Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Pot money for the blacks?
MikeDamone
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,781
https://news.yahoo.com/us-city-pay-reparations-african-144159498.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=fb
“Let's start with a basic truth: there is neither a moral nor any ethical premise to support federal "reparations" to blacks for chattel slavery in America. Let's break down why.
Slavery was never federal law or policy. Eight of the 13 original States allowed slavery and, of necessity, the 1787 Constitutional Convention created a provision so the controversial matter would not prevent the creation of an agreeable legal framework allowing the States to form a Union.
Slavery was addressed with regard to taxes, and regarding the number of seats a State would have in the House of Representatives. The final agreement was memorialized as Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads (https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/):
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Notice neither "slave" nor "African" appear in the (in)famous 3/5th Compromise and for 2 reasons, I surmise:
1) The "peculiar institution" was not codified as part of federal law; its practice was a State matter, neither condemned nor condoned by the federal government, and
2) The Founders considered slavery a class, not a race, issue. America had Persons: free; indentured servants; Indians not identified as citizens of their tribes; and other Persons.
Many overlook/deny that whites were also among the "other Persons" class (https://nyupress.org/9780814742969/white-cargo/).
Many more might be surprised to learn some Indians were in the "other Persons" class. (https://www.newsweek.com/native-americans-were-kept-slaves-too-454023).
Also, many today seem unaware (or in denial) of the fact there were Africans living as free Persons in antebellum America; either as former slaves (freedmen), or as free people of color who were born free and never enslaved.
Consequently, in 1789 and afterward, there were whites and Indians the Constitution also counted as "three fifths of all other Persons", and blacks who were, constitutionally, free and full Persons.
(Kinda not quite as cut-and-dried as white progressives and their pets of color would have you believe...)
The federal government sought neither to establish, institute, nor regulate slavery or enslaved peoples; they simply acknowledged that these existed within the States and built a framework for governance in recognition of the fact.
Therefore, how can the federal government be financially responsible for what it did not create, perpetuate, or control?
Perhaps, then, any financial responsibility for slavery should should logically fall to the States, but which ones?
In 1860, the last election year before the Civil War, there were 34 States in the Union, 15 of which were slave States: Alabama, Arkansas, DELAWARE, Florida, Georgia, KENTUCKY, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, MISSOURI, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The four states in all capital letters did not secede and join the Confederacy; those who did secede had slavery beaten out of them.
So, which States should be held financially responsible for slavery? Should Illinois, which the attached article references and which was never a slave State, pay for what was not practiced within their borders?
Or the other 18 non-slave States in existence in 1860; should they pay for what was done elsewhere, especially after successfully prosecuting the war that ended slavery and amended the Constitution away from its neutral position so that the "peculiar institution" was not legal in the U.S.?
What of the 16 states who did not exist in 1860 and in whom slavery never existed; are they financially responsibility for what they never practiced?
If the federal government were never responsible for slavery (they weren't), and if the case for State governments being responsible is, at best, weak (and it is) for not less than 39 of the 50 States, then whose purse should be raided for reparations?
Only the citizens of these United States remain; should they be compelled to pay? Consider the following:
• Even in the "slave South', the (vast) majority of whites did not own slaves (https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/selected_statistics_on_slavery_i.htm), and
• If the entire national population is considered, then the percentage of whites who owned slaves plummets to numbers estimated < 2% (http://factsareracist.com/fact5.html).
So, should more than 98% of the population pay for what less than 2% are responsible? Oh, and those percentages refer to U.S. citizens and residents PRIOR to 1892.
So why is 1892 important?
Because 1892 is the year Ellis island opened in New York and began processing immigrants, more than two decades after slavery's abolition and the constitutional amendments which prohibited its practice. And because 2/5ths of the population trace their American history to Ellis Island (https://tagtheflag.co/trivia/how-many-americans-can-trace-their-roots-through-ellis-island/).
Let's recap:
• The federal government addressed indentured servitude and slavery as issues of class, not race, and left the determination of who would be in what class to the States; they are not responsible for slavery, neither should they pay,
• Only 15 of the 50 States had legal slavery; 35 States never had it, including the 13 which did not exist prior to the ratification of the 15th Amendment. So, at least 70% of States are not responsible for slavery, neither should they pay,
• Four of the 15 Slave States denounced the institution by rejecting the Confederacy, and the 11 who seceded were destroyed and had their governments retooled as a result of the Civil War. What part of them which might bear responsibility no longer exists; why should they pay for the deeds of an earlier, and different, incarnation of themselves, and
• Approximately 2% of Americans owned slaves before it was abolished. So many entered the country after abolition that at least 40% of the nation today have no historical tie to slavery at all. Likely, more than 99% of Americans have no slave ownership in their family history. They are not responsible for, and were not involved with, slavery; why should they pay?
The reparations "discussion" seems to have an overriding purpose of little benefit to anyone: keeping race baiters relevant. As Booker T. Washington said:
"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
This describes black Democrat elected officials well, as also activists like Jackson and Sharpton. All of them are tools of white progressives who know an agitated black community will continue to focus on the lesser goal of equality and not seize the benefits of opportunity.
