Why Blacks in the United States Should Be Paid Reparations

HONORING THEIR SERVICES: WHY BLACKS IN THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE PAID REPARATIONS

Carolyn Y. Council

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy

July 2010

Committee:

Louis I. Katzner, PhD, Advisor

Andrew Schocket, PhD Graduate Faculty Representative Christopher Morris, PhD

Sara Worley, PhD

Carolyn Y. Council

iii

ABSTRACT

Dr. Louis I. Katzner, Advisor

In 1862, President Lincoln proposed a joint resolution to congress on compensated emancipation. Lincoln preferred a gradual rather than an immediate emancipation so that the process would be less taxing to the slave holding states. Lincoln indicated that compensation should be paid to the states for the problems that such emancipation might cause. From localities to where slaves were owned to localities where property might be lost due to actions on the part of the United States government in freeing the slaves, Lincoln expected the government to compensate the slaveholders, not the slaves. There was no mention of recompense for the slaves themselves. This paper argues for compensatory relief for the former slaves and their descendants.

The methodology explored several dimensions of the arguments for and against the payment of reparations for slavery by defining what reparations is and using different concepts of justice to determine which theory was applicable to arguments for compensation. The following arguments were posited: (1) blacks in the United States are owed reparations based on moral and legal grounds; (2) that the concept of collective responsibility was applicable to this issue; (3) that the descendants of slaves should be paid reparations for the unjustified forced and uncompensated labor and loss of freedom of their ancestors.

An analysis of the problem included an exploration of the development of racial slavery, the slave system established to perpetuate it as the basis for the moral argument that reparations

should be paid to the descendents of former slaves. Defining different concepts of justice indicated that compensatory and rectificatory justice is applicable in reference to the forced and free labor that slaves in the United States provided. The forced service of those slaves to the economic, social, and political development of a supposedly liberal democratic state under the most adverse conditions can only be corrected through the payment of reparations for slavery.

An analysis of American history will show that the United States, when it became a nation, set about the deliberate task of instituting a racial system of slavery and justifying its practice legitimately through its constitution. The historical assessment shows how the United

States as an established legal and political entity existing over time and as a core-institution defining entity is a collective and can be held legally responsible for paying reparations.

DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to the approximately 90 million Africans who lost their lives during the Atlantic slave trade and to their descendents who are owed reparations.

May they rest in freedom.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Lou Katzner, my major professor, for his academic guidance and patience in helping and encouraging me in the completion of this dissertation. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Christopher Morris and Dr. James Child (posthumously) for their valuable assistance in helping me set the parameters for this work and for their helpful advice and recommendations. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Sara Worley who so graciously replaced Dr. Child on my dissertation committee and Dr. Andrew Schocket (History) for serving as the outside committee member.

I also wish to thank Dr. Ralph Turner, Dr. David Felder, and Dr. Derek Williams of

Florida A&M University in Tallahassee, Florida for their academic guidance and support.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Rosemary Hadley, Shardé Goodloe,

Michael Williams and Temidayo Ogedengbe for their encouragement, conversations and research support.

Finally I would like to thank Dr. Gail Ogawa for her support and encouragement and for never allowing me to give up, also my children, Carol, Stephanie, Sharon, and David (also TT and CJ) for letting me go.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...……………………..……………………………………………………………..iii

CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF SLAVERY IN NORTH AMERICA...... ……….1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..…1

Historical Perspectives…….……………………………………………………………... 1

The Triangular Trade…..………...………………………………………………………..9

Right-of-Search Laws……………………………………………………………………12

The Moral Acceptance of Slavery...……………………………………………………..14

The Importance of History...……………………………………………………………..16

CHAPTER II. JUSTICE AND THE DEMAND FOR REPARATIONS …………………….23

Introduction..…………………………………………………….……………………….23

Defining Justice....……………...…………………………………...... 29

Aristotle….……………………………………………………………………….31

Rawls….………………………………………………………………………….35

Different Concepts of Justice…………………………………………………………….37

Distributive Justice.………………………………………………………………38

Compensatory Justice……………………………………………………………41

Rectificatory Justice.……………………………………………………………..43

CHAPTER III. DEFINING REPARATIONS AND COMPENSATION………………………49

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………49

Reparations and Compensation…………………………………………………………..51

viii

CHAPTER IV. COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY...... ……………………………………….63

Introduction…………...………………………………………………………………….63

Collective Responsibility...………………………………………………………………68

Shared Responsibility...………………………………………………………………….77

The United States as a Collective...……………………………………………………...78

Critical Opposition..………………..…………………………………………………….87

Entitlement Theory………………………………………………………………93

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………..……100

BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………………………...……103

APPENDIX A. BLACK MANIFESTO..………………………………………………………101

APPENDIX B. HOUSE RESOLUTION FORTY: REPARATIONS TO AFRICAN

AMERICANS ………………………………………………………………………...116

APPENDIX C. SHERMAN‘S FIELD ORDER NUMBER FIFTEEN...………………………118

APPENDIX D. THE THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS

TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES………...…………………...122

APPENDIX E. HOROWITZ‘S NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT……………………...….125

APPENDIX F. ROSEWOOD VICTIMS VS STATE OF FLORIDA: SPECIAL MASTER‘S

FINAL REPORT.……………………………………………………………………....143

CHAPTER ONE: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF SLAVERY IN NORTH AMERICA

Introduction

Most Americans, no matter what hyphenation they use to define their ethnic or cultural identity, are aware of the role and the history of the enslavement of blacks in the United States.

Awareness of the oppression of blacks as slaves and the on-going discrimination against them in

America may be neglected and limited in historical accounts, so that when the demand for reparations is voiced, a significant number of citizens, both black and white, turn a tone-deaf ear to this claim. This chapter examines the problems inherent in any claim for recompense for the enslavement of blacks in the United States. I will argue that there is a historical claim for paying reparations to blacks based on the historical role of the American government in the importation and exploitation of African slave laborers and the subsequent establishment of laws that were important in the development of the slave system.

Historical Perspectives

Even though there is a forceful historical claim for the payment of reparations, opponents will argue that nothing should be paid to blacks because nothing is owed. This claim is usually articulated by acknowledging that historically, blacks were treated unfairly, but so were other groups. Consequently, blacks are no more deserving of reparations than any other minority group. Therefore, in order to justify a claim for reparations for African-Americans in the United

States today, it is important to look beyond the very limited historical accounts analyzing the value of the unfree and forced labor of blacks under chattel slavery in America. It is important to

make a deeper, more meaningful assessment of the reality of chattel slavery and the legacy that it has left. Americans are still forced to contend with that legacy today.

The history of blacks in the Americas did not begin with the arrival of those few

Africans from the Dutch ship at Jamestown in 1619. Historians acknowledge the presence of blacks among the crews of Columbus‘s three ships on his voyages to the Americas. There were also blacks among the crews and soldiers of the Spanish conquistadors. These blacks among the crews of Columbus‘s ships and among the Spanish explorers would not have seemed extraordinary, for at that time, blacks had resided in Spain for hundreds of years. They were there, not only as slaves, but also as conquerors of the Iberian Peninsula.

The Moors (black Africans) conquered Spain in 711. They ruled Spain until 1492 when

Isabella of Castile finally and completely pushed them out of the Iberian Peninsula. Isabella and

Ferdinand financed Columbus‘s voyages. By the time of Columbus‘s voyages, Spain already had a significant black population, some of whom were slaves, but many others who were not.

They were soldiers, servants, and artisans. These blacks were among the crewmembers on

Columbus‘s first voyage to the ―new world‖ in 1492. These blacks did not come to the Americas as slaves. John Hope Franklin writes that even if Pedro Alonso Nino [the navigator] was not a

Negro as has been claimed, there were many blacks that accompanied other European explorers to the western hemisphere. Franklin asserts:

As early as 1501, Spain relinquished her earlier ban and permitted Africans to go

to Spanish lands in the New World. Thirty Africans, including Nuflo de Olano,

were with Balboa when he discovered the Pacific Ocean. Cortes carried blacks

with him into Mexico, and one of them planted and harvested the first wheat crop

in the New World. Two accompanied Velas in 1520. When Alvarado went to

Quito, he took 200 blacks with him. They were with Pizarro on his Peruvian

expedition and carried him to the cathedral after he was murdered. The Africans

in the expeditions of Almagro and Valdivia saved their Spanish masters from the

Indians in 1525.1

Larry E. Rivers also supports Franklin‘s claim that the presence of blacks in North

America predates the arrival of those slaves at Jamestown in 1619. Rivers references the

Spanish quest for empire and the role of the Spanish on the North American continent, particularly in Florida before the 17th century. Rivers‘ research notes that Pedro Menendez de

Aviles established the first permanent European settlement in North America at St. Augustine in

Florida in 1565. Rivers further notes:

The United States did not acquire Florida until 1821 and echoes of the

territory‘s colonial past served as a backdrop for the evolution of slavery within

its limits. By the time, the Stars and Stripes flew over the capitals of St.

Augustine and Pensacola, Spain had ruled the land [Florida] for almost three

hundred years. Even before Florida came under the Spanish banner, blacks had

been instrumental in that nation‘s empire building in the Americas. What had

been true of the empire generally became true in Florida. African Americans

arrived with the Spaniards well before the colony had been organized, and they

remained significant players after the Spanish flag ceased to fly over it…Free and

enslaved Africans played prominent roles in the quest for overseas possessions.

1 John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994) 30-31.

Well in advance of the time when permanent black settlers arrived in Florida,

other persons of African origin had passed through the sometimes-punishing land.

Significantly, not all of them were slaves. Free African Juan Garrido [Ponce] de

Leon accompanied Juan Ponce de Leon in 1513 on his voyages of discovery to

the American Southeast.2

By the time the Spanish settlement of St Augustine was established in 1565, many persons of

African descent in the Florida peninsula remained in the Americas from other explorations by

Europeans and Africans.

Ivan Van Sertima‘s They Came before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient

America and Lerone Bennett‘s Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America both place blacks in the Americas in antiquity, perhaps thousands of years before Columbus arrived in the

Caribbean and perhaps even before any Europeans. Consequently, before that Dutch ship landed at Jamestown seeking provisions in exchange for the few Africans aboard, there were already blacks on the North American continent and in the British colonies who were not slaves. Some of them came as indentured servants. As indentured servants, they worked out their terms of service and then stayed in the ―new world‖ seeking new lives and adventure the same as many of their white counterparts. Prior to 1619, there was no wholesale slavery of Africans in the

American colonies. Franklin states:

The 20 Africans who were put ashore at Jamestown in 1619 by the captain of a

Dutch frigate were not slaves in the legal sense…The newcomers, who happened

to be black, were simply more indentured servants…They were listed as servants

2 Larry E. Rivers, Slavery in Florida: Territorial Days to Emancipation (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2000) 2.

in the census counts of 1623 and 1624, and as late as 1651 some blacks whose

period of service had expired were being assigned land in much the same way that

it was being assigned to whites who had completed their indenture… During its

first half century of existence, Virginia had many black indentured servants, and

the records reveal an increasing number of free blacks…The actual statutory

recognition of slavery in Virginia came in 1661. The status of blacks already

there was not affected if they had completed their indenture; they were free… The

black population in Virginia in 1625 was only 23.3

The most telling reason for the non-existence of wholesale slavery in the American colonies was the size of the population in the colonies at that time. Kenneth Morgan notes:

An early Virginia census of 1624 listed 1,200 inhabitants in the colony (excluding

Native Americans), 40 per cent of who were servants. Thereafter the population

of the Old Dominion, swelled by new emigrants, reached 7,600 in 1640, 12,000 in

1650, and 20,900 in 1660. Population levels were lower in Maryland: only 600

inhabitants lived there in 1640, rising to 4,000 in 1660. Africans could be found

in the Chesapeake by the mid-seventeenth century, but at that time less than 5 per

cent of the combined black and white population of the region consisted of

blacks.4

3 Franklin 56-57 4 Kenneth Morgan, Slavery and Servitude in Colonial North America: A Short History (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 2001) 11.

In 1625, Virginia had not yet become a profitable colony for the English. Later on, tobacco would make a difference. Its successful cultivation and the ensuing profits would become the economic rationale for the importation and exploitation of African slaves.

David Lyons in his paper ―Unfinished Business: Racial Junctures in US History and

Their Legacy‖ in a paper presented at Bowling Green State University in 2002 and published in

Historical Justice in 2003 notes that there were three developments in American history that set the stage for racial inequities that profoundly affected Africans in American society. These developments are, in some regards, the basis for the payment of reparations to the current generation of blacks in the United States today. One of these crucial developments centers on the status of those few Africans who were traded at Jamestown in 1619. Lyons indicates:

In 1619, ―some 20 and odd Negroes‖ were bought from a Dutch ship in

Jamestown. It is plausible to suppose that this was the beginning of chattel

slavery in the British North American colonies. After all, those Africans were not

voluntary immigrants but were purchased. This suggests that that they were

property that could be bought and sold, destined for perpetual servitude, whose

children would suffer the same fate… this importation of Africans was not a novel

development in the Americas… the exploitation of slaves from Africa had long

been an established aspect of Spanish and Portuguese enterprise in the Americas.5

Even though the English, the French, and the Dutch eventually outlawed the importation of slaves into continental Europe and abolished the Atlantic slave trade at home, nevertheless

5 David Lyons, ―Racial Junctures in US History and Their Legacy,‖ The Moral Legacy of Slavery: Repairing Injustice Conference, Bowling Green State University, Ohio, 18 Oct. 2002.

they continued the colonization and enslavement of other indigenous people wherever they went.

Hugo Thomas posits the following litany of events regarding the end of the slave trade by

European powers:

The last public sale of a black slave in England appears to have been in Liverpool

in 1779… The English abolished the slave trade in 1807…In France, the

importation of blacks ended in 1777… Portugal abolished slavery at home in

1750 but continued slavery in her colonies until 1869.6

The United States officially outlawed the Atlantic slave trade in 1808 and abolished slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. However, slavery in the English North

American colonies found its initial roots in Jamestown and the Virginia Colony and spread from there. But the real roots of slavery had long been established in Europe. Even though Franklin and Lyons do not agree in their assessments of the status of those first Africans that came to

Jamestown in chains, they do agree that the Virginia Colony initiated the first laws in the English colonies of North America that codified slavery.

Even though the idea of holding people beyond their length of service obviously did occur, and was not unheard of, Winthrop Jordan indicates that the first black person actually legally enslaved in the Virginia Colony, John Punch, had been an indentured servant. Jordan notes:

In 1640 the first definite indication of outright enslavement appears in Virginia. The General Court pronounced sentence on three servants who had been retaken after absconding to Maryland. Two of them, a Ducthman and a Scot, were ordered

6 Hugo Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997) 786-787.

to serve their masters for one additional year and then the colony for three more, but ―the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or else where.7

The role of the European powers and their search for empire, and with it wealth, and the subsequent colonization of the Americas, are responsible for the introduction of chattel slavery and the slave trade into the Western Hemisphere. Duignan and Clendenen note the economic impact of slave labor on the colonies. Their assessment supports Lyons in claiming that slavery began in Virginia in 1619 and not at some later date. They write:

There is no doubting the economic impact of slavery on the development of the

economy of the fledgling North American colonies of the English. Slave labor

kept the aspiring English colonies from becoming an economic failure…The

dependence of the North American colonies upon Africa for a large measure of

their material progress and development is not a pleasant story today, but its

historical facts cannot be controverted. From 1619 on, the English on the North

American continent were largely dependent on Africa for their economic success.

Without slaves, the agricultural colonies would have probably languished largely

in a subsistence economy and the New England colonies probably would have

had considerable difficulty in finding any other means of heightening the value of

colonial products through commercial exchange.8

7 Winthorp Jordan D. White over Black: America Attitudes Towards the Negro, 1550-1882. (Chapel Hill: U North Carolina P, 1968) 75. 8 Peter Duignan and Clarence Clendenen, The United States and the African Slave Trade: 1619-1862 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1962) 12.

The slave trade was an attractive and profitable economic venture for those in the English settlements of North America as well as the economies of the Spanish and Portuguese in the southern part of the Western Hemisphere. The slave trade and the slave system was sustained by at least three historical principles; 1) the triangular trade, 2) right-of-search laws, and 3) the notion held by many people that there was nothing morally wrong with the buying and selling of other human beings. However, there was always a sense of moral outrage by some of the colonists against the African slave trade in the United States and in Europe. Nevertheless, it was regarded as a legitimate enterprise to be engaged in just as with any other business.

The Triangular Trade

Eric Williams posits the historical importance of the triangular trade in the expansion of the production of commodities and the markets in which they could be traded. Williams states:

According to Adam Smith, the discovery of America and the Cape route to India

are ―the two greatest and most important events recorded in the history of

mankind.‖ The importance of the discovery of America lay not in the precious

metals it provided but in the new and inexhaustible market it afforded for

European commodities. One of its principal effects was to ―raise the mercantile

system to a degree of splendour and glory which it could never otherwise have

attained to.‖ It gave rise to an enormous increase in world trade. The seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries were the centuries of trade… For Britain that trade was

primarily the triangular trade.9

The triangular trade involved the system of trade between Africa, the colonies of the

―new world‖ (the West Indies and the American colonies), and Europe (primarily England and

France). According to Williams:

In this triangular trade England – France and Colonial America equally- supplied

the exports and the ships; Africa the human merchandise; the plantations the

colonial raw materials. The slave ship sailed from the home country with a cargo

of manufactured goods. These were exchanged at a profit on the coast of Africa

for Negroes, who were traded on the plantations, at another profit, in exchange for

a cargo of colonial produce to be taken back to the home country.10

Rum from America was traded to Africa for slaves; molasses, a by-product of sugar (to distill the rum), was traded from the West Indies to America. Some of the largest distilleries and most successful suppliers of rum were in the New England states. Williams further notes:

Rum was indispensable in the fisheries and the fur trade, and as a naval ration.

But its connection with the triangular trade was more direct still. Rum was an

essential part of the cargo of the slave ship, particularly the colonial American

slave ship. No slave trader could afford to dispense with a cargo of rum. It was

profitable to spread a taste for liquor on the coast. The dealers were plied with it,

they were induced to drink till they lost their reason, and then the bargain was

struck… The rum trade on the slave coast became a virtual monopoly of New

9 Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994) 51. 10 Williams 51-52.

England. In 1770 New England exports of rum to Africa represented four-fifths

of the total colonial export of that year, and yet another vested interest [the New

England distillers] drew its sustenance from the triangular trade.11

W.E.B. Du Bois also notes the importance of the New England distillers as adjunct participants in the slaving triangular trade. He asserts that Massachusetts and other New

England colonies were primarily engaged in the carrying slave-trade. The citizens of those colonies were the proprietors of the vessels and their cargoes out (exported) and home

(imported). However, the trade of these other colonies was not as extensive as that of Rhode

Island. Du Bois further indicates the particular importance of Rhode Island in the slave trade:

Newport [Rhode Island] was the mart for slaves offered for sale in the North, and

a point of reshipment for all slaves. It was principally this trade that raised

Newport to her commercial importance in the eighteenth century…This trade

formed a perfect circle. Owners of slavers carried slaves to South Carolina, and

brought home naval stores for their shipbuilding; or to the West Indies, and

brought home molasses; or to the other colonies, and brought home hogsheads.

The molasses was made into the highly prized New England rum, and shipped in

these hogsheads to Africa for more slaves… Thus the rum-distilling industry

indicates to some extent the activity of New England in the slave trade.12

The ships that went to Africa from the American colonies were constructed and outfitted in Northern states that provided a ―carrying‖ business. Du Bois asserts that even though the New

11 Williams 78-80. 12 W. E. B. Du Bois, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870 (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1970) 28-29.

England states also participated in slavery and the slave trade, albeit not as extensively as the involvement by Southern states with their plantation economies, some of the reasons for that slighter involvement may stem from other circumstances. Du Bois notes the following:

The rigorous climate of New England, the character of her settlers, and their

pronounced political views gave slavery an even slighter basis here than in the

Middle Colonies. The significance of New England in the African slave-trade

does not therefore lie in the fact that she early discountenanced the system of

slavery and stopped importation; but rather in the fact that her citizens, being the

traders of the New World, early took part in the carrying slave-trade and furnished

slaves to other colonies.13

There was not the same level of need for massive numbers of African free laborers.

Therefore, there was no labor-intensive need for slaves in the North.

Even though the majority of slaves were in the southeastern states, the northern states cannot escape culpability for their role in maintaining and perpetuating the slave system. The triangular trade shows how northern states were also direct participants in, as well as beneficiaries of, the American slave trade.

Right-of-Search Laws

The second historical principle involved in sustaining slavery and the slave trade was right-of search laws. These laws played a significant part in the continuation of the Atlantic

13 Du Bois 27.

slave trade even after its official abolition by the United States and most European powers. The slave trade was officially abolished by the United States in 1808 but the slave system was already entrenched. The business of importing, buying, and selling Africans did not cease in the

United States until at after 1862. According to Duignan and Clenenden, in 1862 the ship

Reindeer, outfitted and supplied for a slaving voyage, was apprehended when the ship was about to sail from New York. That ship was flying the American flag. The question arises as to how the slave trade managed to continue virtually unabated more than fifty years beyond its legal demise. Duignan and Clendenen partially answer the question by asserting that the abolition of the slave trade in 1808 did not actually end the practice of slaving. They claim that the major effect of the laws to stop the traffic in African human beings was not that it ended the Atlantic slave trade, but that it cut down on competition, increased profits, and by doing so, made the slave trade more profitable.

The right-of-search law prohibited the boarding of ships flying the American flag on the high seas by other countries, most notably England. By this time (1808), England had already abolished slavery and outlawed the slave trade. The United States of America, as a new nation, was unwilling to appear weak before the English (whose superior navy was charged with the task of stopping ships still engaged in slaving), so they (the English) were not allowed to board ships flying the American colors. The effects of this policy according to Duignan and Clendenen were:

The increased safety thus afforded to slave ships by the American flag caused

more and more dealers to take cover beneath it. And since the profits from the

illegal trade were probably enormous, increasing amounts of investment capital

were likely to be poured into the trade. The 1850‘s saw a revival of the slave

trade, the extent of which is not known, but estimates run as high as 15,000

[slaves] a year…in the 1850‘s ―black ivory‖ was a big business. New York,

already the financial capital of the country, became the financial center of the

[slave] trade.14

Not until 1862, the beginning of the American Civil War, did the United States finally agree to a right-of-search treaty with Great Britain. However, Du Bois notes that in 1864, the

Huntress, a slaver out of New York flying the American flag, landed slaves in Cuba. The lack of a right-of-search treaty with any of the European powers by the United States abetted and extended the Atlantic slave trade far beyond its official abolition in 1808.

The Moral Acceptance of Slavery

The third principle that sustained slavery and the slave trade was the notion held by many people in the Americas and in Europe that there was nothing morally wrong with the buying and selling of other human beings. Slavery and slave trading was just a business, engaged in for profit the same as with any other business.

The value of slave labor and its importance in the economic development of Colonial

America and particularly the ante-bellum South spans more than two hundred fifty years of

American economic, social and political history. This is not to say that every person in the South was a slave owner or that all of the maritime commerce in New England involved slave trading.

14Duignan and Clendenen 50.

Many people failed to acknowledge the immorality of slavery, especially many of those who espoused Christian beliefs. They claimed on religious grounds that blacks were cursed as the descendents of Ham (from Genesis in the Old Testament) to be servants forever. Frances Adams and Barry Sanders note this justification among apologists for slavery.

The idea of blackness as a permanent, defining characteristic can be traced back to

the Old Testament. ―Can the Ethiopian change his skin / or the leopard his

spots?‖ Jeremiah asked, implying that just as evil could not be removed from the

soul of the sinner, blackness served as an indelible mark that defined the Negro.

