Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
1) "As many as 25 million lives were lost" as a result of African slavery.
Let's start with the fact that technically the term "as many as" is roughly equal to stating that the number "could be equal to but is probably less than". From the books I have read on the subject I would say the actual number by almost all calculations is impossible to calculate. Are we talking of all slaves who died during the term of their slavery? during the crossing of the Atlantic? as a direct result of the system? It is simply impossible to put a number on an undefined term such as "as a result of." At any rate, the number would definitely have to include all Africans sold into slavery worldwide to approach a number such as 25 million.
2) The U.S. government has never issued a "formal apology in the 139 years since slavery was abolished."
Exactly how is such an apology seen to be a positive step. As an admission of guilt by the government I am sure it would be highly prized by lawyers attempting to collect damages, but I fail to see how it could be of much value to anybody else.
3) Ogletree refers to "Randall Robinson's galvanizing book The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks" as a sort of catalyst that reignited the reparations movement.
I have never read it, nor am I familiar with its contents.
4) Ogltree claims reprations stem from a "'breach of contract' between newly freed slaves and the government, and states: "In January 1865, slaves were promised, among other things, 'a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground' in Special Field order No. 15, issued by Gen. William T. Sherman. But three months later, the order was rescinded by President Andrew Johnson, and the government seized the land it already had given to 40,000 blacks in Florida and South Carolina."
There are literally volumes of contracts that the United States Government has breached under one pretense or another. Why do you think the only way to sue the US Government is with it's permission? Freed slaves were promised land, the right to vote, the right to hold office, 40 acres and a mule, and virtually every other thing under the sun at various times and by various officials during reconstruction. What were native Americans promised during the numerous times they had their land taken while they were relocated? I am afraid that the practice of holding politicians to their promises has never played a prominent part in our system of government for one elemental reason. No one politician ever has the complete power to make such decisions, there are always checks and balances and this system OFTEN leads to a leader promising one thing and delivering something different.
5) Ogltree tips his hat but then dismisses other wronged minorities by saying: "the Native American, Irish, Italian, Mexican - almost every monority has been singled out, wronged or discriminated against. The fundamental difference in the case of African Americans is that it was written and enforced law, not just a matter of custom."
On the surface this seems the easiest argument to refute, but a careful consideration of the question muddies the water considerably. Where is the cause and effect in this scenario? Are we saying that blacks have suffered more than other minorities by being discriminated against under the laws of the United States. In that case, which states? In even the southern states where slavery hung on the longest and racial differences were legislated by the government, there was still a discrepancy between free blacks and slaves. Taking it one step further, the laws concerning slavery varied considerably from one southern state to the next. In northern states, where racial differences were highlighted by common practice and not by legislation, where do we draw the line. Even a haphazard analysis of how laws and customs differed from state to state and community to community will quickly show the futility of making any sort of ethical evaluation that would be neccessary to decide who was discriminated against and in what manner. Add 140 years of time and the impossibility of any accurate way of tracing bloodlines to the mix and you have a hopeless task in trying to determine who deserves reparation under this argument and who does not.
6) Then, the victim card. Ogletree writes, "The legacy of slavery is seen today in well- documented racial disparities in access to education, health care, housing, employment and insurance, and in the form of racial profiling, the high rate of single-parent homes and the disproportionate number of black inmates".
In other words there is a cause and effect relationship between the fact that slavery was legal up until 1865 and the facts stated above. This is the most ridiculous part of the whole argument. Because blacks were brought to America and kept as slaves cannot logically be shown to be the cause of the inequalities listed here. Slavery has been illegal for almost 140 years. Can the fact that there is and has been prejudice and fear and hatred along racial lines in this country have played a part in this disparity? Absolutely. Without a doubt this tendency to seperate along racial lines has hindered any meaningful integration from both sides, black and white.
Which came first, racial prejudice or slavery? Which is the hindrance to racial equality?
Finally, and more importantly, how can a subject that further divides the black and white race be seen by anyone as a solution to the problem.
