant throughout his or her lifetime. However, most colonists did not view immediate emancipation as the right solution, for then either the slave owners would lose property that they had legally acquired, or the government would have to repay these owners for their lost property. Instead, "gradual emancipation" shifted the cost of freeing slaves onto the slaves themselves, who effectively worked their way out of slavery. This new system did not free any current slaves, and it guaranteed twenty years of service from any child born of a slave.

The line between servitude and slavery was fine indeed for black indentured servants, particularly since white servants rarely served more than 7 years and rarely after the age of twenty-one.

Benjamin Silliman, officer of the American Colonization Society, offers one example of how the "gradual emancipation" law was put into effect.
More at:
yaleslavery.org

[JennysCool]

Reminds me of that Firesign Theater sketch with Lincoln waking up after a hard night drinking.

“I freed the WHAT???”

[printhead]

We could also end the war on poverty by giving all the poverted $1 million each for less than what it’s cost so far.

[Old Professer]

Catch and release variant...

[wolfcreek]

Seems to me it would of been better than the massive destruction and loss of 620,000 Americans.

[stainlessbanner]

Dixieping

[rustbucket]

Lincoln was offering $400 for slaves? The average slave price in the Deep South from 1856 to 1860 was $1,658. Source: Link.

I found the following prices in the January 29, 1850 State Gazette of Austin, Texas:

- Clinton, Georgia. 60 negroes sold, all field hands young and old included. Average price $905

- Hawkinsville, Georgia. Three male field hands sold for $1,380 to $1,510 apiece.

- Columbus, Georgia. Prices ranged from a low of $875 for one field hand to $2,010 for a blacksmith. Most field hands sold for about $1,500.

Perhaps slave prices were lower in the northern states that Lincoln's proposal covered.

[Mack the knife]

This is covered in some detail in Shelby Foote's “Civil War Volume 1”. (I am listening to the AudioBook version, and am enjoying it greatly). He published a letter in response to a Horace Greely Editorial immediately before the Emancipation Proclamation that stated quite clearly and forcefully that his primary intent was to save the Union. If he had to leave slavery in place, or free all slaves, or free only some to save the Union, He would do so.

And yes, Lincoln understood that by issuing the Proclamation, it made it impossible for both France and England to recognize the South, for that would require that they recognize slavery. It also killed developing efforts by England and France to assist in negotiations between North and South to end the war

After the Proclamation was issued, and the abolitionists attacked him for not freeing all slaves, he said that the issue of the slavery in loyal States would be resolved (perhaps by purchase) after the fighting was over.

Some of the commenters on this thread would profit from reading or listening to Foote's work.