# Slavery after it was outlawed **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 19, 2009, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952 "2009-01-19T06:00:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/21 "2009-01-20T05:55:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Were any of these union lines in the listed states or parts thereof on January 1, 1863? And if so, which? You’re missing the point. The escaped slave was on one side of the line and his legal owner was on the other. But the proclamation said that if you were an escaped slave and your owner lived anywhere in _“Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth)”_ then you were now free. You no longer had to fear that you would be returned to your former owner when the war ended. These men were freed on January 1, 1863. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Captain\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/22 "2010-08-27T11:13:39Z")
> [@yabob](#): > > > [@UDS](#): > > > > I seem to recall reading that a number of slaveholders took themselves and their slaves off to Brazil, where slavery remained legal for some further years. I don’t know if anybody stayed on their property and tried to enforce slavery there, though. > > The Confederados. It’s debatable how many of them took slaves with them, though. The emperor of Brazil was providing other inducements to persuade American planters to emigrate. Brazil wanted to encourage the growing of cotton at that point: > > [Confederados - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederados) > > > [@](#): > > > > At the end of the American Civil War, Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil wanted to encourage cultivation of cotton. Through Freemasonry contacts, he recruited experienced cotton planters from the United States for his nation. Dom Pedro offered the potential immigrants subsidies and tax breaks. Confederate General Robert E. Lee advised Southerners not to migrate to South America, but many ignored his advice and set out to establish a new life away from the destruction of war. > > > > Many Southerners who took the Emperor’s offer had lost their land during the war, were unwilling to live under a conquering army, or simply did not expect an improvement in the South’s economic position. In addition, Brazil still had slavery (and did not abolish it until 1888.) Although a number of historians state that the existence of slavery was an appeal, Alcides Gussi, an independent researcher of State University of Campinas, found that only four families owned a total of 66 slaves from 1868 to 1875. Most of the immigrants were from the states of Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina. Very few southern people had slaves compared to the population as a whole. Most small farmers for example, did not have, nor could they afford slavery. Slavery was mostly contained on large plantations and tracts of land. It was the big business classes in the South that wanted to be an independent country, with slavery a side issue. It was a fight between federalism and states rights in everything, not just slavery. I think the people who went to Brazil saw an opportunity to be able to have a nice, large farm for a cheap price, instead of living in a war torn, impoverished area of the United States under military rule. Probably some of them just hated the USA and took off, while probably most saw an excellent business opportunity. Hell, today a lot of Americans would be happy to go to Brazil of there was land or an opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/23 "2010-08-27T18:07:01Z")
> [@Captain\_Midnight](#): > > It was the big business classes in the South that wanted to be an independent country, with slavery a side issue. It was a fight between federalism and states rights in everything, not just slavery. Not true, if you read what the Southern people actually wrote and said (much less the subtext they did not quite say). Before, during, and after the war, they are quite explicit that slavery was the key motivator. It turns out it was a rebellion led by slaveholders to protect slavery from perceived coming federal interference, with some minor side issues about tariffs tacked on for show. “States rights” at the time was a code phrase for “slavery” almost exclusively – if for some reason you were talking about some other presumed state right, you’d have to explain that, since your listeners would assume you meant slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/24 "2010-08-27T18:08:59Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > After the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War surely there were some slave owners that said “fuck that!”. I’m thinking there had to be at least a few belligerent southern folk. They’re still around. They’re called corporations. They just changed up the terms of slavery a little so now it’s more like permanent indentured servitude. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/25 "2010-08-27T18:11:34Z")
Regarding the Proclamation’s focus on legalism, nitpicking over the boundaries, and general lack of rhetorical flourish – _and_ the eventual impact it would have after quibbling died down – Governor Andrews summed it up best: “A poor _document_, but a mighty act.” ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/26 "2010-08-27T19:36:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans) … I forget now, what are all those exceptions about? Were those areas that the Union had already successfully occupied? Or were they heavy Lincoln re-election campaign contributors? