By the same token, what right would the North have had to negotiate a price for free men? They wouldn't have exactly have been free if the government could freely buy and sell them.
What would have happened if government had bought the slave's freedom and then turned their back, leaving the former slaves in the south? I guess we can never really know, but my guess would be that history would have unfolded much as it did after Reconstruction, except that it would have been even worse for black people.
If blacks had been suddenly freed without the Civil War taking place, they would have found themselves at the mercy of a strong, powerful, well financed Southern establishment which would have had no reason at all to treat them any differently than before.
Without the Civil War, the South wouldn't have been devastated. They would have maintained their economic power and capital, while the blacks would have had nothing. They would have still had all of the money, all of the property, and all of the political power and structure. My guess would be that former slave owners would have quickly developed some sort of debt-bondage or truck system which would have economically enslaved the workers.
In the post-War South, devastated and weakened in every way, all of the might the federal government could bring to bear wasn't enough to come close to neutralizing the former power structure. After the war, Congress had to put the Confederacy under the rule of the US Army in an effort to rebuild local governments. Those who had held positions in the Confederate government were denied the right to hold office or vote again. Even with all of that, as soon as Reconstruction ended, black people were again disenfranchised with Jim Crow laws as those formerly in power began to bounced back.
There is no reason to think that if the South had been allowed to maintain itself, that blacks would have been treated decently, since they weren't treated decently after Reconstruction. I guess they wouldn't have had to have moved to the north, but not much would have changed if that hadn't been included in any hypothetical deal.
I don't think that you understand Compensated Emancipation. The Federal Government is not "buying" the slaves. It's paying slave-owners to free them. The instant their freedom is paid for, they're free men.
Granted, some of the Taxes to pay for Compensated Emancipation would necessarily have come from the North -- but it was mostly Yankee slave-traders who had taken Southern money in exchange for Slaves, in the first place. So it would be only "fair" to spread the taxes to pay for Compensated Emancipation across both North and South.
And at $1,000 per slave (a very generous average price by 1860 standards) or a total of $3 Billion dollars, it would have cost half as much as the $6 Billion that the War itself cost, and none of the 600,000 dead.
What would have happened if government had bought the slave's freedom and then turned their back, leaving the former slaves in the south? I guess we can never really know, but my guess would be that history would have unfolded much as it did after Reconstruction, except that it would have been even worse for black people.
On the contrary. A southern economy flush with money from Compensated Emancipation, and without their infrastructure totally wrecked by the war, and needing to replace the Slave Labor which had been emancipated without the importation of new slaves (which was illegal under the Constitution after 1808, and would get the plantation owner thrown in prison) -- would have been in a position to offer southern blacks MUCH higher wages for their labor than the economically-wrecked Post-War South was able to offer.
If blacks had been suddenly freed without the Civil War taking place, they would have found themselves at the mercy of a strong, powerful, well financed Southern establishment which would have had no reason at all to treat them any differently than before.
On the contrary. A southern economy flush with money from Compensated Emancipation, and without their infrastructure totally wrecked by the war, and needing to replace the Slave Labor which had been emancipated without the importation of new slaves (which was illegal under the Constitution after 1808, and would get the plantation owner thrown in prison) -- would have been in a position to offer southern blacks MUCH higher wages for their labor than the economically-wrecked Post-War South was able to offer.
Without the Civil War, the South wouldn't have been devastated. They would have maintained their economic power and capital, while the blacks would have had nothing. They would have still had all of the money, all of the property, and all of the political power and structure. My guess would be that former slave owners would have quickly developed some sort of debt-bondage or truck system which would have economically enslaved the workers.
On the contrary. A southern economy flush with money from Compensated emancipation, and without their infrastructure totally wrecked by the war, and needing to replace the Slave Labor which had been emancipated without the importation of new slaves (which was illegal under the Constitution after 1808, and would get the plantation owner thrown in prison) -- would have been in a position to offer southern blacks MUCH higher wages for their labor than the economically-wrecked Post-War South was able to offer.
All of which directly contradicts your hypothesis. A richer South could have paid more for freedman labor (and would have, rather than lose that labor to Northern factories). And with more Capital and Jobs to go around, resentment against blacks would have been lower than it was amongst the devastated and starving Post-War South.
The War of Federal Aggression was the stupidest, most unnecessary, and most destructive war in American history.
I don't think that you understand Compensated Emancipation. The Federal Government is not "buying" the slaves. It's paying slave-owners to free them. The instant their freedom is paid for, they're free men.
Granted, some of the Taxes to pay for Compensated Emancipation would necessarily have come from the North -- but it was mostly Yankee slave-traders who had taken Southern money in exchange for Slaves, in the first place. So it would be only "fair" to spread the taxes to pay for Compensated Emancipation across both North and South.
And at $1,000 per slave (a very generous average price by 1860 standards) or a total of $3 Billion dollars, it would have cost half as much as the $6 Billion that the War itself cost, and none of the 600,000 dead.
What would have happened if government had bought the slave's freedom and then turned their back, leaving the former slaves in the south? I guess we can never really know, but my guess would be that history would have unfolded much as it did after Reconstruction, except that it would have been even worse for black people.
On the contrary. A southern economy flush with money from Compensated Emancipation, and without their infrastructure totally wrecked by the war, and needing to replace the Slave Labor which had been emancipated without the importation of new slaves (which was illegal under the Constitution after 1808, and would get the plantation owner thrown in prison) -- would have been in a position to offer southern blacks MUCH higher wages for their labor than the economically-wrecked Post-War South was able to offer.
If blacks had been suddenly freed without the Civil War taking place, they would have found themselves at the mercy of a strong, powerful, well financed Southern establishment which would have had no reason at all to treat them any differently than before.
On the contrary. A southern economy flush with money from Compensated Emancipation, and without their infrastructure totally wrecked by the war, and needing to replace the Slave Labor which had been emancipated without the importation of new slaves (which was illegal under the Constitution after 1808, and would get the plantation owner thrown in prison) -- would have been in a position to offer southern blacks MUCH higher wages for their labor than the economically-wrecked Post-War South was able to offer.
Without the Civil War, the South wouldn't have been devastated. They would have maintained their economic power and capital, while the blacks would have had nothing. They would have still had all of the money, all of the property, and all of the political power and structure. My guess would be that former slave owners would have quickly developed some sort of debt-bondage or truck system which would have economically enslaved the workers.
On the contrary. A southern economy flush with money from Compensated emancipation, and without their infrastructure totally wrecked by the war, and needing to replace the Slave Labor which had been emancipated without the importation of new slaves (which was illegal under the Constitution after 1808, and would get the plantation owner thrown in prison) -- would have been in a position to offer southern blacks MUCH higher wages for their labor than the economically-wrecked Post-War South was able to offer.
All of which directly contradicts your hypothesis. A richer South could have paid more for freedman labor (and would have, rather than lose that labor to Northern factories). And with more Capital and Jobs to go around, resentment against blacks would have been lower than it was amongst the devastated and starving Post-War South.
The War of Federal Aggression was the stupidest, most unnecessary, and most destructive war in American history.