Good point.
Hasn't there always been an "Eminent Domain Clause" in the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution since it was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791?
It states that
"private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation".
In that consideration, doesn't one need to give the British government credit here, for paying their slave owners as just compensation for their property loss when they took their slaves from them, and gave them just compensation?
In contrast, in the USA, allegedly they'd rather pay the Railroad Magnets, and the Steel Producers
of this time period, (most, if not all of which had married into British Aristocracy)
flood the zone with German and Irish labor on the cheap, and shatter their Atlanta and Southern
opposition by taking their labor property, yet not compensating them for what they took.
Ingenious actually, to do so by sticking their Northern noses up at the 5th amendment, and inserting a puritan Moral Superiority clause in it's place. Proclamation 80, called up 75k troops, went on the offensive, and were responsible for 600,000 deaths in a war that didn't need to happen.
Like the British Government, the first Republican Administration could have chosen an alternative path, taken out a bank loan, and paid for the property they took by force.
The U.S. Civil War from that one perspective, is nothing better than an Armed Robbery.
Is it not ?