The Bible also provided a historical explanation for the origin of African skin

color. Since every human being ultimately derived from Adam and Eve, how did

they produce both black and white offspring? The explanation lay in the

transgression of Noah‘s son Ham. After the flood, when his father had fallen into

a drunken stupor, Ham immodestly gazed upon Noah‘s nakedness, while his

brothers, Shem and Japheth, averted their eyes and covered their father. When

Noah awoke, he punished Ham by cursing his son, Canaan, dooming him to act

for all time as a servant unto his brothers. Ham‘s progeny, condemned to slavery,

had been marked by God with black skin to separate them from Noah‘s more

deserving descendents. Blackness thus became a manifest sign not only of

inferior status but of the Almighty‘s permanent displeasure with Negroes.15

Many tried to justify slavery by claiming that blacks were better off as slaves as opposed to being free human beings in Africa. Adams and Sanders further note:

15 Frances Adams and Barry Sanders, Alienable Rights: The Exclusion of African-Americans in a White Man‘s Land, 1619-2000 (New York: HarperCollins, 2003) 32-33.

Slaves were a constant presence in the South, and southerners viewed them as a

sometimes difficult but indispensable part of their everyday lives. They accepted

the slave trade in the same complacent manner; some of the more aggressively

pious southerners were even ready to argue that enslavement did Africans a favor,

that their lives improved after being brought to America, as their masters treated

them in accord with Christian principles. They justified it [slavery] as an

unfortunate but necessary element in the region‘s economic and social system.16

The apologist for slavery saw nothing wrong with either the practice or the profits resulting from the trade in Africans. Even though there was some opposition to the slave trade and the system developed to support it, slavery was a business enterprise that was profitable enough to repress many voices of moral concern.

The Importance of the History

This historical analysis documents the widespread economic impact of slavery beyond the free labor it accorded the Southern plantation economy. The South was not the only benefactor in the Atlantic slave trade nor was it the only active participant. At the beginning of the Civil War, it has been asserted by some historians that there were more than five million slaves in the United States. Philip D. Curtin in The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census, places the figure at more than four and a half million at emancipation in 1861.17

16 Adams and Sanders 71. 17 Philip D. Curtin, The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969) 92.

Even though Northern states had long since banned slavery within its borders, slave ships were built and outfitted in the North, cotton was spun in Northern factories, and banks still conducted business with Southern planters. Although the South held most of those five million slaves, the North greatly profited from the physical slavery of blacks outside its borders.

This historical analysis of slavery, the slave trade and slavery as an American institution shows the ways in which all of America benefited collectively (except for the slaves and their ancestors). All of white America greatly benefited the forced and free labor of the slaves to build the American economic empire. This is the starting point for the argument for reparations.

The value of slave labor and its importance in the economic development of Colonial

America and particularly the ante-bellum South stretches through more than two hundred fifty years of American economic, social and political history. This is not to say that every person in the South was a slave owner or that all of the maritime commerce in New England involved slave trading. But most people failed to acknowledge the immorality of slavery, including and especially the Christian church. The economic advantages of the slave system to the country as a whole were enough to override the desires of some Americans to abolish the slave system. In a anthology edited by Harold D. Woodman, one of the essays points out the advantages of slavery as a source of national wealth:

Slavery is not an isolated system, but is so mingled with the business of the world,

that it derives facilities from the most innocent transactions…Where the statistics

on the subject are examined, it appears that nine-tenths of the cotton consumed in

the Christian world is the product of the slave labor of the United States. This

monopoly has given slavery its commercial value.18

Woodman goes on to outline the monetary value of slave labor in a single year relative to the production and exportation of cotton, sugar, tobacco, and rice. The importance of placing a dollar value on these particular agricultural commodities and their production is that it demonstrates the value of free slave labor. It also shows how slaves were valued as property and not persons and even compared in value with other commodities and properties. If economics is to be the basis for paying reparations, the value of slave labor for which no wages were ever paid must be taken into account and evaluated. Even if there were some citizens, some slaveholders, and some slave traders who did not make enormous profits from slavery, that would not serve to invalidate the claim for reparations based on the value received from uncompensated slave labor.

In addition to the economic exploitation and social degradation, slavery was also a power relationship. Blacks in the United States were considered powerless and according to Winthrop

Jordan, ―highlighted in the slaveholders mind was the necessity and nakedness of this power.‖19

Blacks were powerless in the sense that there was no escape route back to Africa, they had no recognizable rights and no laws that protected them except as the property of someone else; there was nowhere to run. The system of slavery was valuable. Its value has always been recognized as such by those who wielded the power in America. Woodman further states that, ―the

18 Harold D. Woodman, ed., Slavery and the Southern Economy: Sources and Readings (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966), 196-197. 19 Winthrop D. Jordan, The White Man‘s Burden: Historical Origins of Racism in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974) 33.

economical value of slavery, as an agency for supplying the means of extending manufactures and commerce, has long been understood by statesmen.‖20

The impetus of the historical analysis is to focus on the position of blacks in the system of slavery, to document the economic value of their contributions and to use that as a point of reference in the argument for reparations. This analysis is also designed to show the widespread participation and complicity of white America in the development of the slave trade and system.

The triangle trade demonstrates how the actions of the colonies of the English in North America contributed to the conditions that blacks were placed in prior to the official banning of the slave trade in 1808. The right-to-search law points out the role of the government of the United States in the continued sanctioning of the slave trade after 1808. This law is illustrative in showing how government actions contributed to the continued trafficking and enslavement of blacks in

America long after the official banning of the slave trade. Since the actions and inactions of government were instrumental in defining, determining and setting the rules, regulations, restrictions and codes of slavery and discrimination, the responsibility for reparations must ultimately rest with the government. Slavery was not just a viable economic factor for the agrarian South but also for the manufacturing North. Slavery became a way of life for all of

America.

There are two distinctive claims regarding reparations that appear contradictory: (1) that there is no way to fix the value of slave labor and (2) that all of the labor provided by slaves was menial and thus of little value. Denial of such a claim based on the low value of slave labor as menial and unskilled attempts to reject that value in terms of contemporary wages and earnings.

20 Woodman 97.

That is, so this argument goes, the value of manual and unskilled labor in the 21st century is presently worth the minimum wage ($7.25 per hour). The value of slave labor would have been worth much less in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, so there is no way to assess its value in the current labor market. Therefore, much of the opposition to reparations is grounded in the notion that there is no agreeable way to affix a monetary or material value on the labor produced by chattel slavery. Although it is true that the majority of slaves provided unskilled and menial labor as field hands and domestics (their labor was invaluable), many were also artisans. Even though he has been widely castigated for his historically apologetic defense of slavery, U.B.

Phillips provides a thorough analysis of the labor demands in the ante-bellum south. He notes that:

Southern households in town as well as in country were commonly large, and the

dwellings and grounds of the well to do were spacious. The dearth of gas and

plumbing and the lack of electric light and central heating made for heavy chores

in the drawing of water, the replenishment of fuel and the care of lamps. The

gathering of vegetables from the kitchen garden, the dressing of poultry and the

baking of relays of hot breads at meal times likewise amplified the culinary

routine. Maids of all work were therefore seldom employed. Comfortable

circumstances required at least a cook and a housemaid, to which might be added

as means permitted, a laundress, a children‘s nurse, a seamstress, a milkmaid, a

butler, a gardener and a coachman. While few but the rich had such ample staffs

as this, none but the poor were devoid of domestics, and the ratio of servitors to

the gross population was large. The repugnance of white laborers toward menial

employment, furthermore, conspired with the traditional predilection of

householders for Negroes in a lasting tenure for their intimate services and gave

the slaves a virtual monopoly of this calling. A census of Charleston in 1848, for

example, enumerated 5272 slave domestics as compared with 113 white and 27

free colored servants. The slaves were more numerous than the free also in the

semi-domestic employments of coachmen and porters, and among the draymen

and coopers and the unskilled laborers in addition.21

This assessment by Phillips is important in that it gives valuable insight into the full range of work that slave labor provided and it shows that this labor is not comparable to menial, unskilled labor in today‘s market. Additionally, whether in rural areas or in cities, the indication is that slaves did a substantial amount of work beyond agricultural work on rural plantations. The labor of slaves was very instrumental in the development and maintenance of the American economy wherever it was practiced.

This analysis provides a broad historical overview of how slavery and the slave trade were introduced into the Western Hemisphere with particular emphasis on the English colonies of North America. These colonies would later become a new nation, the United States of

America. As a new nation, the United States engaged in deliberate practices and made laws that accommodated the enslavement of African peoples. The profits made by the exploitation of the free slave labor of blacks in the agricultural South enhanced and abetted the profits in the manufacturing North through the triangular trade. The need for massive numbers of unpaid laborers in the South drove the slave trade and helped entrench the slave system in the United

States aided by the right-to-search law. Slavery was an accepted practice sustained by the notion

21 U. B. Phillips, American Negro Slavery: A Survey of the Supply, Employment and Control of Negro Labor as Determined by Plantation Regime (New York: Appleton, 1918). 402

that there was nothing morally wrong with the buying and selling of other human beings. For some, the idea that blacks were better off as slaves helped assuage their lack of moral turpitude.

Consequently, the points outlined in this chapter further substantiate the claim that the United

States, from its colonial period to the end of the Civil War, built this country on the backs of the free labor of black slaves. America‘s history indicates that the labor of those enslaved blacks was worth much in the economic development of this country. This value serves as the basis for the justification of reparations developed in the subsequent chapters of this manuscript.

CHAPTER TWO: JUSTICE AND THE DEMAND FOR REPARATIONS

Introduction

The idea that black people of African descent in the United States should be paid reparations for slavery is not a new attempt to force America to look at its history of oppression or perceived lack of moral responsibility in the development of institutional slavery. Africans in

America have always made demands for reparations based on the injustices they suffered as slaves. In this chapter, I will argue that traditional philosophical notions of justice are usually not applied to discussions regarding the injustices of chattel slavery and the slave system in the

United States. The idea of paying reparations as a means of repairing the injustices of slavery by analyzing different theories of justice is the focus of this chapter.

Throughout the recorded history of the world, across all cultures and races, slavery has been a part of many societies without deference to race. For example, Aristotle‘s argument relative to slavery is not from a color conscious perspective. Anybody could be a slave.

Aristotle in the Politics (I.4) contends that there are natural born slaves. He posits the following claim:

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a

condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of

fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary,

but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection,

others to rule…When then there is such a difference as that between soul and

body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to

use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature

slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the

rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another‘s, and he who

participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a

principle, is a slave by nature…And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame

animals is not very different… And doubtless if men differed from one another in

the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all

would acknowledge that the inferior class should be the slaves of the superior…It

is clear then that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these

latter slavery is both expedient and right.22

There is no reference to race. According to Aristotle, what makes a person a natural born slave is the slave‘s lack of rationally or the ability to reason. Most moral, social, and political philosophers have long since discarded Aristotle‘s account of any group or individual as being uniquely born into a position of natural slavery. However, many apologists for slavery have taken a religious, paternalistic, or pseudo-scientific approach to try to explain away or justify to some degree slavery in the antebellum South. The Christian Church and the American polity at large (among them the Founding Fathers) sought to justify their ill treatment of Africans and

African Americans under the system of slavery. They claimed that on one hand the slaves were heathens and dangerous and on the other hand that they were intellectually inferior, and thus unable to take care of themselves and that they deserved to be slaves. Charles Johnson, Patricia

Smith et al. note:

21 Richard McKeon, ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House, 1941) 1132-1133.

Americans did not have to apologize for slavery. Slavery was good. It freed

whites from menial labor, and Africans benefited by their contact with white

Christian culture. Moreover, just to prove that ignorance was the black man‘s

natural state of being, some whites took the scientific approach. A generation

before, Thomas Jefferson had set forward crude theories regarding black sexuality

and the natural inferiority of Africans and their descendants. In 1781 in Notes on

the State of Virginia – a petite volume analyzing the state‘s natural resources – he

abandoned his scientific musings long enough for a scathing attack on blacks and

their myriad defects, which included their odor, inability to communicate

intelligently, and their idea of love as animalistic coupling. Never had he heard of

a black man who ―uttered a thought above the level of plain narration‖; all blacks

were ―in imagination… dull, tasteless and anomalous‖ and ―inferior to whites in

the endowments of body and mind‖… Scientists sought to buttress those ideas by

measuring skulls, analyzing physical features, and rooting out diseases particular

to blacks. If they could not justify slavery on moral grounds, they‘d convince the

public that it was scientifically predestined and therefore best for all involved.23

The attitude of the Christian Church towards slavery was no different from that of the secular society. Eric Williams asserts:

The Church also supported the slave trade…Church historians make awkward

apologies that conscience awoke very slowly to the appreciation of the wrongs

inflicted by slavery and that the defense of slavery by churchmen ―simply arose

23 Charles Johnson, Patricia Smith, and the WGBH Series Research Team, Africans in America: America‘s Journey through Slavery (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998) 299.

from want of delicacy of moral perception.‖ There is no need to make such

apologies. The attitude of the church was the attitude of the layman.24

Other historians have also commented on the role of the Church in the perpetuation of slavery. Frances Adams and Barry Sanders posit the following:

Not surprisingly, the colonists settled the issue [of slavery and religion] with a

practical rather than a theological answer, enabling them to preach obedience and

stoicism without ever acknowledging that the acceptance of Christ might also lead

to a slave‘s emancipation. ―Baptisme doth not alter the condition of the person as

to his bondage or freedom,‖ the Virginia statue of 1667 asserted, defying not only

traditional Christian belief in the universal church but severing the connection

between body and spirit. Though Christ possessed the power to free the soul, in

America the slave‘s corporeal being still belonged to his master. The principle

was affirmed repeatedly and spread throughout the colonies, denying blacks the

normal blessings that accompanied baptism. Historically, heathenism had

represented one of the primary criteria of slavery, but the assertion that becoming

a Christian made no difference rendered religious orientation meaningless,

leaving race to stand alone as the defining characteristic of a slave.25

Nevertheless, most moral philosophers and most people in general believe that slavery, particularly chattel slavery in the United States from 1619 to 1865, was a horrific moral wrong.

Historians have documented the horror of the Atlantic slave trade and the system of slavery

24 Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994) 43. 25 Frances D. Adams and Barry Sanders, Alienable Rights: The Exclusion of African Americans in a White Man‘s Land, 1619-2000 (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2003) 12.

instituted in the United States as perhaps the worse physical and psychological abuse and debasement ever perpetrated by one group of humans upon another in the history of the world.

The previous chapter sets out in considerable detail the efforts of the American colonists and later the new United States of America in the development and legalization of slavery within its institutional and social parameters. Thus, the acknowledgement of chattel slavery as an egregious moral wrong is not at issue. Problems arise when questions are raised as to whether there is any basis for rectifying the wrongs of slavery committed so long ago by individuals and groups who are no longer alive today to individuals and groups who were never slaves.

Additionally, even acknowledging the inherent moral wrong of chattel slavery, what makes the enslavement of people of African descent any more immoral than the treatment of Native

Americans or any of the other cultural or ethnic minorities in the United States? What makes the slavery of Africans in the United States so special that some form of rectification is necessary and required? Furthermore, if rectification is appropriate, what form should it take?

The analytical discussion of slavery by social and political philosophers (when such discussions occur) is usually from the perspective of the dominant culture and rarely ever from the perspective of the oppressed. Chattel slavery in the United States is often not seen as a worthy topic for philosophical discourse, perhaps because it is not abstract or esoteric enough or because most analyses of the subject are historical. The subject of slavery is perceived as a set of events over the course of a specific time in the timeline of the history of the United States.

Moreover, the legality of slavery was never a question although some people did question its morality. Since slavery was legal why is there a need for rectification? What philosophical claim for redress can be made in the context of such discourse? This chapter seeks to lay out a basis for answering these aforementioned questions. That is, it seeks to support the claim that

some form of rectification to African and African American slaves for their descendants is necessary and that this rectification should take the form of reparations.

There are several arguments articulated in the demand for payment of reparations and compensation to blacks in America for slavery. The problem with that articulation is that often the payment of some form of recompense is viewed from the perspective of those in power as not warranting serious consideration. After all, slavery happened a long time ago and there is no person alive today who was ever enslaved. Secondly, philosophers, who are primarily members of the dominant culture and who are most often concerned with ―mainstream‖ philosophical issues, are not usually disposed to discourse on the issue of slavery and reparations as a philosophically important topic in reference to justice. Charles Mills in an essay titled ―Racial

Exploitation and the Wages of Whiteness‖ notes:

From strictly being a fringe concern, the issue of reparations has become

sufficiently mainstream for city councils across the country to take a position on

the question, and for ―white‖ universities to debate the matter. Unfortunately,

very little of the credit for this development can go to mainstream white

philosophy, despite the fact that philosophers are by their calling supposed to be

the group concerned about justice as a concept and an ideal, and indeed the book

regarded by many as the fountainhead of the Western tradition, Plato‘s Republic,

is focused single-mindedly on that very subject.26

Rights and justice are important concepts in traditional philosophical discourse. Rights are generally recognized throughout most legal/governmental systems that include civil rights

26Charles Mills, ―Racial Exploitation and the Wages of Whiteness,‖ The Moral Legacy of Slavery: Repairing Injustice Conference, McFall Gallery, Bowling Green University, Ohio, 19 Oct. 2002.

and certain natural rights. These inherent rights are set forth in the Constitution of the United

States and the American Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of

Man, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Social and political philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have posited ideas regarding the natural rights of individuals. Hobbes notes that man has a natural right to life, which no society can abridge arbitrarily. In any situation, he can use force to repel force in defense of his life. Locke notes that man‘s natural rights consist of life, liberty, and property. Rousseau asserts that individuals give over their natural rights to act on impulse and instinct as they enter into the state, and receive civil rights in return.

It is important to link the concept of rights and justice to the reparations argument.

Whenever arguments are articulated concerning individuals or groups seeking justice, it is usually because of some perceived violation or infringement of their human or civil rights. In the demand for reparations, the rights argument is important because it is the primary basis for claiming that reparations for slavery should be paid. Slaves had almost no legal standing, slavery was legal, and slaves were the property of others. Moreover, slaves also had no recognizable civil rights. The demand for reparations is an argument based on the injustice and immorality of slavery and an abrogation of the human rights of the slaves.

Defining Justice

Justice in the philosophical tradition is concerned with the distribution of goods and resources in society (distributive justice), with punishment handed out by a legal system

(retributive justice), and with making amends for past wrongs (compensatory justice). Ted

Honderich provides the following definitions for what he notes are the myriad contexts in which we define justice. Honderich posits the following:

Distributive justice concerns the ethical appropriateness of which recipients get

which burdens and benefits. Corrective [compensatory] justice concerns the

ethical appropriateness of compensating with some good because of a loss or

appropriating some good because of a gain. Retributive justice concerns the

ethical appropriateness of punishment for wrongdoing.27

The payment of reparations is not intended to mete out punishment for the injustices of chattel slavery endured by black people in the United States. Reparations for slavery, in whatever forms it may be paid, is intended to rectify the lack of compensation of the slaves labor and for their excessively brutal, degrading, and inhumane treatment. Since retributive justice deals primarily with punishment, and paying reparations is not a form of punishment, retributive justice will not be discussed in this paper.

From the Greeks and Aristotle to the seminal contemporary work of John Rawls‘s book,

A Theory of Justice, discussions of justice in its moral, social, and political context are many.

However, the idea of applying these concepts to the argument for the payment of reparations to

African Americans in the United States for the enslavement of their ancestors is fairly recent.

Even though blacks in the United States have demanded reparations for years, there has been little discussion in philosophic academia regarding the injustice of slavery and the payment of reparations to African Americans. I will look at the analysis of three philosophers to ascertain

27 Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) 433.

whether or not what they say about justice and injustice is apropos to the arguments presented by opponents and proponents of paying reparations to black slaves and their dependants.

Aristotle provides one of the earliest accounts of justice (and injustice). Other philosophers have expounded on Aristotle‘s analysis with additional concepts regarding what is required for an injustice to occur. However, John Rawls provides a strong account of what justice is or should be in a liberal democratic society. There are other philosophers whose concepts of justice are important in the pantheon of traditional western philosophy who provide adequate insight into whether or not there is anything in the analysis of justice that is applicable to the reparations to

African Americans for slavery argument. This manuscript explores the ideas of two of these philosophers, Aristotle and John Rawls.

Aristotle

Aristotle provides one of the earliest discussions of justice. Aristotle held justice to be a mean between the injustice of interfering with what belongs to another, and suffering interference one‘s self. He distinguished between two forms of justice: distributive - one‘s just share of the resources of the state; and retributive – the redress of injury.28

Justice is a part of the central core of morality and has been discussed and dissected from the past to the present, Aristotle to Rawls. Rawls‘s account of justice as fairness and equality mirrors most closely Aristotle‘s assertion, that what is just is what is fair and equal. Perhaps the most important difference between Rawls and Aristotle is that Aristotle identifies justice as a

28 W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought (New York: Humanities Press, 1980) 274.

virtue. For Aristotle, justice is a virtue in a wider sense in that there is also a problem with injustice. Aristotle notes that injustice is more than just the contrary of justice. Of justice,

Aristotle writes:

[Justice] is that state of character which makes them [people] disposed to do what

is just and makes them act justly and wish for what is just; similarly by injustice

that state that makes them act unjustly and wish for what is unjust. Let us too,

then, lay this down as a general basis. For the same is not true of the sciences and

the faculties as of the states of character. A faculty or a science which is one and

the same is held to relate to contrary objects, but a state of character which is one

of two contraries does not produce the contrary results.29

Here, Aristotle is making a distinction between the empirical basis of the sciences and a state of character. For Aristotle, science is deductive and ordered and the idea is that just acts and unjust acts occur in persons as a contrary characteristic in opposition to the logic and order of science and sense. From this perspective, contrary is taken to mean an incompatible condition or circumstance in the character or nature of the person [or state] entirely. Justice is somewhere between some individual, group, or institution acting unjustly and some individual, group, or institution being treated unjustly. Justice is not scientific in its definition or its application; it is an essential element of character. Justice then, is not contrary to injustice, but instead appears as a separate and universal virtue.

29 David Ross, The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle (London: Oxford University Press, 1961) 106.

Injustice then, is not the contrary of justice, for it seems as though each term has a particular contextual or propositional meaning. Aristotle notes the seeming incongruent semantic understanding of the terms. He posits the following explanation:

Now ‗justice‘ and ‗injustice‘ seem to be ambiguous, but because their different

meanings approach near to one another the ambiguity escapes notice and is not

obvious as is, comparatively, when the meanings are far apart, e.g. (for here the

difference in outward form is great)… Justice in this sense, then, is not part of

virtue but virtue entire, nor is the contrary injustice a part of vice but vice entire.

What the difference is between virtue and justice in this sense is plain…they are

the same but their essence is not the same… justice is, as a certain kind of state

without qualification, virtue.30

Aristotle sees justice as a virtue unto itself without qualification with no ambiguity in its meaning. Justice is a virtue apart from injustice and seems to be a separate form of virtue.

Injustice is a vice. Aristotle‘s account of justice as a virtue is seemingly applicable to individuals and by implication states.

Noting that injustice is more than the contrary of justice, Aristotle posits that when an injustice occurs, one may look to corrective measures to compensate for the injustice or harm because of what is just and fair. According to Aristotle then:

There is, then, another kind of injustice which is a part of injustice in the wide

sense and a use of the word ‗unjust‘ which answers to the part of what is unjust in

the wide sense of what is ‗contrary to the law‘… The unjust has been divided into

30 Ross 108.

the unlawful and the unfair, and the just to the lawful and the fair…But since the

unfair and the unlawful are not the same, but are as different as a part is from its

whole (for all that is unfair is unlawful, but not all that is unlawful is unfair), the

unjust and injustice in the sense of the unfair are not the same…for injustice in

this sense is a part of injustice in the wide sense.31

Aristotle‘s account of justice as what is fair and lawful is consonant with the idea of justice as a moral right belonging to each individual without reference to difference. On the Aristotelian account of justice as a virtue, the actions or inactions of individuals and whole societies can be just or unjust, fair or unfair, lawful or unlawful, or equal or unequal. However, it is the character of the individual that is extrapolated to define the character of the state as a collective of individuals. This collective dictates the justice or injustice that resides therein.

