Slavery Reparations Debate: Arguments For and Against

Introduction

One issue that has come to the surface in recent discussions of race in America is the question of slavery reparations. This is essentially the idea that modern descendants of American slaves should receive some form of financial reparations for the oppression and other hardships endured by their ancestors. One notable advocate of this position is Randall Robinson, as quoted in Watts-Jones (2004). He claims that economic reparations to the descendants of slaves are both necessary and morally correct, since so much of the United States' wealth in prior centuries was derived from the uncompensated labor of slaves.

Adebajo (2004) describes the conditions that have led to modern African-Americans' affinity for the reparations argument. Unlike modern European-Americans, who may feel no particular affinity toward Europe (nor toward each other), modern African-Americans do have feelings of affinity for Africa, other African-Americans, and issues affecting both.

Review of Pro-Reparations Literature

"Four centuries of a sordid trade in human cargo of Africans by American slave masters was followed by a century of colonial enslavement of Africa by European imperialists. These defining historical events have shaped the relationship of African-Americans and Africans with the West, and no serious examination of U.S. policy toward Africa can avoid focusing on the blighted legacy of slavery and colonialism, both of which created a bond between African-Americans and their ancestral home, resulting in their efforts to influence U.S. policy toward Africa."

Here we see the underpinnings for the origin of the reparations movement.

As quoted in Watts-Jones (2004), Randall Robinson, author of The Debt: What America Owes Blacks, states that much of the current wealth of the United States is traceable to the labor of slaves and that "economic reparations are a necessary component of the recovery from slavery and its aftermath." Martha Biondi (2003) echoes this view, though articulates it in more Marxist terms, and suggests that opponents of reparations are themselves racist — not explicitly, but symbolically; a point also addressed by Andrews (2003).

Judith Harman (also quoted in Watts-Jones, 2004) goes on to declare that modern African-Americans suffer from post-traumatic slavery disorder, and that reparations may be the necessary treatment.

Martha Biondi (2003) celebrates the fact that recent pressure by African and Asian lobbyists seems to be forcing "the West to confront its own history" regarding slavery. She lists the stages and influential individuals in the development of the reparations movement, essentially arguing that there has always been such a movement, but that it lacked the momentum necessary to gain national attention and serious debate until fairly recently.

She cites recent government movements toward a kind of reparation — for instance, payments in 1988 to Japanese-Americans interned during World War II and in 1994 to survivors of the 1923 Rosewood massacre. However, she also notes that in these two cases, the people who were actually wronged were still alive to be compensated for the injustices they suffered. This is not the case regarding slavery; the last American slave was Charlie Smith, who died in 1979 (Library of Congress, 2005).

Biondi goes on to claim that since discrimination has persisted — at least privately — against African-Americans, reparations payments should be extended to African-Americans for these injustices as well. Her claim that government-sponsored discrimination against African-Americans existed because social security initially excluded the occupations of agricultural workers and domestic service — the occupations most African-Americans held — is conspicuously unsubstantiated and may represent only her opinion.

She is right about one thing, however. As Robinson has said (quoted in Watts-Jones, 2004), much of the economic wealth accumulated in the United States prior to the abolition of slavery was made possible precisely because of slavery. If modern corporations could be traced back to that period and shown to have prospered at the expense of slaves, a case could be made that those corporations ought to make some form of reparations, since corporations exist in perpetuity.

This line of argument is problematic, however. Forcing modern corporations to pay for historical wrongs effectively forces consumers — many of them African-American — to absorb those costs; no company will simply absorb such a financial burden if it can pass it on. If firms like New York Life or Aetna were driven into bankruptcy because their corporate ancestors prospered from the slave trade, what would happen to their African-American employees? It may be counterproductive to penalize the open hand that provides opportunity today simply because it was a fist in previous generations.

Critiquing Key Pro-Reparations Claims

Jeffries (2004) claims that because slaves in Texas were not freed until nearly two years after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, they are "entitled to reparations comparable to two and a half years of unpaid backbreaking labor."

What Jeffries fails to realize is that since the Confederacy was an independent country at the time Lincoln signed the proclamation, that document carried as much legal force in Confederate territory as a law designed to liberate Russian serfs would have. Today we would find it absurd if the Japanese parliament passed a law intended to be enforced in Argentina. This is essentially what Lincoln signed with respect to Confederate states.

Furthermore, even if we grant that modern descendants of slaves deserve reparations, the Emancipation Proclamation is not a sound starting point for measuring "back wages owed" because slavery was not actually made a crime until June 19, 1865. It seems paradoxical to punish the descendants of people for acts that were not legally crimes when committed, or to compensate the descendants of their victims on that basis.

Another reason the Emancipation Proclamation is a poor starting point is that it freed slaves only in the Confederate states, not those in the border states of Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. It is easy to see why Lincoln did not free slaves in those states — the federal capital, Washington, D.C., straddles the border between Virginia and Maryland. Jeffries never suggests that descendants of slaves in those states be compensated as well, but if sympathy is allowed to override reason, there would be even stronger grounds for compensating their descendants, since the very government ostensibly in favor of their liberation failed to act on that principle until after the cessation of hostilities. These errors on Jeffries' part only undermine the credibility of his broader argument.

Forde-Mazrui (2004) argues in favor of reparations but concludes that the central problem is that both sides are incapable of taking each other's arguments seriously, and that genuine engagement would lead to resolution. For instance, opponents of reparations have argued that expecting modern Americans to pay for past injustices to deceased African-Americans is analogous to requiring modern America to compensate whites who have suffered injustice through reverse discrimination. Because of this, says Forde-Mazrui, conservatives oppose reparations, while advocates dismiss this perspective as hysterical. What Forde-Mazrui proposes is to accept both claims as legitimate and extend reparations to victims of reverse discrimination as well. The remainder of his paper is devoted to making this case: if we accept that whites who have suffered reverse discrimination deserve compensation, then we must equally compensate descendants of slaves. The logical problem with this — which Forde-Mazrui conspicuously sidesteps — is that the whites in question are experiencing discrimination in the present, not hundreds of years in the past.

In any event, the movement toward reparations appears to be growing (Yamamoto et al., 2003). According to Dubinsky (2004), African-Americans are encouraged by the Holocaust slave labor settlement, while Armenians take heart from Holocaust-related insurance and banking litigation.

Conclusion

If we scour the historical record for examples of just how wretched human beings can be toward each other, there are very few examples more telling than the story of slavery in the New World. How ironic that the idea of the New World should conjure images of new opportunity, new freedom, and a fresh start for civilization, when in reality the history of slavery in the New World represents one of the darkest periods of recent human history.