"Could the United States have bought out its slaveowners?" Kinda like the government talking about paying people for firearms? That assumes that people are willing to sell their firearms. And at what price? I guess the guys with (theoretically) more guns here might offer some money and say that it's an offer you can't refuse: sell to us or we'll put you in jail. That would be similar to the taking of Court Moultrie.... Erik Larson just published a book about the events leading up to the start of the Civil War. It's called The Demon of Unrest, and it's quite good. Very readable, as are all of his books.
Second: I just finished reading a pretty interesting book: These Fierce People. It's about the Southern battles in the War of Independence. Southern soldiers were no slouches. The South is often looked upon as a bunch of ignorant dirt farmers, but that part's no different from elsewhere in the US.
We have our ways of doing things, and they're often misjudged by those who don't live here. Just sayin'....
The buyout could be forced, as it was with the British in the West Indies. It would be like the government taking land (and paying for it) via eminent domain. You're right that there would be a lot of political resistance even with compensation. But the slaveholders would have been better off than with what actually happened: a war and uncompensated emancipation.
"But the slaveholders would have been better off than with what actually happened: a war and uncompensated emancipation."
Hard to know that before the fact. Remember that the war wasn't only about slavery. It was another war of independence. The south didn't like being under DC's thumb. Check out the two books I mentioned above.
Yes, the buyout might have been forced, had the south chosen to go along with it. Was that ever considered by the federal government?
Couple things.
"Could the United States have bought out its slaveowners?" Kinda like the government talking about paying people for firearms? That assumes that people are willing to sell their firearms. And at what price? I guess the guys with (theoretically) more guns here might offer some money and say that it's an offer you can't refuse: sell to us or we'll put you in jail. That would be similar to the taking of Court Moultrie.... Erik Larson just published a book about the events leading up to the start of the Civil War. It's called The Demon of Unrest, and it's quite good. Very readable, as are all of his books.
Second: I just finished reading a pretty interesting book: These Fierce People. It's about the Southern battles in the War of Independence. Southern soldiers were no slouches. The South is often looked upon as a bunch of ignorant dirt farmers, but that part's no different from elsewhere in the US.
We have our ways of doing things, and they're often misjudged by those who don't live here. Just sayin'....
The buyout could be forced, as it was with the British in the West Indies. It would be like the government taking land (and paying for it) via eminent domain. You're right that there would be a lot of political resistance even with compensation. But the slaveholders would have been better off than with what actually happened: a war and uncompensated emancipation.
"But the slaveholders would have been better off than with what actually happened: a war and uncompensated emancipation."
Hard to know that before the fact. Remember that the war wasn't only about slavery. It was another war of independence. The south didn't like being under DC's thumb. Check out the two books I mentioned above.
Yes, the buyout might have been forced, had the south chosen to go along with it. Was that ever considered by the federal government?
Do you think it was a mistake for The United Stares to refuse to let MS St. Louis port in 1939?
Policywise, the Jewish refugees should have been admitted. The immigration law needed a refugee exception.
True. America is a flawed country.