Pros and Cons of Reparations for Slavery

Slavery has been deemed, by many, as our country's greatest sin and it casts a long dark cloud over our history. Many whose ancestors were not held as slaves would much rather the topic go away. Unfortunately, we know that just because a topic is difficult or uncomfortable does not mean it should not be dealt with. This leads to the discussion of reparations. "Reparations for slavery is a concept in the United States, which suggests that the government apologize to slave descendants for their hardships, and bestow on them reparations, whether it be in the form of money, land, or other goods" (Reparations for Slavery, Wikipedia 1). The argument for reparations dates back to 1865 when Civil War General William T. Sherman issued Special Field Orders No. 15, which granted newly freed families to receive 40 acres of land and a mule (Wikipedia 2). President Andrew Johnson reversed the order, and to this day it is not uncommon to hear some in the African-American community state that they are "still waiting on their 40 acres and a mule."

Now, after over a century since the abolition of slavery, trying to determine just who should be responsible and who should pay reparations is not a simple task. There are legitimate legal and moral arguments on both sides of the issue. One must consider that slavery was not illegal in the United States until the passing of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to that passage, our country was governed by Europeans. Slavery was not only legal; it was condoned, even expected. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the statute of limitations must be examined when discussing reparations. In addition to those legal aspects of the debate, there are moral issues. Everyone has different moral standards. But it is not difficult to argue that, regardless of what the law stated at the time, slavery was a horrible and despicable act against an entire race of people. So on that premise, should reparations for slavery be paid?

Introduction
If reparations should be paid to the descendants of slavery, who should pay? Where should the payments come from? Can anyone today, be held accountable for crimes that occurred over 100 years ago? The answer is yes, if the right sets of conditions exist today. Reparations could be pursued on the basis of Tort Law. Two notions serve as the basis of all torts: wrongs and compensation. At a high level view, it can be easily determined what group of people were wronged during slavery and who was negligent. The problem rises in the details of specifically identifying the plaintiffs and defendants. There have been numerous debates and discussions about reparations but nothing has lead to any resolution.

The states of Virginia, Florida and New Jersey have apologized for their roles in slavery, as have a few major corporations - Charlotte-based, Wachovia Bank, N.A. is one of them. But that has been the extent of any formal acknowledgment or apology for the never-ending damage done by slavery in this country. If one believes that the United States government should be held responsible for paying reparations, how will payment be made? Proponents of reparations believe that the US government has not done enough in the area of reconciliation for slavery. They argue that descendants of slaves have been deprived of the opportunity to accumulate wealth over time and this continues to have a negative impact on African-Americans today. They also say that the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 signed by Ronald Regan set a precedent for reparations. Finally, they believe that slavery was a crime against humanity and those affected by its results should be compensated.

Opponents of slavery reparations believe it is impossible to accurately and fairly identify who is negligent of the act and whose current situation is a direct result of slavery. Another argument that opponents point to is the fact that slavery was not a crime. From the creation of the original 13 colonies up until the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, slavery was legal and slave owners were within their rights in regards to their ownership and treatment of slaves. Additionally, opponents to reparations say that the current US government was not in power during slavery and there is no way to hold Great Britain and other European countries accountable hundreds of years later. A final argument is that reparations have been paid in the form of the Civil Rights Act, as well as other government-backed programs that benefit minorities. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of reparations, there are pros and cons to both sides of the issue and the debate seems poised to continue without a concrete resolution for either side.

Arguments for Reparations
Accumulated Wealth

Proponents for reparations argue that "if emancipated slaves had been allowed to possess and retain the profits of their labor, their descendants might now control a much larger share of American social and monetary wealth" (Reparations for Slavery, Wikipedia 5). The United States of today would be a much stronger nation if Africans, brought to this country as indentured servants who eventually became slaves, had been given the opportunity to reap the benefits of their labor. Over the years, African-Americans would have had the same opportunity as Whites to amass wealth and pass down that wealth and tradition to each generation. Instead, we have a people that are still behind in the socio-economic curve. You could argue that the "live for today" attitude within the Black community can be attributed to survival techniques from slavery.

African-Americans possessed so little, everything had to be consumed for survival today because tomorrow was not promised. For so long in this county, even after the beginning of the end of slavery by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and officially after the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, African-Americans were not given basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A logical conclusion could be made that the so called "war on poverty" would never had to have been waged if African-Americans had been treated like citizens, and afforded basic human rights. Instead, they were treated like animals, regarded as property, and were not equal to Whites for so many years that it is taking generations for African-Americans to fully recover.