D. D. Raphael prefaces Aristotle‘s argument noting that in order for justice or injustice to occur, there must be some action or inaction between or among others. Raphael asserts that:

When the concept of justice relates to an individual, it concerns relationships

between him and other individuals or between him and a group (including the

large group that constitutes the organized society of the state).32

Justice then, can be defined as a part of morality that deals with the equitable, fair, and lawful treatment of individuals towards each other and states towards its citizens.

31 Ross 109-110. 32 D.D. Raphael, Problems of Political Philosophy, 2nd ed (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1990) 117.

John Rawls

In the contemporary tradition, the seminal discourse on justice is John Rawls‘s work in A

Theory of Justice. However, Rawls‘s view does not specifically address the rectification of injustices via compensation or entitlements to victims of past wrongs. Rawls offers a highly theoretical egalitarian concept of justice as fairness. He asserts that there are two principles of justice.

First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal

basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.

Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both

(a) reasonably expected to be to everyone‘s advantage, and (b) attached to

positions and office open to all.33

Rodney Roberts argues that Rawls‘s theory is problematic in failing to address forms of injustice. Roberts notes:

One serious problem with this approach is that it favors a privileged perspective

on justice. Limiting our reflection of justice by focusing on the Rawlsian world of

ideal theory helps to ensure that the concerns of victims of injustice, including

those who are systematically oppressed in liberal democracies, have little place in

our deliberations about justice.34

Rawls posits additional applications to his principles of justice. He states:

33 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999) 53. 34 Rodney C. Roberts, ed., Injustice and Rectification (New York: Peter Lang, 2002) 1.

These principles primarily apply…to the basic structure of society and govern the

assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and

economic advantages…it is essential to observe that the basic liberties are given

by a list of such liberties. Important among these are political liberties (the right

to vote and to hold public office) and freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of

conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person, which includes

freedom from psychological oppression and physical assault and dismemberment

(integrity of the person); the right to hold personal property and freedom from

arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law.35

From an inverse perspective, all of the liberties that Rawls listed as applicable in a liberal democratic society were denied under the rule of law to slaves. They were denied the right to vote or to assemble freely. They were denied the right to own personal property because they were the personal property of someone else. Often, as the property of someone else, their families were broken up, their children taken from them and sold. They suffered from psychological oppression and physical assault and dismemberment. In the United States

Africans and African-Americans were denied all of the liberties that Rawls indicates are essential to persons in a liberal democratic society. However, from a Rawlsian perspective, compensation and rectification are non-issues and fail to fit into his theory of justice. That is, he provides no account of what to do to rectify injustices if they occur.

In the traditional philosophical discussion of justice, Rawls provides a compelling theoretical analysis of what justice ought to be like in an ideal society. Mills and Roberts assert

35 Rawls 53.

that because there is no discussion of injustice, there is a conceptual error in attempting to project a Rawlsian perspective on the discussion of injustice where it pertains to blacks and other minorities in the United States. Injustice is a separate issue that supposedly would not exist in a

Rawlsian society and so requires a different argument.

Justice then, can be defined as that part of morality that deals with the equitable, fair, and lawful treatment of individuals towards each other and states towards it citizens. Essentially, justice from the ancient times of Plato and Aristotle to the contemporary or modern era of John

Rawls has been an attempt to elucidate in theory and practice the noble principles of justice wherever these concepts may have been practiced.

Different Concepts of Justice

Justice is a concept that requires some action or inaction towards another individual, group, or state. A breach must occur in reference to fairness or unfairness, lawfulness or unlawfulness, or equality or inequality. The action required to rectify the breach, since not all actions or inactions are the same, will not be the same. Consequently, there must be different means/modes of rectification for different breaches of justice/injustice.

The remainder of this chapter will focus on discussing the various types of justice and their practical application to addressing the issue of injustices in general, and the paying of reparations to blacks in the United States in particular.

Distributive Justice

Distributive justice has previously been defined, as ―the ethical appropriateness of which recipients get which benefits and burdens‖36 because of what is just and fair. It is important to reference accounts of distributive justice now because it is partly this aspect of justice that will be the determining factor in what amount of benefits, goods, and services and to whom these resources should be allocated in situations in which reparations are warranted.

The principle of distributive justice in practical application is one of the most intractable problems in the argument that African Americans are owed reparations for slavery. Any reallocation of resources, goods, services, rights, duties or obligations is a part of the trenchant and often acrimonious opposition to paying reparations to blacks in the United States for slavery.

The prevailing argument is that none of the slaveholders or any of those who were slaves is alive today. Therefore, nothing is owed presently by any of the descendants of the slaveholders to any of the descendants of the former slaves. There should be no payments made because the descendants of the slaveholders have no moral, political, educational, social, or economic obligation to do so. The arguments against unjust enrichment and white privilege are disregarded as nonexistent concepts that do not apply to the disadvantages African Americans or other ethnic or racial minorities experience in the United States. The accompanying burdens opponents of reparations perceive, as incumbent in any redistributive effort, should not be paid on any account. Opponents of reparations often perceive the payment of reparations on personal terms, (the ―I didn‘t own any slaves, so I shouldn‘t have to pay‖ response) but Roberts indicates,

―That it is important to note that distributive justice is primarily concerned with the distribution

36 Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) 409.

of rights and duties by way of society‘s institutions‖.37 Since American society‘s institutions and the laws enacted by those institutions are responsible for the enslavement of Africans [sans

African Americans], the abrogation of their human rights and for their uncompensated labor, said institutions should pay compensation in the form of reparations for the disadvantages caused by its actions and inactions. Bill Diggs notes on this point:

All persons should have the opportunity to participate in a cooperative society,

and, within the limits of society‘s means, an opportunity of self-fulfillment…In

trying to secure these opportunities and establish them as recognized equal rights,

an unequal effort must be directed toward helping the disadvantaged. In this

broad sense, distributive justice itself requires that the disadvantaged be

―compensated‖.38

The enslavement of blacks in the United States put them at a disadvantage during the time of their enslavement but also after slavery ended. Bill Lawson and Howard McGary have noted that the conditions of African Americans immediately following The Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War were not very different. Lawson and McGary reference Fredrick Douglass on the condition of blacks after the Emancipation Proclamation. Douglass wrote:

That he [former slave] is worse off, in many respects, than when he was a slave, I

am compelled to admit, but I contend that the fault is not his, but that of his

heartless accusers. He is the victim of a cunningly devised swindle, one which

paralyzes his energies, suppresses his ambition, and blasts all his hopes; and though

37 Roberts 9. 38 Bill Diggs, ―Banner on Compensatory Justice,‖ Journal of Social Philosophy 6.2 (April 1975): 7-8.

he is nominally free he is actually a slave. I hear and now denounce this so-called

emancipation as a stupendous fraud – a fraud upon him, a fraud upon the world.39

The opportunities of the emancipated former slaves to pursue economic compensation for their forced labor and their place in the American polity remained virtually unchanged. If the newly freed former slaves had been compensated at that time by paying reparations of some kind in the form of past wages, educational opportunities or even repatriation back to Africa, there would be no need to discuss reparations for African Americans today. The problem of what, if anything, is owed to Black people in the United States for the injustices their ancestors suffered as slaves would have already been resolved and any discussion of reparations would be moot.

The perceived actions of the government of the United States, during the period of slavery and afterwards, was to maintain an economic, social, educational and political distance between blacks and whites, i.e., to perpetuate the disadvantages that blacks could not overcome as slaves and have still not successfully overcome as ―bona fide‖ citizens. Lawson and McGary note:

Douglass had hope that emancipation would bring blacks and whites together in a

new spirit of freedom and political equality. What he found instead was that

blacks were denied civil rights and were physically unprotected. Douglass was

disheartened because he thought it shameful for the government to fail to protect

citizens when it could. 40

Distributive justice as such seeks a reallocation of goods and services but the actual payment of the lost wages for the work of the African slaves and their descendants constitutes a

39 Howard McGary and Bill Lawson, Between Slavery and Freedom: Philosophy and American Slavery (Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992) 12. 40 McGary 13.

claim for compensatory damages for this work (along with the physical and psychological suffering and degradation visited upon these people by their previous position as chattel) in form of reparations.

Compensatory Justice

Compensatory justice involves the payment of damages from one individual to another, from an individual to a group, and in the case of minorities in the United States, from one nation to its people -- Japanese, Native Americans and especially African Americans. Compensatory justice may also involve restitution in some form from one nation to another. The Germans paid compensation to the state of Israel and to the Jewish people in general after World War II and for claims that are more recent. Compensatory justice restores balance. McGary notes that there is not so much a problem with compensatory claims as it is the idea that something is being taken unfairly. McGary states:

Traditionally people who have been concerned with the justice of compensation

have worried about placing the burden on the innocent or creating a distribution

that is unfair. These feelings are enforced by the way we view theories of

distributive justice. When we distribute something according to a principle we

consider just, then we can‘t see any reason for redistribution…The interesting

thing about compensation seems to be that compensation might involve

someone‘s being at fault or it might not. An important part of the right to

compensation is the idea that we must ensure that each person has a right not to be

hindered from arranging his life as he sees fit as long as it does not hinder others

from doing the same.41

Compensatory justice is required to correct an unequal or unfair distribution of goods, services, or resources in general. In the case of blacks who were slaves, there was no distribution, unequal, unfair, or otherwise. Even when legal slavery ended in the United States in 1863, no attempt was made to pay the former slaves any kind of restitution for their forced and free labor.

The idea that the human rights or moral rights of slaves had been violated on many accounts, or that they had any rights worth violating in the first place, or that their treatment had been unjust and required compensation was never a serious consideration. Roberts notes:

…it is perhaps more common that when we think of compensation as a matter of

justice, what comes to mind is not a making up for a loss sustained as a result of

an act of God, but rather making up for a loss that is the result of an injustice that

has been done. When an injustice occurs, that is, when one‘s action towards

another fails to be consonant with principles of moral rights, the victims of such

an action oftentimes suffers a loss for which compensation is thought to be due.

Since distributive justice does not provide a means by which one can determine

when compensation is appropriate in such cases, when compensation is due

because of an injustice it cannot be compensation in the distributive sense. Rather

when compensation is due as a matter of justice but its justification falls outside

41 Howard McGary, Race and Social Justice (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999) 94.

of the realm of distributive justice, it is ―compensation in the rectificatory

sense‖.42

Applying the principles of compensatory justice as a part of the argument for the payment of reparations for slavery goes to the question of why pay compensation at all, to whom, and for what reason. The uncomplicated response is to correct the injustices of slavery.

Rectificatory Justice

The word rectification has many meanings but none cogent enough to warrant inclusion as a separate entry in any of the major philosophical lexicons. The Webster Third New

International Dictionary defines rectification as ―the act or process of making or setting right‖.43

Compensatory justice addresses the need to counter balance one claim against another, that is, to make things fair. Distributive justice addresses the means and the amount by which said compensation can or should be made, that is, to make them equal. Compensatory and distributive justice claims say nothing about righting any wrong or setting any affair straight.

This is the province of rectificatory justice.

Aristotle provides one of the earliest accounts of rectificatory justice and notes the following. Aristotle writes:

The one remaining form of what is just is the rectifying kind…What is just in the

distribution of common goods always follows the proportion…If it is a

42 Roberts 10. 43 Philip Babcock Gove ed., The Webster Third New International Dictionary (unabridged). (Springfield, MA: G&C Merriam Company, 1963) 1899.

distribution of common funds, it will follow the same ratio in which the

contributions of the various members stand to one another; and the unjust opposed

to just in this sense is what violates the proportion. Now the just in transactions is

also something equal (and the unjust something unequal), but (it is something

equal) which corresponds not to a geometrical but to an arithmetical proportion.44

Aristotle‘s arithmetical proportional distribution claim is not very helpful as the basis for rectifying the injustices of slavery as a formula for paying reparations. The problem is far more complex because it involves millions of individuals and expands over many generations.

On a more contemporary note, Christopher Morris indicates:

In recent years many social critics have developed cases for compensation to

various individuals and groups for certain wrongs committed against their recent

or distant ancestors. Many such arguments appeal to seemingly uncontroversial

views of rectification of past wrongs: if we wrong some person, we owe her

compensation for the wrong done. 45

Morris goes on to note that cases requiring some form of compensation would radically change American society. He then lists the cases he claims that have been articulated as cases for the rectification of past wrongs:

(1) the land claims of various North American Indians;

(2) a recent argument for reparations for black Americans;

44 Ross 120. 45 Christopher W. Morris, ―Existential Limits to the Rectification of Past Wrongs‖, American Philosophical Quarterly, 21:2 (April 1984): 175-182.

(3) some defenses of affirmative action and preferential hiring programs for women, blacks, and others as compensation for past injustices;

(4) damage claims made on behalf of infants deformed by fertility drugs taken by their mothers;

(5) general ―historic‖ entitlement arguments for rectification of past injustices.46

In taking a more analytic perspective of the claims on Morris‘ list, there are, as he states, some commonalities but the conditions, the injured parties, and the reasons for the claims are distinctly different. What is common he claims is, ―that some individual or group is owed compensation for a wrong committed against an ancestor in the past.‖47 From this general analysis, he provides what he calls a General Principle of Rectification where if W wrongly harms V, then V is entitled to compensation from W for the harm.48 Morris goes on to argue that claims for compensation to individuals or groups harmed by past wrongs would not hold across generations because the original wrongdoers and the original victims are long since dead.

However, in the following chapters, it is argued that the United States as a collective that has existed across generations can still be held morally and legally responsible for the injustices of slavery. The United States, as a continuously legally existing institution and the original wrongdoer should be held liable for the payment of reparations to the descendents of African slaves.

Morris provides a good theoretical framework for analyzing what compensation claims look like and what it means for a wrong or harm to be rectified. Rodney Roberts provides a somewhat different analysis of rectification that is less theoretical and more applied.

46 Morris 175. 47 Morris 175. 48 Morris 175.

Morris‘ argument implies that compensating individuals or groups for past wrongs rectifies the injustices perpetrated against them. However, on Roberts‘ view, compensation serves as recompense for the tangible and intangible losses the individual or group may have suffered. Hence, the aim of rectificatory justice is to right the wrongs against individuals or groups and goes beyond compensating for actual physical losses. Rectificatory justice requires setting wrongs right through restoration and apology. Roberts also makes the following claim:

The moral conception of rectification is grounded in rectificatory justice.

Rectificatory justice is that form of justice employed as a means of addressing

those situations that arise when the requirements of a just system of distributive

justice have broken down. Although the aim of rectificatory justice is clearly

remedial, since it purports to remedy these situations, its specific aim is to take an

unjust situation and set it right. Righting an injustice requires several things.

First, restoration is required whenever possible. Restoration calls for the return of

precisely that which has been lost as a result of injustice, as in the case of stolen

property. Second, compensation may be required. To provide compensation is to

counterbalance an unjust loss with something else that is equivalent in value to

that loss. Since providing compensation means providing something other than

the exact thing that was lost, compensation is in this way distinguishable from

restoration. Finally, rectification calls for an apology. Since restoration and

compensation can address only unjust losses, an apology is necessary in order to

effect rectification, because it is the apology that addresses the matter righting the

wrong of an injustice. What makes an injustice a wrong is the lack of respect

shown when one‘s rights are violated. Hence the righting of the wrong is

accomplished by way of an apology, that is, an acknowledgment of wrongdoing,

which includes the affirmation that those who suffered the injustice have moral

standing.49

In assessing the different types of justice articulated in this chapter, we have seen that they apply to the issue of reparations in different ways. Distributive justice is concerned primarily with how certain goods are services should be allocated. Compensatory justice concerns the actual payment of damages and involves restitution in some form or other when a wrong has been done. Rectificatory justice concerns the process of setting wrongs right.

Rectificatory justice may or may not involve a redistribution of resources. It may or may not involve the actual payment of damages. What rectification does involve is the acknowledgement on the part of the wrongdoer that he has committed some act or breach of justice towards the individual or group wronged. Rectificatory justice, as it concerns blacks in America and the question of reparations, is perhaps more complex because it involves making things morally right. Rectificatory justice is based on the concepts of forgiveness, reconciliation, and apology and hence does not necessarily require a physical redistribution or reallocation of goods or services or the actual payment of damages in the form of an exchange of such goods or services.

Although they provide a framework for articulating the African American claim for reparations for slavery, the three types of justice discussed in this chapter, individually or in concert with each other, have not been seen as settling the issue of whether or not reparations are due to black people in the United States. Unfortunately for black people in America, there is no will or consensuses on the part of the dominant culture to settle or even address this issue

49 Roberts, ―Why Have the Injustices Perpetrated against Blacks in America Not Been Rectified?,‖ Journal of Social Philosophy, 32.3 (Fall 2001): 357-373.

seriously. Consequently, whatever types of justice analyzed in this chapter, none have been seen as appropriate in settling the argument regarding reparations because these theories of justice are ordinarily not applied to this issue. Roberts expounds further:

So even if white intellectuals who spend a great deal of time studying matters of

justice are generally unconcerned with even examining the idea of rectifying

injustices perpetrated against racial minorities, including blacks, it is no wonder

that there is little confidence within the black community that rectification of the

injustices perpetrated against them will ever be earnestly attempted…50

Part of the problem may very well stem from the fact that people are not sure what blacks are asking for when they ask for reparations (some black people are not sure either). The next chapter posits a view that argues that there is a difference between reparations and compensation and how, if possible, the concepts of justice previously discussed can help in the evaluation of what African Americans are demanding payment for.

50 Roberts 359.

CHAPTER THREE: DEFINING REPARATIONS AND COMPENSATION

Introduction

On a Sunday morning in June of 1969, James Forman stepped into the Riverside Church in New York City and read what became known as the Black Manifesto (see appendix A).

Forman, addressing white Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, demanded $500 million as reparations for the enslavement of black people in the United States. Forman‘s demand for reparations forced the church and others to reexamine their roles as moral arbiters of the

American polity and as members and leaders of a group who aided and abetted the enslavement of black people. Even though Forman‘s demand was very dramatic, it was one of many such requests made by black people from the end of slavery to the present. The newly freed slaves,

General Sherman of the Union Army, the Nation of Islam, National Coalition of Blacks for

Reparations in America (NCOBRA), Queen Mother Moore, Representative John Conyers of

Michigan, and many other less prominent African American organizations and individuals, have made the demand for reparations from the end of the Civil War up to the present. However, the idea of what reparations actually entail is often lost in the politics of the discussion. In this chapter, I contend that there is a difference between the concept of reparations and other forms of compensation. Thus, the demand for reparations for slavery is different from any other compensatory demands that African Americans might make for other injustices that they have suffered in America. I also argue that different principles are applicable during the period of slavery and after the period of slavery primarily because of the economic, political and social circumstances that emancipation portended.

The concept of reparations and other compensatory demands such as preferential hiring and affirmative action programs require different analyses when attempting to discern their meaning and application in terms of what, if anything, is owed to blacks in the United States.

The first analysis is to determine what, if anything, is owed to black people for their forced and free labor under slavery. The second is to determine what, if anything is owed for the segregation and continuing discrimination against them in the United States after slavery.

However, the circumstances of the black condition after slavery are not the subject of this discussion. Nor is the validity of any other compensatory programs.

Bernard Boxill attempts to clarify the concept of reparations in the following way:

The characteristic of compensatory programs is that they are essentially ―forward

looking‖…such programs are intended to alleviate disabilities which stand in the

way of some future good, however these disabilities may have come about. Thus

the history of injustices suffered by black and colonial people is quite irrelevant to

their right to compensatory treatment. What is strictly relevant to this is that such

compensatory treatment is necessary if some future goods such as increased

happiness, equality of incomes, and so on, are to be secured. [G]iven the

contingency of causal connections, the present condition of black and colonial

people could have been produced in any one of a very large set of different causal

sequences. Compensation is concerned with the remedying of the present

situation however it may have been produced; and to know the present situation,

and how to remedy it is not, strictly speaking, necessary to know just how it was

brought about, or whether it was brought about by injustice…On the other hand,

the justification of reparation is essentially ―backward looking‖; reparation is due

only when a breach of justice has occurred. Thus, as opposed to the case of

compensation, the case for reparations to black and colonial people depends

precisely on the fact that such people have been reduced to their present condition

by a history of injustice. In sum, while the aim of compensation is to procure

some future good, that of reparation is to rectify past injustices.51

Boxill indicates that the aim of reparations and the aim of compensation allow for different remedies for different circumstances. However, reparations and compensation are different. Other forms of compensation may be relevant, but in the case of slavery, perhaps the most appropriate form of compensation is reparations.

Reparations and Compensation

Jana Thompson asserts a somewhat different approach in her analysis of reparation:

Reparations are customarily assigned a place in a tripartite scheme that

distinguishes the forms that justice takes in legal systems and moral theories.

‗Positive justice‘ consists of rights and duties that belong to individuals or groups

and the entitlements or obligations that they acquire through contract, treaties or

other historical acts. Retributive justice is concerned with punishment of

51 Bernard Boxill, ―The Morality of Reparations,‖ Social Theory and Practice 2.1 (1972) 117.

offenders for violations of requirements of positive justice, so far as these are

embodied in law; reparative justice with restitution or recompense for violations.52

On Thompson‘s account, that of ‗positive justice‘, there is a historical basis for the payment of reparations on two accords; (1) rights and duties and (2) entitlements and obligations.

Thompson‘s analysis will be discussed further in the next chapter. It is important here because she places reparation in the context of group responsibility and historical acts. She indicates that there are two theories applicable to the reparations argument; a ‗rights-centered theory‘ and an

‗obligations-dependant theory‘. Thompson notes:

A rights-centered theory of reparations focuses on the rights or interests of

individuals and communities, and insists that any violation of these rights or any

unjustified harm to these interests calls for reparations. Once it has been

established that a violation has occurred, there is no doubt about the existence of a

reparative obligation. An obligations-dependent theory, on the other hand, holds

that the right to reparations for an injustice depends on the existence of an agent

or agents with the obligation to make reparations for the wrong, and that the only

agents who can be assigned this obligation are those responsible for the injustice

or, in the case of the actions of an organized group like a nation, the successors of

those responsible.53

The colonies under British rule and the United States were first an organized group (the colonies) and later a nation (the United States). The historical argument bases the demand for reparations on three important factors; (1) the economic profitability of slavery, (2) the physical

52 Jana Thompson, Taking Responsibility for the Past (Malden: MA, Blackwell Publishers, 2002) 38. 53 Thompson 39.

and psychological debasement that the slaves endured and, (3) the immorality of slavery.

Reparations are due and payment is required because of the economic impact of slavery not only on the slaves but also on the economic development of the American colonies and later of the new United States of America. The free labor that slaves provided is commensurate with the development of the plantation system. The profits from the labor of slaves went into the coffers of a population that kept them in chains and penurious, a set of condoned historical acts for which recompense should be paid. The slavery of Africans would not have occurred absent the organized efforts of the colonial powers and later the United States of America. Both of

Thompson‘s arguments are applicable in the case of reparations for slavery. On Thompson‘s rights-centered theory of reparations, slaves were individuals but they were also a part of a community and in some cases more than one. Slaves were a part of an unrecognized slave community (in the moral sense as well as the physical sense because they were viewed as property/chattel); but they were also a part of the economic community by virtue of their productive forced/free labor. Moreover, they were also a part of the civil community through their legal status as slaves and the human community of man (acknowledged or not). From this perspective, the rights and interests of the slaves were continuously unjustly violated on every accord. From Thompson‘s view, there exists a reparative obligation on the part of those responsible. On the Thompson‘s obligation-dependant theory, reparations are also due. Even though the actual individual who were slave owners (agents) are long since dead, the United

States is an organized group which can and should be assigned the responsibility for correcting the injustices of the previous offenders. After all, the continuously existing organized entity called the United States is still bound by the same basic principles.

The physical and psychological debasement of slaves was designed to produce in blacks an image of themselves as devoid of a sense of self or person, to strip them of their humanity and to provide a negative image of those enslaved by those who did the enslaving. They were identified as the property of someone else. Slavery was also a power relationship and blacks were powerless. They were powerless as individuals and they were powerless as a group because they were not able to overcome the power of the government to keep them in chains and the will of the dominant culture to acquiesce in it.

