"Apologies" for Slavery? And, Possible Reparations?

"Apologies" for Slavery?

Is it necessary or even appropriate?

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on February 24, 2007, acknowledged "with profound regret the involuntary servitude of Africans and the exploitation of Native Americans. . ." in the first such action by any state.

With the resolution passed in February, Virginia became the first state, northern or southern, to formally apologize for slavery. Similar resolutions have been introduced in the states of Missouri, Maryland and Georgia. In the case of Missouri, the rush is to have the resolution in force by the 150th anniversary of the Dred Scott ruling by the United States Supreme Court on March 6, 1857.

There are two issues presented by these events. First, are apologies by a society or its government meaningful to address the actions or customs of people and governments long gone. Second, are apologies without some kind of reparations enough? If the latter is answered in the negative, how would those reparations be paid and to whom?

Are apologies for slavery meaningful at this time?

There are many instances where private institutions have issued public apologies for actions that showed approval of slavery in years past.

Brown University in Rhode Island, conducted a year-long study into links with slavery. The report found that the Brown family itself owned ships that transported stolen Africans, and profits from slavery helped found the university. Brown then issued grants and donations to civil rights causes and organizations.

Several newspapers looked into their own coverage of civil rights and then apologized last year for making racism worse. Editors at Florida's Tallahassee Democrat wrote: "It is inconceivable that a newspaper, an institution that exists freely only because of the Bill of Rights, could be so wrong on civil rights. But we were."

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank recently completed an examination of its history and found that two financial institutions it absorbed years ago -- Citizens Bank and Canal Bank in Louisiana -- had owned more than 1,250 slaves until the Civil War, procured as collateral on defaulted loans. The company apologized and officials said it will start a $5 million scholarship program for children in Louisiana.

Wachovia Bank was accused by a Chicago alderman of lying when it stated it had no knowledge of any involvement with slavery. The Charlotte, N.C.-based company later apologized and indicated that it would create an education fund or contribute money toward black history education.

Today, some question whether public officials' apology resolutions mean much.

In Australia, after much debate and hesitation by governmental officials, an apology for injustice to Aboriginal peoples was promulgated, citing the social policies enacted by the government. This apology is unique because it expanded the conception of social responsibility. Those who apologized did not necessarily accept causal responsibility, but rather acknowledged that they are members of a nation in whose name misdeeds were committed.

"What would it mean to vote against a resolution like this? Would it mean you were racially insensitive?" asked David Pilgrim, a sociologist at Ferris State University in Michigan. "Conversely, I'm not sure what it would mean that you were voting for it."

Some civil rights advocates want an official Federal "I'm sorry" for slavery from the President. It has never come, perhaps because this would raise the logical - and thorny - next question: How to repair the damage?

In 1993, the United States enacted Public Law 103-150 which noted the involvement of the U.S. in overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawaii, leaving the door open to have Hawaii declared that nation a "protectorate" of the United States. The Act states,

"The Congress . . . apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination. . .".

No reparations were mentioned.

The United States has, in other instances, overtly or covertly, acted in a manner that should warrant at least consideration of an apology for, for example, interference with the rights of foreign nationals. With rare exceptions, no apologies have ever been forthcoming.

While the United States has never issued a formal apology for the institution of slavery, it has issued a formal apology to the American citizens of Japanese ancestry. The bill stated its purpose. "To acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the . . .internment of United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry. . . and to apologize on behalf of the people of the United States."

The apology to those who were interned was accompanied by reparations. And here we must confront the next (and real) issue.

Are apologies without reparations or recompense meaningful? Can reparations be implemented?

There are precedents for official apologies and reparations. For example, the apology to people of Japanese descent noted above. Germany, following World War II, formally apologized to those killed or imprisoned in the Holocaust and made reparation payments to those involved or those whose property was seized.

There are several obstacles to the payment of reparations to individuals on account of slavery. While it must be acknowledged that the institution of slavery and the enactment of anti-black "Jim Crow" laws in the aftermath of the Civil War, and the legal and systematic governmental attitudes toward African-Americans, prior to the 1960's, has led to inferior educational opportunities and major societal issues, it is difficult to identify those individuals who would be due reparations.

In the cases of the interred Japanese and the Holocaust victims, the injured individuals were either living or, if deceased, had estates or survivors whose identity could be readily established. It can be strongly argued that these precedents do not apply to the situation of African-American slave reparations, however, because the people receiving compensation were direct victims of the governments' misdeeds.

The principal argument against slavery-reparations is that their cost would not be imposed upon the perpetrators of slavery (who were a very small percentage of society), nor confined to those who can be shown to be the specific indirect beneficiaries of slavery, but would simply be indiscriminately borne by taxpayers at large. People making this argument often add that the descendants of white abolitionists and soldiers in the Union Army might be taxed to fund reparations despite the sacrifices their ancestors already made to end slavery.

How would be recipients of slavery-reparation be identified?

Identification of actual descendants of slaves would be an enormous undertaking, because such descent is not simply identical with present racial self-identification. Degrees of actual victimization would be impossible to identify; had freed slaves been given their recoverable damages, they may have followed different patterns of marriage and of reproduction, and in some cases would not have made their offspring the sole or even principal heirs to their estates.

In the nineteenth century, offers of reparation to former slaves, when identification of eligible persons would not have been an issue, were made and then withdrawen.

In 1865, after the Confederate States were defeated in the American Civil War, General Sherman issued Special Field Orders, No. 15 that set aside tracts of land in the sea islands and around Charleston, South Carolina for the exclusive use of black people who had been enslaved. Around 40,000 freed slaves were settled on 400,000 acres in Georgia and South Carolina. However, President Andrew Johnson reversed the order after Lincoln was killed and the land was returned to its previous owners. In 1867, a bill for the redistribution of land to African Americans was introduced in Congress but it was not passed.

One possible resolution.

A number of corporations, while contesting litigation that would force them to expend millions of dollars in reparation programs, have been willing to donate substantial sums to projects to help the poor and disadvantageous generally. Moreover, the Federal government could increase spending on educational and neighborhood betterment programs. If every dollar spent in social activities results in a strengthening of families and familial responsibilities, perhaps the cost of incarceration could be reduced.

This is an issue that will arise over and over again by each generation of activists. What is your view?