A Case Against Slave Reparations

Reparations (via lawsuit or government payment) by those involved in the institution of slavery are actually not a bad idea: for those in Sudan and other areas that currently are involved in it. On the other hand, reparations for American and European slavery that has been over for over a hundred years, is a lot more problematic. Let's put aside the fact that many of those who are demanding not only an apology but also direct reparations ignore slavery practiced in parts of Africa (and in Chinese prisons, and other areas) and the distinct lack of human rights in their own countries. This hypocrisy is also notable when we look at the unilateral push to declare "Zionism" racism and Israel actions against Palestinians a rampant violation of human rights, as if there are not many mitigating factors or many other examples of ethnic troubles worldwide. Nonetheless, my concern here is to discuss the pragmatic and legal arguments against reparations for US involvement in slavery and the slave trade.

We should start with a definition of what exactly is at stake. At times, the whole issue seems to be a matter of symbolism, since we often do not get a good explanation of how exactly the reparations will be handed out. The demand for an apology is even murkier: apparently "regret" is not enough, nor the obvious fact that few currently believe that slavery was not an evil institution. Also, many in the reparation movement tend to go on to discuss a range of issues, like criminal justice, welfare benefits, and so on. Nonetheless, direct payments (e.g. foreign aid to African countries) or various social programs (affirmative action, college aid, welfare, etc.) are not truly considered "reparations." This is unfortunate given that a serious discussion of the history and effects of slavery (in which the evil involved would be evident) and social reforms is a lot more likely and useful overall than attempting to set up some (realistically) token reparation system.

It is true that many sympathetic to the reparation cause would honestly say that social welfare legislation and benefits along with a honest discussion of the history and results of slavery is a if not the major aim. Also, slavery (and the quasi-slavery carried out into the Twentieth Century via Jim Crow, discrimination, and violence) is still quite relevant (along with other issues obviously) when understanding why blacks are in an inferior position economically and socially over a hundred and thirty years after slavery technically was abolished are particularly galling. Also, the fact that many blacks succeeded regardless, partly because of the society helped by slavery, and are in a better position than those in Africa does not remove the troubles that remain. We also are supposedly more concerned with liberty and justice than other nations. Finally, the problems in striving for equality does not mean we should not try various methods that are not a hundred percent without problems of their own, including some cost to those who did not directly commit any wrongdoing.

Nonetheless, the arguments for reparations have a lot of problems of their own. Various precedents turn out to be far from exact matches to the reparations for slavery. A primary difference is that slavery was legal and morally accepted by a vast part of the population, including being accepted by international law. It was legitimized by the US Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, and this overall justification occurred over a span of hundreds of years. Finally, many blacks and African countries were involved in slavery, including thousands of black (and Native American) slave owners in this nation alone. This makes it different from illegitimate or broken treaties with Native Americans, internment of Japanese citizens in camps during WWII, extermination and slave labor in Nazi Germany, or unconsented medical experiments (especially an infamous long term syphilis study on a group of unknowing poor blacks in Alabama) over the years in the United States.

Slavery obviously is/was a violation of fundamental laws of natural justice, but reparations would clearly be quite different from the payments to other groups. Reparations for slavery would be more like payment for the inequities and injustices suffered by women: a broadly accepted and legal corrupt social system of long term existence. This is one reason why using regular concepts of civil damages is problematic, while various indirect methods like foreign aid, social aid, and criminal justice reform is more logical. Slavery was a social evil, and requires broad social solutions. This includes various efforts from fighting in the Civil War (partly motivated from hatred of slavery) to the protests in the Civil Rights Era on that are part of a form of "reparations" that tend to be forgotten. Finally, even if we compare slavery to Holocaust survivors (who received payment), a good argument can be made that cash payments is a bad way to deal with the problem.

These broad benefits surely required partly as repayment of this nation's debt to descendants of slaves, also helps overcome the problem of determining proper reparations (and other legalistic problems, such as, statute of limitations, innocent owner principles, sovereign immunity, and so on). A problem by the way not present when reparations are paid to those who suffered the wrong themselves (e.g. Japanese internment, WWII slave labor survivors) or to the nation or tribe involved (e.g. Native Americans, Israel). It is hard enough to prove that Thomas Jefferson is the father of Sally Hemings' children (DNA testing alone only would probably tell us the children were in his immediate family), so how will we determine who should be repaid?

If we give all blacks a certain sum, it would be a tad ridiculous, since many are recent immigrants, and small number actual descendants of slave owners (some of whom were black). This is not only a logistic nightmare, but likely to cause much social dissension among blacks who will not get paid. Also, though it is clear that those of the present must help to fix the problems (e.g. reparations to survivors of Japanese internment) of the past (problems they indirectly might have been helped by), reparations are opposed by many who had no part in slavery, including immigrants or families of immigrants who came to this country after 1865. Broad social policies and educational campaigns to understand our slavery past are much more acceptable than having to pay tax dollars for other people's sins.

Lawsuits and cash payments is not a very good way to deal with societal problems, as I discussed in regards to smoking lawsuits. There are many reasons why this is show including legal, practical, and social. Legally, reparations are flawed since slavery was legal at the time, the recipients of the payments (and how much each should get) is unclear (and some likely recipients do not have guilt free ancestors), and wrongdoing of those who are doing the paying is also hazy (including the fact that these individuals and those in the past in various ways did provide a form of reparations by blood, effort, and hard cash). Also, it is not very practical to determine a fair reparation scheme that will not cause much headache and controversy, while more neutral (and in the long run broader) aid and education will attack the problem in a more successful way. Finally, socially, there is much opposition to reparations, and expending a lot of effort for a hopeless (and problematic) cause is foolish. This is surely the case when their are more practical, legally sound, and socially acceptable alternatives.