The moral basis for the payment of reparations stems from the fact that the maintenance of slavery was morally wrong and it required the tacit consent of the population at large. The collective called the United States of America from 1787 when the original 13 colonies ratified the Constitution to the end of the Civil War consented to the enslavement of black people. Prior to the American Revolution, during the colonial period, the colonies were an ongoing contiguous community governed by the British who also condoned the slavery of a powerless minority. The consent by the population of the colonies and later the United States to tacitly consent to the enslavement and ill-treatment of black people represents, as McGary states, ―a breach of justice.‖

He also asserts that there is a difference in the intent and justification for reparations and the intent and justification of compensation. According to McGary:

In the case of reparations it is the case that someone is at fault. The injustices

might have occurred countless ways. The ways differ in detail, but they are all

similar in one respect; namely, that it is clear that an injustice has occurred. The

usual worry associated with the idea of giving reparations is not that one does not

know that an injustice has occurred or who committed the injustice. This is

merely a matter of fact.54

According to Boxill and McGary, reparation and compensation are two distinctly different concepts that require different interpretations and different applications. The demand for reparations addresses past injustices and is ―backward looking.‖ The demand for compensation is ―forward looking‖ intended, as Boxill notes earlier, ―to alleviate disabilities that stand in the way of some future good.‖55 He also indicates that ―the crucial difference between compensation and reparation is that whereas the latter is due only after injustice, the former may be due when no one has acted unjustly to anyone else‖56.

In the case of reparation and compensation, it is important that the differences in the two terms be clarified. The application of these concepts is a crucial part of the argument that a debt is owed for the past enslavement of blacks that is separate from any continuing disadvantages that have accrued to the present. Boxill offers additional insight by asserting:

The fact that reparation aims precisely at correcting a prior injustice suggests one

further important difference between reparation and compensation. Part of what

is involved in rectifying and injustice is an acknowledgement on the part of the

transgressor that what he is doing is required of him because of his previous error.

This concession of error seems required by the premise that every person is equal

in worth and dignity.57

54 Howard McGary, ―Justice and Reparations,‖ The Philosophical Forum, 9 (1977-78): 251. 55 Boxill 117. 56 Boxill 116. 57 Boxill 118.

In the case of blacks in the United States, although most people in the dominant culture acknowledge that slavery was evil and frequently point to amendments to the Constitution and the ―all men are created equal‖ phrase from the Declaration of Independence, few, if any, believe that slavery and the other injustices to blacks warrant special consideration such as reparations.

On this account, Boxill notes:

When injustice has reduced a people to indigence, compensatory programs alone

cannot be all that justice requires. Since the avowed aim of compensatory

programs is forward looking, such programs necessarily cannot affirm that the

help they give is required because of a prior injustice...[S]ince justice, as part of

what it means to give equal consideration requires the acknowledgment of error;

compensatory programs cannot take the place of reparation...In sum,

compensation cannot be substituted for reparation where reparation is due because

they satisfy two different requirements of justice.58

According to Boxill‘s and McGary‘s analysis of the definitions of reparation and compensation, there is an ambiguity that makes it difficult to determine when reparation is due and when compensation is due. In the case for reparations, a breach of justice occurred. In the forward-looking argument in reference to other compensatory programs, a breach of justice need not occur. If these definitions are correct, and the requirement is that a ―breach of justice‖ or an injustice has occurred, then reparation and compensation appear to be overlapping principles in the sense that these terms are often used interchangeably. Whether Boxill defines these terms as

―forward-looking‖ (compensation – requiring no breach of justice) or ―backward-looking‖

58 Boxill 118.

(reparation – requiring a breach of justice), in order for the past situation (slavery) or the present situation to be rectified, damages occurred based on numerous unjust acts and omissions of just acts dating from the slave era to the present. The point is to define reparations as a separate compensatory value that is different from any other such program in reference to what is owed to the descendents of slaves (most of the current black population in America today). From this perspective, reparations should be paid for the lost wages (plus interest) of those enslaved along with punitive damages (for the previously mentioned physical and psychological abuses that accompanied that enslavement). This analysis of reparations stands as an application of the same definition to what are two different concepts. For example, racial discrimination was an ingrained part of the oppression and subjugation of blacks as slaves in the United States and it continued to be a part of the oppression and subjugation of blacks as citizens of the United

States. Consequently, both reparation and compensation would be due to blacks from the very first slave to the very last black citizen ad infinitum, that is, until all breaches of justice against black people in the United States cease to exist (a colorblind society). All forms of oppression against blacks as slaves and as citizens contain numerous breaches of justice. However, there must be some point at which the claim for reparation and the claim for compensation cease being determined by the same unjust circumstances because they are not the same. For blacks in the

United States the injustices perpetrated against them are continuous. To define reparations and compensation as different conceptions of the same warrant is simply not a matter of semantics for they are patently different.

One way to resolve what appears to be overlapping principles in the definitions of reparation and compensation would be to define reparation as ―backward looking‖ and maintain that the status of blacks as slaves precluded their active or actual participation in the democratic

process. Slaves were not citizens of the United States. They were the property of some of the citizens of the United States and as such had no means of seeking redress for the wrongs committed against their persons or whatever property they may have had. There was not much recourse available to the slave through any legal, political, or other social institution that is, where they could demand their freedom and expect to have the demand respected or satisfied

(the Dred Scott decision for example).

The ―backward-looking‖ argument for reparations and the ―forward-looking‖ argument for compensation have as a kind of demarcation line the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th

Amendments to the United States Constitution. The status of blacks changed politically. For one, they ceased being slaves; they became citizens and; they were given the right to vote. Thus, reparations are due for slavery from the time it was initiated until its formal abolition with the

Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. [Initially, Lincoln‘s proclamation was worthless. Those slaveholding states, the Confederate States of America, had seceded from the Union and formed a separate government/nation. Any proclamation from Lincoln was not enforceable as far as the

Confederacy was concerned until the end of the Civil War in 1865.] The contention here is that blacks are owed reparations for slavery because they received no wages for the work they performed. Moreover, they were treated like animals and classified as such (chattel).

Reparations should be paid for the work that the slaves performed and for their ill-treatment because they had no legal means to seek compensation for these things. On this account, there is a punitive payment due for the physical and psychological abuse that the slaves endured while they worked for nothing, an abrogation of their human rights (there are no civil rights involved here because the slaves were not recognized as a part of the body politic except for their legal status as property).

In Thompson‘s tripartite scheme of theories of justice (positive justice, retributive justice and reparative justice), the relevant modes in the case of slavery would be positive justice and reparative justice. On her account, positive justice derives its import from rights, duties and obligations that include historical acts. Reparative justice is important because it is an extension of positive justice in the sense that it requires compensation for violations of the rights, duties and obligations of the positive law. In the case of paying reparations for slavery, a violation of the rights that one has to the fruits of one‘s labor was breached. Moreover, the rights of the slaves to pursue whatever their goals as human beings might have been were violations of positive justice. As I have argued, to these things we must also add the fact that they had no legal means to address these wrongs.

Compensatory programs other than reparations may be more appropriate for the period after the Civil War because conditions for blacks in the United States had changed with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment which ended slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment which made citizens of the former slaves and the Fifteenth Amendment which gave blacks (men) the right to vote. These amendments to the Constitution theoretically insured that blacks could enjoy the same rights as any other citizen. As citizens of the United States, they could seek redress through the courts or the political process whenever they felt that their rights were abridged.

Other compensatory programs rather than the payment of reparations may be due for the period after the end of slavery. As citizens, the legal and political status of blacks changed. This new status portended a different dynamic between the former slaves as free people and those who had held them in bondage.

Blacks after the end of slavery could now petition the government, the courts, or any other institutional entity they deemed necessary for redress the same as any other citizen.

Unfortunately, for blacks, the law may have changed in this regard but the attitudes towards blacks and the practice of racial discrimination continues unabated to this day. Other compensatory programs, not reparations, may be needed to address the discrimination and segregation via Jim Crow laws passed after the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth

Amendments to the Constitution. The Jim Crow laws passed by state and local governments and often upheld by the national government through legislation and the courts on all levels aided in the perpetuation of blacks as second class citizens and in some cases less than citizens. On this account, there maybe a punitive compensation payment due for the underpaid labor of blacks and the physical and psychological abuse they suffered (an abrogation of their civil rights as citizens). However, no argument is being made in this manuscript regarding other compensatory programs that may be applicable to the circumstances that black people had to endure after they were no longer legally classified as slaves.

On the account of reparations I have developed, citizens of a country may not receive reparations for injustices perpetrated against them. However, compensation may be due under the law for breaches of justice and violations of their rights as citizens. At this juncture, the

Constitution and all that it represents apply to them as well. On the other hand, reparations require a different assessment in its application because the legal status of slaves (as outlined in the original twenty five articles of the Constitution) reduced them to chattel, a condition that disavowed their humanity. The new United States of America, by approving these articles through ratification, is responsible for legally and morally supporting one of the worst violations of human rights ever to occur. This constituted an injustice of great magnitude which had a

devastating effect on those who were enslaved and by fiat, their offspring who over generations continue to suffer from the impact that this set of democratic principles produced.

Essentially, reparations are due for the injustices of slavery and for the racial discrimination that blacks endured under that system. Contrary to Boxill, the argument being made is that both reparation and compensation can be understood as involving a ―breach of justice‖ but there is a point where reparation ends and compensation begins. Reparation and compensation are two separate compensatory programs. Compensatory justice (which Boxill distinguishes from reparative justice) and ―compensation‖ is some form of payment for some future damage not yet recognized. Both compensatory justice (which Boxill argues is ―forward- looking‖) and reparations (which he says is ―backward-looking‖) may involve a payment (or compensation). But, when reparation involves a payment (i.e. payment for wages that should have been paid back then) the goal of this payment is to repair the past injustices rather than to make the good life within reach in the future although the reparative payment may accomplish this as well. Reparations may be understood as one form of rectificatory justice but there are others as well. Boxill has identified a necessary condition for the payment of when reparations are due by defining this concept as ―backward-looking‖ but fails in his analysis by not providing a corresponding sufficient identification. There are at least three conditions that must obtain where reparations are due:

(1) An injustice must have occurred

(2) There must be no legal recourse available to the injured party, and

(3) The injustice must have been of great magnitude – it must have had a devastating

impact on the victims and their offspring.

Slavery is the only event in the history of the United States that fits the requirements for the payment of reparations according to the aforementioned conditions.

The idea that blacks who had been slaves for more than 200 years were owed something for their labor and physical and psychological abuse over the period of their enslavement was first raised by the former slaves. Putting practical application to the idea came initially from

General Sherman in 1865 when he issued Field Order # 15 (see appendix C). Sherman ordered that those freed under his army be allocated forty acres of land and a mule as reparations. The next loud ―shot fired across the bow‖ of the reparations argument was the James Forman demand at Riverside Church more than 100 years later. The results were the same. Neither individuals, organizations, nor any governmental entity on any level is willing to take responsibility for the past as it relates to the antebellum era where the enslavement of black people was the norm and slavery was legal.

CHAPTER FOUR: COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

Introduction

Some of the most difficult questions to answer in the demand for reparations are; (1) who or what institutions or entities are responsible for the injustices of slavery? (2) what if any payment is required? (3) and by whom and to whom should the payments be made? However, the concept of collective responsibility is not a new concept, most traditional forms of human social organization were clan/tribal based, and members of the group were often held responsible for the actions of individual members. But, the concept is relatively new in the discourse of traditional Western philosophy and has almost never been discussed in the context of slavery and reparations. The idea that an aggregate group of individuals operating as one contiguous entity could be held responsible for the wrongs of its leaders is only decades old. The concept of collective responsibility is the outgrowth of the Nuremberg War Tribunal. The tribunal was brought together after WWII by the Allied Powers to try those Nazis (implicitly the entire nation) who were accused of having committed crimes against humanity during the Third Reich in Germany. Even though the leadership of Nazi Germany functioned as a dictatorship, its leader Adolph Hitler was democratically elected. His crimes and those of the tried and convicted of Nuremburg became the collective crimes of the German people. Moreover, the primary works of the collective responsibility discourse are the work of a few philosophers, among them

Virginia Held, H. D. Lewis, David E. Cooper, R. S. Downie, Joel Feinberg and Hannah Arendt

(all before 1970). The earliest significant works on the subject were written by Lewis (1948) and

Arendt (1945) in reference to the Jewish Holocaust. These essays by Lewis and Arendt are the

focus by most philosophers when discussing collective responsibility. This is not to imply that the concept of collective responsibility itself is new, but only that in Western philosophy it is not widely discussed. Moreover, it is hardly discussed ever in the context of slavery and reparations.

In the context of Western thought the emphasis has been primarily on individual responsibility.

The idea of group or collective responsibility was and still is often seen as tribal or primitive.

On the basis of a primitive or tribal account, blame for the ill effects of an event is spread over the whole aggregate of individuals as a collective no matter what one person may have actually performed the action. H. D. Lewis is among the advocates of the view that responsibility is individual and never collective. Lewis states:

If I were ever to put forward an ethical principle which I considered to be

especially certain, it would be that no one can be responsible, in the properly

ethical sense, for the conduct of another. Responsibility belongs essentially to the

individual. The implications of this principle are much more far-reaching than is

evident at first, and reflection upon them may lead many to withdraw the assent

which they might otherwise be very ready to accord to this view of responsibility.

But if the difficulties do appear to be insurmountable, and that, very certainly,

does not seem to me to be the case, then the proper procedure will be not to revert

to the barbarous notion of collective or group responsibility.59

Gregory Mellema also notes that there is a penchant in Western culture to view ethical or moral responsibility in individualist terms. Mellema posits:

59 H. D. Lewis, ―Collective Responsibility‖ in Collective Responsibility: Five Decades of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics, ed. by Larry May and Stacey Hoffman, (Savage, MD: Rowman and Littleman, 1991) 17.

Twentieth-century Western culture is often characterized as thinking in

individualistic terms. People in contemporary Western culture think in terms of

individual rights, individual liberties, and, presumably, individual responsibilities.

According to this characterization of contemporary Western culture, the

individual bears responsibility for what he or she has done. Moral responsibility

is a personal, individual matter, and we should never be expected to bear

responsibility for the wrongdoings of another…Moral responsibility is not

something which can somehow spread spontaneously through a whole group of

people; it is confined to each individual exactly in proportion to what the

individual has done or failed to do.60

Even though the Western philosophical tradition may tend to emphasize individual responsibility, the idea that collectivism is a vast part of the framework of how organizations and nations operate is quite prevalent. No nation or state ever goes to war as a group of individuals.

Devin Davis, Juan Medina, and Jessica Adelson (fictional names) are not in Iraq as individual soldiers but as representatives of a very small part of the collective called the United States, its military arm. As such, they are also representatives of the United States. No nation or state sets its economic or foreign policy on the basis of an individual‘s assessment. Condoleezza Rice‘s presence in the Middle East is as a representative of US foreign policy in that area of the world and not necessarily the personal views of Ms. Rice. Often there is a ―we the people‖ collectivist component in the manner in which nations and organizations conduct their affairs. Additionally, in the conventional context of ordinary discourse, we speak as a collective; ―We must defend

America abroad and at home‖; ―We must make the world safe for democracy‖; ―We the people

60 Gregory F. Mellema, Collective Responsibility, (Atlanta, GA: Rodopi B. V., 1997) 2.

of the United States of America…‖; ―There is no I in team.‖ From home to home base, the idea that collective action and collective responsibility is a part of the contemporary Western philosophical fabric is not so easily dismissed. However, it is often overlooked in the discourse on reparations for slavery.

When discussing reparations, one of the most intractable problems is answering the question of whether individuals or groups are to pay them. There has been in the past little redress for those blacks who as slaves sought to make claims as individuals through the courts as some did. The Dred Scott case comes to mind. Scott, according to the court, had no standing because he was a slave. The operative problem here is one of rights (Scott‘s) and one of responsibility (the court‘s) in protecting Scott‘s human right to be free. Connecting rights and responsibilities in reference to slavery and reparations is difficult. McGary notes:

Discussions of pressing moral issues in the Western world generally are based

upon a morality that primarily is concerned with the relationship between

individuals. This moral outlook focuses on the rights of individuals and the good

society‘s role in protecting these rights. However, some writers believe there is a

moral system that concentrates on the rights of groups and our responsibility to

protect group rights. Critics of that position believe that if we focus on groups as

well as individuals when we attribute moral responsibility, we adopt a form of

tribalism. Their reluctance to focus on groups is due partly to the fact that in the

past people were unjustly discriminated against because they were considered to

be members of a dangerous, inferior, or undesirable group.61

In the United States, blacks and other minorities, whether the focus is group or individual, have usually been viewed as dangerous, inferior, and undesirable. It is this focus that made it easy to brutalize and enslave black people, destroy and cheat Native Americans, and exploit and imprison Japanese Americans. McGary further asserts:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is interpreted by

these critics as endorsing the position that each individual should be judged

exclusively on his own merits. In other words, it vests rights in individuals. With

similar reasoning, these critics also conclude that concentrating on groups rather

than individuals is inappropriate because it will cause innocent members of

groups to suffer and it will reopen the door to the kind of discrimination

experienced by racial minorities and other oppressed groups.62

Viewed from this perspective, it is not difficult to discern that the criticism regarding the inappropriateness of assigning moral blame to groups would give the impression that only individuals are responsible for making bad moral choices in enslaving blacks. If that reasoning is taken, it would absolve every institution in the United States, including the core institution- defining policies of the collective itself, from responsibility for paying reparations for slavery or anything else.

61 Howard McGary, Jr., ―Justice and Reparations‖, The Philosophical Forum, 9 (Winter/Spring 1977-78): 156. 62 McGary 157.

I will argue that there are three definitive strategies that are applicable in the demand for reparations for slavery. Each of these strategies in some way or other applies to the appropriateness of reparations for slavery to the descendents of those former slaves in the collective called the United States today. I will argue that: (1) The United States is a nation-state that has existed continuously over time with decision-making procedures. These decision- making procedures were instrumental in the importation of slaves and the development of the slave system for the express purpose of the capital advantage of the United States. (2) The

United States possessed sufficient solidarity (group interests), common will, and collective consciousness to be held responsible for its actions in the enslavement of African peoples. And,

(3) the descendants of those black slaves are owed reparations for their uncompensated forced labor by the collective called the United States of America.

Collective Responsibility

Larry May and Stacey Hoffman note that whenever the concept of collective responsibility is under discussion, there are three principle strategies applied whether for or against the principle. They indicate the following:

The strategy employed most frequently is to assign collective responsibility to

those groups which have decision-making procedures such as exist in business

corporations or nation states. The rationale for such a strategy is that some groups

so greatly resemble individual persons that they can properly be treated as if they

were individuals. In law, a corporation is treated as a person because a

corporation has all the relevant features of personhood, including a method for

forming intentions and a capacity to act. Since it is legitimate to talk of corporate

intentions and actions, it is also legitimate to talk of corporate responsibility. The

decision-making capacity of certain groups melds the individual intentions into a

corporate intention that is often different from the intentions of any of the

members of group. In addition, while the corporation cannot act except through

its individual members, these acts are not understandable unless they are

conceptualized as part of a larger process. Because act and intention are best

attributed to the group and not to the individual members, responsibility can also

be attributed to the whole group.63

Looking at the concept of collective responsibility from this perspective, major American corporations could be held legally responsible for reparations for slavery. Companies such as

Aetna for insuring the slaves as property, CSX for transporting them, and Wachovia Bank for using slaves as collateral for loans and mortgages could be legally compelled to pay damages.

Additionally, several of these companies are being sued for these very reasons and have issued apologies for their roles during the period of slavery (see appendix / Wachovia Bank apology).

In Chapters One and Two as previously argued, the United States, as a collective, participated in the development and maintenance of both the slave trade and the slavery system. Without the government‘s actions in setting the legal precedents and moral standards it would not have been possible for others to capitalize on the labor of enslaved black people. Thus the government could be held liable for reparations as well.

63 May and Hoffman 2-3.

May and Hoffman posits a second strategy in assigning collective responsibility:

A second strategy is to look to the common interests or needs of group members

as providing a basis for group action. If the members of a group such as a family

or a mob have enough in common, there may be sufficient solidarity to allow the

group to engage in collective actions. Solidarity involves a sense that each

member of a group has an interest in one another‘s interest and is motivated to act

for the other‘s good. Group solidarity, in some situations, will focus the acts and

intentions of various people into a common will. In addition, if a group has

enough understanding of its common interests it may come to form a collective

consciousness that allows the group to feel pride or shame for the group‘s

conduct. Collective responsibility may be properly assigned to such groups once

the group has sufficient cohesion to allow the group to take the kind of collective

actions that are taken by groups with a decision-making structure.64

There are at least three interesting aspects of the second strategy provided by May and

Hoffman. The ideas of (1) group solidarity, (2) common will and (3) collective consciousness imply a sense of group morality; a ―we are all in this together‖ cohesiveness. Group solidarity, common will, and collective consciousness are analogous to the three sides of a triangle.

Without each side, there is no triangle. Each of these sentiments engenders the other and gives members of the group the feeling that they belong together. Anyone else outside of this group is considered ―other‖ and is thereby not a member of the group or collective. This idea of collectivity within groups gives rise to nationalistic fervor and the kind of racism that made it

64 May and Hoffman. 3

easy to enslave Africans and see them as different and worthy of ill treatment. However, being a member of the dominant group came with certain privileges, among them benefits accrued by the free labor of slaves even when one owned no slaves. The historian John Hope Franklin has noted the following:

All whites and no slaves benefited from American slavery. All blacks had no

rights that they could claim as their own. All whites, including the vast majority

who had no slaves, were not only encouraged but authorized to exercise dominion

over all slaves, thereby adding strength to the system of control…Even poor

whites benefited from the legal advantage they enjoyed over all blacks as well as

from the psychological advantage of having a group beneath them.65

In defense of and anticipating an argument against the claim that all whites (especially

immigrants who came to the United States post-bellum and poor whites) have benefited

from slavery and are thereby responsible for the payment of reparations, I offer the

following example/explanation. Theodore Allen analyzes the treatment of the Irish by

the British prior to the Irish immigration to the United States. In some regards, they were

considered the ―blacks‖ of Europe; not because of their race but because of their poverty,

ill treatment, and social and political oppression by the British. Allen asserts the

following in reference to their ―changed‖ status upon immigration to the United States:

This privilege of immigration carried with it a status entirely new to the

newcomers [the Irish immigrants]; the moment they set foot on United States soil,

however lowly their social status might otherwise be they were endowed with all

65 John Hope Franklin in Ronald P. Salzberger and Mary C. Turck , Reparations for Slavery: A Reader (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004) 132.

the immunities, rights, and privileges of ―American whites.‖ By the same token

they were implicitly enrolled in the system of racial oppression of all African-

Americans, which the ruling slaveowning plantation bourgeoisie first imposed

during the country‘s colonial pre-history in order to maintain effective social

control.66

Along with the privileges also comes responsibility for the harms that membership in the group portends. Irish immigrants and those from other countries did not cast their lot with slaves or

Native Americans based on their own oppression, they embraced the economic, political and social power of being white in America and consequently by fiat became a part of the oppressors. These Irish immigrants were no longer the blacks of Europe; they were now the whites of America with all of the accompanying privileges.

May and Hoffman describes the third strategy as follows:

A third strategy involves looking to the benefits which accrue to members of

certain groups as a result of group membership…Along with such benefits of

group membership there may be various costs, including the cost of being

assigned responsibility for the harmful consequences of the actions of one‘s

fellow group members. If one does not act to prevent one‘s fellow group

members from doing harm, one may then share with them responsibility for these

harms, even though one did not perpetuate the harm on one‘s own. Some people

suggest that even if one cannot prevent one‘s fellow group member from doing

harm, it is important that one distance oneself from the harm in some way so as to

66 Theodore W. Allen, The Invention of the White Race: Volume One: Racial Oppression and Social Control (New York: Verso, 1994) 185.

break the connection between oneself and one‘s group and thereby to diminish, or

eliminate, one‘s share in the responsibility for the harm. The benefit received

from being a group member creates responsibility for the actions of one‘s fellow

group members.67

From the perspective of this strategy, one could claim that one result of employing this view could lead one to argue for unjust enrichment and white privilege. The legalization of slavery in the United States allowed the oppression of blacks that insured the accumulation of wealth (unjust enrichment) by whites at the expense of the free labor of blacks. These blacks were a part of the unjust enrichment themselves because they were property. They were bought, sold, and traded in the markets the same as cotton, rice, tobacco or any other commodity. Since slaves were the property of others, of course they did not own anything and had no way to accumulate any wealth except through their labor for which they were never paid. Whatever work the slaves performed, someone else benefited (some white person was unjustly enriched).