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/27 "2010-08-27T20:11:46Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > As the Northern army took over land, they declared any slaves free, but the actual proclamation had no direct effect on them. And where did the Northern Army get its legal authority to declare slaves free? From the Emancipation Proclamation, which was a legal document issued under the authority of the President’s war powers. Until the Proclamation was issued, slaves were still a form of property, and the federal government was bound to respect that form of property, by both the [Fifth Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text) and the [Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Fugitive_Slave_Clause). The Supreme Court decision in [Dred Scott](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) was still the law of land. The Union Army, as part of the federal government, was bound by the United States Constitution to respect the property rights of American citizens in the rebellious states. Just as the Army could not unilaterally seize Farmer Brown’s house, just because he lived in Virginia, neither could they seize Farmer Brown’s slaves, without due process and fair compensation. Once the President determined that freeing the slaves was a war measure that would help to cripple the South’s war economy and strengthen the military position of the Union Army, he issued the Proclamation under his war powers - as a directive to the Union Army. The Proclamation is what gave the Army the power to free slaves as it captured rebellious territory. And that is also why it only applied to those portions of the United States that were in rebellion - as a document issued under the war powers, the President had no power to free slaves in territories that were not in rebellion. [QUOTE=Lumpy] slaves escaped from rebel masters were already considered “contraband”, legally forfeited under the laws of war [/QUOTE] If the rebel master used his slaves to further the Confederate war effort, that might be so. But if Farmer Brown in Virginia was just using his slaves to farm his own property, on what basis were they contraband? The fact that the states were in rebellion didn’t mean that all of the citizens of those states automatically lost all of their rights under the federal Constitution, when the federal government defeated the rebellion and restored federal authority in their part of a rebellious state. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/28 "2010-08-27T20:19:41Z")
[Just a part of the problem](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89051115) Demonstrating unusual self control by not commenting further. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/29 "2010-08-27T20:24:23Z")
Just to follow up on the point that the Army did not have the automatic power to free slaves, and did not in fact do so, there was the early example of the [Frémont Emancipation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9mont_Emancipation), which President Lincoln countermanded, as contrary to the powers he wished the Army to use at that stage of the war. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/30 "2010-08-27T20:40:06Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > > [@Lumpy](#): > > > > slaves escaped from rebel masters were already considered “contraband”, legally forfeited under the laws of war > > If the rebel master used his slaves to further the Confederate war effort, that might be so. But if Farmer Brown in Virginia was just using his slaves to farm his own property, on what basis were they contraband? The fact that the states were in rebellion didn’t mean that all of the citizens of those states automatically lost all of their rights under the federal Constitution, when the federal government defeated the rebellion and restored federal authority in their part of a rebellious state. Slaves were the least of it. The Union army looted whatever it wanted from rebel territory, and was only bound to respect property rights once a particular region formally surrendered to Union authority. Now if I understand you correctly what you’re asking is, before the Emancipation Proclamation could a surrendered rebel immediately ask that the Fugitive Slave Act be enforced and his escaped slaves returned to him? I have no idea, except to say I’ve never heard of that happening. Maybe such a surrendered rebel would be told that the Union authorities were busy at the moment, there’s a war on you know. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/31 "2010-08-27T20:50:15Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The big issue about slavery was that it was everywhere. Slaves could try to escape but as soon as they did they were pursued and hounded (often literally with hounds). They could be pursued legally even to non-slave states. This was a major plot device in _Uncle Tom’s Cabin_. IIRC first Liza, and then eventually Tom have to cross Ohio and eventually take a boat to Canada. Until I read the book and looked at a map, I hadn’t realized that escaped slaves from Kentucky had only to cross one state–Ohio–and then half of Lake Erie to escape U.S. jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/32 "2010-08-27T20:58:19Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > > [@DrDeth](#): > > > > The Emancipation Proclamation freed over 4million slaves. > > > > The rest (around 40,000) were _all_ freed by the 13th Ad, a little while later in 1865. > > > > Thus the Emancipation Proclamation freed over 99% of the slaves, so saying " the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves" is pretty correct. > > Too bad the government doesn’t agree with a word of this. The [National Archives](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/) states: > > > [@](#): > > > > the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave > > Here’s a [transcript of the Emancipation Proclamation](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html). > > The wording is clear enough. It was a statement of intent, intended for political purposes. No slaves were freed in practice on Jan. 1, 1863. None of the stated areas were represented in Congress by then, so there could be no legal effect. No legal effect? This wasn’t a House of Senate bill, but a Presidential proclamation with the force of law. Or so I thought. I don’t think most people are aware, though, that the Proclamation only addressed the condition of slaves in rebel states, or parts of some states. There were also numerous slaves in states that remained mostly loyal, like Missouri. These were not legally free until after the war. ---
