Do you believe slave-owners should have been compensated?

[Loaf Lord]

I'd have to say no. I don't believe it was a wise or morally correct decision to have slaves in the first place.

[Valanna]

They already made a huge profit off free labor.

They should be grateful that it was allowed to go on for so long.

It wasn't free, just that the slaves weren't the ones who got paid. They were traded like property, and as such, the slave-owner pays for the labor to the man who sold them the slaves.

Provocating question, and very interesting. I want to say yes, I'm just unsure where that money would come from.

[Nakura Chambers]

I didn't mean for you to remove anything, it just makes the question a bit more tricky.

However, if it is phrased as originally intended, it's kind of a no brainer, at least in my opinion. It's kind of similar to paying a mass murderer to stop murdering. I don't see how that could be viewed as a sound practice, in principle.

The difference being that slavery, regardless of how immoral, was legal at the time. If the state is going to forcibly take the slave-owner's slaves away from him, shouldn't he receive compensation for his losses?

[Evil Inside]

In principle, do you believe that slave-owners should have received compensation for the emancipation of their slaves? Do you believe this compensation should have been paid at market value?

Interesting article on the subject: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ide-not-shame/

Because people are property, right?

[Spectral]

The difference being that slavery, regardless of how immoral, was legal at the time. If the state is going to forcibly take the slave-owner's slaves away from him, shouldn't he receive compensation for his losses?

Slavery was not legal as of December 6, 1865. Slaves, at that point, were simply people, not property. There was nothing to compensate anyone for. Any slaveholders that weren't willing to part legally should have faced the full force of the law.

[slackjawsix]

Yes because by law at the time they had property and it was being confiscated by the government

nothing to do with morale, if the government said they owned something and then the government took that something away they deserve some level of compensation

[Adam Jensen]

In terms of pragmatism, yes. It might have helped, if only a little bit, to soothe over the antagonistic feelings between North and South in the time.

But in terms of principle, hell no. Those slaves are people, not property and they don't have a monetary value. I'm sickened by the fact that our species ever found slavery to be acceptable and that it was only in the last 100 or so years that being anti-slavery was mainstream.

So I suppose it depends on your preference. Do you want to be principled or pragmatic?

[Nakura Chambers]

Slavery was not legal as of December 6, 1865. Slaves, at that point, were simply people, not property. There was nothing to compensate anyone for. Any slaveholders that weren't willing to part legally should have faced the full force of the law.

Obviously by the end of the Civil War (or even at the start), there was no real reason to compensate former slave-owners. In general, in the United States (per-secession) or any other country for that matter, if a government were to outlaw slavery, should it have compensated slave-owners for their losses?

[Spectral]

Obviously by the end of the Civil War (or even at the start), there was no real reason to compensate former slave-owners. In general, in the United States (per-secession) or any other country for that matter, if a government were to outlaw slavery, should it have compensated slave-owners for their losses?

Slavery is a fundamental moral wrong, people that perpetuate it shouldn't be rewarded for their actions. If their case is nothing more than that an unjust law that allows people to become property, then surely an "unjust" change in law that robs of them of their "property" is just as valid?

[Vantheus]

not only yes but they should have been allowed to keep all that they bought when it was still legal, grandfathered in

[Deleted]

As jack Nicholson kindly put it to Wendy at some stage of the movie shining:

Are you out of your fucking mind?

[Nakura Chambers]

Slavery is a fundamental moral wrong, people that perpetuate it shouldn't be rewarded for their actions. If their case is nothing more than that an unjust law that allows people to become property, then surely an "unjust" change in law that robs of them of their "property" is just as valid?

An interesting point. I don't think whether or not the law was "just" to begin with should play a role in it however, as it was the law at the time. Morality shouldn't play a role in this, we're a nation that respects the rule of law, regardless of how despicable those laws are. To declare that something is legal, only to later declare it illegal and confiscate said items without compensation is theft.

[Sunshine]

This can not go anywhere good.

Closing.