Precedent
The signing of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 by President Ronald Regan set a precedent for African-Americans to file a claim for reparations. By definition, a precedent is a court decision that furnishes an example or authority of deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts. The Civil Liberties Act is now a federal law, which granted reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been interned by the United States government during World War II. The legislation: "*Acknowledged the injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and internment of United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War II. *Offered an apology to Japanese-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States. *Provided for a public education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about...internment..so as to prevent a recurrence of any similar event. *Authorized a redress payment of $20,000 to qualified Japanese-Americans who were relocated and interned by the government of the United States" (americanhistory.si.edu).

Based on this model, African-Americans can, and should, pursue reparations citing this act. First, an acknowledgement from the United States government that slavery did indeed occur over hundreds of years and that the institution of slavery had severely negative affects on African-Americans. The government should further acknowledge that African men, women and children were kidnapped from their homeland. Once on (what is now) American soil, slaves were stripped of any and all dignity and human rights, separated from their families and forced into grueling manual labor. When they rebelled, slaves were severely beaten, tortured, dismembered or killed.

There have been some apologies by major corporations for their involvement in slavery. For example, to comply with a Chicago ordinance that required companies that did business with the city to disclose whether they profited from slavery, Wachovia Corporation Chairman and CEO, Ken Thompson made the following statement, "On behalf of Wachovia Corporation, I apologize to all Americans, and especially to African-Americans and people of African descent. We are deeply saddened by these findings." (Thompson qtd. in Benner). JP Morgan Chase issued a similar statement. But there has been no formal apology, attempt at reconciliation or even any formal acknowledgement of wrong-doing by the United States government. Proponents could pursue reparations in accordance to the precedent set by the Civil Liberties Act. There have also been numerous other cases in the United States where reparations have been paid for the historical wrongs of the US Government, see Appendix 1.
Crimes Against Humanity

Whether or not slavery was considered legal in the United States, it was arguably the most heinous set of actions in history. "The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal defined crimes against humanity as "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population . . . whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated" (Gifford). The treatment of Africans, from their capture to becoming slaves in the United States, was unthinkable and inhumane, to say the least. During transport on slave ships, Africans were bound in chains and packed together tightly as if they were boxes. Unfortunately, that was the harsh reality; they were treated simply as cargo and nothing more. The conditions slaves endured were awful -- not even fit for animals. In bondage, slaves were often separated from their families without a second thought.

Men were separated from their wives and children and this fractured the family in mind and spirit. "One of the slave's greatest fears was to be sold off and separated from loved ones." According to Mortimer Thomson, a newspaper correspondent who covered the Butler sale, "The expression on the faces of all who stepped on the block was always the same, and told of more anguish than it is in the power of words to express" (Corbis-Bettman). Men were savagely beaten if they showed any signs of insubordination. Many were stripped of their clothes and then beaten with whips in public. Women slaves were raped by their masters and robbed of all dignity and self respect. "Women slaves, too, felt the pain of the lash, as well as other forms of mistreatment. Many women were also sexually abused, whether by being harassed, raped, or forced into concubinage" (Duffield).

For hundreds of years African-American men, women, and children were terrorized by their White slave masters. They were treated as animals, forced to literally work from sun-up to sun-down performing back breaking labor. Slaves were terrorized and kept in fear because that was the only thing keeping them in line for their masters. African-Americans endured so much for so long and received nothing in return. Even when the United States government decided to make slavery illegal with the signing of the 13th Amendment, it still took decades before African-Americans were given the same rights as Whites. The remnants of the crimes against humanity are still being felt today.

Arguments Against Reparations

Who should pay?
A dominant argument against reparations today is that if payment is made, the cost would not burden those that were guilty of the act (Reparations for Slavery, Wikipedia). Tax payers would have to pay the cost of reparations. How do you determine who should and who should not pay? If it was determined that cash payments were to be paid to the descendants of slaves, there is no way to fairly identify who should be compensated versus who should not. There is evidence that a very small percentage of African-Americans owned slaves. So would the descendants of this group be required to pay while all other African-Americans are exempt?
Initially, during the settling of the first colonies in Virginia, Africans and Europeans brought to this country were indentured servants. This typically meant that goods and services were paid for by labor, but it was not intended to be permanent. Whites moved on from indentured servitude but this type of labor gradually evolved into slavery for Africans. Under this premise, should all White Americans be forced to pay reparations for slavery?

