4 ms·

We did economically recompense some former slaveowners. Not the slaves or their descendants, of course. https://today.uconn.edu/2021/03/there-was-a-time-repara

by drekk 5y ago

We did economically recompense some former slaveowners. Not the slaves or their descendants, of course. https://today.uconn.edu/2021/03/there-was-a-time-reparations-were-actually-paid-out-just-not-to-formerly-enslaved-people/ https://today.uconn.edu/2021/03/there-was-a-time-reparations...

gizmo686 5y ago
Assuming by "we" you mean the United States, then we only ever compensated slaveowners in DC [0]. Notably, abolishing slavery in DC did not require going through a costly civil war as it did in (almost) all of the slave states. Granted, it is hard to decide how to read this history. Specifically, the civil war did not start because the federal government tried freeing slaves; but because the eventual confederacy states feared it would. Abolition wouldn't become union policy until well into the civil war (largely due to the sunk cost of fighting the far). And, the 4 union slave states would eventually abolish slavery as well. Still, given how costly the civil war was (both in terms of money, lives, and politics), it is worth considering the counterfactual where did a compensated abolition, which seems to have worked out better when it was attempted. [0] The act to search for is District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Lincoln had always planned to compensate slaveowners in order to abolish slavery and drafted his first compensated emancipation plan in 1849. This was rejected by the southern states. http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/civil-war/congressional-action-inaction/compensated-emancipation/ http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/civil-war/congressional-a...
Jensson 5y ago
How much would you pay to save 600 000 lives? Because that is what you sacrificed instead. If you forced slave owners to compensate their slaves the death toll would likely be a lot higher as they would struggle harder, would that be worth it?

by drekk 5y ago

gizmo686 5y ago

Assuming by "we" you mean the United States, then we only ever compensated slaveowners in DC [0]. Notably, abolishing slavery in DC did not require going through a costly civil war as it did in (almost) all of the slave states. Granted, it is hard to decide how to read this history. Specifically, the civil war did not start because the federal government tried freeing slaves; but because the eventual confederacy states feared it would. Abolition wouldn't become union policy until well into the civil war (largely due to the sunk cost of fighting the far). And, the 4 union slave states would eventually abolish slavery as well. Still, given how costly the civil war was (both in terms of money, lives, and politics), it is worth considering the counterfactual where did a compensated abolition, which seems to have worked out better when it was attempted. [0] The act to search for is District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act

lern_too_spel 5y ago
Lincoln had always planned to compensate slaveowners in order to abolish slavery and drafted his first compensated emancipation plan in 1849. This was rejected by the southern states. http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/civil-war/congressional-action-inaction/compensated-emancipation/ http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/civil-war/congressional-a...

Jensson 5y ago

How much would you pay to save 600 000 lives? Because that is what you sacrificed instead. If you forced slave owners to compensate their slaves the death toll would likely be a lot higher as they would struggle harder, would that be worth it?