Should families of slave owners be paid repercussions from the U.S. and/or African Governments?

Question

Since slaves were first sold from Africa, and then allowed to be sold in the U.S., and then the U.S. took what they allowed to be sold to someone away, should the governments reimburse the family members of the people who spent moneys on something the government later took away?

yes, I meant reperations (and I do know the difference), It is after 2 am here, and I'm tired

Answer 1

Makes as much sense as reparations paid to people who were never enslaved by people who never owned slaves.

Answer 2

Two options have been discussed:
1. An official governmental apology.
2. Restitution.

Of course an apology is not restitution. Your question is referring to restitution. There have been many governments that have apologized for ancestral governmental mistakes...

I'm ok with an apology just as Germany has apologized to the Jewish ppl and their families...

As for restitution, that is complicated.

I see both sides...

One side is saying:
Why should we have to sacrifice for things we did not participate in...our ancestors did... sure some white families made gains on the backs of slaves but not all citizens today have ancestors that participated in slavery, etc..

The African American community is saying:
Our ancestors helped build this country and aided in the advancement of the white race overall... while we were oppressed... couldn't even go to school... that stuff like that trickles down through the generations... therefore they should be compensated.

So you see, I do understand both side. The resolution should be more like the Jewish one related to corporations in Germany that profited off of Jewish genocide. Several German corporations have had to give monies to the Jewish ppl; BUT, they gave monies directly to survivors of the Holocaust not their children, etc... meaning you had to have lived during that era.

There is a dilemma when there is no living slaves at this pt...

The problem is 'how do you know whom to target exactly?' You can't make all of society pay the price for an act that not all ppl participated in...

Answer 3

Well the drug dealer is responsible for peddling the drugs, the people who sold them into slavery (whether captured from a warring village or from their own) are certainly just as liable. The reason the Marines landed in Tripoli, Africa was to make clear we would not pay blackmail/dhimmi to slavers who were raiding Europe coastal communities and shipping as far away as Iceland. And then technically all those founding fathers involved in slave trading (or their ancestors) went broke, some of them dying in debtor's prison, as a result of the American Revolution. The southern plantations were looted and burnt and the surviving wealth absconded with by carpetbaggers after the Civil War. A lot of it went with the Rebs to Cuba and never came back. And then descendants of UK/European farmers who barely survived and raised large families to supply labor because they couldn't afford slaves, like me, don't believe that we should be giving special privileges to people who just came from Africa in the last generation or two as if we "owe" them something, when they still practice slavery in Africa, but no one seems concerned about stopping it. And some of my ancestors were indentured servants, who were treated worse than slaves as only "temps", where is our compensation? And I have Native American ancestors too, but not thick enough blood to get any of the gambling proceeds. I also wonder if the "freedmen" will be suing teh Cherokee tribe, because they are probably one of few identifiable groups from before the Civil War with any wealth. (Technically, the USA after the Civil War really is different, and the Confederate States vanquished). You don't see the UK paying anything to the potato famine victims, or of the Highland clearances or the destruction of Highlanders in general after the 1745 uprising? You can go on and on about past greivances throughout history. What really matters is that everyone is really, truly, treated equal, and that some are not given preference over others purely by accident of birth. But not as long as there is wealth or power to fight over, which is what the Cherokee situation is all about. Slavery always was, always is, and always will be evil, and needs to be stamped out once and for all. Tacitus records Calgalus replied to Roman demands: "The Romans make a desert and call it peace, but we are the people who have never crouched in bondage" in the same land Robert Bruce later declared "Better dead than be a slave!" when teh government ruled on Dred Scott they were saying the government had no right to take private property, now the government declares there is no such thing as property rights, and now we are all their slaves. Progress?

Answer 4

I think the Republican party should pick this up and run with it... make it the focal point of the 08 elections...

I see nothing but good things coming out of that...

those poor slave owners... why they just barely made it by....

while you're at it... maybe we should ask some of the families of Jews that were killed in the Holocaust if they can pitch in on the gas bill for the gas chambers in the 40s (on behalf of the German government)... gas isn't free you know... and if they hadn't been so "Jewey" Hitler would have never of had to do it... right?

I get this funny feeling you're a Coulter fan...don't know why?

but these ideas would make a perfect platform... this could really go somewhere for the Republicans...

hahaha... you're question is so offensive... it seems to have actually went over some people's heads... impressive... they probably actually thought to themselves..."he couldn't mean that?"...