During slavery, there were Whites who risked their lives during the abolitionist movement to free slaves. Also, you have to consider the Union soldiers from the North that fought during the Civil War. Current citizens have a moral argument that they have already paid reparations. "The claim for reparations is based on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP (Gross National Product) of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were taken" (Horowitz). What about Europeans that migrated to the United States after the end of slavery when the 13th Amendment was ratified? The descendants of these citizens have a very strong argument that they had no involvement with the institution of slavery. Given all of these scenarios, the task of trying to isolate who should pay reparations would require significant resources and may well be impossible.

No Crime was Committed
Although it was an unquestionably heinous institution, slavery was not illegal in this country until the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. Slavery for Africans occurred gradually from indentured servitude, but the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 sealed the fate of Africans. "All servants imported and brought into the country...who were not Christians in their native country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master...correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened" (PBS Online).

If a crime is not committed, you cannot charge or demand any payments on a strictly legal basis. Given that there is a set amount of time where a plaintiff can bring a case against a defendant, the statutes of limitations have long expired since the end of slavery. Defendants could point to other cases that set precedents in this matter, like Farmer-Paellmann v. FleetBoston et al. "Descendants of 19th-century African-American slaves filed nine lawsuits seeking reparations from corporations in various US federal courts during 2002. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant corporations (financial, railroad, tobacco, insurance, and textile companies), or their predecessors, had ties to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and were unjustly enriched from the labour of African-American slaves. In October 2002, these lawsuits were consolidated into one class-action lawsuit. .... The opinion noted that these claims raised a 'political question', and therefore were beyond the scope of the federal judiciary. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not have proper standing to bring the lawsuit against the named defendants and that the plaintiffs' claims were precluded by the statute of limitations" (Business & Human Rights).

United States Government was not in Power
The last argument against reparations is that the United States Government of today did not exist during slavery. The original colonies were governed by Britain and other European countries. "Other legal experts point to the fact that the current U.S. government did not exist prior to June 21, 1788 when the United States Constitution was ratified. Therefore, the U.S. government inherited the institution of slavery, and cannot be held legally liable for the enslavement of Africans by Europeans prior to that time. Figuring out who was enslaved by whom in order to fairly apply reparations from the U.S. Government only to those who were enslaved under U.S. laws, would be an impossible task" (Reparations for Slavery, Wikipedia).

Conclusions
My research and discussions about slavery tend to wander down an emotional path. I move from anger to sorrow when reviewing the horrors that African-Americans suffered at the hands of the United States government. Simply because slaves were a different hue, they were seen as less than human, as though they were of a different species. African-Americans were wronged by those in power in this country for hundreds of years and reparations are due. If African-Americans had been treated as equals after the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, I might feel differently about reparations. In truth, slavery became illegal but African-Americans were still not on equal ground with Whites in this country.

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1865. This law released Blacks from the bondage of slavery and gave them some rights as citizens of the United State, but many were still held in slavery and suffered the conditions of slavery to which they had become accustomed for at least a few years before they learned of the passage of that law. Blacks were denied education, decent jobs, quality healthcare, opportunities for advancement, voting rights and -- on a daily basis -- faced a national population that was not ready or willing to accept Africans as equals. African-Americans struggled through segregation for decades. It was not until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's that Blacks in this country were given any semblance of an equal opportunity to succeed. There were various pieces of legislation passed to help level the playing field. The Voting Rights Act, the Equal Opportunity Act, and Affirmative Action are just a few. One thing that America, and the rest of the world, cannot expect from Blacks in this country as we try to advance our nation and improve race relations is to simply forget and "get over" our scarred history.

Some argue that the legislation that has been passed should be considered payment in full for reparations, but I disagree. Generations of Blacks were oppressed and forced to live a sub-standard life and did not have the opportunity to better themselves. The effects of this type of oppression are not overcome overnight. I do think reparations should be paid, but in this case I don't think cash is the best form of payment. I say this knowing that some problems faced in the Black community can not be solely contributed to slavery, Jim Crow and the events and times leading up to the Civil Rights movement. I believe that the issue of determining specifically who was affected and who should ante up are legitimate arguments against cash payments. However, there are several steps that the United States government could take, that would suffice in lieu of money paid, which would go a long way in reconciling with Black Americans.

