Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2020, 02:18 PM
 
1,047 posts, read 1,004,127 times
Reputation: 1817

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock View Post
If a person had enough money, he could buy his way out of being drafted by the Confederate Army by paying somebody to go in his place. That tells me the Confederacy only cared about the rich and didn't give a g.d. about the poor whites. The war was pretty much fought on behalf of the wealthy plantation owners. The slaves were a big portion of their wealth. They didn't want to lose their slaves. They lose their slaves and their wealth is "gone with wind".
How was this worse than the Federal draft law, which offered the option of either providing a substitute or paying cash to the government for a deferment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2020, 04:06 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,790 posts, read 2,775,113 times
Reputation: 4915
Default Needs must, when there's a war

Quote:
Originally Posted by deb100 View Post
How was this worse than the Federal draft law, which offered the option of either providing a substitute or paying cash to the government for a deferment?
The CSA hated the draft law (April 1862 - theirs was first, by a year). Specifically, an amendment (in Oct.) exempted the overseers of twenty or more slaves. The necessity of a draft contradicted the reason (personal liberty, an overweening central government) that the CSA had left the Union in the first place - it was a conundrum that was only resolved by the military victory of the North.

& the CSA also allowed the hiring of a substitute for the draftee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2020, 08:45 AM
 
Location: 78745
4,488 posts, read 4,552,933 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by deb100 View Post
How was this worse than the Federal draft law, which offered the option of either providing a substitute or paying cash to the government for a deferment?
Both are unfair to the people who don't have much money. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Don't point out other people's wrong-doing as a way to justify other people's wrong-doing.


About half-way thru the war, Lincoln decided he wanted to free the slaves, and that sparked the New York City draft riots. They didn't want the slaves freed because they thought if the slaves were freed, the slaves would go to New York City and take their jobs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...ts?wprov=sfla1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2020, 10:47 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,790 posts, read 2,775,113 times
Reputation: 4915
Default Details, details

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock View Post
Both are unfair to the people who don't have much money. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Don't point out other people's wrong-doing as a way to justify other people's wrong-doing.


About half-way thru the war, Lincoln decided he wanted to free the slaves, and that sparked the New York City draft riots. They didn't want the slaves freed because they thought if the slaves were freed, the slaves would go to New York City and take their jobs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...ts?wprov=sfla1
Confiscate, not free. (Lincoln had to operate within the legal strictures of the time - which considered slaves to be property - however repugnant the idea was. He didn't think he had the authority to outlaw slavery altogether - that came later, with a Constitutional amendment.) Furthermore, the proclamation was only valid in the territory controlled by the CSA. Slaves elsewhere were not affected.

The logic for the proclamation was military - any slave who flees is one less person laboring for the CSA, & so affects their military condition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2020, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,004,388 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
Confiscate, not free. (Lincoln had to operate within the legal strictures of the time - which considered slaves to be property - however repugnant the idea was. He didn't think he had the authority to outlaw slavery altogether - that came later, with a Constitutional amendment.) Furthermore, the proclamation was only valid in the territory controlled by the CSA. Slaves elsewhere were not affected.

The logic for the proclamation was military - any slave who flees is one less person laboring for the CSA, & so affects their military condition.
Your sequence is confusing. The January 1st, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did indeed free the slaves legally, they were no longer being "confiscated." The confiscation was done under the 1861 Confiscation Act and applied only to slaves who escaped from their bondage and took refuge within Union lines. The origins of the Confiscation Act lie with General Benjamin Butler's decision to not return three runaway slaves who had come into Union lines near Fortress Monroe. Butler informed the owner that the slaves were "contraband of war", as in captured enemy property, and as such, subject to confiscation. Congress then acted retroactively to make this practice legal with the Confiscation Act.

President Lincoln, as you noted, did not believe that he had the Constitutional authority to free any slaves, but that changed with the war. The slaves were a source of labor for the enemy, and under the president's authority as commander in chief, removing that source of labor from the enemy was legal as an act of war. That was the legality behind the Proclamation.

So...under the Confiscation Act, the slaves remained property, under the Proclamation they were free, owned by no one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2020, 01:38 PM
 