Answer 5

I don't think reparations are needed. Nobody is alive who was a slaveowner or a slave. None of the people involved in the Slave Trade are alive. It's reprehensible to tax people for what their ancestors did. If somebody dies, debt collectors have no right to go to his/her children's homes and demand payment. At the most, the debt collector would take the deceased person's estate.

Slavery in the past isn't preventing anybody from getting ahead in the present. A person need only take responsibility for their own well-being and work their way to the top. If they've got the ability and work for it, nothing's stopping anybody except for a few malevolent policies of the government's.

The past is the past. It is wrong to take money from innocent people to right past wrongs. If somebody robs you on the street, that doesn't give you the right to rob somebody else to get the amount back.

Answer 6

Institution of slavery is old. It is a part of history. Humans are not commodity. Those purchased and sold slaves were engaged in immoral activities. Why these people should have been rewarded.Moreover, history is past. USA has given equal rights. What else is possible?

Answer 7

NO. First of all, reparations won't solve anything. I think that african-americans feel entitled to money but the fact is that they weren't the ones enslaved, their great-grandparents were. Statistically, black neighborhoods are poor and highly dependent on federal aid and giving them more money isn't going to solve the problem at all. Black people need to stand up and start making something of themselves. They are good, hardworking people when they want to be and all this free money had just stunted their growth. Cut them off and you will definitely see an improvement right away.

Answer 8

I personally believe the issue is moot due to the time factor. The original owners may have had a case at the time but I believe that even then it would have been a real stretch for anyone to think that the vanquished citizens of the south would be able to successfully claim much of anything due to their defeat. The Radical Republicans ran the government and the Supreme Court sided with the federal government that was in power. Any thought of claim against the government seems inconceivable considering the realities of the era.

Looking at the issue as a current financial bonanza for the heirs of the former slave owners seems far-fetched at best. I would believe that today's society and the state of black-white relations would prohibit such actions. Black citizens would erupt at the attempt to repay the heirs of former slave owners. Not only as it would be ethically at odds with our culture but the thought of current black citizens paying their taxes to reimburse the heirs of former slave owners would be fuel for the black rabble-rousers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. All that would be accomplished would be furthuring a black-white divide as the black citizens would be incensed at a white money-grab.

Unfortunately, these same black citizens cannot see beyond the green of the dollar when the rabble-rousers dangle the dream of reparations for their ancestors slavery before them. The lure of the possibility of a big windfall of money is hard to resist and many black citizens fall in to the trap of the rhetoric, believing that the government owes them hundreds of thousands of dollars to atone for past injustices done to their forebears. When the megabucks does not materialize they become angry and feel that they are being cheated.

I believe the answer to both these dreams can be found in the reparations paid to the Japanese-Americans incarcerated in the camps of WW2. Reparations were paid to the "survivors" of the camps, not to their grandchildren, etc. I could accept payment being made to any surviving freedmen but not to slaveowners as their loss was one of the many "fortunes of war" situations. War is war. Winners win and set the terms, losers lose and deal with the results. Not always a nice turn of events but one we have to deal with in the real world. When the Japanese captured Nanking, they went upon a rampage of murder and rape, When the U.S. troops captured Japan, we went on to feed and care for our former enemies. Depends who captures you, I guess.

Answer 9

In law there is a concept called statue of limitations - that there is a period of time after which one can no longer bring charges in a given matter.

This kind of silliness is exactly why statute of limitations is such a useful idea. Without it, we open the door to all sorts of parallel suits - Irish who were dispossessed of lands unfairly by the English; British citizens suing the German government for destruction of their property during the Blitz; and so on.

There is a trend to try and re-write history and the call for "reparation" is part of it. It is ill-advised.

Answer 10

No! Are you kidding me? Out of the list of people who shouldn't be paid, slaveowner's families are at the top! And in no particular order, neither should families of former slaves, families of American Indians, families of Holocaust victims. Those living today didn't do the suffering and I don't understand why they feel like they deserve financial recompense? I'm sick of people looking for a buck they haven't earned.

And I agree with Uncle Jo...and Michael......

and iin_oper... !!!

Answer 11

40 acres and a mule. Who promised that?

Make that 40 acres and a John Deere
vehicle of choice, training in agriculture and
a one way ticket to anywhere else in the world.

Clearly, USA is a filthy nation unworthy to settle its accounts...
unfit to enter into treaties. Like the USA constitution, not worth the paper it's written on or the time it took for the criminals to invent those lies.