Buying the slaves and avoiding the Civil War

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The problem was that the money to buy the slaves from their owners was seen before the war as impossible to raise, most historians today would agree with that but the actual cost of the Civil War was much higher.

Let say a plan is offered to the slave owners, that they could if they agreed to a generous package to convert their slave plantation to sharecropping over a long period of time say 30 years. For their loss, a large compensation would be agreed.


Do you think enough would agree to make a significant difference?
 
Nah. More than an economic issue, by then slavery was a question of honor. If the South surrendered and accepted gradual abolition, it would be a repudiation of their defining institution. The South wasn't a society with slaves; it was a slave society where human bondage had a central role. Everybody was interested in upholding slavery, including poor whites, because white supremacy make them feel safe. After all, no matter how poor, ignorant, wretched, uneducated, or low they were; their white skins still meant they were superior to someone. As a result, the South had an explicit interest in maintaining slavery and white supremacy beyond economical reasons. "The loss of property is felt, but the loss of honor is felt more", said James Manson, and I think this quote embodies the South's mindset. They had to protect slavery, whatever its cost. So they would reject any sort of abolitionism, especially if its one put forth by the Federal Government. In fact, an attempt by the Federal Government to push emancipation forward would probably anger them so much that the Civil War becomes more likely.
 
I was thinking if we divide slavery into two kinds, economic and the second would be personal sex and home duties. The former might be addressed by economic incentive. The latter is going to have the problems you state.
 
Do you think enough would agree to make a significant difference?
No, Southern planters wouldn't touch that deal.

Part of the reasoning was ideological. It's hard to overstate how committed British-descended cultures were to property rights in the nineteenth century. This showed up both in Britain (where tariffs were considered immoral), and in the USA, where the view was "the government can't tell me what to do with my prosperity."

Even with the ACW clearly won, Delaware rejected the federal government proposal for compensated emancipation, essentially because "the government can't do that."

The other reason was practical. Southern planters had seen what happened with the British West Indies when compensated emancipation was enforced. The planters made a lot of money upfront, but were ruined financially since the now free workers decided (quite reasonably) that they didn't want to keep on growing sugar in death-trap conditions. So they went elsewhere, leaving sugar plantations unable to be worked and the planters largely bankrupted due to existing debts and now-worthless land.

Southern planters were convinced that even compensated emancipation would lead them to ruin.
 
Top