Rick,
fantastic post. But do you think that the Southern blacks in the twentieth century were negatively effected by Jim Crow laws in the areas of voting, education, health care, housing, employment, and insurance- and are still feeling the effects today?
Frank,
Yes. I think many southern blacks were adversely affected by Jim Crow laws. I also think many northern blacks were adversely affected by discrimination based on racial prejudice.
The point being that prejudice and racial intolerance are at the root of these problems. Slavery itself was founded upon the same two principles. Therefore, I would think that the elimination of prejudice and racial intolerance would be the goals of people who are honestly interested in racial equality. The pursuit of reparations for slave descendents seems to only heighten these problems instead of reducing them.
Thanks to all of you for your thoughts on this. And Rick, I was hoping you'd tackle it, and as usual you did it in style.
The only thing I have to add right now is that the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the reparations movement has very little to do with righting past wrongs or heightening racial equality. Call me a cynic, but I believe it's purely about money. The leadership in the movement are probably smarter than we give them credit for. They realize if they hit enough racial hot buttons in this PC-charged political climate that's come about in the last 30 years, that they have a fair chance that either the government or some private corporations will actually turn over some money to them. Their true motives are hard to fathom - unless you think like a socialist. And I'm not name-calling here. The politics and ideas put forth by most of the leaders of the black community today are socialist ideas: capitalism is bad, unfair and discriminatory; we need to redistribute the wealth to make things better for those that are "disadvantaged".
The reparations movement, with its calls for righting the sins of the past and its self-righteous stabs at our collective guilt, is really just a very clever way for groups like Prof. Ogletree's to legally take a huge sum of money from the people who have it and give it to the people who don't. With the further outrage that the receivers are required to be black.
And I will predict right now that they probably will succeed.
And we're right to be outraged.
Jim
This "transfer of wealth scheme" idea is really just, of course, a theory of mine. Do any of you share the same thoughts on this?
The Civil War ended in April, 1865. That is over 142 years ago.
What if the Jews sought reparations from Egypt for
over 400 years of slavery?
My response to those who are seeking reparations:
These people squalling for reparations can see nothing but dollars signs. They could care less if they ever had
an ancestor who was a slave.
You could give each and every one a million dollars
and they would still be whining because it wasn't enough. SHUT UP AND GET A LIFE!!!
I think 600k deaths is sufficient payment. The US government was in debt for years to pay for the cost of the war. Apology yes or at least acknowledgement that slavery is wrong. However, there should be no reparations. Why should a newly arrived immigrant's taxes pay for it? Why should a one whose family died to make men free pay now? The family paid for it during the war. Why should one who never benefitted from slavery pay?
The Civil War ended in April, 1865. That is over 142 years ago.
What if the Jews sought reparations from Egypt for
over 400 years of slavery?
My response to those who are seeking reparations:
MY FAMILY NEVER OWNED A SLAVE AND YOU NEVER
WAS A SLAVE. GET OVER IT!!!
OK, banker, that's your opionion, but no need to SHOUT!
Just wonder why you needed to dig back to some 2002 posts to find something to rant about. Most of us only need go back a couple days.
-
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Sam, please back off on banker just a bit. I'm reasonably certain that the shouting was inadvertant, albeit ill-advised. But it does resonate some, doesn't it?
GET OVER IT!
Has a bit of relevance, don't it?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
These people squalling for reparations can see nothing but dollars signs. They could care less if they ever had
an ancestor who was a slave.
You could give each and every one a million dollars
and they would still be whining because it wasn't enough. SHUT UP AND GET A LIFE!!!
I beleive reparation are more then due to those who suffered at the hands of slavery and endure the "Jim Crow" years.
Reparations is not about money. It is about acknowledging a wrong done to a people within a society. Society's only way to redress such thing is with money.
Remember, Japanese Americans won reparations for the wrong done to them in WW2 and the wrong done them pales in comparison to the historical plight Black America.
Reparations could not be paid out to individuals but a fund "with billions" could be set up for the Black institutions like college, churches, and other similar venues that struggle against slavery and those "Jim Crow" years.
I have no Black ancestry in my family history but I do know what is just and right. Reparation for black America is just and right.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
