5 ms·

Would you have compensated the slave drivers for their slaves?

danieltillett 10y ago
Yes I would have. Much better than killing half a million people in a pointless civil war. Actually the English bought out the slave owners in the West Indies when they outlawed slavery and it worked fine [1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  Lincoln was a much smarter man than Ron Paul, with his limited education in US history, thinks he was. https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/277073/ https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/2... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation "During the Civil War, in 1861, President Lincoln drafted an act to be introduced before the legislature of Delaware, one of the four non-free states that remained loyal, for compensated emancipation. However this was narrowly defeated. Lincoln also was behind national legislation towards the same end, but the southern states, now in full rebellion, ignored the proposals. "Only in the District of Columbia, which fell under direct Federal auspices, was compensated emancipation enacted."
- mark_edward 10y ago
  So not only would you have let men walk off scot-free after being slavedrivers, you would have rewarded them with cash. But I bet you care about precedents and incentives right?
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    If it freed the slaves without bloodshed then yes. The English approach was much better than the American approach.
EdHominem 10y ago
We should have given them all a free piece of rope in compensation. It's our failure to deal with tough issues like this definitively, that causes problems to linger for centuries.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Well that way is the why the USA ended up in a civil war. As distasteful as it is to compensate slave owners or oil companies the alternative is worse.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    That's distinctly counter-factual. The USA never hung slave owners so that didn't cause the civil war. Logically, if they had it would have had to have been after the war. Causality mismatch. I also don't think you're even considering the suffering caused by the century of racial oppression after that, still continuing with racial motivated police shootings and race riots. This is what would have been avoided if we'd made some attempt at justice. You're not comparing alternatives if you ignore most of the facts.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      I am suggesting that it would have been better for everyone if the slaveowners had been bought out and their slaves freed than to fight a civil war and a unleash a century of Jim Crow oppression on the back of a southern backlash. Oppression and injustice only breeds more injustice.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > Oppression and injustice only breeds more injustice. Yeah, like paying slavers for owning people. That's going to sit well with the ex-slaves. How are you supposed to ever come to peace with people who beat your father to death and got a government check for doing so? The Jim Crow, etc, is because we weren't half harsh enough with the slavers, not because we were too rough. > southern backlash. That's easily solved. Dead people don't have petulant concerns that they aren't as rich as they were, and they don't riot and foment rebellion. > I am suggesting that it would have been better for everyone The highest number? Over what time scale? Measured how? Because the century and a half of racial killings and injustice leaves a lot of headroom for "better".

Yes I would have. Much better than killing half a million people in a pointless civil war. Actually the English bought out the slave owners in the West Indies when they outlawed slavery and it worked fine [1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

lern_too_spel 10y ago
Lincoln was a much smarter man than Ron Paul, with his limited education in US history, thinks he was. https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/277073/ https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/2... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation "During the Civil War, in 1861, President Lincoln drafted an act to be introduced before the legislature of Delaware, one of the four non-free states that remained loyal, for compensated emancipation. However this was narrowly defeated. Lincoln also was behind national legislation towards the same end, but the southern states, now in full rebellion, ignored the proposals. "Only in the District of Columbia, which fell under direct Federal auspices, was compensated emancipation enacted."
mark_edward 10y ago
So not only would you have let men walk off scot-free after being slavedrivers, you would have rewarded them with cash. But I bet you care about precedents and incentives right?
- danieltillett 10y ago
  If it freed the slaves without bloodshed then yes. The English approach was much better than the American approach.

EdHominem 10y ago

We should have given them all a free piece of rope in compensation. It's our failure to deal with tough issues like this definitively, that causes problems to linger for centuries.

danieltillett 10y ago
Well that way is the why the USA ended up in a civil war. As distasteful as it is to compensate slave owners or oil companies the alternative is worse.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  That's distinctly counter-factual. The USA never hung slave owners so that didn't cause the civil war. Logically, if they had it would have had to have been after the war. Causality mismatch. I also don't think you're even considering the suffering caused by the century of racial oppression after that, still continuing with racial motivated police shootings and race riots. This is what would have been avoided if we'd made some attempt at justice. You're not comparing alternatives if you ignore most of the facts.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    I am suggesting that it would have been better for everyone if the slaveowners had been bought out and their slaves freed than to fight a civil war and a unleash a century of Jim Crow oppression on the back of a southern backlash. Oppression and injustice only breeds more injustice.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > Oppression and injustice only breeds more injustice. Yeah, like paying slavers for owning people. That's going to sit well with the ex-slaves. How are you supposed to ever come to peace with people who beat your father to death and got a government check for doing so? The Jim Crow, etc, is because we weren't half harsh enough with the slavers, not because we were too rough. > southern backlash. That's easily solved. Dead people don't have petulant concerns that they aren't as rich as they were, and they don't riot and foment rebellion. > I am suggesting that it would have been better for everyone The highest number? Over what time scale? Measured how? Because the century and a half of racial killings and injustice leaves a lot of headroom for "better".