**Author:** ![Add99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/977dab/32.png) [@Add99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Add99)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/33 "2010-08-28T01:40:25Z")
SO anyway. One time I worked with a guy named Leon. Everyone called him Boise, like Boise, Idaho. That’s a weird name for a black guy born in the south. Well see, old Boise liked to drink and when a man buys you a drink, you drink. Boise woke up in… Boise, Idaho. He was a slave (this was around 1970) for eight years before he escaped one night. He would have run before, but shotguns are scary. Now, back to your regularly scheduled rant… ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/34 "2010-08-28T14:38:19Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > Until I read the book and looked at a map, I hadn’t realized that escaped slaves from Kentucky had only to cross one state–Ohio–and then half of Lake Erie to escape U.S. jurisdiction. And why not? Of course!!! slaves in Kentucky did not have to go very far, because Kentucky was/is a _ **Northern** _ state. You realize, of course, that Kentucky was not/is not/never was a “Southern State”. Kentucky was never in the Confederacy, Kentucky did not succeed from the Union, Kentucky is/was a Northern state and Kentucky was actually a Yankee state. If you really want to see how easy it was for a slave to “escape”, then look at the slaves in Maryland or Washington DC who didnt have to cross any state at all, they just had to get in a boat and paddle out a few miles into international waters to be “free”. Slaves in Florida only had to sail 90 miles in order to get to Cuba. Slaves in Texas could just walk across the Rio Grande into Mexico. ---
**Author:** ![Gestalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90ced4/32.png) [@Gestalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gestalt)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/35 "2010-08-28T15:23:03Z")
> [@Add99](#): > > SO anyway. One time I worked with a guy named Leon. Everyone called him Boise, like Boise, Idaho. That’s a weird name for a black guy born in the south. > > Well see, old Boise liked to drink and when a man buys you a drink, you drink. Boise woke up in… > > Boise, Idaho. > > He was a slave (this was around 1970) for eight years before he escaped one night. He would have run before, but shotguns are scary. > > Now, back to your regularly scheduled rant… I don’t get this story . . . ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/36 "2010-08-28T16:19:03Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > Of course!!! slaves in Kentucky did not have to go very far, because Kentucky was/is a _ **Northern** _ state. It is usually referred to as a [border state](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_%28American_Civil_War%29). ---
**Author:** ![AWB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@AWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AWB)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/37 "2010-08-28T16:22:06Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > > [@DrDeth](#): > > > > The Emancipation Proclamation freed over 4million slaves. > > Lincoln had no jurisdiction in any of the states where he was “freeing” the slaves. That was the main point of the US Civil War: Lincoln **did** have legal jurisdiction; the seceding states didn’t have the right to do so, so the duly elected US Government was the legal government of the South. Now, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t really _enforcible_ until the end of hostilities. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/38 "2010-08-28T16:40:42Z")
> [@Gestalt](#): > > > [@Add99](#): > > > > SO anyway. One time I worked with a guy named Leon. Everyone called him Boise… > > I don’t get this story . . . The point presumably is that people have been, in fact, held as slaves in the United States many times since the abolition of legal slavery. In some times and places, as with peonage, it was a relatively large-scale practice. In other cases, it was small groups and individuals just kidnapping people for the purpose. Several years ago I heard a story from a neighbor about another former neighbor who (less than 20 years ago) had a couple “indentured servants.” These were apparently itinerants who didn’t have many options and had been pressed into accepting this arrangement. In practice, as I heard it told, it amounted to slavery–a fairly benign version of slavery, better than peonage, but not better than the lot of some actual legal antebellum black slaves. Everyone involved in this instance was white; the person I heard the story from began it in the context of just talking about the other former neighbor; “he believed in white slavery” was the actual remark that caused me to say, whoa, what? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952/39 "2010-08-28T19:31:23Z")
Was there really a lot of difference between a slave (ca. 1860) and a sharecropper (ca. 1870)? Either way, you were tied to a plantation-as a slave, by being owned, as a sharecropper, by being in purpetual debt to the man who owned tha land. And, if your crop failed, you were really screwed-a slaveowner would feed you (if only because he wanted to save his investment), but a sharecropper was a liability, to be gotten rid of. Slavery/sharecropping was what kept the South poor and backward into the 1950’s- there was no market for skilled labor, and the low wage pool of sharecropper dragged everything down-this is why agriculture in the South was so backward for so long. A lot of people liked it this way-though not if you were poor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-after-it-was-outlawed/481952.md?page=1)