My hope is that white and other Americans simply take the following position: "No! I didn't do it, and I ain't payin' for it." “ - Black Man Thinkin’
“Let's start with a basic truth: there is neither a moral nor any ethical premise to support federal "reparations" to blacks for chattel slavery in America. Let's break down why.
Slavery was never federal law or policy. Eight of the 13 original States allowed slavery and, of necessity, the 1787 Constitutional Convention created a provision so the controversial matter would not prevent the creation of an agreeable legal framework allowing the States to form a Union.
Slavery was addressed with regard to taxes, and regarding the number of seats a State would have in the House of Representatives. The final agreement was memorialized as Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads (https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/):
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Notice neither "slave" nor "African" appear in the (in)famous 3/5th Compromise and for 2 reasons, I surmise:
1) The "peculiar institution" was not codified as part of federal law; its practice was a State matter, neither condemned nor condoned by the federal government, and
2) The Founders considered slavery a class, not a race, issue. America had Persons: free; indentured servants; Indians not identified as citizens of their tribes; and other Persons.
Many overlook/deny that whites were also among the "other Persons" class (https://nyupress.org/9780814742969/white-cargo/).
Many more might be surprised to learn some Indians were in the "other Persons" class. (https://www.newsweek.com/native-americans-were-kept-slaves-too-454023).
Also, many today seem unaware (or in denial) of the fact there were Africans living as free Persons in antebellum America; either as former slaves (freedmen), or as free people of color who were born free and never enslaved.
Consequently, in 1789 and afterward, there were whites and Indians the Constitution also counted as "three fifths of all other Persons", and blacks who were, constitutionally, free and full Persons.
(Kinda not quite as cut-and-dried as white progressives and their pets of color would have you believe...)
The federal government sought neither to establish, institute, nor regulate slavery or enslaved peoples; they simply acknowledged that these existed within the States and built a framework for governance in recognition of the fact.
Therefore, how can the federal government be financially responsible for what it did not create, perpetuate, or control?
Perhaps, then, any financial responsibility for slavery should should logically fall to the States, but which ones?
In 1860, the last election year before the Civil War, there were 34 States in the Union, 15 of which were slave States: Alabama, Arkansas, DELAWARE, Florida, Georgia, KENTUCKY, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, MISSOURI, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The four states in all capital letters did not secede and join the Confederacy; those who did secede had slavery beaten out of them.
So, which States should be held financially responsible for slavery? Should Illinois, which the attached article references and which was never a slave State, pay for what was not practiced within their borders?
Or the other 18 non-slave States in existence in 1860; should they pay for what was done elsewhere, especially after successfully prosecuting the war that ended slavery and amended the Constitution away from its neutral position so that the "peculiar institution" was not legal in the U.S.?
What of the 16 states who did not exist in 1860 and in whom slavery never existed; are they financially responsibility for what they never practiced?
If the federal government were never responsible for slavery (they weren't), and if the case for State governments being responsible is, at best, weak (and it is) for not less than 39 of the 50 States, then whose purse should be raided for reparations?
Only the citizens of these United States remain; should they be compelled to pay? Consider the following:
• Even in the "slave South', the (vast) majority of whites did not own slaves (https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/selected_statistics_on_slavery_i.htm), and
• If the entire national population is considered, then the percentage of whites who owned slaves plummets to numbers estimated < 2% (http://factsareracist.com/fact5.html).
So, should more than 98% of the population pay for what less than 2% are responsible? Oh, and those percentages refer to U.S. citizens and residents PRIOR to 1892.
So why is 1892 important?
Because 1892 is the year Ellis island opened in New York and began processing immigrants, more than two decades after slavery's abolition and the constitutional amendments which prohibited its practice. And because 2/5ths of the population trace their American history to Ellis Island (https://tagtheflag.co/trivia/how-many-americans-can-trace-their-roots-through-ellis-island/).
Let's recap:
• The federal government addressed indentured servitude and slavery as issues of class, not race, and left the determination of who would be in what class to the States; they are not responsible for slavery, neither should they pay,
• Only 15 of the 50 States had legal slavery; 35 States never had it, including the 13 which did not exist prior to the ratification of the 15th Amendment. So, at least 70% of States are not responsible for slavery, neither should they pay,
• Four of the 15 Slave States denounced the institution by rejecting the Confederacy, and the 11 who seceded were destroyed and had their governments retooled as a result of the Civil War. What part of them which might bear responsibility no longer exists; why should they pay for the deeds of an earlier, and different, incarnation of themselves, and
• Approximately 2% of Americans owned slaves before it was abolished. So many entered the country after abolition that at least 40% of the nation today have no historical tie to slavery at all. Likely, more than 99% of Americans have no slave ownership in their family history. They are not responsible for, and were not involved with, slavery; why should they pay?
The reparations "discussion" seems to have an overriding purpose of little benefit to anyone: keeping race baiters relevant. As Booker T. Washington said:
"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
This describes black Democrat elected officials well, as also activists like Jackson and Sharpton. All of them are tools of white progressives who know an agitated black community will continue to focus on the lesser goal of equality and not seize the benefits of opportunity.
My hope is that white and other Americans simply take the following position: "No! I didn't do it, and I ain't payin' for it." “ - Black Man Thinkin’
Comments
The Republicans freed them. They paid in blood.