Perhaps this will turn into a debate, but to me it’s just an interesting bit of historical irony.
I’ve been reading the Pulitzer-prize-winning Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. In his chapter"The Silence," he discussed the careful and deliberate tiptoeing around the issue of slavery which many felt was necessary to keep the country from coming apart (as indeed it did, when the question could no longer be avoided).
But in 1790, the first serious discussion of slavery was launched, driven by southern politicians who perceived it to be under threat. Ellis describes some plans that were developed at that time for compensated emancipation – basically, the government agreeing to buy the slaves from slaveowners (and set them free). Typically, the cost of such plans was considered prohibitive.
For a cost perspective, Ellis points out that in 1790 (the time the discussion started to heat up) the Federal budget was less than $7 million, and the national and state debts from the Revolutionary War totaled around $77.1 million – and the high end of projected costs for compensated emancipation was $140 million. No wonder people thought the cost was daunting.
But looked at another way, the cost might not be so bad. The usual proposal was to stretch the payments out over time, delaying the promised freedom but keeping the cost impact (barely) manageable.
A scheme was proposed in 1790 by Fernando Fairfax of Virginia, and expanded six years later by St. George Tucker (also a Virginian), to set up a “capitalized national fund” to amortize the debt. Ellis considers a reasonable estimate of the cost to be $125 million.
But that cost, and the social impact of re-colonizing the slaves, either in Africa or the remote American West, or learning to live with them cheek-by-jowl, prevented the plan from really taking off.
But I got to wondering about that number – to my modern eye, it seems a ludicrously small price to pay to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence…and avoid civil war. I know that estimating costs in different eras is complex, but I wondered what I could find with a little effort.
This site gives a final official estimate (from 1879) of the cost of the American Civil War: $6,190,000,000. That probably does not take into account the long-term impoverishment of the South caused by the destruction.
So the question is, what is $125 million in 1790 dollars to $6.19 billion in 1862 dollars? I picked 1862 because that was the year Lincoln proposed a serious plan of his own for compensated emancipation; his plan wasn’t seriously considered, and after that year it was probably completely impossible due to the hardening of both sides.
I found a site that discusses comparing costs in different time periods. There’s a discussion of what kid of calculation best suits one’s needs here. After reading
I decided that “relative share of GDP” was probably the best indicator to use to compare these two enormous costs to society.
[=DOLLAR&use=GDPDEFLATION&use=VCB&use=UNSKILLED&use=MANCOMP&use=NOMGDPCP&use=NOMINALGDP&year_source=1790&amount=125000000&year_result=1862#"]Here’s](http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?use[) the result:
So my seat-of-the-pants estimate is that compensated emancipation would have cost a bit over half the cash cost of the war…and proportionately less if one factors in the loss of infrastructure and the incalculable human costs of the war.
I don’t suppose it’s news to anyone that an amortized debt is better than a civil war. But it’s heartbreaking to consider how much suffering the slaves endured between 1790 and 1865, much less the shattering effect of the eventual war on the whole country, rather than spend the money upfront.
Mr. Lincoln said of his own (much later and consequently more expensive and less realistic) plan of compensated emancipation:
[QUOTE=Annual Message to Congress, 1862]
Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war, and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity, and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here–Congress and Executive–can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not “can any of us imagine better?” but, “can we all do better?” The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise – with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We – even we here – hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just – a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.
[/QUOTE]
He was not listened to. He probably did not expect to be listened to. And he did not wait long. He signed the Emancipation Proclamation one month after this speech, and the war ground relentlessly on.