Throughout the entire period of the enslavement of black people in the United States, whether whites owned slaves or not, the economic contributions made by the slaves were distributed throughout the economy of the United States. These contributions enriched almost everyone else except the slaves.

On the other hand, one could argue that individuals like John Brown, those involved in the Abolitionist Movement, and those thousands of soldiers in the Union Army during the Civil

War did much to break the connection and distance themselves from the responsibility of the injustices of slavery. John Brown gave his life on the gallows for the raid at Harper‘s Ferry and

67 May and Hoffman 3-4.

for his abolitionist sentiments. Many Union soldiers who fought in the Civil War died fighting to end slavery and thereby distance themselves from upholding an immoral institution.

However, many of those who died were simply fighting, as Lincoln said, ―to preserve the

Union.‖ Moreover, many of them were also constricted into the Union Army and forced to fight.

There were riots in Northern cities among those drafted into the Union Army. It is not as if these people had a moral awakening and suddenly viewed freeing the slaves in the South as a noble cause that they should fight and die for. How meaningful was it for those soldiers to fight for something or some cause that they did not believe in? Does that action still count as moral absolution for the injustice of slavery if one is fighting against one‘s will to preserve a union or a cause that one did not necessarily believe in? Raymond Winbush makes the following observation:

Many whites participated in the abolition movement and the underground

railroad, taking risks to help free slaves, and many fought and died in the Civil

War, which was undertaken in part to end the morally unjustifiable practice of

slavery…those whose ancestors participated in these noble initiatives, as well as

those whose ancestors were not slave owners, may ask why they should now have

to participate in reparations payments. They should not have to pay as

individuals, of course, but it is still their country that authorized and sustained,

through laws, courts, and police enforcement, an oppressive system…Because all

whites Americans benefit by being white, we all must participate in providing the

economic compensation necessary to restore to the African American the property

that was taken from them through the institution of slavery and its aftermath68

Even though John Brown and others opposed slavery and did much to distance themselves from the practice, the fact that these people were still white in America gave them the wherewithal to voice their objections to slavery, arm themselves with weapons to physically fight, write and distribute newspapers and write books and pamphlets protesting the immorality of slavery because they had the privilege of being white. They were free and that freedom was a result of being members of the dominant group. Without expanding the argument, the fate of any slave doing any of these things would have been any number of things short of and including death. In retrospect, these people were still a part of the group and benefited from membership in the group no matter how much they may have made the effort to distance themselves.

Consequently, they are still responsible for the harms perpetrated by the group. John Brown nor others involved in the Abolitionist Movement left the group, they simply tried to change it.

Moreover, there were also thousands of blacks in the Union Army who, when the war started to turn in favor of the Confederacy, were finally allowed to join in the fight to free their brethren in the South from the degradation of slavery. They served in segregated units with white officers who often had to be forced to serve a black command. Even these people in the Union Army thought that blacks were unworthy and did not want to fight with them.

When making an argument for any account of collective responsibility relative to slavery, it is not difficult to discern who might be at fault. After all, blacks did not enslave themselves.

68 Jon M. Van Dyke, ―Reparations for the Descendants of American Slaves Under International Law‖ in Should America Pay?: Slavery and the Raging Debate on Reparations, ed. by Raymond A. Winbush, (New York, NY: Amistad, 2003) 75.

The basic problem is whether the individual members who make up a group can be held collectively responsible for the action or inaction of the group past or present. There are many aspects to this problem as applied to slavery. One is whether groups or individuals can be held morally and or legally responsible for the forced labor and resulting lost wages from slavery.

Secondly, whether there is a group or organization that can be held accountable for the unjust enrichment of those who used the forced labor of slaves to their advantage. The third is whether any benefits or privileges were accrued from slavery that hindered the goals and flourishing of the slaves. A fourth is whether this hindrance left slaves and their descendents disadvantaged.

However, the fundamental problem is whether the United States can be held collectively responsible for the injustices of slavery more than 150 years ago and be required to pay reparations today.

May explains the failure to recognize collective responsibility in the following way:

When individuals are in large groups or institutions, (they) often find themselves

failing to prevent harms they would have prevented on their own. And, yet the

harms that could be prevented, individually or collectively, within groups are

often more serious than harm caused by isolated individuals. Once again we

confront the problem that individuals often do not take responsibility for what

their groups have done or could have done, because they do not recognize that

they share responsibility for what their groups do.69

69 Larry May, Sharing Responsibility, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992) 7.

May also asserts that ―collective responsibility refers to a form of nondistributional responsibility in which some features of the group facilitates [sic] collective action thereby rendering the group‘s actions more than merely the sum of the actions of the members of the group.‖70

The operative words here are institution and responsibility. For more than 250 years slavery and the slave system was a colonial and an American institution. When the colonies began to shape themselves into a nation-state, its new constitution explicitly supported slavery in all 25 articles. The framers of the constitution were aware of the magnitude of their actions and what it meant to the people they represented. They spoke as a collective, not as individuals.

Shared Responsibility

In the case of slavery, there was a collective of groups and individuals which participated in the slave trade and the slave system and which benefited from it and failed morally to condemn it. Since the collective called the United States is comprised of individuals (who are constitutive of groups), it must also share responsibility even if individuals did not materially participate in the slave trade. As members of a privileged group, these individuals did benefit from slavery and the slave system as it developed into the most important economic component of the core-institution defining policies of the United States. An opposing argument can be made here that those who fought to end slavery (the abolitionists) certainly did not benefit from slavery. However, these people did indirectly benefit from slavery by being a part of the overall economic component of a capitalist system based on the free labor of the black slaves. The

70 May 38.

abolitionist may not be responsible individually as slave holders but they share in the responsibility as a part of the collective United States.

May also argues that ―responsibility in groups should be shared, especially when the core institution-defining policies leave the door open for significant neglect of the (human) goals of an institution.‖71 In the case of the United States, these core institution-defining policies are the foundation of what this country allegedly stands for set out in its Declaration of Independence and constitution. In discussions of slavery, the core institution-defining policies of the United

States not only left the door open for significant neglect of the human goals of the nation-state, but also failed to provide an adequate policy to prevent the establishment of slavery as an institution within its borders.

The Collective United States

Even before the original 13 colonies became a nation-state, certain policies were instituted that were instrumental in the development of chattel slavery as an acceptable norm.

For example, the concept of partus sequitur ventrum (Chapter One) was an accepted practice long before it became a practice of law. Under this practice, if the mother was a slave, so was the child no matter who the father may have been. Even when the father was the master of the plantation, his own children became his legally bonded slaves. When the colonies became the

United States, such core institution-defining policies such as the right-to-search law, the Fugitive

Slave Act of 1793, the stricter Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the slave codes (vestiges of which lingered after slavery in Jim Crow laws) (Chapter Two) and other policies were responsible for

71 May 85.

fueling the economic, social and political entrenchment of slavery and the continuing racial discrimination from which this country may never escape.

Another issue raised by claiming that the collective called the United States is liable to blacks for reparations is the role of blacks as a part of the collective. Blacks during the slave era were not a part of the collective called the United States for several reasons; (1) they had no choice in the circumstances of their condition; (2) they were considered property and as such were counted as 3/5ths of a person (the purpose of the 3/5ths rule was to determine the apportionment of taxes and the number of representatives for each state; this in no way bestowed any rights of citizenship to those enslaved); (3) because they were considered property and not persons, they had no standing as free moral agents; and (4) slavery required the participation and cooperation of many people but not the victims. Blacks, therefore, were not a part of the collective that enslaved them. Even though there have always been some free blacks in the

United States, their economic, political and social position made them subject to all kinds of legal restraints that kept them out of the American mainstream. Concomitantly, their race kept them outside of the collective.

The concept of collective responsibility is constructed in a way that it is able to involve a collective body which is not necessarily identified with the group of persons who directly or indirectly participated in the slave trade and system. Otherwise, it would become necessary to go back and document each owner/instance of slavery and each descendant over a period of 250 years to determine who profited from slavery and to what degree and blame only those individuals and their descendants. Even if it is arguably impossible to hold that group liable for reparations as individuals (for they are long since dead) or that the paying of reparations to

blacks would be too difficult to determine, this does not mean that is not morally required. Even though individuals may not be expected to bear the expense of paying reparations, the collective called the United States should. The collective adopted the policies and laws that enabled slavery to exist. Moreover, the collective is still alive and well.

The analysis of collective responsibility is important in the demand for reparations because the claim is based on the collective responsibility of the United States as an institution composed of many individuals and groups who will maintain that they owe blacks nothing because they owned no slaves, gained no direct or tangible benefits from slavery and are not liable in any way for the current conditions of blacks. But collective responsibility is not reducible to individual responsibility. Certainly individuals make up collectives. However, there are some philosophers who disagree with the idea that individuals can be held responsible or liable for their actions or inactions when their actions are as participants in a group. Larry

May notes:

People in groups often do not act in the same way that they act as discrete

individuals… The transformation of values that often occurs when a person

becomes a member of a group can be causally responsible for a great deal of

harm. The overriding of personal values can sometimes thwart the operation of

conscience so that people come to believe the harm they are doing is morally

right. In the former case, people are left morally at sea and ripe for exploitation

by whatever may be able temporarily to substitute for morality… In the latter

case, members of a group may come to think of something as morally right that

they had previously seen as morally repugnant outside if the group.72

From this perspective, though individuals make up collectives, responsibility should be shared for the harms caused by the collective as opposed to being attributed to each individual member. Each person is acting not as a moral agent in his own right but as member of a group and the personal sense each has of what is right or wrong is superceded by the morality of the group and of those in leadership positions within the group, those who perpetuate the harms, and those who benefit from them. May goes on to assert:

Groups can be collectively responsible for various harms if the decisions, policies,

and practices attributable to the group are themselves relevantly connected to

those harms.73

Where slavery is concerned, the leaders of the collective called the United States cast its lot with what was morally wrong. The Founding Fathers had the opportunity at the

Constitutional Convention to do away with slavery but chose instead to accommodate it. Louis

Gerteis notes:

In the revolutionary generation, a liberal emphasis on individual liberty and

equality did not directly challenge slavery. Rather, when writing the federal

Constitution, the Founding Fathers accommodated slavery with apparent ease.

Consequently, the national government they established rested firmly on southern

slavery as much as it did on the free labor system of the North. This

72 May 82. 73 May 85.

accommodation of slavery reflected the involvement of northern merchants in the

trade of slaves and slave produced tobacco, and revealed as well the capacity of

slaveholders to embrace, indeed, to encourage, a broadening democracy among

yeomen and artisans. As long as the slaveholders advanced the principles of

democracy, the federal accommodation of slavery remained.74

As indicated at the beginning of this discussion, there are two salient points regarding the United

States as a collective with decision-making power. First, slavery is morally wrong. Second, even if the leaders failed to see the wrong in what they accommodated in slavery and the Atlantic slave trade, they are still responsible for establishing an immoral system.

Under slavery, there were no legal rights that slaves could claim, neither were there any that could be acknowledged by the society as such. They could claim no moral rights because they had no standing as moral agents. They were viewed as semi-animal labor producing property. The role of society in protecting blacks in the United States amounted to no more than what would be allowed in the protection of any other piece of property. As long as blacks were considered chattel, protecting their rights and placing them on the status of moral agents would have challenged the economic, legal and moral foundation of slavery.

Blacks challenged this view from the barracoons of Africa to the shores of America with numerous revolts and individual acts of defiance. Moreover, Black people in the United States were not enslaved on the basis of individuality. They were enslaved and treated unjustly precisely because they were members of a particular racial group. There were really no safe places or innocent members of the enslaved group because they were often viewed

74 Louis S. Gerteis, Morality and Utility in American Antislavery Reform, (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1987) 3-5.

monolithically as is the case with most oppressed groups. Most importantly, as I have argued, slaves that had no legal recourse to secure compensation for their labor and, this is a necessary condition for reparations to be warranted.

The significance of this condition can be seen in the one case (the Rosewood case) in which blacks received payment from a state for injustices against them. Although some maintain that these payments were reparations, as I have defined the term, they are not. The problems in

Rosewood, Florida began on New Years Day in 1923 when a white woman accused a black man of assaulting her. Before the day was over, whites in the area had lynched a black man they accused of helping the black attacker escape. Those responsible for upholding the law did nothing to stop them. They were also a part of the white attackers. The situation in Rosewood got out of hand and over the next seven days the town was attacked and destroyed by whites. All of the legal authorities in the state of Florida stood by and abrogated their responsibilities to the citizens of Rosewood as they were being murdered, as their property burned to the ground and as they were forced into the surrounding swamps in order to survive. In 1992, two of the survivors of the Rosewood assault filed a claim against the state of Florida. In 1994, after more than seventy years, the state legislature awarded the survivors and their descendants over two million dollars. This is the only time in the history of the United States where African Americans have ever been compensated for any harms perpetrated against them as a group.

The Rosewood case presents an interesting argument as to whether the payments received by the surviving residents and descendents of those citizens of Rosewood were paid reparations or compensation. Critics of the settlement felt that any payment to the survivors and their descendents would open the door for claims from other groups (namely the Seminole Indians)

that they too should be paid for past injustices. There were precedent-setting rules involved in the Rosewood case that made it different from demands that could conceivably be claimed by other groups and different from claiming payment for the forced labor of slavery and its myriad accompanying injustices. The difference in the Rosewood case and in the demand for reparations for slavery is that the Rosewood case was based on a legal claim against the State of

Florida, that among other things, the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the people of Rosewood were violated by the actions and inactions of the state. The State of Florida, not wanting to face a legal challenge in the courts, accepted responsibility for the events that occurred in Rosewood.

The Rosewood case did not address the status of black claims for reparations for slavery in the United States. It pertained only to those blacks who were residents of Rosewood in 1923 and, to a lesser extent than intended, to their descendents. Some philosophers have claimed that the payments to the black people of Rosewood constitute the payment of reparations. However, as I have argued in the previous chapter, one of the conditions for reparations is that there must be no legal recourse available to the injured party. In the Rosewood case this condition is not applicable. Rosewood represents the settling of a legal claim of compensation by blacks against the State of Florida that has nothing to do with the demand for reparations for slavery. There were many of the same kinds of attacks against black people in the United States at that time, before Rosewood and after. Rosewood was only one of many. Florida failed to protect the constitutional rights of its black citizens in Rosewood and a legal challenge was filed to that effect that had nothing to do with slavery.

Some philosophers also claim that Japanese Americans were paid reparations for their internment in American concentration camps during WWII. The payment of $20,000 to each of the surviving Japanese Americans also represent the payment of compensation for the same violations of their civil rights under the same constitutional statues as those of the African

Americans in Rosewood. As soon as the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans

(citizens) were targeted as an internal threat to the United States, a nation at war against a sovereign Japanese state. These citizens were rounded up, their property confiscated, and they were placed in concentration camps simply because of who they were. They had done nothing.

At the same time, there were many newly arrived German and Italian immigrants to the United

States who were not treated accordingly. In this situation, as with Rosewood, race seemed to be an important component in determination of the treatment of the principles involved. Note that even though individuals were paid directly for their internment, the apology was not made to individual Japanese Americans, but to the entire group of survivors of the internment.

This analysis of the payment received by Japanese Americans points to an important difference between the claims of Japanese Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and white women on the one hand, and those of blacks on the other. The difference is that blacks are the only group among those mentioned that came to this country through forced immigration. They are also the only group that was ever enslaved. While the United States as a collective provided a small measure of compensation to the Japanese Americans for their internment, their status is different from blacks in that they came to this country voluntarily. Moreover, because they had legal recourse, the payments that were made to them are not appropriately called reparations.

The analysis of Native American claims requires more scrutiny. First, Native Americans were a sovereign people (that is, they were independent and autonomous) long before Europeans set foot on the continent. Second, as autonomous people (a collective), Native Americans were able to make treaties with the United States (a collective). Their claims against the United States are based on legally binding documents (treaties) that have been systematically abrogated since the day they were signed. Towards the aim of compensating Native Americans for their claims of unjust treatment and the abrogation of more than a thousand treaties, the United States passed the Native American Act of 1943. Native Americans were awarded millions of acres of land and millions of dollars because the US failed to honor the treaties it had signed. However, Native

Americans are owed far more in compensation than they have received so far. They continue to advocate for the rights to tribal lands all over the United States. Since the issues of Native

American compensatory claims against the United States are different from the issues involving reparations for slavery, no further discussion of these claims is warranted.

It is understandable why there has been little support between Native Americans and blacks in an effort to press claims for black reparations for slavery. If part of the demand for reparations for slavery is based on its profitability, then Native Americans might be expected to pay too. Many saw nothing wrong with holding black slaves. For example, the Eastern

Cherokee Nation was among the tribes with large numbers of black slaves and they were active in the slave trade. J. Halliburton writes:

The Cherokee had adopted slavery and many of their other institutions from the

South. Many were bound to the South by ties of blood, marriage and economics.

These influences tended to strengthen and solidify their sympathy for the south

and cause of black slavery.75

When the Cherokee were forced west across the Mississippi from their lands in the east on their tragic Trail of Tears, they took with them hundreds of black slaves. Consequently, the roles of other groups in support of the demand for reparations for slavery are negligible. Each one of these minority groups has defined its demands on the basis of personal interest or advantage, cohesiveness and solidarity. However, a coalition of oppressed groups in the United

States would be a formidable force for repairing injustice (see Conclusion).

Opponents of reparations offer the same specious argument, that they are not personally responsible for paying reparations to blacks for what occurred in the past and that they do not personally discriminate against blacks in the present. They are failing to take responsibility for their roles as members of a group (whose membership in the group is irreducible), the collective called the United States, which as an institution is responsible economically, socially, politically and morally for slavery. They fail to take responsibility because they do not believe that they are responsible. However, as the argument has been posited, the collective called the United States is responsible for slavery and for reparations payments that are long overdue.

Critical Opposition

Since there have been no coalesced demands among groups for the payment of reparations by the entity recognized as the United States of America per se, it is easy for the

75 J. Halliburton, Jr. Red Over Black: Black Slavery Among the Cherokee Indians (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1977) 90.

dominant culture to dismiss these claims as being without merit. Some critics of reparations contend that this is not the time to discuss such divisive issues. They question the support for reparations, even among blacks, by claiming that they have not been very persistent or very vocal in demanding or arguing for recompense for slavery or any other past injustices perpetrated against them. Part of the answer to that question could be that the dominant culture, until recently, has not paid much attention to this issue because they did not need to do so. The David

Horowitz ads in campus newspapers a few years ago (see appendix) and the legal suits filed against minority admission programs at the University of Georgia and the University of

Michigan (whose case was heard before the U.S. 6th District Court of Appeals in the fall of 2001 and by the US Supreme Court in 2003) gave impetus to the issue. However, Representative John

Conyers of Michigan has introduced HR 40 (see appendix) in the US Congress since 1989.

Conyers‘ bill seeks only the establishment of a commission to study the reparations for slavery question. Moreover, Conyers‘ bill has yet to make it out of committee. The Horowitz ads produced a level of awareness of the black claim for reparations in the dominant culture that had previously not been present. Horowitz who is white and a former leftist, and claimed Huey

Newton of the Black Panthers among his friends, must have had a serious change of heart and political beliefs. In his essay ―Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery Is a Bad Idea – and

Racist Too,‖ Horowitz argues that whites should be credited with ending the worldwide practice of slavery, that blacks are better off in the United States than they would have been in Africa, and that affirmative action and welfare are already forms of reparations for blacks. His essay stirred up a firestorm of protests across America on an issue that had labored for mainstream recognition. Even though the movement for reparations began in 1865 by former slaves and not in 2001, Horowitz‘s ads in college newspapers and that essay seriously pushed the issue of

reparations into the forefront of American political dialogue again. Even then, in the dominant culture, the primary focus was free speech (First Amendment freedom of the press argument); for blacks, the issue was the attack on affirmative action and demands for reparations.

Another possible answer to the question of why so few people in the mainstream were not aware of the reparations issue before is because historically, minority groups in the United States have always pressed their claims individually as particular interest groups as opposed to pressing their claims as a single entity – oppressed peoples. Instead of uniting as one oppressed people speaking with one voice, each minority group has pressed its claims based on particular group solidarity. For example, the Native Americans claims for compensation against the United

States are centered on the many treaties that the government signed with the different tribes that were never honored. Japanese Americans pressed their claims for compensation for their internment in concentration camps in America during WWII. Perhaps a united front from all oppressed peoples in the United States may have proven to be formidable opposition in the face of continued racism and discrimination.

There are dissenting voices that dismiss any claim for reparations for blacks or any other group on any grounds. These critics make the same argument against reparations as Horowitz; that reparations have already been paid to blacks in the form of welfare, race-based scholarships, and affirmative action programs. Myron Magnet contends:

Two centuries of slavery and another of discrimination and segregation did indeed

produce victims on a world-historical scale. Today‘s black poverty is the most

visible reminder of a history filled with equal measures of pain and shame on the

subject of race…The idea of reparations produces more harm than good, welfare

corrupts…Reparations were duly paid. For they were paid most notably in the

form of welfare.76

Magnet goes on in his denunciation of reparation demands by characterizing people on welfare as those without moral values. He suggests that welfare payments and other entitlement programs are equivalent to a $20,000 per year job. Magnet‘s assessment is problematic in that welfare and other entitlement programs are not limited to black participation. In fact, the majority of recipients are white. Moreover, there is no mention of other entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, tobacco price supports, peanut quotas and other farm subsidy programs, ethanol price supports and corporate tax write-offs. These types of programs including the 750 billion dollar bank bailout and the current economic stimulus package are usually not recognized as welfare programs and such programs are not entirely geared towards blacks or other minorities. Nevertheless, they are welfare/entitlement programs.

As far as welfare programs such as WIC, AFDC, food stamps and some other programs for the disadvantaged are concerned, large numbers of whites and others, some who are not disadvantaged at all, have been beneficiaries of entitlement programs and in far greater numbers than blacks.

Another critical opposition charge against reparations is that paying reparations would be giving blacks special treatment for which they are no more deserving than any other group.

Michael Levin notes:

Racial discrimination has no morally special status…Society has no general

obligation to block the consequences of past wrongs.77

76 Myron Magnet, The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties‘ Legacy to the Underclass (New York: William Morrow, 1993) 133-134.

Even though Levin‘s article deals primarily with racial discrimination and affirmative action in reference to blacks, the article praises the attempts made on behalf of redressing the

―consequences of past wrongs‖ committed against other minority groups. Levin indicates that righting the injustices committed against the different Native Americans tribes in finally honoring the more than 1000 treaties the US government made with them and broke, and apologizing and compensating Japanese-Americans for their internment in concentration camps during WWII are the appropriate responses. Only blacks are seen as demanding special treatment.

Even as Levin asserts that there is no general moral obligation on the part of society to right past wrongs, other critics maintain that the issue of reparations would be a digression from more important issues that blacks face such as education, housing and healthcare. For example,

Walter E. Williams, chair of the economics department at George Mason University and one of the blacks who oppose reparations notes:

If the government got the money from the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, that‘d be

great…but the government has to take the money from citizens, and there are no

citizens alive today who were responsible for slavery. The problems that black

people face are not going to be solved by white people, and they are not going to

be solved by money. The resources that are going into the fight for reparations

would be far more valuably spent making sure that black children have a credible

education.78

77 Michael Levin, ―Is Racial Discrimination Special?,‖ Journal of Value Inquiry 1.15 (1989): 264-265. 78 Walter E. Williams, ―Newspaper Article,‖ New York Times 4 June 2001: B1, B5.

