As a new member, I did not have a chance to participate in the thread the first time around.
I am an attorney and speak to some of the legal issues involved.
First, the reparations movement points generally points to reparations paid to Holocaust survivors and to Japanese Americans. There is a cirtical difference between those reparations and the ones proposed for slavery, however, in that reprarations were only paid to those actually harmed: the survivors of the treatment. To perfectly equate, reparations would have to be paid only to those who actually survived slavery.
Second, the reparations lawsuits do not generally target the U.S. government, just as the majority of the Holocaust lawsuits did not target the German government. Instead, the lawsuits target corporations that allegedly benefitted from slavery. German companies that benefitted from slave labor in WWII ponied up money more as a P.R. move then an admission of guilt. Reparations suits target insurance companies that insured slaves, etc. and thus benefitted from slavery. Of course, even if these corporations did benefit from slavery, the shareholders who benefitted from it are long dead. If the corporations pony up now, the loss will fall on their current shareholders, which includes, you can be sure, not only former slaves but the endowment funds of the NAACP, the United Negro College Fund, etc., as well as other innocent souls.
One argument that the reparations folks make is the "unpaid labor" theory. That much of the wealth of the country derived from slave labor and therefore the country owes for that benefit. Indeed, even the U.S. Capitol Building was built partly with slave labor. The argument is that all persons pay because all are deriving the current benefit through a higher standard of living as a result of slave labor. Of course, we are also benefitting from a higher standard of living from other past "bad acts" including the theft of land from Native Americans (through legal actions and treaty violations by the U.S. government - hence "legal" means) and various immigrant groups (Irish, Chinese, Italians, etc.) exploited legally by robber barons.
As to the "breach of contract, it cannot hold up in that General Sherman had no authority to bind the United States government to a contract. Just because a government official (or a corporate officer for that matter) makes a promise, it is not binding on the government unless he has the legal power to bind the goverment. Sherman had no such authority. It is referred to as an "ultra vires" act - Latin for "beyond authority." Further, Sherman's order was not a contract. A binding contract required consideration on both sides. There was arguably no consideration given by the former slaves for the contract. (And no, the Courts would not consider being a slave consideration for the contract). At best, it was a promise of a gift, which promise is revocable at will.
Further, the reparations movement ignores the trillions of dollars spent by the U.S. government on welfare and educations programs in order to redress the wrongs of discrimination; most especially LBJ's Great Society programs which poured billions into poor communities (which comparitively little to show for it, but that's a topic for another forum).
As a final legal point, the statute of limitations has long since run on any potential claims. The suits are more about publicity and political power than the law. Were I to file a suit on behalf of my Irish forebears, I would be laughed out of court (and probably sanctioned for a frivolous suit).
Another poster was incorrect. The reparations movement is not about money. It is about political power. The money is, I believe, secondary. The demogogues can milk the issue for political power. Further, if any reparations are paid, the money is to going into a trust which they will control, giving them (they hope) billions in money which leads to more political power.
Lastly, reparations are inherently unfair. My American ancestors did not own slaves. (I say American ancestors because if you go back far enough, everyone probably has a slave owner in their past). My great, great grandfather gave his life as a private in the 125th Ohio. Should I not receive a pass because my family paid the ultimate price already? Should I sue the English on behalf of my Irish ancestors? Sue the Germans on behalf of my Belgian ancestors? And then pay myself because I also have English and German ancestors. Should those in England of Celtic ancestry sue the Italians for Roman conquest of Britian? Should they sue those of Angle, Saxon or Jute ancestry? Norman ancestry? Should the Syrans sue the goverment of Mongolia for the deprivations of the Great Khans? For that matter, what about the ancestors of poor white Southern farmers who suffered because the institution of slavery kept their wages and markets low?
Let's recognize the reparations movement for what it is: a blatant political ploy based in emotion, not law. Slavery was a horrendous institution, of that there is no doubt. However, the reparations movement is about reopening the old wounds, not striving for healing.  | 
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