3,653 posts, read 2,488,115 times
Reputation: 6650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Your sequence is confusing. The January 1st, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did indeed free the slaves legally, they were no longer being "confiscated." The confiscation was done under the 1861 Confiscation Act and applied only to slaves who escaped from their bondage and took refuge within Union lines.
President Lincoln, as you noted, did not believe that he had the Constitutional authority to free any slaves, but that changed with the war. The slaves were a source of labor for the enemy..
So...under the Confiscation Act, the slaves remained property, under the Proclamation they were free, owned by no one
I think there's a step missing here between original confiscation, and the Emancipation Proclamation.. There was a second confiscation in 1862.. that was freeing (not confiscating) the slaves of Confederate combatants.
It's value was that the Union army needed bodies, so some of the freed slaves were recruited as low paid support personnel.
My cynical take: Lincoln was never truly concerned about the illegality of Federal emancipation, he had no qualms about expanding Federal power. His strategic (& only) issue was how to slow-roll out emancipation, bcuz a premature emancipation may have completely alienated the slave-holding Union Border States. He wisely enacted emancipation incrementally, to see how his Border States would react.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2020, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,004,388 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babe_Ruth View Post
I think there's a step missing here between original confiscation, and the Emancipation Proclamation.. There was a second confiscation in 1862.. that was freeing (not confiscating) the slaves of Confederate combatants.
It's value was that the Union army needed bodies, so some of the freed slaves were recruited as low paid support personnel.
What you reference isn't a separate step, it was simply a decision to employ the confiscated contraband in work which assisted the Union armies. It was done under the legal umbrella of the confiscation act. It is no different than putting a captured rebel horse to work hauling Union supplies, in legal terms. I am unaware of any "second confiscation" which freed slaves.


Quote:
My cynical take: Lincoln was never truly concerned about the illegality of Federal emancipation, he had no qualms about expanding Federal power. His strategic (& only) issue was how to slow-roll out emancipation, bcuz a premature emancipation may have completely alienated the slave-holding Union Border States. He wisely enacted emancipation incrementally, to see how his Border States would react.
There was no illegality in the emancipation proclamation. The US president is authorized to take such measures during time of war.

Lincoln was tremendously concerned with the legality of slavery as it related to keeping the border states loyal. Neither the Confiscation Act nor the Emancipation proclamation disturbed slave ownership in the border states. In 1862 Lincoln asked for and received the authorization from Congress to offer compensated emancipation in the border states. The offer was a accompanied by his argument that the events of the war were likely to result in the freeing of all slaves eventually, so it would be smart on the part of the loyal slave owners to get compensation now because there would be none if the prediction came to pass. The loyal slave states turned down the offer, and as Lincoln predicted, when the slaves in those states were ultimately freed by the 13th Amendment, the owners received nothing by way of compensation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2020, 03:55 PM
 
46,839 posts, read 25,764,732 times
Reputation: 29319
Quote:
Originally Posted by deb100 View Post
How was this worse than the Federal draft law, which offered the option of either providing a substitute or paying cash to the government for a deferment?
Such laws were quite common at the time. Somewhat interesting aside: When the Danish constitution was drafted in the mid-19th century , it was made clear that "every able-bodied man is personally obligated to tale part in the defense of the realm" (my italics), and that was considered a major nod to the idea of equality of man. The nation could now call on rich and poor alike to send their sons to fight. And it was met with much gnashing of teeth among the privileged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2020, 04:20 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,790 posts, read 2,775,113 times
Reputation: 4915
Default Means of exchange

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock View Post
Both are unfair to the people who don't have much money. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Don't point out other people's wrong-doing as a way to justify other people's wrong-doing.

…
The main difference between North & South in this regard: The North ran on a cash basis. If you worked, you got paid in money. My impression of the South is that large amounts of money ran on credit (against the value of the crop, or the value of the slaves on the plantation).

The South didn't run on wages for labor much - crop sharers, for instance, got some percentage of the crop they raised. So cash money seems to have been rarer in the South than in the North - & the South's plantation economy seems to have been fairly self- sufficient - except for periodic intakes of money to buy equipment, seed (?), maybe more land &/or more slaves. The point of that is that is was probably easier to raise cash in the North, where cash was the norm for wages; as opposed to the South, where trade or exchange (but not typically money) seemed to be more the norm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2020, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,725 posts, read 11,674,511 times
Reputation: 9828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babe_Ruth View Post
I think there's a step missing here between original confiscation, and the Emancipation Proclamation.. There was a second confiscation in 1862.. that was freeing (not confiscating) the slaves of Confederate combatants.
It's value was that the Union army needed bodies, so some of the freed slaves were recruited as low paid support personnel.
My cynical take: Lincoln was never truly concerned about the illegality of Federal emancipation, he had no qualms about expanding Federal power. His strategic (& only) issue was how to slow-roll out emancipation, bcuz a premature emancipation may have completely alienated the slave-holding Union Border States. He wisely enacted emancipation incrementally, to see how his Border States would react.
Do you mean Hunter's Orders after capturing Fort Pulaski? I'm not sure they should count as he was ordered to rescind them.

Saying he never truly was concerned about the legality of emancipation is beyond what I would say about Lincoln, but I agree that the political concerns of how to roll it out without losing the border states was primary. I wouldn't call that particularly cynical.

Hunters Orders & Lincoln's response
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top