Also among the critics of reparations is Glenn C. Loury, economics professor and director of the Institute on Race and Social Division at Boston University who sees the movement for reparations as a bad political move. Loury has indicated that the second class status of blacks in America will not be reversed for a ‗contractual repayment‘ because it‘s not going to get rid of ghettos; it‘s not going to stop racial profiling and; it‘s not going to get black men out of jail. On Loury‘s account, no amount of money can ever repay blacks for the evils they endured as slaves. Many blacks still view racism and discrimination as the biggest obstacle to equality and justice for everyone in American society. Continued racism and discrimination is viewed as a direct result of the vestiges of slavery but those who dissent expect black people to solve that problem too. It‘s their fault.

Horowitz, Williams, Loury, et al. do not share the concern that society does indeed have a moral obligation, to correct, if possible and whenever it is possible, the past consequences of its immoral behavior and ill treatment of others. If there is no such moral obligation, then

America will always be forced to, in effect, ―look over its shoulder‖ out of fear of the next race riot, the next city burning or the next Cincinnati (race riots surrounding the shooting death of a young black man who was shot in the back by the police). Accepting moral responsibility for the wrongs perpetrated against blacks and other groups and responding in a reasoned moral way is not the response of critics of reparations. The opponents of reparations are not concerned with the state of black America and the issues of racism and discrimination as the basis of the many ills that thwart the opportunities of members of the black community. The critics contend that the problem with black America is of its own making so reparations for slavery to the descendants of those who were enslaved is a bad idea whose time will never come.

However critical Horowitz, Magnet, Levin and others may be, there are several other reasons why there may be objections to the payment of reparations for slavery, that of entitlement and the statue of limitations on historical wrongs. As Magnet and Levin and others have argued, many Americans believe that black people, as the descendants of slaves in the

United States, are no more entitled to anything than any other group and their status in this country has nothing to do with their previous condition of servitude. As Horowitz noted in one of his statements, blacks have already received reparations. And, there are many people who would agree with Horowitz‘s assessment in reference to African Americans, Jews, Native Americans, and Japanese. They have all already been adequately compensated for whatever perceived wrongs have been committed against them. Each group has been paid what they are entitled to.

Entitlement Theory

The basic premise in the argument for the payment of reparations is that of repairing the injustice of slavery by compensating the descendents of those enslaved. Towards this end, another theory of justice that applies to this compensatory claim which has not been previously discussed may be a more appropriate argument against those who oppose the payment of reparations for slavery. Many philosophers and other interested persons have anticipated and responded to the arguments leveled against reparations claims. Some of the opposition is more serious than others and some of the arguments are rather specious. However, they do require a measured and thoughtful response.

Most Americans believe that if they work hard they can accomplish what many perceive as the ―American dream.‖ The thought that someone might be awarded or given something

based on anything other than merit troubles many people. However, America has never been a meritocracy. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy defines a meritocracy as:

Any society that creates an elite by suitable rewards based on accomplishments

that distinguish some from others…it has been described as a society

characterized by ‗careers open to talent‘ (John Rawls). The aristocracy of merit is

thought to be natural, since it is grounded on the exercise of esteem-worthy

personal traits… [it] requires equality of opportunity and some form of central

planning; it must prohibit egalitarian leveling as well as any form of nepotism or

hereditary aristocracy.79

Some Americans in the dominant culture can claim that they came by whatever they have because they worked for it. However, they also had opportunities that slaves did not have, including the privilege to past down to their descendants inheritances. Slaves worked but received no compensation and owned nothing to pass along to their descendants. Unfortunately, the idea of a ―Puritan work ethic‖ that is based on merit is not a viable argument in reference to the payment of reparations for slavery. The antithetical argument against merit based on the above definition is white privilege or unjust enrichment which leads to the question of whether any individual or group can claim entitlement to anything that they themselves did not justly earn. The same set of circumstances involving a hereditary aristocracy and nepotism also voids any argument made on behalf of former slaves by their descendants. This set of circumstances leaves out completely any claim that there would be anything that the descendents of slaves could inherit because they owned no property to pass down; they were the property. They

79 Ted Honderich, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) 554.

(slaves) were not enriched by their work and they had little or no privileges that allowed them as a group to benefit from the fruits of their labor. In a few circumstances slaves were allowed to work for themselves but there were generally stipulations placed on the money, goods, or services that they were allowed to earn and keep. No slave would be interested in leaving for his progeny his condition of servitude. Obviously there were no wealthy slaves no matter how hard they worked (mixed their labor). Consequently, if the argument for paying reparations was based on who deserved what, the concept of merit would be applicable. Pay for the labor. But, from the voices of opposition, the argument is based not on merit but is based instead on entitlement or the idea that the descendants of former slaves have already accrued what they are entitled to.

It is universally affirmed that individuals have rights even though these rights are abridged by governments and other individuals on a consistent basis. That argument has already been posited in other parts of this document relative to the enslavement of Africans in America.

As indicated earlier in this paper, the critical opposition to the payment of reparations to the descendants of slaves argues that reparations have already been paid in the form of other government entitlement programs. But, these programs are not and have never been the province of black people only. Any individuals of any racial, ethnic or sociologically disadvantaged group have always had access to these government funded programs in the United States and often to a greater degree. The idea that these programs represent the payment of reparations indicates that all of the recipients of or beneficiaries of these programs are owed reparations and have thusly been compensated. If the claim is that everyone is entitled to everything (and that is not the claim) then there would have been no slavery and each person would have been assured an open future. For the imported African slave, that right of entitlement was under-minded by his

condition of servitude. In the first sentence of Robert Nozick‘s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, he writes:

Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them

(without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that

they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do.80

The idea that slavery was a serious violation of the rights of those enslaved is an acknowledged fact. However, that the descendants of those enslaved are entitled to reparations for this violation is not. From some sources, an apology seemed sufficient. But, an apology only serves to acknowledge that a wrong was committed but does nothing to rectify the wrong. The opponents of reparations as indicated earlier think that there is nothing beyond an apology that is owed because the slaves and their descendants have already received all that they are entitled to. The role of the state and its officials has already been acknowledged. However, an acknowledgement of official wrongdoing also does not repair the damage and rectification is still required. In order to rectify an instance of wrongdoing (slavery is more than an instance), compensation is required. In the case of the enslavement of Africans in America, that compensation should be in the form of reparations. Nozick‘s entitlement theory can be useful in supporting the argument that the descendants of slaves are entitled to reparations. He writes:

The subject of justice in holdings consists of three major topics. The first is the

original acquisition of holdings, the appropriation of unheld things. This includes

the issue of how unheld things may come to be held, the process, or processes, by

which unheld things may come to be held, the things that may come to be held by

these processes, the extent of what comes to be held by a particular process…as

80 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), ix.

the principle of justice in acquisition. The second topic concerns the transfer of

holdings from one person to another... Under this topic come general descriptions

of voluntary exchange, and gift and (on the other hand) fraud, as well as reference

to particular conventional details fixed in a given society…we shall call the

principle of justice in transfer.81

Nozick goes on to offer three propositions to cover all instances of the subject of justice in holdings. He writes:

1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in

acquisition is entitled to that holding.

2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in

transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.

3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2.82

Some of those opposed to the payment of reparations argue that the descendants of slaves are owed nothing because they are not entitled to any kind of compensation because they were never slaves. Thus, there must be some other way for these people to account for their holdings and acquisitions through means other than inheritance. According to Nozick there are other means.

He states:

That from a just situation a situation could have arisen via justice preserving-

means does not suffice to show its justice. The fact that a thief‘s victims

voluntarily could have presented him with gifts does not entitle the thief to his ill-

81 Nozick 150. 82 Nozick 151.

gotten gains. Justice in holdings is historical; it depends upon what actually has

happened.83

History has already provided an account of the ongoing enslavement of Africans in America .

Those who became slaves in America did not come here of their own accord. They were not willing immigrants; they came here against their will, they were made slaves and forced to do labor (also against their will) which is an abrogation of their natural/human/moral rights. Any holdings accrued by the labor of slaves should belong to the slaves. On Nozick‘s principles of justice in acquisition and transfer the slaves or their descendants are entitled to the ―fruits of their labor.‖ However, not all acquisitions or transfers are just. In this regard, Nozick notes:

Not all actual situations are generated in accordance with the two principles of

justice in acquisition and the principle of justice in transfer. Some people steal

from others, or defraud them, or enslave them, seizing their product and

preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly exclude others from

competing in exchanges.84

Those who stand in opposition to the payment of reparations have a different perspective from what entitlement theory actually claims. Their opposition is not looking at the history of slavery from a moral or historical perspective but instead their appeal is to emotions rather than ideas or what is just. In evaluating Nozick‘s entitlement claim, all of the breaches of the principles of justice in acquisition and justice in transfer occurred with the enslavement of black people in America. Those who stand in opposition fail to acknowledge, the variable

83 Nozick 151-152. 84 Nozick 153.

consequences of slavery and the need to rectify past injustices especially since these past injustices bear some noteworthy blame for the current conditions for the state and fate of these same descendants of slaves in the US. Had the slaves been awarded reparations soon after the

Civil War ended in 1865 there would be no need to argue the point now. However, historians have noted that the then free blacks found themselves worse off in some circumstances than they were as slaves. They were free with nowhere to go and no resources even though they had worked for more than 200 years. What they were entitled to and what their descendants are entitled to is the reparations due from the fruits of their labor.

100

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

In the past few years, a number of significant political, social and economic changes have occurred that will have a profound effect on the future of race and gender relations in the United

States. These developments have already begun to affect the ways that we view each other as individuals and the ways that we view ourselves as a nation. For example, the election of the first African-American as President of the United States may change the way that many people in the world and in this country view race relations and race. However, Barack Obama‘s election changes nothing about the history of the United States and the previous servitude of his black ancestors. From the perspective of some, now that the United States has a black president, there is no need for the contentious argument regarding reparations. His election proves that there is no need for any kind of compensatory payments for slavery; we must put this history behind us and move forward.

The initial focus of this work was to show how the history of the United States as it relates to the importation of Africans as slaves and the development of the slave system served as a tool that unjustly enriched the entire economic interest of the United States at the expense of those enslaved. There were always other options that America could have taken to rid itself of the scourge of slavery. Accordingly, there have been at least three junctures in America history that could have changed the face of this country for the better if America had chosen the higher moral ground. However, the United States as a political and economic entity chose instead to aid and abet in the ill treatment of and forced and coerced labor of Africans and their descendants for profit.

101

Those descendants of slaves have progressed tremendously since the end of slavery but while they have taken one step, those who were advantaged by their slavery have taken giant strides. The playing field is still vastly uneven. Towards this end I argue that reparations should be paid to the descendants of African slaves because it is a debt that is justifiably owed. An analysis of justice, its meaning and application indicates that American chattel slavery requires some kind of rectification and in this case I have argued that compensation in the form of reparations should be paid to the descendants of those slaves.

There have been in the past and continues to be presently those opposed to the payment of reparations to black people in the United States including some blacks. However, there are differences between the initial call for reparations by the newly freed slaves after the Civil War and the present demand. One of the most important differences may be that this time blacks are almost one hundred fifty years removed from slavery and have a much better understanding of their position in and contribution to American society. They are better armed economically, educationally, and politically. Therefore, a demand for reparations for slavery in the past may have seemed like an outrageous claim, even to some African-Americans. However, the claim for reparations at this time has a different appeal.

In this work it has been argued that the claim by blacks for reparations is due because of the injustices of slavery on the basis that such claim can be made on economic grounds as well as on moral grounds. Slavery was morally wrong even though it was legal; and it denied blacks the opportunities that other Americans enjoyed; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i.e., the right to flourish. Paying reparations for the past injustices of slavery would not require a

102

redistribution of wealth in this country as some opponents have claimed. Nevertheless, something is owed.

Blacks should be acknowledged for their contributions to what the United States is today.

It was built on the backs of the forced and unfree labor of African slaves. They at least deserve an official apology as a part of the repayment of what can be considered at least a moral debt.

Even though the slaves have long since passed away and will not hear that apology, their descendents will. Towards this end, several Southern states and at least one bank have offered official apologizes – Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas.

Wachovia Bank of North Carolina issued an apology for using slaves as collateral for mortgages and other bank loans to slave holders. However, an apology may be useful only in the sense that it is an admission of wrongdoing. An apology does nothing to correct the original injustice.

Where might these descendants of slaves be had they been allowed the same privileges as those who enslaved them?

The history of this country‘s treatment of black people has been unfair, unequal and unjust and the demand for reparations for slavery is intended as a means of rectification.

Towards this end, several lawsuits seeking reparations on behalf of blacks in the United States have been filed, but none so far has been successful. For example, Cato v US invoked the concept of sovereign immunity in reference to the ability of citizens or other entities to sue the federal government. The court concluded that the plaintiffs should seek redress through the legislature. There is also a petition before the World Court at The Hague, Netherlands, on behalf of blacks seeking reparations from the United States. Few blacks expect the United States government or any of its individual citizens to pay reparations for slavery in the form of cash

103

payments in their lifetimes. However, many blacks would settle for repayment in the form of more educational opportunities where schools are adequately funded and resources are available to all. To admit that slavery was wrong and that the enslavement of blacks was an egregious moral evil is not enough. Reparations are long since due.

104

Bibliography

Adams, Frances and Barry Sanders, Alienable Rights: The Exclusion of African Americans

in a White Man‘s Land. 1619-2000, (Harper Collins Publisher, 2003).

Allen, Theodore W., The Invention of the White Race, Volume One: Racial Opression and

Social Control, (London: Verso, 1995).

America, Richard F. Paying the Social Debt: What White America Owes Black America,

(Westport, CT: Praeger,1993).

Barkan, Elazar, The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustice, (New

York: Norton, 2000).

Bedau, Hugo. ―Civil Disobedience and Personal Responsibility for Injustice.‖ The Monist 54

(October 1970): 517-35.

Bittner, Boris, The Case for Black Reparations, (New York: Random House, 1973).

Boxill, Bernard, ―The Morality of Reparations‖ Social Theory and Practice, 2:1 (Spring

1972) 117.

Blacks and Social Justice (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1984).

Copp, David, ―Responsibility for Collective Inaction,‖ Journal of Social Philosophy, 2(2)

1990.

Corlett, Angelo J, Responsibility and Punishment (revised Second Edition) (Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004).

105

Curtin, Philip D., The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census, (Madison, WI: University of

Wisconsin Press, 1968).

Diggs, Bill, ―Banner on Compensatory Justice‖, Journal of Social Philosophy, 6:2 (April

1975).

DuBois, W.E.B., The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of

America, 1638-1870, (Minneola, NY: Dover Publications, 1970).

Duigan, Peter and Clarence Clendenin, The United States and the African Slave Trade 1619-

1862, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press and Publishers, 1962).

Feinberg, Joel. Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility. (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1970).

―Collective Responsibility,‖ Journal of Philosophy, 65, (1968).

Fishkin, James: The Limits of Obligation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

Forest, Peter, ―Collective Responsibility and Restitution,‖ Philosophical Papers, 27(2),

(1998).

Franklin, John Hope and Alford A Moss, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African

Americans, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994).

Gerteis, Louis S. Morality and Utility in American Antislavery Reform. (Chapel Hill, NC: U

North Carolina P, 1987).

106

Gove, Philip Babcock, (ed.). The Webster Third New International Dictionary (unabridged).

(Springfield, MA: G&C Merriam Company 1963).

Harris, Leonard, Philosophy Born of Struggle, (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,

1983).

Hoffman, Stacey (ed.), Collective Responsibility: Five Decades of Debate in Theoretical and

Applied Ethics. (Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1991).

Honderich, Ted (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1995).

Horowitz, David. Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations For Slavery. (San

Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2002).

Johnson, Charles, Patricia Smith and the WGBH Serious Research Team, Africans in

America: A Journey Through Slavery, (New York, Harcourt Brace & Company,

1998).

Jordan, Winthorp D. The White Man‘s Burden: Historical Origins of Racism in The United

States, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974).

Kershnar, Stephen, ―Are the Descendants of Slaves Owed Compensation for Slavery?,‖

Journal of Applied Philosophy, 16,(1999).

Lafollette, Hugh(ed.), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell

Publishers, 1997).

107

Lebacqz, Karen, Six Theories of Justice: Perspectives from Philosophical and Theological

Ethics, (Minneapolis, MN: Ausburg Publishing House, 1986).

Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1988).

Lomasky, Loren, Persons, Rights and the Moral Community (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1987).

Lyons, David ―Racial Junctures in US History and the Legacy of Slavery,‖ Repairing

Injustice Conference, McFall Gallery, Bowling Green State University, Bowling

Green, Ohio, 18-19 October 2002.

May, Larry, Sharing Responsibility, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982).

The Morality of Groups, (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989).

McGary, Howard, ―Justice and Reparations‖, The Philosophical Forum 9 (Winter/Spring

1977-78): 251 (250-63).

―Morality and Collective Liability‖, The Journal of Value Inquiry (1986).

Race and Social Justice, (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers,1999).

Bill Lawson, Between Slavery and Freedom: Philosophy and American Slavery,

(Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992).

McKeon, Richard (ed), The Complete Works of Aristotle, (New York: Random House,

1941).

108

Mellema, Gregory, Individuals Groups, and Shared Moral Responsibility (New York: Peter

Lang, 1988).

Collective Responsibility (Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1997).

Miller, David, ―Holding Nations Responsible,‖ Ethics, 114 (January 2004).

Miller, Seamus, ―Collective Responsibility,‖ Public Affairs Quarterly, 15(1), (2001).

Mills, Charles, ―Racial Exploitation and the Wages of Whiteness,"

The Moral Legacy of Slavery: Repairing Injustice Conference, McFall Gallery,

Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, 19 October 2002.

Morgan, Kenneth, Slavery and Servitude in Colonial North America: A Short History

(Washington Square, NY: New York University Press 2001).

Morris, Christopher W., ―Existential Limits to the Rectification of Past Wrongs,‖ American

Philosophical Quarterly, 21:2 (April 1984).

Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State and Utopia, (New York: Basic Books, 1974).

Pheiffer, Raymond, ―The Meaning and Justification of Collective Moral Responsibility,‖

Public Affairs Quarterly, 2, (1988).

Phillips, Derek L., Equality, Justice and Rectification: An Exploration in Normative

Sociology, (New York: Academic Press, 1979).

109

Phillips, U.B., American Negro Slavery: A Survey of the Supply, Employment and Control

of Negro Labor as Determined by the Plantation Regime (New York: Appleton,

1918).

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).

Reese, W. L., Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought, (New

York: Humanities Press, 1980).

Rescher, Nicholas, ―Collective Responsibility,‖ Journal of Social Philosophy, 29(3), (1998).

Ridge, Michael ―Giving the Dead Their Due.‖ The Moral Legacy of Slavery:

Repairing Injustice Conference. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green,

Ohio, 18-19 October 2002.

Rivers, Larry E., Slavery in Florida: Territorial Days to Emancipation, (Gainesville, FL:

University of Florida Press 2000).

Roberts, Rodney C, (ed.), Injustice and Rectification, (New York: Peter Lang, 2002).

―Why Have the Injustices Perpetrated against Blacks in America Not Been

Rectified?‖ Journal of Social Philosophy, 32:3 (Fall 2001).

Ross, David, The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, (London: Oxford University Press,

1961).

Schedler, George, ―A Theory of Collective Responsibility and Some Applications,‖

Heythrop Journal: A Quarterly Review of Philosophy and Theology, 23, (1982).

110

Sher, George, ―Ancient Wrongs and Modern Rights,‖ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10,

(1981).

Simmons, A. John, The Lockean Theory Of Rights. (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1992).

Solomon, Robert C and Mark C. Murphy. What is Justice?: Classic and Contemporary

Readings, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).

Thomas, Hugo, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New

York: Simon and Shuster, 1997).

Thompson, Jana, Taking Responsibility for the Past: Reparations and Historical Justice,

(Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2002).

―Historical Obligation,‖ Australian Journal of Philosophy, 78(3), (2000).

Waldron, Jeremy, The Right to Private Property, (New York: Oxford University Press,

1988).

―Superseding Historic Injustice,‖ Ethics, 103 (1992).

Wheeler, Samuel, ―Reparations Reconstructed,‖ American Philosophical Quarterly, 34,

(1997).

Winbush, Raymond A. (ed.), Should America Pay?: Slavery and the Raging Debate on

Reparations, (New York: HarperCollins, 2003).

111

Williams, Eric, Capitalism and Slavery, (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina

Press, 1994).

Woodman, Harold D (ed), Slavery and the Southern Economy: Sources and Readings, (New

York, Harcourt, Bruce and World, 1966).

112

APPENDIX A

Manifesto

The White Christian Churches and the Jewish Synagogues in the United States of America and All Other Racist Institutions

113

Presentation by James Forman Delivered and Adopted by the National Black Economic Development Conference in Detroit, Michigan, On April 26, 1969

114

Introduction

Total Control as the Only Solution to the Economic Problems of Black People

Brothers and Sisters:

We have come from all over the country, burning with anger and despair not only with the miserable economic plight of our people, but fully aware that the racism on which the Western World was built dominates our lives. There can be no separation of the problems of racism from the problems of our economic, political and cultural degradation. To any black man, this is clear.

But there are still some of our people who are clinging to the rhetoric of the Negro and we must separate ourselves from those Negroes who go around the country promoting all types of schemes for

Black Capitalism.

Ironically, some of the most militant Black Nationalists, as they call themselves, have been the first to jump on the bandwagon of black capitalism. They are pimps; Black Power Pimps and fraudulent leaders and the people must be educated to understand that any black man or Negro who is advocating a perpetuation of capitalism inside the United States is in fact seeking not only his ultimate destruction and death, but is contributing to the continuous exploitation of black people all around the world. For it is the

115

power of the United States Government, this racist, imperialist government that is choking the life of all people around the world.

We are an African people. We sit back and watch the Jews in this country make Israel a powerful conservative state in the Middle East, but we are not concerned actively about the plight of our brothers in

Africa. We are the most advanced technological group of black people in the world, and there are many skills that could be offered to Africa. At the same time, it must be publicly stated that many African leaders are in disarray themselves, having been duped into following the lines as laid out by the Western

Imperialist governments.

Africans themselves succumbed to and are victims of the power of the United States. For instance, during the summer of 1967, as the representatives of SNCC, Howard Moore and I traveled extensively in

Tanzania and Zambia, we talked to high, very high, governmental officials. We told them there were many black people in the United States who were willing to come and work in Africa. All these government officials who were part of the leadership in their respective governments, said they wanted us to send, as may skilled people that we could contact. But this program never came into fruition and we do not know the exact reasons, for I assure you that we talked and were committed to making this a successful program. It is our guess that the United States put the squeeze on these countries, for such a program directed by SNCC would have been too dangerous to the international prestige of the U.S. It is also possible that some of the wild statements by some black leader frightened the Africans.

In Africa today, there is a great suspicion of black people in this country. This is a correct suspicion since most of the Negroes who have left the States for work in Africa usually work for the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the State Department. But the respect for us as a people continues to mount and the day will come when we can return to our homeland as brothers and sisters. But we should not think of going back to Africa today, for we are located in a strategic position. We live inside the US.

116

which is the most barbaric country in the world and we have a chance to help bring this government down.

Time is short and we do not have much time and it is time we stop mincing words. Caution is fine, but no oppressed people ever gained their liberation until they were ready to fight, to use whatever means necessary, including the use of force and power of the gun to bring down the colonizer.

