Lincoln Should Have Just Purchased All The Slaves?

Can we please put this nonsense that Lincoln could have avoided war by buying the slaves to bed forever?

Here is President Lincoln’s Message to Congress recommending compensated emancipation delivered March 6, 1862:

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I recommend the adoption of a joint resolution by your honorable bodies, which shall be substantially as follows:

Resolved , That the United States ought to cooperate with any State which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State, in its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system.

If the proposition contained in the resolution does not meet the approval of Congress and the country, there is the end; but if it does command such approval, I deem it of importance that the States and people immediately interested should be at once distinctly notified of the fact, so that they may begin to consider whether to accept or reject it. The Federal Government would find its highest interest in such a measure, as one of the most efficient means of self-preservation. The leaders of the existing insurrection entertain the hope that this Government will ultimately be forced to acknowledge the independence of some part of the disaffected region, and that all the slave States north of such part will then say, “The Union for which we have struggled being already gone, we now choose to go with the Southern section.” To deprive them of this hope substantially ends the rebellion, and the initiation of emancipation completely deprives them of it as to all the States initiating it. The point is not that all the States tolerating slavery would very soon, if at all, initiate emancipation; but that while the offer is equally made to all, the more northern shall by such initiation make it certain to the more southern that in no event will the former ever join the latter in their proposed confederacy. I say “initiation” because, in my judgment, gradual and not sudden emancipation is better for all. In the mere financial or pecuniary view any member of Congress with the census tables and Treasury reports before him can readily see for himself how very soon the current expenditures of this war would purchase, at fair valuation, all the slaves in any named State. Such a proposition on the part of the General Government sets up no claim of a right by Federal authority to interfere with slavery within State limits, referring, as it does, the absolute control of the subject in each case to the State and its people immediately interested. It is proposed as a matter of perfectly free choice with them.

 In the annual message last December I thought fit to say “the Union must be preserved, and hence all indispensable means must be employed.” I said this not hastily, but deliberately. War has been made and continues to be an indispensable means to this end. A practical reacknowledgment of the national authority would render the war unnecessary, and it would at once cease. If, however, resistance continues, the war must also continue; and it is impossible to foresee all the incidents which may attend and all the ruin which may follow it. Such as may seem indispensable or may obviously promise great efficiency toward ending the struggle must and will come.

 The proposition now made (though an offer only), I hope it may be esteemed no offense to ask whether the pecuniary consideration tendered would not be of more value to the States and private persons concerned than are the institution and property in it in the present aspect of affairs.

 While it is true that the adoption of the proposed resolution would be merely initiatory, and not within itself a practical measure, it is recommended in the hope that it would soon lead to important practical results. In full view of my great responsibility to my God and to my country, I earnestly beg the attention of Congress and the people to the subject.



And, if you think someone should have considered compensated emancipation before the war began, consider this from an address delivered to a pro-slavery convention in Missouri in 1855:

…abolition, under existing circumstances, is believed to be morally impossible. In 1850, according to the census of the United States, there were in the slave States, including the District of Columbia, three million one hundred and ninety-five thousand nine hundred and fifty-one slaves. The average value of an ordinary lot of slaves is generally estimated at one-half the price of a prime field hand. Such a slave will now readily sell for 1200 dollars. Taking $600, then, as the average, it will give us 1,917,570,600 dollars as the total value of the slaves in 1850. The natural increase, since that time, makes it reasonable to estimate the present value, in round numbers, at two thousand millions of dollars. At six per cent., the annual interest on that sum will amount to one hundred and twenty millions.

Strike out of existence at once this vast amount of productive capital, and it is not in the power of human arithmetic to express, the financial ruin that would result, not merely to the slaveholding, but also to the non-slaveholding States, and to the civilized world. Besides, it should not be forgotten that negro slaves are constitutionally adapted to labor in those climates where the great staples of cotton, rice and sugar can be produced. Emancipation, therefore, would convert this vast region, the abode of wealth, civilization and refinement of the highest order, into a howling wilderness. The loss of productive property in land, houses, machinery, and improvements of various kinds, thus rendered valueless, can hardly be estimated…

But the financial ruin is by no means the most important item in this account of prospective abolitionism. Look to St. Domingo and the British West Indies. In short, look where you please, all history attests that emancipation would be the greatest calamity that could be afflicted on the blacks themselves: that American slavery has elevated their character, and ameliorated their condition, in all respects; that wherever fanaticism or misguided philanthropy has cut them loose from the guardianship of the white race, they have not merely degenerated, but have retrograded with rapid strides towards a savage, and even brutal race….

….it may be objected, that slavery is a moral wrong; that our obligation to do right is paramount to all others; and that it never can be justifiable to do wrong from an apprehension of any evils, whether real or imaginary, that may be anticipated to result from doing right… [however] All who are well informed on the subject know that if the Bible sanctions anything, it sanctions slaveholding. The most candid and prominent of the anti-slavery leaders (whether religious or infidel) have, within the last ten years, totally abandoned the Bible argument; and many of the latter class may now be heard blaspheming the God of the Bible in terms so malignant and fiendish, as might well make demons shudder….

Source: Missouri’s War: The Civil War in Documents edited by Silvana R. Siddali

7 thoughts on “Lincoln Should Have Just Purchased All The Slaves?

  1. I’m beginning to suspect that he only said what he did in order to fire up the usual crowd for ratings. FOX knows its audience (and their complete lack of historical understanding) and caters to them. He was just feeding the crowd who wants their bread and circuses. Of course since he is also a 9/11 truther and genuine conspiracy nut there is also the possibility that he actually believes what he says.

    The Lost Cause crowd will of course lap it up, but I find it very interesting that it is almost always people who are not historians saying stupid things like what Napolitano said. The intelligent people look to historians for answers. The idiots look to ratings driven schmucks over on FOX for answers. If lying was a crime FOX would be out of business and so would a lot of talk radio hosts.

  2. There are plenty of them. By the way, it is nice to see you posting something on your blog. Are you still in Missouri? I will be presenting at the State History Conference in March. I was going to see if Joan was going to attend.

    • Yes, I’m still in Missouri. What day are you presenting and what is your topic? Jeff City is about a two hour drive from where I am, so I probably won’t get up there, but if you’re coming to St. Louis, maybe we can get together. Come visit Grant NHS.

  3. My presentation is Monday, March 17th. I’m speaking about Porter’s 1862 Northeast Missouri campaign. I’ve been developing some information that did not make the paper itself and may expand this into a book, but I’m so busy with everything else that I have had a hard time being able to sit down and do some research. Damn jobs! I’ll have to take a vacation sometime and go to STL and see the places I want to see. I wrote a small article on the Battle of St. Louis for the Journal of the American Revolution earlier this month.
    Hopefully, I will be getting some good news on the job front soon regarding a teaching position so vacations can become a reality. This summer I’m teaching two classes so the time element becomes a major concern.

    • “Irish-born educator and Baptist preacher James Shannon…Shannon had served as president of several Missouri colleges, including the University of Missouri, Columbia, from 1850 to 1856.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)

What is 9 + 14 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is: