Lincoln freed the slaves that he was actually taking private property? Shouldn't the government have to reimburse the estates of slave owners? Shouldn't the government have to pay damages to all the civilian farms destroyed by Gen.s Sherman and Sheridan?
2007-07-29 13:39:56 · 8 answers · asked by plezurgui 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Q: "Shouldn't the government have to reimburse the estates of slave owners? Shouldn't the government have to pay damages to all the civilian farms destroyed by Gen.s Sherman and Sheridan? "
A: No, because Abraham Lincoln was, in effect, the military dictator of the United States at the time, ruling by FIAT, therefore the legitimate government can be held harmless against actions it was powerless to prevent.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
2007-07-29 13:44:24 · answer #1 · answered by Tommy B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, ti would be a Taking under the 5th Amendment.
Had any slave owners made a claim between the Emancipation Proclamation and the ratification of the 13th Amendment, arguably they would be have been entitled to reimbursement for their property. After the 13th was ratified, all such claims (that had not already been paid/resolved) would have been void.
2007-07-29 21:02:08 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay, but let's pay all the money in 1865 dollars. So you would receive about 100 dollars. Sound about right? Why should the Government have to pay for anything that kept humans as slaves?
2007-07-29 20:43:33 · answer #3 · answered by hardwoodrods 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The government wasn't taking private property because slaves were no longer considered property.
2007-07-29 21:01:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question.
Now, since the slaves were never compensated for their enslavement, and the owners were never compensated for their loss of 'property' then perhaps we could call it a 'wash,' already and get on with the work of building our nation with unity, strength of character, and personal responsibility.
That said, I feel that slavery was/is a blight on our history.
2007-07-30 02:53:56 · answer #5 · answered by Moneta_Lucina 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No,it would have bankrupted the nation. Slavery was never an issue of the civil war until the end when the North needed more men to fight.
2007-07-29 20:44:02 · answer #6 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
actually lincoln did advance the idea of reimbursing the south for slaves.
he was assured that if he advanced this idea of offering the south $600,000,000.00 for it's slaves, his whole cabinet would resign.
that cost, by the way, was about what it costed to run the war for about six months...
2007-07-29 20:46:31 · answer #7 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The "property" was illegal to have, so there was no compensation offered.
2007-07-29 20:44:07 · answer #8 · answered by My Evil Twin 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