We have heard the rhetoric, but we have not heard the rhetoric, which says that black people in this country must understand that we are the Vanguard Force. We shall liberate all the people in the U.S. and we will be instrumental in the liberation of colored people in the world around. We must understand this point very clearly so that we are not trapped into diversionary and reactionary movements. Any class analysis of the U.S. shows very clearly that black people are the most oppressed group of people inside the United States. We have suffered the most from racism and exploitation, cultural degradation and lack of political power. It follows from the laws of revolution that the most oppressed will make the revolution, but we are not talking about just making the revolution. All the parties on the left who consider themselves revolutionary will say that blacks are the Vanguard, but we are saying that not only are we the Vanguard, but we must assume leadership, total control and we must exercise the humanity which is inherent in us. We are the most humane people within the U.S. We have suffered and we understand suffering. Our hearts go out to the Vietnamese for we know what it is to suffer under the domination of racist America. Our hearts, our soul and all the compassion we can mount goes out to our brothers in Africa, Santa Domingo, Latin America and Asia who are being tricked by the power structure of the U.S. which is dominating the world today. These ruthless, barbaric men have systematically tried to kill all people and organizations opposed to its imperialism. We no longer can just get by with the use of the word capitalism to describe the U.S., for it is an imperial power, sending money, missionaries and the army throughout the world to protect this government and the few rich whites who control it. General

Motors and all the major auto industries are operating in South Africa, yet the white dominated leadership

117

of the United Auto Worker sees no relationship to the exploitation of black people in South Africa and the exploitation of black people in the U.S. If they understand it, they certainly do not put it into practice, which is the actual test. We as black people must be concerned with the total conditions of all black people in the world.

But while we talk of revolution, which will be an armed confrontation and long years of sustained guerilla warfare inside this country, we must also talk of the type of world we want to live in. We must commit ourselves to a society where the total means of production are taken from the rich and placed into the hands of the state for the welfare of all the people. This is what we mean when we say total control.

And we mean that black people who have suffered the most from exploitation and racism must move to protect their black interest by assuming leadership inside of the Untied States of everything that exists.

The time has passed when we are second in command and the white boy stands on top. This is especially true of the Welfare Agencies in this country, but it is not enough to say that a black man is on top. He must be committed to building the new society, to taking the wealth away from the rich people such as

General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, the DuPonts, the Rockefellers, the Mellons, and all the other rich white exploiters and racists who run this world.

Where do we begin? We have already started. We started the moment we were brought to this country. In fact, we started on the shores of Africa, for we have always resisted attempts to make us slaves and now we must resist the attempts to make us capitalists. It is the financial interest of the U. S. to make us capitalist, for this will be the same line as that of integration into the mainstream of American life. Therefore, brothers and sisters, there is no need to fall into the trap that we have to get an ideology.

We HAVE an ideology. Our fight is against racism, capitalism and imperialism and we are dedicated to building a socialist society inside the United States where the total means of production and distribution are in the ands of the State and that must be led by black people, by revolutionary blacks who are concerned about the total humanity of this world. And, therefore, we obviously are different from some

118

of those who seek a black nation in the United States, for there is no way for that nation to be viable if in fact the United States remains in the hands of white racists. Then too, let us deal with some statements that we should share power with whites. We say that there must be a revolutionary black Vanguard and that white people in this country must be willing to accept black leadership, for that is the only protection that black people have to protect ourselves from racism rising again in this country.

Racism in the U.S. is so pervasive in the mentality of whites that only an armed, well-disciplined, black-controlled government can insure the stamping out of racism in this country. And that is why we plead with black people not to be talking about a few crumbs, a few thousand dollars for this cooperative, or a thousand dollars which splits black people into fighting over the dollar. That is the intention of the government. We say…think in terms of total control of the U.S. Prepare ourselves to seize state power.

Do not hedge, for time is short and all around the world, the forces of liberation are directing their attacks against the U.S. It is a powerful country, but that power is not greater than that of black people. We work the chief industries in this country and we could cripple the economy while the brothers fought guerrilla warfare in the streets. This will take some long range planning, but whether it happens in a thousand years is of no consequence. It cannot happen unless we start. How then is all of this related to this conference?

First of all, this conference is called by a set of religious people, Christians, who have been involved in the exploitation and rape of black people since the country was founded. The missionary goes hand in hand with the power of the states. We must begin seizing power wherever we are and we must say to the planners of this conference that you are no longer in charge. We the people who have assembled here thank you for getting us here, but we are going to assume power over the conference and determine from this moment on the direction in which we want it to go. We are not saying that the conference was planned badly. The staff of the conference has worked hard and has done a magnificent job in bringing all of us together and we must include them in the new membership which must surface from this point

119

on. The conference is now the property of the people who are assembled here. This we proclaim as fact and not rhetoric and there are demands that we are going to make and we insist that the planners of this conference help us implement them.

We maintain we have the revolutionary right to do this. We have the same rights, if you will, as the

Christians had in going into Africa and raping our Motherland and bringing us away from our continent of peace and into this hostile and alien environment where we have been living in perpetual warfare since

1619.

Our seizure of power at this conference is based on a program and our program is contained in the following MANIFESTO:

Black Manifesto

We the black people assembled in Detroit, Michigan for the National Black Economic Development

Conference are fully aware that we have been forced to come together because racist white America has exploited our resources, our minds, our bodies, our labor. For centuries we have been forced to live as colonized people inside the United States, victimized by the most vicious, racist system in the world. We have helped to build the most industrial country in the world.

We are therefore demanding of the white Christian churches and Jewish synagogues which are part and parcel of the system of capitalism that they begin to pay reparations to black people in this country.

We are demanding $500,000,000 from the Christian white churches and the Jewish synagogues. This total comes to 15 dollars per nigger. This is a low estimate for we maintain there are probably more than

120

30,000,000 black people in this country. $15 a nigger is not a large sum of money and we know that the churches and synagogues have a tremendous wealth and its membership, white America, has profited and still exploits around the world is aided and abetted by the white Christian churches and synagogues. This demand for $500,000,000 is not an idle resolution or empty words. Fifteen dollars for every black brother and sister in the United States is only a beginning of the reparations due us as people who have been exploited and degraded, brutalized, killed and persecuted. Underneath all of this exploitation, the racism of this country had produced a psychological effect upon us that we are beginning to shake off. We are no longer afraid to demand our full rights as a people in this decadent society.

We are demanding $500,000,000 to be spent in the following way:

1. We call for the establishment of a Southern land bank to help our brothers and

sisters who have to leave their land because of racist pressure [and?] for people who want

to establish cooperative farms, but who have no funds. We have seen too many farmers

evicted from their homes because they have dared to defy the white racism of this

country. We need money for land. We must fight for massive sums of money for this

Southern Land Bank. We call for $200,000,000 to implement this program.

2. We call for this establishment of four major publishing and printing industries in the United States to be funded with ten million dollars each. These publishing houses are to be located in Detroit, Atlanta,

Los Angeles, and New York. They will help to generate capital for further cooperative investments in the black community, provide jobs and an alternative to the white-dominated and controlled printing field.

3. We call for the establishment of four of the most advanced scientific and futuristic audio-visual networks to be located in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland and Washington, D.C. These TV networks will provide an alternative to the racist propaganda that fills the current television networks. Each of these TV networks will be funded by ten million dollars each.

121

4. We call for a research skills center which will provide research on the problems of black people.

This center must be funded with no less than 30 million dollars.

5. We call for the establishment of a training center for the teaching of skills in community organization, photography, movie making, television making and repair, radio building and all other skills needed in communication. This training center shall be funded with no less than ten million dollars.

6. We recognize the role of the National Welfare Rights Organization and we intend to work with them. We call for ten million dollars to assist in the organization of welfare recipients. We want to organize the welfare workers in this country so that they may demand more money from the government and better administration of the welfare system of this country.

7. We call for $20,000,000 to establish a National Black Labor Strike and Defense Fund. This is necessary for the protection of black workers and their families who are fighting racist working conditions in this country.

*8. We call for the establishment of the International Black Appeal (IBA). This

International Black Appeal will be funded with no less than $20,000,000. The IBA is

charged with producing more capital for the establishment of cooperative businesses in

the United States and in Africa, our Motherland. The International Black Appeal is one

of the most important demands that we are making for we know that it can generate and

raise funds throughout the Unite States and help our African brothers. The IBA is

charged with three functions and shall be headed by James Forman:

(a) Raising money for the program of the National Black Economic Development

Conference.

(b) The development of cooperatives in African countries and support of African

Liberation movements.

122

African image.

9. We call for the establishment of a Black University to be funded with $130,000,000 to be located in the South. Negotiations are presently underway with a Southern University.

10. We demand that IFCO allocate all unused funds in the planning budget to implement the demands of this conference.

In order to win our demands we are aware that we will have to have massive support, therefore:

(1) We call upon all black people throughout the United States to consider themselves as members of the National Black Economic Development Conference and to act in unity to help force the racist white

Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues to implement these demands.

(2) We call upon all the concerned black people across the country to contact black workers, black women, black students and the black unemployed, community groups, welfare organizations, teacher organizations, church leaders and organizations explaining how these demands are vital to the black community of the U.S. Pressure by whatever means necessary should be applied to the white power structure of the racist white Christian churches and Jewish synagogues. All black people should act boldly in confronting our white oppressors and demanding this modest reparation of 15 dollars per black man.

(3) Delegates and members of the National Black Economic Development Conference are urged to call press conferences in the cities and to attempt to get as many black organizations as possible to support the demands of the conference. The quick use of the press in the local areas will heighten the tension and these demands must be attempted to be won in a short period of time, although we are prepared for protracted and long range struggle.

123

(4) We call for the total disruption of selected church sponsored agencies operating anywhere

in the U.S. and the world. Black workers, black women, black students and the black

unemployed are encouraged to seize the offices, telephones, and printing apparatus of all church

sponsored agencies and to hold these in trusteeship until our demands are met.

(5) We call upon all delegates and members of the National Black Economic Development

Conferences to stage sit-in demonstrations at selected black and white churches. This is not to be interpreted as a continuation of the sit-in movement of the early sixties but we know that active confrontation inside white churches is possible and will strengthen the possibility of meeting our demands. Such confrontation can take the form of reading the Black Manifesto instead of a sermon or passing it out to church members. The principle of self-defense should be applied if attacked.

(6) On May 4, 1969 or a date thereafter, depending upon local conditions, we call upon black people to commence the disruption of the racist churches and synagogues throughout the United States.

(7) We call upon IFCO to serve as a central staff to coordinate the mandate of the conference and to reproduce and distribute en masse literature, leaflets, news items, press releases and other material.

(8) We call upon all delegates to find within the white community those forces which will work under the leadership of blacks to implement these demands by whatever means necessary. By taking such actions, white Americans will demonstrate concretely that they are willing to fight the white skin privilege and the white supremacy and racism which have forced us as black people to make these demands.

(9) We call upon all white Christians and Jews to practice patience, tolerance, understanding and nonviolence as they have encouraged, advised and demanded that we as black people should do throughout our entire enforced slavery in the United States. The true test of their faith and belief in the

Cross and the words of the prophets will certainly be put to a test as we seek legitimate and extremely

124

modest reparations for our role in developing the industrial base of the Western world through our slave labor. Bet we are no longer slaves, we are men and women, proud of our African heritage, determined to have our dignity.

(10) We are so proud of our African heritage and realized concretely that our struggle is not only to make revolution in the United States, but to protect our brothers and sisters in Africa and to help them rid themselves of racism, capitalism, and imperialism by whatever means necessary, including armed struggle. We are and must be willing to fight the defamation for our African image wherever it rears its ugly head. We are therefore charging the Steering Committee to create a Black Anti-Defamation League to be funded by money raised from the International Black Appeal.

(11) We fully recognize that revolution in the United States and Africa, our Motherland, is more than a one dimensional operation. It will require the total integration of the political, economic, and military components and therefore, we call upon all our brothers and sisters who have acquired training and expertise in the fields of engineering, electronics, research, community organization, physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, military science and warfare to assist the National Black Economic

Development Conference in the implementation of its program.

(12) To implement these demands we must have a fearless leadership. We must have a leadership which is willing to battle the church establishment to implement these demands. To win our demands we will have to declare war on the white Christian churches and synagogues and this means we may have to fight the total government structure of this country. Let no one here think that these demands will be met by our mere stating them. For the sake of the churches and synagogues, we hope that they have the wisdom to understand that these demands are modest and reasonable. But if the white Christians and

Jews are not willing to meet our demands through peace and good will, then we declare war and we are prepared to fight by whatever means necessary.

125

…Brothers and sisters, we no longer are shuffling our feet and scratching our heads. We are tall, black and proud.

And we say to the white Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, to the government of this country and to all the white racist imperialists who compose it, there is only one thing left that you can do to further degrade black people and that is to kill us. But we have been dying too long for this country. We have died in every war. We are dying in Vietnam today fighting the wrong enemy.

The new black man wants to live and to live means that we must not become static or merely believe in self-defense. We must boldly go out and attack the white Western world at its power centers. The white Christian churches are another form of government in this county and they are used by the government of this country to exploit the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa, but the day is soon coming to an end. Therefore, brothers and sisters, the demands we make upon the white Christian churches and the Jewish synagogues are small demands. They represent 15 dollars per black person in these United States. We can legitimately demand this from the church power structure. We must demand more from the United States Government.

But to win our demands from the church which is linked up with the United States Government, we must not forget that it will ultimately be by force and power that we will win.

We are not threatening the churches. We are saying that we know the churches came with the military might of the colonizers and have been sustained by the military might of the colonizers. Hence, if the churches in colonial territories were established by military might, we know deep within our hearts that we must be prepared to use force of get our demands. We are not saying that this is the road we want to take. It is not, but let us be very clear that we are not opposed to force and we are not opposed to violence. We were captured in Africa by violence. We were kept in bondage and political servitude and forced to work as slaves by the military machinery and the Christian church working hand in hand.

126

We recognize that in issuing this manifesto we must prepare for a long range educational campaign in all communities of this country, but we know that the Christian churches have contributed to our oppression in white America. We do not intend to abuse our black brothers and sisters in black churches who have uncritically accepted Christianity. We want them to understand how the racist white Christian church with its hypocritical declarations and doctrines of brotherhood has abused our trust and faith. An attack on the religious beliefs of black people is not our major objective, even though we know that we were not Christians when we were brought to this country, but that Christianity was used to help enslave us. Our objective in issuing this Manifesto is to force the racist white Christian church to begin the payment of reparations which are due to all black people, not only by the church but also by private business and the U.S. government. We see this focus on the Christian church as an effort around which all black people can unite.

Our demands are negotiable, but they cannot be minimized, they can only be increased and the Church is asked to come up with larger sums of money than we are asking. Our slogans are:

ALL ROADS MUST LEAD TO REVOLUTION

UNITE WITH WHOMEVER YOU CAN UNITE

NEUTRALIZE WHEREVER POSSIBLE

FIGHT OUR ENEMIES RELENTLESSLY

VICTORY TO THE PEOPLE

LIFE AND GOOD HEALTH TO MANKIND

RESISTANCE TO DOMINATION BY THE WHITE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES

AND THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUES

127

REVOLUTIONARY BLACK POWER

WE SHALL WIN WITHOUT A DOUBT

128

APPENDIX B

House Resolution 40: Reparations to African Americans

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1: Short Title

This Act may be cited as the ―Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act.‖

Section 2: Findings and Purpose

(a) Findings: The Congress finds that –

(1) approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United

States and the colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865.

(2) the institution of slavery was constitutionally sanctioned by the Government of the United

States from 1769 through 1865;

(3) the slavery that flourished in the United States constituted an immoral and inhumane

deprivation of Africans‘ life, liberty, African citizenship rights, and cultural heritage, and

denied them the fruits of their own labor; and

129

(4) sufficient inquiry has not been made into the effects of the institution of slavery on living

African Americans and society in the United States.

(b) Purpose: the purpose of this Act is to establish a commission to-

(1) examine the institution of slavery which existed from 1619 through 1865 within the

United States and the colonies that became the United States, including the extent to which

the Federal and State Governments constitutionally and statutorily supported the institution

of slavery;

(2) examine de jure and de facto discrimination against freed slaves and their descendants

from the end of the Civil War to the present, including economic, political, and social

discrimination;

(3) examine the lingering negative effects of the institution of slavery and the discrimination

described in paragraph (2) on living African Americans and on society in the United States

(4) recommend appropriate ways to educate the American public of the Commission‘s

findings;

(5) recommend appropriate remedies in consideration of the Commission‘s findings on the

matters described in paragraphs (1) and (2); and

(6) submit to the Congress the results of such examination, together with such

130

recommendations.

Section 3: Establishment and Duties

(a) Establishment: There is established the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for

African Americans (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ―Commission‖).

(b) Duties: The Commission shall perform the following duties:

(7) recommended appropriate remedies… In making such recommendation the Commission

shall address, among other issues, the following questions;

(A) Whether the Government of the United States should offer a formal apology on

behalf of the people of the United States for the perpetration of gross human rights

violations on African slaves and their descendants.

(B) Whether African Americans still suffer from the lingering effects of… [slavery and

Jim Crow].

to the descendants of African slaves is warranted.

(D) If the Commission finds that such compensation is warranted, what should be the

amount of compensation, what form of compensation should be awarded, and who

should be eligible for such compensation.

131

APPENDIX C

MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM T. SHERMAN

IN THE FIELD:

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

SPECIAL FIELD ORDERS, No. 15,

January 16, 1865

I. The islands from Charleston, south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the St. Johns River, Florida, are reserved and set apart for the settlement of the negroes now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the

United States.

II. At Beaufort, Hilton Head, Savannah, Fernandina, St. Augustine and Jacksonville, the blacks may remain in their chosen or accustomed vocations – but on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves, subject only to the United States military authority and the acts of Congress. By the laws of

132

war, and orders of the President of the United States, the negro is free and must be dealt with as such. He cannot be subjected to conscription or forced military service, save by the written orders of the highest military authority of the Department, under such regulations as the President or Congress may proscribe.

Domestic servants, blacksmiths, carpenters and other mechanics, will be free to select their own work and residence, but the young and able-bodied negroes must be encouraged to enlist as soldiers in the service of the United States, to contribute their share towards maintaining their own freedom, and securing their rights as citizens of the United States.

Negroes so enlisted will be organized into companies, battalions and regiments, under the orders of the

United States military authorities, and will be paid, fed and clothed according to law. The bounties paid on enlistment may, with the consent of the recruit, go to assist his family and settlement in procuring agricultural implements, seed, tools, boots, clothing, and other articles necessary for their livelihood.

III. Wherever three respectable negroes, heads of families, shall desire to settle on land, and shall have selected for that purpose an island or a locality clearly defined, within the limits above designated, the

Inspector of Settlements and Plantations will himself, or by such subordinate officer as he may appoint, give them a license to settle such island or district, and afford them such assistance as he can enable to establish a peaceable agricultural settlement. The three parties named will subdivide the land, under the supervision of the Inspector, among themselves and such others as may chose to settle near them, so that each family shall have a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground, and when it borders on some water channel, with not more than 800 feet water front, in the possession of which land the military authorities will afford them protection, until such time as they can protect themselves, or until Congress shall regulate their title. The Quartermaster may, on the requisition of the Inspector of Settlements and

Plantations, place at the disposal of the Inspector, one or more of the captured steamers, to ply between

133

the settlements and one or more of the commercial points heretofore named in orders, to afford the settlers the opportunity to supply their necessary wants, and to sell the products of their land and labor.

IV. Whenever a negro has enlisted in the military service of the United States, he may locate his family in any one of the settlements at his pleasure, and acquire a homestead, and all other rights and privileges of a settler, as though present in person. In like manner, negroes may settle their families and engage on board the gunboats, or in fishing, or in navigation of the inland water, without losing claim to land or other advantages derived from this system. But no one, unless an actual settler as defined, or unless absent on Government service, will be entitled to claim any right to land or property in any settlement by virtue of these orders.

V. In order to carry out this system of settlement, a general officer will be detailed as Inspector of

Settlements and Plantations, whose duty it shall be to visit the settlements, to regulate their police and general management, and who will furnish personally to each head of a family, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, a possessory title in writing, giving as near as possible the description of boundaries; and who shall adjust all claims or conflicts that may arise under the same, subject to the like approval, treating such titles altogether as possessory. The same general officer will also be charged with the enlistment and organization of the negro recruits, and protecting their interests while absent from their settlements; and will be governed by the rules and regulations prescribed by the War Department for such purposes.

134

VI. Brigadier General R. SAXTON is hereby appointed Inspector of Settlements and Plantations, and will at once enter on the performance of his duties. No change is intended or desired in the settlement now on

Beaufort [Port Royal] Island, nor will any rights to property heretofore acquired be affected thereby.

BY ORDER OF MAJOR GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN:

Special Field Orders, No. 15, Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi, 16 Jan. 1865, Orders & Circulars, ser. 44, Adjutant General‘s Office, Record Group 94, National Archives.

135

APPENDIX D

Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments

to the Constitution of the United States of America

AMENDMENT XIII

(1865)

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIV

(1869)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

136

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United

States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice

President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive, or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred by payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

AMENDMENT XV

(1870)

137

Section 1. The right of the citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the

United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

138

APPENDIX E

Ten Reasons Why

Reparations for Slavery

Is a Bad Idea – and Racist Too.

There is No Single Group Responsible for

the Crime of Slavery.

Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too? There were white slaves in colonial America. Are their descendants going to receive payments?

There Is No Single Group That

Benefited Exclusively from Slavery.

The claim for reparations is premised 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 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 kidnapped.

139

III

Only A Minority Of White Americans Owned Slaves,

While Others Gave Their Lives to Free Them.

Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What morality would ask their descendants to pay again? If paying reparations on the basis of skin color is not racism, what is?

Most Living Americans Have No Connection

(Direct or Indirect) to Slavery.

The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, Armenian victims of the

Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans, Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of

Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?

The Historical Precedents Used To Justify

the Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, and the Claim Itself

Is Based on Race Not Injury

140

This historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African-American victims of racial experiments in

Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. During the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no attempt to take this fact into account. If this is not racism, what is?

The Reparations Argument Is Based on the Unsubstantiated

Claim That All African-Americans Suffer from the Economic

Consequences of Slavery and Discrimination.

No scientific attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence that the hardships of slavery were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Its existence suggests that present economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination or a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago. West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites (and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of

American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective?

141

VII

The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt to Turn

African-Americans into Victims. It Sends a Damaging Message

to the African-American Community and to Others

The renewed sense of grievance - which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create - is not a constructive or helpful message for black leaders to send to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victimhood. How are the millions of non-black refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can‘t seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others, many of whom are less privileged than themselves?

VII

Reparations to African Americans Have Already Been Paid

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) – all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between

African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of

American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) is not enough to achieve a ―healing‖ what is?

142

What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of slavery‘s existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Anglo-Saxon

Christians created one. If not for the anti-slavery beliefs and military power of white Englishmen and

Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the acknowledgment of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

The Reparations Claim Is a Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans

against the Nation That Gave Them Freedom

Blacks were here before the Mayflower. Who is more American that the descendants of African slaves? For the African-American community to isolate itself from America is to embark on a course whose implications are troubling. Yet the African-American community has had a long- running flirtation with separatists, nationalists and the political left, who want African-Americans to be no part of America‘s social contract. African Americans should reject this temptation.

For all America‘s faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in this country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more

143

assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white

Americans, but on all Americans—especially African-Americans.

America‘s African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive, a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its

African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is the American idea that led to the principles and created the institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us - free.

144

APPENDIX F

Rosewood Victims vs State of Florida

March 24, 1994

SPECIAL MASTER‘S FINAL EPORT

The Honorable Bo Johnson

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Suite 420, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

RE: HB 591 by Representatives De Grandy and Lawson

Claim of Arnett Goins, Minnie Lee Langley, et al. v. State of Florida

FINDINGS OF FACT: THIS IS AN EQUITABLE CLAIM SEEKING $7.2 MILLION

FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE 1923

DESTRUCTION OF ROSEWOOD, FLORIDA

145

This report is based upon the record presented to House and Senate special masters in the course of legislative hearings conducted pursuant to Rule 6.63, Rules of the Florida House of Representatives. The hearings began on March 4, 1994 and continued on a weekly basis, concluding on March 18, 1994.

The claimants in this matter are former residents, and descendants of former residents so Rosewood,

Florida, who contend that certain acts of omissions of law enforcement and other officials of Levy County and the State of Florida, resulted in the destruction of their community, the deaths of their relatives, and the loss of their property, and inflicted on them both physical and emotional harm for which they should be compensated by the State of Florida. The claimants are represented by the law firm of Holland and

Knight.

