When Slaveowners Got Reparations

[David Lockmiller]

The NYTimes published today (April 17, 2019) an opinion critical of President Lincoln and advocating that reparations be paid to black people.

When Slaveowners Got Reparations
Lincoln signed a bill in 1862 that paid up to $300 for every enslaved person freed.
By Tera W. Hunter

Dr. Hunter, a Princeton professor of American history and African-American studies, specializes in the 19th and 20th centuries
.
The opinion ended with the following statement:

“All of the candidates running for president must support the federal government’s issuing of reparations to African-Americans who were economically affected by slavery. Justice requires this.”

One of the two comments that I submitted in response to the opinion was posted by the NYTimes:

David Lockmiller
San Francisco 3h ago

According to Francis Carpenter, in his book Six Months at the White House, President Lincoln made the following constitutional argument on April 7, 1864 to Mr. George Thompson and party:

"[B]efore I could have any power whatever, I had to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and execute the laws as I found them. When the Rebellion broke out, my duty did not admit of a question. That was, first, by all strictly lawful means to endeavor to maintain the integrity of the government. I did not consider that I had a right to touch the 'State' institution of 'Slavery' until all other measures for restoring the Union had failed. The paramount idea of the constitution is the preservation of the Union. It may not be specified in so many words, but that this was the idea of its founders is evident; for, without the Union, the constitution would be worthless. It seems clear, then, that in the last extremity, if any local institution threatened the existence of the Union, the Executive could not hesitate as to his duty. In our case, the moment came when I felt that slavery must die that the nation might live!"

3 Recommend

The comment that I submitted and not posted questioned how much should be paid in reparations to American Indians for all of their ancestors murdered and lands confiscated in accordance with this nation’s Manifest Destiny. It was not surprising that this comment was not accepted for publication by the NYTimes.

[GustD45]

I have never supported the reparation movement. The logistics alone sounds like a nightmare not to mention what would be considered fair.

[L Verge]

I suspect that some of you are aware of the student vote that was taken a week or so ago by Georgetown students approving a fee of $27 on future students to finance reparations for incoming students who can prove they are descended from the enslaved folks who were owned and sold by Georgetown and the Catholic church during the 19th century. I only saw one comment relative to how these students would prove their lineage.

As for Lincoln's work, one of the promises that he made very early to us Marylanders was that the slaveholders of the state would be compensated for manumitting their slaves (any ploy to keep us in the Union). Basically the same system was used in D.C. in April of 1862, when the capital city's enslaved were granted freedom. I believe that Delaware (another border state) received some remunerations for freeing their slaves also.

I am not aware that any Maryland owner was paid for manumitting their slaves. Lincoln also promised that Marylanders would not have to fight against the Confederacy -- then came the draft. His one policy that did work effectively to keep the state in the Union was the sending in of 10,000+ troops in the beginning days to make sure the citizens behaved themselves...

[Steve]

Didn't Maryland voters approve a new constitution (by a narrow margin) in Oct. 1864 which specifically freed its slaves without compensation to their owners?

[JMadonna]

They did have '40 acres and a mule' as reparation - which Johnson killed when he became President.

[LincolnMan]

The price for slavery was paid in blood.

[L Verge]

(04-17-2019 04:15 PM)Steve Wrote:  Didn't Maryland voters approve a new constitution (by a narrow margin) in Oct. 1864 which specifically freed its slaves with compensation to their owners?

Maryland voters did approve the new constitution to go into effect on Nov. 1, 1864 (just months short of approval of the 13th Amendment). It passed by a very close margin of about 1000 votes only because Maryland's Union soldiers in the field were allowed to have their votes counted.

However, I never remember any mention of the state's slave owners being compensated or that it was even brought up in the convention. Lincoln had previously offered compensation to Delaware, and they had turned it down flat. The D.C. freedom did come with compensation of about $300/slave.

"The Lincoln administration attempted to pursue a compensated emancipation policy in the Border States, but gave up after the Delaware legislature bluntly rejected his offer. Thus, no other American slave owner was ever compensated.

"Why is it important to remember uncompensated abolition?

"The uncompensated abolition of slavery was by far the most radical thing the federal government has ever done. At the time black men and women were the most valuable single form of property in the United States. The American economy was built by the enslaved and the cotton that they grew before Civil War was the most country’s most important export. Yet by 1865 almost every single of them ended up gaining their freedom without the government compensating their former owners. And it was not only the slaveholders of the Confederacy who were not compensated: the 13th Amendment abolished slavery without compensation in the slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky that had remained within the union. This map provides a powerful visualization of how slavery ended across the United States.

"But it’s also very important to remember that this revolutionary state of affairs didn’t just happen because Lincoln was a good guy or something. A powerful coalition of abolitionists, free blacks, and the enslaved had forced the slavery to the center of national debate, at a time when most politicians would have rather ignored it. Just to take one example, the runaway slaves who reached the North were assisted by white and black abolitionists. These men and women were willing to violate the Fugitive Slave Act—at great personal risk, especially for free blacks—and refused to allow slave catchers to take runaways back to their former plantations. This, of course, enraged slave owners and heightened the contradictions inherent in American slavery. The mass movement which formed in the 1850s propelled Lincoln to the presidency and led to secession, but Lincoln’s election is inconceivable without the preceding decades of political work.

"After the Civil War, this same coalition (except now with no more slaves) created Reconstruction that guaranteed blacks civil and voting rights. Though Reconstruction was eventually violently overthrown by reactionaries, one of the biggest tragedies of this was the 1865-67 period after Lincoln’s assassination where other, even more revolutionary policies, like land redistribution were quashed."

Source for quote above: http://www.orchestratedpulse.com/2015/09...pensation/

[Steve]

Sorry that was a typo. I meant to say "without compensation". The comment came out in the exact opposite sense then I meant meaning that the voters of Maryland approved emancipation without compensation. Wouldn't it make sense that Union soldiers as a whole from Maryland would be more likely to approve such a proposition than the population of the state in general?

[L Verge]

(04-17-2019 07:17 PM)Steve Wrote:  Sorry that was a typo. I meant to say "without compensation". The comment came out in the exact opposite sense then I meant meaning that the voters of Maryland approved emancipation without compensation. Wouldn't it make sense that Union soldiers as a whole from Maryland would be more likely to approve such a proposition than the population of the state in general?

You are absolutely correct that the Union soldiers (and we don't know how many had been "paid" to be soldiers or drafted) would be the likeliest ones to vote -- just to get the darn war over with!