Slavery reparations are being challenged in court!!!

originally posted by: Asher47

originally posted by: BernnieJGato

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican
I’m waiting for when they come across the value of Irish being less than that of Africans at one time in US history.

Irish where never enslaved in The American Colonies. It's an urban myth.

you are correct, they were just a step above slaves, many were indentured servants who died before they served their contracts out, or broke some law that extended their time, and many were forced into indentured service. all while many more than a few were treated just like they were property of their contract holders. might as well been a slave.

my greatest grandfather was one.

Yes the Irish were a "step above" but worth less, we're abused more and died more often from exposure.
But..yea know
.Protestants and all right?

King Charles II had a lot to do with that, actually. Trying to clean the Irish out of England proper and out of the Irish lands owned by English Lords.

Look up the history...

"This old man, he played one..."

a reply to: Lumenari

This org too ...

Redeemers

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
Damn near everyone alive today is a descendant of a slave at one point in time or another. So…where’s the cutoff?

My ancestors were Vikings, so I don't have any slaves in my family tree. And I think the cutoff should be about 1000 years. That would exclude the Viking Age and let me off the hook.

originally posted by: Station27

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
Damn near everyone alive today is a descendant of a slave at one point in time or another. So…where’s the cutoff?

My ancestors were Vikings, so I don't have any slaves in my family tree. And I think the cutoff should be about 1000 years. That would exclude the Viking Age and let me off the hook.

You’re right Vikings were one of the few that were not enslaved. They certainly owned a lot of them though. But are you 100% Norse?

approx 360,200 union soldiers died in the civil war. Will the descendants of those soldiers ever be compensated?

a reply to: budzprime69

The slaves were family, everyone mourned including the slaves when the Southern way of life was destroyed. After Sherman's march, how much of that land was worth anything? What was left that wasn't destroyed or taken as the spoils of war for the slave owners or their now homeless slaves? It was the War of Northern Aggression in their minds and reparations now sure make it seem like that's how it is, even to this day. This was paid for in full during the Civil War, the worst war the U.S. was ever in. IMO this issue was resolved with the war, why is it still an issue 160 years later?

ETA: Reparations for the descendants of slaves some four or five generations after the war that paid the price of slavery is a ridiculous idea and beating a dead horse IMO. What are they going to pay to the Native Americans for the very real genocide committed against them and then the theft of everything they had? I'm not hearing much about that except a story a few years back about some dead Native children up in Canada who were buried in a mission cemetery.

a reply to: ntech620

Since when does The United States visit the sins of the Father upon the Sons?

originally posted by: Solvedit
a reply to: ntech620

The point of the quotation is clearly to say the US shall pay for debts incurred in fighting the Confederacy, but not debts incurred by the Confederacy including war debt or damages for the loss of their slaves.

"...neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt incurred in...rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss...of any slave..."

You missed the 2nd part of the sentence. "Any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave.

The thought taken by the US Congress after the Civil war was to insulate themselves against any reparations requests over the slavery issue. The reason being the 5th Amendment requires compensation for any government takings. They simply didn't want to deal with it. On both sides of the issue.

originally posted by: ntech620

originally posted by: Solvedit
a reply to: ntech620

The point of the quotation is clearly to say the US shall pay for debts incurred in fighting the Confederacy, but not debts incurred by the Confederacy including war debt or damages for the loss of their slaves.

"...neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt incurred in...rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss...of any slave..."

You missed the 2nd part of the sentence. "Any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave.

How could I have missed it after I edited the citation for brevity? Doesn't make sense.

It makes clear the former slave holders are not to be compensated whether their slaves died or ran away, or were emancipated.

You are mixed up about why they say the 14th Amendment prohibits reparations. It merely prohibits race-based reparations because of equal protection. It would not prohibit reparations if claimants were required to demonstrate they were descended from slaves who worked in the United States.

originally posted by: TheSemiskepticII
a reply to: ntech620

Since when does The United States visit the sins of the Father upon the Sons?

Founded in 1776, America did not invent slavery but even before 1864 and the emacipation of slavery Americans recognized that slavery was wrong. Slaves did not build this country they are part of its beautiful illustrious history. 100 years later, the civil rights movement continued the mission of equality. Also, in 1965 the Nationality and Immigration act began the melting pot narritive, before that immigration was largely kept to white Europeans. Mixing ethnicities and cultures is widely referred to as "the great experiment" so looting the government for past misgivings is counter to the American experience and mission. Our country is and always has been a work in progress, we should all try to keep making it better rather than condemn it for past. America is and always will be a beacon to the rest of the world however not recognizing the good our country and government has done through emancipation and civil rights would be a travesty.

a reply to: Solvedit

You ignore history and Occam's razor.


Oc·cam's ra·zor
/ˌäkəmz ˈrāzər/

noun

The principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.

You also missed "ANY".

Also you apparently never heard of the PR disaster for reparations at the time that was called "40 acres and a mule".

There was an attempt by a Union general to steal land from the Confederate owners and give it to former slaves. And the former confederates pretty much rioted over it. Then Lincoln was assassinated and Andrew Johnson promptly reversed all of it. Realizing there was multiple problems with the idea.

And that is why the "NO REPARATIONS FOR SLAVERY" clause was added to the 14th Amendment. To address all of the problems that emancipation of the slaves was bringing to the table. On all sides of the issue.

originally posted by: ntech620
And that is why the "NO REPARATIONS FOR SLAVERY" clause was added to the 14th Amendment. To address all of the problems that emancipation of the slaves was bringing to the table. On all sides of the issue.

You should at least admit that it's ambiguous but the context is in whether the Confederates' war debt should be paid with Federal funds.

Of course I heard of 40 acres, I have written on General Field Order #15. It seemed to be a time when many freedmen could have disappeared because they were in upheaval.

Problem with reparations, ignore everything else that occurred up to the end of the civil war.

How many millions came to the US after the end of slavery, why should they pay for reparations which is what will happen.

My moms family came at the end of the potato famine, my dads ww1 when my gg grandpa decided he didnt want to goto the western front and took his wife to italy and caught a steamer to the US.

If you go back to or before the civil war you have to open up the idea of forcing africa to pay reparations since so many tribes cheerfully took part in sending rivals away as slaves through a european middle man.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
My moms family came at the end of the potato famine, my dads ww1 when my gg grandpa decided he didnt want to goto the western front and took his wife to italy and caught a steamer to the US.

Some sources say the South's slave economy was a major source of this country's trade surplus and the federal government at the time was funded by trade tariffs. If so, the country we live in was partially funded by slavery.

If you go back to or before the civil war you have to open up the idea of forcing africa to pay reparations since so many tribes cheerfully took part in sending rivals away as slaves through a european middle man.

We don't have to do as Africa does and we don't have to force them to pay.

I am not 100% in favor of reparations because not competent to make the call, but the two things you use for a basis don't work.

a reply to: Solvedit

So you advocate people who's family history had nothing to do with slavery in this country, pay people that were never slaves reparations?
Just want to make certain where you stand, because that is how your post looks.'

Also side note, why were so many black families highly successful post civil war till the democrats came to "save" them.

We don't have to do as Africa does and we don't have to force them to pay.

Nothing in this sentence makes any sense, africa played a large part in capturing and selling slaves, so they should be off the hook?

Talk of reparations are all over the communist/Marxist websites like “The Communist!”
That should tell everybody what it’s about.