The State takes the position that the claims presented in this matter are without legal basis, that the evidence now available does not support a finding that acts or omissions of law enforcement officials caused the damages to the claimants, and that the claims should be barred by the statute of limitations.

The State further contends that bringing these claims at this time prohibits the reasonable defense of the allegations since the officials charged are now deceased and cannot be called to testify as to these vents.

The State of Florida is represented by the office of the Attorney General.

Because the events relating to this claim occurred more than 71 years ago, the record presented in the legislative hearings is comprised of media accounts of the events, incomplete public records, stories related by former residents and repeated to descendants, and the distant recollections of elderly witnesses not readily subject to corroboration and cross-examination. As will be discussed below, if these proceedings were conducted in a judicial forum, the principles of law dictated by the rule of evidentiary hearsay and their statute of limitations would preclude consideration of these claims. In an equitable claim bill proceeding, however, these principles do not, as a matter of law, restrict the legislature‘s consideration of these claims. Accordingly, this report is intended to provide the legislature with a description of the events that occurred in ad around Rosewood, Florida in 1923, form the available

146

remaining sources of evidence as presented at the legislative hearings, with the understanding that at this time conclusive findings of fact as to all relevant issues do not appear possible.

The events, which occurred at Rosewood in 1923, were widely reported at that time not only by the

Florida press, but also by the national media. In February of 1923, a month after the violence subsided, a special grand jury was convened in Levy County to investigate these matters. The grand jury returned no indictments, and except for newspaper accounts, no records of the grand jury proceedings remain. It does not appear that any other official investigation of Rosewood was undertaken. Over the years following these events, brief reference to the events of Rosewood were made in a few historical studies of racial violence; however, no researched report of these matters was published until July 25, 1982, when a comprehensive article by an investigative journalist, Gary Moore, appeared in the Floridian magazine, a

Sunday supplement to the St. Petersburg Times. Mr. Moor‘s article prompted a December 13, 1983 CBS

60 minutes report; however, no other official investigation was conducted at that time.

In 1993 this matter was brought before the Florida Legislature when HB 813 by Representatives

DeGrandy and Lawson, and SB 1452 by Senator Jones were filed seeking compensation for persons injured by the violence at Rosewood. In response to the issues raised by HB 813, the Speaker determined that a thorough study of the events surrounding the destruction of Rosewood should be conducted in an objective scholarly manner, and accordingly, after the 1993 Session, an academic research team, which included distinguished professors from Florida State University, Florida A&M University, and the

University of Florida was commissioned to research the Rosewood incident and report its findings to the

Legislature. The academic research team was chaired by Dr. Maxine Jones of the Florida State

Department of History.

The academic research team conducted research during the legislative interim, and on December 22, 1993 issued its report entitled A Documented History of the Incident Which Occurred at Rosewood, Florida in

January 1923. Exceptions to the accuracy, findings, methodology, and thoroughness of the report were

147

expressed by investigative journalist, Gary Moore, and in response to Mr. Moore‘s concerns, an extensive review of the academic study team‘s report was conducted under the authority of Dr. Richard Greave,

Chairman of he Florida State University Department of History. With minor reservations, the Review of the Rosewood Project endorsed the findings and methodology of the report of the academic study team.

In response to the review, Mr. Moore submitted his detailed analysis of the review to the Legislature. All of the academic research studies, reports, reviews and appendices, as well as Mr. Moore‘s responses, were received and have been made part of the record in the legislative proceedings.

Upon review of the record presented, and consideration of the sworn testimony, the following description of the events, which occurred in Rosewood in 1923, emerges. In January of 1923 Rosewood was a small, mostly African-American community of approximately 120 residents located on the Seaboard Air Line

Railroad in western Levy County, nine miles east of Cedar Key. Today the site of Rosewood is marked on State Road 24. At one time the community had a timber mill, a post office, several stores, a depot and hotel; however, by 1923 the cedar wood had been harvested, and the sawmill operations moved to

Sumner, a somewhat larger community, three miles west of Rosewood. The black residents remaining at

Rosewood earned a living by working at the Cummer sawmill in Sumner, trapping and hunting and vegetable framing. In addition, several of the black women of Rosewood worked in domestic capacities for the white residents of Sumner. The main store of Rosewood was owned and operated by a white man named John Wright.

In 1923 the black community of Rosewood consisted of approximately twenty families, many of whom were closely related through marriages. Some of the black families owned their homes as well as other property in the area. The community had a one-room school, at least two churches, and a Masonic lodge.

The railroad depot remained, but it does not appear that there was a regularly scheduled stop at Rosewood at that time. There was o history of racial tension at Rosewood, and the record indicates that prior to 1923 the black and white communities had a generally amiable relationship.

148

On Monday, January 1, 1923, in Sumner, Florida, Mrs. Frances Taylor, a twenty-two year old white housewife, alleged that a black man had entered her home and assaulted her. Mrs. Taylor, who was visibly bruised, told her neighbors that while her husband James Taylor was at work at the sawmill, an unidentified black man had assaulted and robbed her. The specific nature of the assault is not apparent from the record; however, the white community believed there had been a sexual assault, although it does not appear that Mrs. Taylor was ever examined by a physician. After repeating her allegations, Mrs.

Taylor then collapsed and was taken to a neighbor‘s home.

A contradictory account of this event circulated in the black community. According to Mrs. Sarah

Carrier, a black woman from Rosewood who did laundry for Mrs. Taylor, and Mrs. Carrier‘s granddaughter, Philomena Goins, who accompanied Mrs. Carrier to the Taylor home on the morning of

January 1, 1923, a white man had visited Mrs. Taylor that day, and left shortly before Mrs. Taylor made her allegations. The black community believed that Mrs. Taylor had a romantic relationship with this unidentified white man, that they had quarreled, and that this white man was actually responsible for Mrs.

Taylor‘s injuries.

In response to Mrs. Taylor‘s allegations, a group of white men, mainly residents of Sumner or workers at the Cummer sawmill, came together to search for the perpetrator. At about this time word reached

Sumner from Levy County Sheriff Robert Elias Walker that a black convict named Jesse Hunter had escaped from a work crew doing road construction near Otter Creek. Jesse Hunter became the focus of the search. Later that day, Sheriff Walker sent for blood hounds, and the trail of the fugitive was followed from behind the Taylor house in Sumner, leading the party of men toward Rosewood.

The group first came across Aaron Carrier, a Blackman from Rosewood who apparently was coerced into implicating Sam Carter, a forty-five year old black man who did some blacksmith work. Sheriff Walker intervened during the interrogation of Aaron Carrier and apparently sent him to the jail in Bronson for safekeeping. The dogs followed the trail to Sam Carter‘s house, and the search party became convinced

149

that Sam Carter had placed the fugitive in his wagon and assisted the fugitive in an escape. The men seized Sam Carter and strung him up over a tree limb in an effort to make Carter reveal the place where he had taken the fugitive.

The role of the law enforcement officers in the search is unclear. The record indicates that Sheriff Walker was informed and probably sent for the bloodhounds from Ft. White. There is also testimony that the deputy sheriff assigned to western Levy County, Clarence Williams, who also served as a quarterboss at the Cummer sawmill, was involved in searching for the fugitive; however, it does not appear that either the sheriff or the deputy were actually members of the search party that seized Sam Carter.

Of particular interest in this regard is the testimony of Ernest Parham, who at that time was a nineteen year old resident of Sumner, working at the general store. Mr. Parham testified that after the news of

Mrs. Taylor‘s assault on January 1, 1923 spread, tension was very high in Sumner. At the general store where he worked, they sold so much ammunition that the store‘s owner decided to hide his supplies and tell customers that they were sold out. Later that evening, Mr. Parham closed the store and noticed that deputy sheriff Williams, who had walked to Rosewood, had left his car parked outside. Mr. Parham drove the Williams‘ car by a back road from Sumner to Rosewood and located the deputy near

Rosewood. At that time noise form a crowd could be heard from down the road. Mr. Parham left the deputy and walked down to where the crowd was gathered, and observed that a group of white men, many of whom he knew, had strung Sam Carter up on a tree limb in an attempt to force him to reveal information about the fugitive. Mr. Parham intervened in the situation, and the crowd of men let Carter down. Carter then took them to a place down the road where eh said he let the fugitive off; however, when the dogs failed to pick up the scent, one of the men in the crowd shot and killed Sam Carter. The crowd then dispersed, and Mr. Parham returned to Sumner.

150

The body of Sam Carter was left on the road that night and apparently law enforcement officials did not discover the body until the following morning of Tuesday, January 2, 1923. Later that same day a coroner‘s jury inquest verdict signed by L.L. Johns as Justice of the Peace determined:

―We the jury after the examination of the said Sam Carter who being found lying Dead, find that

the said Sam Carter came to his Death by being shot by Unknown Party so say we all.‖

It does not appear that any further criminal investigation was conducted into the circumstances of the death of Sam Carter.

The search for Mrs. Taylor‘s assailant continued. On Thursday, January 4, 1923, word reached Sumner that the man sought was being protected by Sylvester Carrier in Rosewood. A group of white men went to the Carrier home that evening. Minnie Lee Langley and Arnett Goins, claimants in this case, were children present at the Carrier home the night of January 4, 1923, and testified to the events of that evening. The children had been told that trouble was expected and they were gathered together with other relatives at the Carrier home for their protection. They were taken to an upstairs bedroom. A group of white men approached the house and called for Sarah Carrier to come out. She did not respond. The white men then came to the porch. The white men shot and killed a dog tied in front of the house.

According to the testimony, one of the white men, C.P. ―Poly‖ Wilkerson, a former quarterboss from

Sumner, kicked in the door, and was immediately shot and killed by Sylvester Carrier. A second white man Henry Andrews tried to enter the house and was also shot and killed by Sylvester Carrier. The remaining white men retreated, and gunfire was exchanged. During the ensuing gunfire Sarah Carrier was shot and killed. The white men apparently ran out of ammunition, and during the respite the children were taken out of the house by older relatives, and escaped into the woods of Gulf Hammock.

Id does not appear that any law enforcement officials were among the group at the Carrier home on the night of January4, 1923. Ernest Parham testified that deputy Williams was at the hotel in Sumner that evening. Mr. Parham specifically remembered that deputy Williams was discussing the ongoing events

151

and stated that, ―All hell‘s breaking out in Rosewood.‖ There is nothing in the record to indicate the whereabouts of Sheriff Walker on that night.

In the morning of January 5, 1923 the bodies of Poly Wilkerson, Henry Andrews, Sarah Carrier, and another black man, reported to be Sylvester Carrier were found at the house. There is some dispute as to whether Sylvester Carrier was actually killed at Rosewood. His family believes that he escaped and members received Christmas greetings from him for many years after the shootings at Rosewood.

After the killing of Poly Wilkerson and Henry Andrews, the violence escalated. Groups of white men from the surrounding areas, and some reportedly from other states, came to Rosewood. During the following days every black residence was burned. The black community fled to the woods. Two more deaths of residents of Rosewood were reported. Lexi Gordon, a woman of mixed color, was sick with typhoid fever and unable to leave Rosewood. When her home was set on fire she went out the back door and was shot and killed. James Carrier, the grandfather of Minnie Lee Langley, was reported to have been forced to dig his own grave and was then shot and killed. Another black man, Mingo Williams, was reportedly shot while chopping down a tree twenty miles away by a group of the white men going to

Rosewood.

Many of the white residents of the area came to the assistance of the black community. John Wright, the white owner of the general store in Rosewood, hid some of the children at his house, and arranged for a railroad car to pick up the women and children who had escaped into Gulf Hammock. Margaret Cannon testified that her father, Morris Cannon, a deputy sheriff in Levy County at the time, went into the woods and found the black woman and children and brought them to the train. They were taken to Gainesville.

The black residents of Rosewood did not return.

Several years later the Cummer sawmill in Sumner burned. The company opened a new mill in

Lacoochee, Florida, in Pasco County, and many of the Rosewood families moved to that area. Others

152

dispersed to Jacksonville and Miami, and a few others moved out of state. Some of the property of the

Rosewood residents apparently was lost to taxes, but there are a few records that indicate some property was later sold.

At this time it is difficult to determine the role of law enforcement officers, and other local and state officials, regarding their conduct during the Rosewood violence. Media accounts state that the Governor,

Cary Hardee, was aware of the events, but had gone hunting on the afternoon of January 4, 1923. It also appears that Sheriff Walker had informed the Governor that there was no need to call in National Guard troops. Although the record indicates that the National Guard had been mobilized in preceding years to keep the peace during civil disturbances, the Guard was not called to Rosewood. It further appears that the Sheriff of Alachua County organized a posse to come to Levy County to assist in keeping order, but the role of the Alachua Sheriff in these events is not clear form the record. Sheriff Walker resigned July

8, 1924 after the Rosewood incident, and was replaced by L.L. Johns, the former Justice of the Peace, who signed the coroner‘s verdict regarding the death of Sam Carter.

On January 29, 1923 the Governor ordered that a special grand jury investigate the violence at Rosewood.

The grand jury was presided over by Judge A.V. Long of the Eighth Judicial circuit. George DeCottes, the state attorney for the Seventh Circuit in Deland was appointed as prosecutor. On February 12, 1923 the grand jury convened in Bronson. There are no records of the grand jury. The newspaper accounts state that thirteen witnesses testified on February 13, 1923, and more witnesses were scheduled for the following day. Examination of finesses ended on February 14, 1923, and on February 16, 1923 the grad jury stated that they were unable to find any evidence upon which to base indictments.

No charges were ever brought by the State of Florida against any person for the assault on Frances

Taylor, for the killing of Sam Carter, for the deaths occurring at the Carrier home on the night of January

4, 1923, for the deaths of Lexie Gordon, James Carrier, or Mingo Williams, or for any acts of arson and theft which occurred at Rosewood, Florida.

153

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The initial question of law is the applicability of section 11.065(1), Florida

Statutes, which provides:

No claims against the state shall be presented to the Legislature more than 4 years after the

cause for relief accrued. Any claim presented after this time of limitation shall be void and

unenforceable.

It is a long-established rule of law that the act of one legislature cannot bind a future legislature.

Kirklands v. Town of Bradley, 104 Fla. 390, 139 So. 144 (1932); Tamiami Trail Tours v. Lee, 142 Fla.68,

194 So. 305 (1940). This principle has been specifically applied to the statute of limitations for legislative claim bills. Attorney General‘s Opinion 55-82. As stated by the Attorney General, the statute of limitations is an expression of legislative policy, and not a prohibition against the consideration of claims against the state. Accordingly, as a matter of law, should the legislature determine that an equitable basis exists for the consideration of these claims, then there is no legal restriction on the power of the legislature to enact a claim bill under these circumstances.

In this matter, the primary claimants are now elderly former residents of Rosewood who as children were displaced from their homes due to the destruction of their community. They have a very limited education. Their testimony reflects a profound fear of reprisal and a distrust of state officials. In light of their personal experiences and the racial attitudes at the time, their testimony is substantiated. There is a question as to whether the fears of the claimants of coming forward are justified especially after the 1983 national broadcast of the Rosewood events. The State contends that at least since 1983there was no justifiable impediment to the bringing of these claims to the legislature. Moreover, the Sate contends that under the principles of laches, Cone Brothers Construction v Moore, 193 So. 288 (Fla. 1940), the claimants have delayed too long, that the matters asserted are not subject to a safe conclusion as to the truth thereof, and the State at this time is unable to defend against these allegations.

154

In balancing the equities of whether to proceed to consider the claims of these claimants, against the obvious difficulties of the State to completely respond to these claims after so many years have passed, it is important to distinguish these proceedings from proceedings at laws. As a matter of law, the record does not demonstrate that the claimants could overcome the State‘s objections if these proceedings were judicial in nature. Claim bill proceedings, however, address the ―moral obligations of the state‖ and are matters purely within the prerogative of the legislature. Gamble v. Wells, 450 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1984);

Dickinson v. Board of Public Instruction, 217 So.2d 553, 560 (Fla. 1968). Under these circumstances, neither the provisions of section 11.065(1), Florida Statutes, nor the principles of laches should be construed to preclude the legislature‘s consideration of these claims to determine whether there is a moral obligation on the part of the State of Florida, which should be addressed.

Claimants seek compensation for damages resulting from property loss and for emotional trauma. As to property loss, Florida law in 1923, as well as today, recognizes that compensation is required when state action effects a taking of property which was set forth in Article XVI, section 29 of the Florida

Constitution as revised in 1968. While the State of Florida did not affirmatively take title to property in

Rosewood, the displacement of the Rosewood population was done with the knowledge and assistance of law enforcement officers. In a case involving the claims of Japanese-Americans who were displaced from their homes and property during World War II, the court held that the claimants were entitled to compensation for their property loss. Hohri v. United States, 768 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The court stated:

Given the alleged damage to the appellant‘s real and personal property directly caused by the

evacuation program, there is no question that appellants have stated a claim cognizable under

the Takings Clause.

155

Id. at 242. The court went on to hold that this claim was compensable regardless of whether

the government took title to the property. See also United States v. General Motors Corp.,

323 U.S. 373 (1945).

Although there are obvious distinctions between the federal evacuation program of Japanese-

Americans and the displacement of the residents of Rosewood, in both instances the evacuees

were forced to leave their homes and were unable to attend to their property. The residents

of Rosewood did not return due to fear, and it appears that many simply abandoned their

property because the area was not secured for their safety.

In this respect the State cites the case of Monarch Insurance Company of Ohio v District of Columbia,

353 F. Supp. 1249 (D. C. D.C. 1973), affirmed, 497 F.2d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. Denied, 419 U.S.

1021 (1974), where the court dismissed constitutional and statutory claims brought against the United

States, the District of Columbia and local law enforcement officials for property damages resulting from riots which occurred after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. The court in Monarch held that the decisions regarding the deployment of law enforcement in riot control situations was a discretionary function that did not subject the government to liability under the federal Tort Claims Act. Similarly,

Florida law provides that discretionary governmental functions are not subject to liability. Commercial

Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 1979). As recognized by the Monarch court, however, if property, then there is a cognizable cause of action. 353 F. Supp. At 1252

Moreover, the United States Supreme Court in the case of National Board of Young Men‘s Christian

Assn‘s v. United States, 395 U.S. 1511 (1969) held that persons whose property was damaged as a result of rioting after occupation of the building by federal troops had no Fifth Amendment claim for compensation. However, as Justice Harlan Stated:

156

…it is for Congress, not this Court, to decide the extend to which those injured in the riot

should be compensated, regardless of the extent to which the police or military attempted to

protect the particular property which each individual owns.

395 U.S. at 96. Similarly, while it may be argued that there would not exist a judicially cognizable claim under the takings provisions of the federal and state constitutions, it is nonetheless clear that the legislature ahs the authority to determine the extent of compensation in this matter.

In relevant circumstances, Congress enacted the Civil Liberties Act to compensate Japanese-Americans from property damages resulting from the federal evacuation policy during World War Ii. 50 App. U.S.C. s. 1989a (a). The federal law enacted in 1988 recognized that ―a grave injustices was done both to citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry by their forced relocation and internment during World War Ii,‖ and attempted to make amends b issuing a formal apology and $20,000 to each

Japanese intern. Jacobs v Barr, 959 F.2d 313, 314 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The federal law sets forth eligibility standards and provides for time limitations in which eligible individuals must present their claims to the

Attorney General.

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to compensate the claimants n this matter for the property losses sustained by the destruction of Rosewood. While there is not a showing of participation on the part of governmental agents in the destruction of the property, there is no question that governmental officers were aware of the violent situation that existed during the entire week of January 1. 1923, that government officer‘s assisted in the evacuation of the Rosewood residents, that after the destruction the government did not secure the area, that the residents of Rosewood sustained property damage, and that the justice system did not redress the injuries sustained. This is particularly evident when the legislative hearings 71 years later are uncovering evidence identifying the perpetrators of the criminal acts that occurred in rosewood. In light of these circumstances, and the authorities cited above, the Rosewood families sustaining property damage should be compensated.

157

As to the emotional and mental anguish damages sought by the claimants, there is no clear remedy. In

1923 the State had not waived sovereign immunity; accordingly, a state cause of action based upon principles of tort law does not arise. See Article III section 22 of the 1885 Constitution which is presently set forth in Article X section 13 of the Florida Constitution. Under section 870.04, Florida Statutes, which also was in force at the time, a sheriff has the duty to order rioters to disperse, but it does not appear that the statute gives rise to a civil cause of action. Cleveland v. City of Miami, 23 So.2d 573

(Fla.1972).

The federal civil rights acts, section 42 U.S.C. s. 1983 et seq., were in existence, and require a showing that the acts which resulted in personal injury to the claimants were under color of law and done with the intent to deprive the claimants of their constitutional rights. Washington v. Davis, 426, U.S. 229 (1976).

As indicated above, there is evidence that governmental officials knew of the potentially violent situation at Rosewood, but there is no indication of direct participation of governmental officers in the events leading up to the destruction of Rosewood. The most persuasive evidence of governmental responsibility is the failure of any showing that the criminal acts committed at Rosewood were reasonably investigated and redressed by the State of Florida. The record reflects that the death of Sam Carter, who was killed in front of many residents of Sumner, clearly was not properly investigated, and even today there is at least one witness available to testify to the circumstances of that crime. Any records of the investigation conducted by the special grand jury were lost, but it is difficult to understand the grand jury‘s determination that there was insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the witnesses describing the events and identifying the perpetrators are appearing at legislative hearings.

While this evidence may not be sufficient to sustain a cause of action at law, it does compel the conclusion that a moral obligation exists on the part of the State of Florida to remedy this matter. This conclusion appears to be in keeping with the equitable claim bills redressing ―moral Obligations‖ that the legislature has previously enacted Gamble v. Wells, supra. In Gamble the legislature awarded $150,000 to

158

a child who was physically and emotionally damaged due to the failure of the State to provide adequate foster care. In upholding the constitutionality of Chapter 80-448, Laws of Florida, the Florida Supreme

Court in Gamble stated:

This voluntary recognition of its moral obligation by the legislature in this instance was

based on its view of justice and fair treatment of one who had suffered at the hands of the

state but was legally remediless to seek damages.

420 So.2d at 853

This principle is equally applicable here. In the Rosewood claim, although the claimants are now elderly, the damage they sustained was as children, and while ascertaining an amount of damage for emotional harm is subjective, the Gamble case provides guidance as to prior legislative enactments in this regard.

Accordingly, it appears that those Rosewood claimants who as children were subjected to the violence and forced to leave their homes should each be awarded compensation in the amount of $150,000.

In the final analysis, the legal authorities cited above support the conclusion that this is an equitable matter that is addressed to the sound discretion for the Florida Legislature. The federal and state cases demonstrate that the legislature‘s responsibility is to determine whether there is a moral obligation on the part of the State of Florida to compensate the claimants. Although the evidence presented may not be sufficient to establish an action at law, it nonetheless is clear that government officials were responsible for some of the damages sustained by the claimants, if not by the failure to provide reasonable law enforcement prior to the destruction of Rosewood, then surely in the failure to reasonably investigate this matter, to bring the perpetrators to justice and to thereafter secure the area for the safe return of the displaced residents. Under these circumstances, the claimants have met the test for an equitable claim bill by showing that a moral obligation exists to redress their injuries.

159

COLLATERAL SOURCES: Claimant Minnie Lee Langley received $1,000 for the motion picture rights to her story.

ATTORNEYS FEES: The law firm of Holland & Knight is representing the claimants on a pro bono basis.

RECOMMENDATION: For the above reasons, I recommend that HB 591 be amended as follows:

1. The bill should direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, or other appropriate law enforcement officials, to conduct a complete investigation of this matter including interviewing the available witnesses to determine if any criminal proceedings may still be pursued.

2. A fund should be established to compensate the Rosewood families who can demonstrate a property loss as a result of the displacement of the Rosewood residents.

3. The elderly claimants who sustained emotional trauma as a result of the destruction of Rosewood and the evacuation of the residents should each be compensated in the amount of $150,000.

4. A state university scholarship fund should be established for the families and the descendants of the

Rosewood residents.

As AMENDED, I recommend HB 591 be reported FAVORABLY.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Hixson

Special Master