Ok, just so I can get this straight in my head--(yeah,I know, go ahead an laugh)

The slaves who were owned by those in the Union or lived in Union leaning areas were bought at the price of $300 for service in the Army and their family freed. Were any of these families given money to exist on after they were free and the soldier was away?

IF, a slave of a Unionist tried to enlist but the owner objected, if I read this right, they were returned to the owner? So they were still enslaved?

Those who were in the South were 'conscripted' so there was no 'sale' to the Union Army. Could this be considered theft? Going around the argument that the Union was at war with the South and did what they wanted, in any other case, would this be considered theft?

Pam