Debate is nice, but what does the law say?
We all should know that most nation's codes of law have for centuries (even millennia if you consider ancient greek and roman law) precluded the punishment of children for the crimes of thier parents, or the wife for the crimes of the husband, or vice-verse, not to mention extended family. The only exception being if they had prior knowledge and were also found to be complicit or an accessory to the crime.
In cases where damages are sought, as in this one, they can only be awarded from the property of heirs, if the original crime is prosecuted under the common law, at that time, and within any applicable statute of limitations, and only if punitive damages were awarded by a judgement in that case. Now we must determine if there was a crime commited (slavery was still not considered, by US federal law, to be a crime even after the Confederate states seceded from the Union.)
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."
Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory. The confederates of course had years before seceded from the union, formed their own government with their own laws, which of course allowed the practice of slavery.
So what made slavery illegal? Of couse the 13th amendment, but which one? Indeed, there were at least three 13th amendments that I know of. I know this is hard to believe but read on, then I invite you to go and research it yourself.
The history behind this amendments adoption is an interesting one. Prior to the Civil War, in February 1861, Congress had passed a Thirteenth Amendment for an entirely different purpose--to guarantee the legality and perpetuity of slavery in the slave states, rather than to end it. This amendment guaranteeing slavery was a result of the complicated sectional politics of the antebellum period, and a futile effort to preclude Civil War. Although the Thirteenth Amendment that guaranteed slavery was narrowly passed by both houses, the Civil War started before it could be sent to the states for ratification.
But the final version of the Thirteenth Amendment--the one ending slavery--has an interesting story of its own. Passed during the Civil War years, when southern congressional representatives were not present for debate, one would think today that it must have easily passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Not true. As a matter of fact, although passed in April 1864 by the Senate, with a vote of 38 to 6, the required two-thirds majority was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 93 to 65. Abolishing slavery was almost exclusively a Republican party effort--only four Democrats voted for it.
It was then that President Abraham Lincoln took an active role in pushing it through congress. He insisted that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment be added to the Republican party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. He used all of his political skill and influence to convince additional democrats to support the amendments' passage. His efforts finally met with success, when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119-56. Finally, Lincoln supported those congressmen that insisted southern state legislatures must adopt the Thirteenth Amendment before their states would be allowed to return with full rights to Congress.
The fact that Lincoln had difficulty in gaining passage of the amendment towards the closing months of the war and after his Emancipation Proclamation had been in effect 12 full months, is illustrative. There was still a reasonably large body of the northern people, or at least their elected representatives, that were either indifferent towards, or directly opposed to, freeing the slaves.
So, now we know slavery wasn't a crime until the closing months of the civil war, and only adopted as such by southern states if they wanted to be represented in congress. By this time the practice of slavery had already been functionally obolished as the union armies advanced through the south, and they reestablished sovreignty.
I showed you two of the proposed 13th Amendments, long before the Civil War, a Thirteenth Amendment had been proposed for an unrelated purpose--see the following site for this story:
The Original Thirteenth Amendment: Titles of Nobility and Honour, An Essay
My Opinion:
It seems clear to me that the claim of some Americans decendant from slaves, that they are entitled to "40 acres and Bentley" are unfounded, and without merit, as no law was broken, that was on the books at time their slavery was in effect. The sooner people learn that they have to make their own way in life and stop looking for handouts or a free ride, the sooner they will prosper.