First, the government should issue a statement -- both verbally and in writing -- acknowledging the institution of slavery as a part of American history. In that statement, the government should acknowledge the effect that slavery has had on several generations of people. The statement should go on to admit that, while our current government may have "inherited" slavery rather than starting it, the current government did allow slavery to legally continue for nearly 100 years and it allowed the remnants of slavery to continue for yet another century.

Secondly, the government should take strong steps in improving many facets of life in inner cities, largely populated by African-Americans. Improving the educational experience is the best place to start. Students in all public schools should have access to quality education, not just those living in areas with an above-average median income. Because a school is in a low-income neighborhood should not preclude every student in that school from having up-to-date textbooks that are in good condition. Each student should have access to computers and the latest technology. Students should be able to learn in facilities that are in good condition and fit for learning. Every student in every school should have the best-qualified teachers, making salaries commensurate with the level of education we expect them to grant our children. All families do not have the ability to pay for private schools or heftily supplement their public schools through countless hours of volunteering and monetary contributions to the PTA. Some see vouchers as the answer, but vouchers still leave many children behind.

Looking beyond high school to college, the government could do much to help young African-Americans to graduate college. Going back to the point made in Arguments for Reparations, blacks were denied the opportunity to accumulate wealth over time, therefore making it still more difficult for black students to pay for college than their white counterparts. Additionally, because blacks make up a much larger population of the student bodies in low-performing high schools, many are not even in contention for scholarships that would grant them admission and cover the costs in the country's best colleges and universities.

The current welfare system is another area in desperate need of modification, and would tie in with improvements to education. The current system assists recipients just enough to keep them alive but not nearly enough to help them to live. In many areas, families are granted only enough to afford housing in sub-standard, crime-ridden housing projects. Living in such conditions and attending sub-standard schools produces the same results we see on the news every night; one generation of criminals begets yet another generation of criminals.

I could go on and on about what the government could do to begin to repair race relations and make reparations for slavery. The bottom line is that reparations are due. We have to make a commitment to implementing programs to benefit the non-privileged in this country. In truth, helping the non-privileged citizens in this country benefits everyone - black and white, rich and poor, slave descendant and descendants of those who owned slaves. I think we would see a lower crime rate. More people would begin making contributions to the progress of this country and people would feel a part of something bigger. As long as we continue to operate as we have, where those with all the money have all the power, the feelings of animosity will never dissipate and we will never truly move forward. Furthermore, an acknowledgment of the darker sides of our country's history would go a long way in helping to improve foreign relations and our image across the world.

Even with all of this said, I also believe that you cannot help anyone who does not want to be helped. If the government makes the effort to provide reparations in the form of assistance programs, the Black community must also begin repairing itself, from within. We can not let the living, dying, suffering, fighting and work for change by those who have come before us be in vain.

Appendixes
Appendix I

Works Cited
Benner, Katie. "Wachovia Apologizes for Slavery Ties." CNN/Money. June 2, 2005.
Brophy, Alfred L., "The Cultural War over Reparations for Slavery", 53 DePaul Law Review
1201-1211 (Spring 2004) (116 footnotes).
Corbis-Bettman. An American Slave Market. 1852.Judgment Day: 1831 - 1865. PBS online. .
Duffield, J. M. PBS Online. Historical Document. Letters to R. C. Ballard regarding slave
woman abuse. .
Gifford, Anthony, "The Legal Basis of the Claim for Slavery Reparations," Individual Rights
& Responsibilities. .
Horowitz, David. Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too. Front Page Magazine, January 3, 2001. .
Posner, Eric A., and Adrian Vermeule. Reparations for Slavery and Other Historical Injustices, 103 Columbia Law Review. 689, (2003).
"Reparations for Slavery." Wikipedia. 06 July 2008.
Slavery Reparations Lawsuit. Business & Human Rights Resource Center.
"Slavery in the United States." Wikipedia. 06 July 2008.
Sources Consulted
Civil Liberties Act, HR 442. Courtesy of Eric Federing.
United States Constitution. Amendment XIII, Section I. Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. .
United States Constitution. Amendment XIV, Section I. Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. .
Virginia's Slave Codes. The Terrible Transformation, Part I: 1450 - 1750.