Before everyone starts sceaming at me, let me make my point. Slaves were considered property. They were bought, sold and traded legaly. Just like anything else you would buy. By federal decree, they were freed, with no compensation to the owner. Was it moral to own a human being? Of course not. Was it legal? In the southern ,and some midwest states, yes. Before you start calling me horrible names, think about this: You own something that you have paid for (house, car microwave oven, whatever) that is judged to be wrong by the government. It is taken from you, without your consent, and you are not given any reimbursment for the money you have, in good faith, paid.
Again, I am not talking about the morality involved, I am talking about just compensations for legal actions.
2006-07-13 07:29:05 · 10 answers · asked by Dave B 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
To KUHNER. My point was that they were owned LEGALY. Where do drugs (illegal) come in?
2006-07-13 07:42:07 · update #1
Picking a nit here:
Until the 13th amendment was ratified, slavery was, by federal law, legal everywhere in the US.
2006-07-13 17:17:27 · answer #1 · answered by tyrsson58 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First, there is not a single former slave alive today. If there were they would certainly be due just compensation for their labor, but the ancestors of atrocities do not deserve compensation in any way. As a precedent for this point of view, from the last century, let us look at how the compensation of slave labor during the holocaust of World War II has been handled. The thousands of people that survived that inequity are being compensated by both the government of Germany and by the companies that gained from their forced labor, and rightfully so. But their children have no inherited right to collect for the uncompensated labor of their parents. Certainly the grandchildren and great grandchildren of American slaves never experienced the appalling life of slavery, and therefore, like the children of Jews and others enslaved in Germany 50 years ago, they have no claim for themselves.
Secondly, blacks do not have a monopoly on living in poverty in this country. According to the latest census data approximately 30 percent of blacks and whites live in poverty. Hispanics unfortunately have an even higher percentage living below the poverty line. All this current day poverty can not be attributed to a disgusting institution that was ended 150 years ago. It can however be attributed to present day governmental policy. There should be a monumental effort made by the government, at all levels, to get all Americans out of poverty, but a policy centered on only one race is just as wrong as slavery was.
Thirdly, slavery could not have existed without the complicity of black Africans who supplied most of the unfortunate humans that were sold into this dreadful condition. It was not just whites that kept this retched institution going for over 200 years. In addition, there were over 200,000 white Americans that paid the ultimate retribution during the Civil War, when they gave their lives to end slavery. The reparation debt owed to slaves was paid a long time ago when the North won the Civil War and freed them.
2006-07-14 20:00:22 · answer #2 · answered by Carl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that inequities nevertheless exist today. The kind of plausible tainted convictions being overturned because of fantastic DNA info on my own is info of that. yet: What does reparations ought to do with it? Why doesn't blacks quite search for authentic equality? you could't be a sufferer and an equivalent together. soliciting for reparations is clone of soliciting for a handout, and it includes the air of pan-dealing with, therefore furthering the stigma with which many non-blacks perceive blacks in most circumstances. It creates/furthers a detrimental stereotype. besides, you and those who ask for reparations don't have any formulation for fixing a real monetary value to the genuinely damage inflicted. the authentic victims of slavery died 50 years in the past and better. you pick $ for "psychological damages" by using damage inflicted on your grandpa or large-grandpa? what's your formulation and the position is your info of actual damage? How about American Indians? the position the heck are their reparations? a accepted bite of the individuals contained in the U. S. today are descended from those who had no longer some thing to do with the slave commerce monetary equipment of the 16 and 17 thousands. you have not got any reason behind action that you'll hint to those human beings. Hell, Hispanics now outnumber blacks contained in the U. S. and they got here AFTER slavery. imagine they pick to quit their not basic earned money for reparations. Reparations are a cop-out. an basic change for utilising the equipment because it exists and doing the perfect to augment one's lot in existence. In that, minorities legally modern contained in the U. S. have my help and admiration.
2016-12-01 05:23:54 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think about this in comparison. After a person is busted for growing marijuana in his basement and this is pretty much his business, should the government reimburse him for the profits he will lose because of the confescation? NO, the government should not retroactively or ordinarily reimburse somone because of financial losses they incur for doing something illegal. I understand your question but it is impossible to answer it without considering morals because that is what the emacipation proclomation entirely evolved around.
2006-07-13 07:36:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are talking about reparations for the slave owners for their property (slaves) being taken away?
They were already compensated by the free labor they received immorally by keeping slaves in the first place.
Should we compensate drug dealers for impounding their Escalades?
2006-07-13 07:35:46 · answer #5 · answered by Maria b 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. They are too old by now to benefit from Money. If they are paid it should come from the slave trading companies in Massachusetts .
2006-07-13 07:55:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I never owned a slave and descendants of slaves have been paid back 10 fold in advantages and benefits.
2006-07-13 07:33:23 · answer #7 · answered by Made in America 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, If there are any slaves still alive, pay them. 40 acres and a mule for all!
2006-07-13 08:04:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If any of the owners are still alive yes. Otherwise, no.
2006-07-13 07:34:13 · answer #9 · answered by Baelor 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes because at least most of them will spend it just as fast as they get it
2006-07-13 07:45:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