Reparations for slavery, YES

snowman · 08:08 PM

Reparations for slavery, YES. I think we should reimburse all slave owners for property taken from them. There is no excuse for the unconstitutional taking of property that happend during the civil war.

As to the slaves, their salary was zero, consequently they are owed nothing. They on the other hand probably owe the owners for room and board.

So I say YES to reparations. Lets get going on them. Lets dig up the past until we are satisfied with the result.

One of my umteen gggg grandmothers was an indian. Lets dig her up to, I need the money we owe her for mistreatment of all indians. Forget that she was rich.

HardDrive · 08-28-2006, 08:15 PM

LOL.

Damn straight.

Hugh R · 08-28-2006, 08:21 PM

Snow

That could be seen as "Racist" gasp!!! Actually if you read the constitution, slavery was legal and protected. That's what started the Civil War. The North tried to abolish slavery but it required a constitutional amendment 2/3 of the states and all that. The North tried blockades and such to compel the southern states to give up slavery. The north even went to the supreme court several times to try and ban slavery but the court turned them down repeatedly saying the congress needed a constitutional amendment. In fact, the Proclamation Declaration by Lincoln that freed the slaves was nothing more than a publicity stunt, it had no effect in law. If it did, why didn't Lincoln do it before starting a war, he need that old nagging 2/3 state ratification of a constitutional amendment. That's why the 14 amendment came about, and sorry to say, but the Feds paid slaveowners lots of money for their "property" in order to get that 2/3 states vote.

Enough said on this subject, new question? Why do Indians get to own casinos, but I don't. They're putting them in places no where near their reservations. BTW, regarding reservations, if I don't pay my property taxes, the state takes my property; how do Indians have it so bad? They don't pay taxes, but get gubmit subsidies.

curlesw · curlesw's Garage

The Civil War was started over state rights, not slavery. Slavery was not a specific issue until the fall of 1862…the Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the union. Agree with the statement that the Supreme Court upheld slavery.

Wayne C.

RPKESQ · 08-28-2006, 10:10 PM

Good god! Curlesw, don't show them actual historic truth, you'll spoil their racist whine.

livi · 08-29-2006, 02:10 AM

'Slavery Legal and Protected'.

I must admit you have come a long way on the road of Civil rights in a short time.

fastpat · 08-29-2006, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by snowman
Reparations for slavery, YES. I think we should reimburse all slave owners for property taken from them. There is no excuse for the unconstitutional taking of property that happend during the civil war.

As to the slaves, their salary was zero, consequently they are owed nothing. They on the other hand probably owe the owners for room and board.

So I say YES to reparations. Lets get going on them. Lets dig up the past until we are satisfied with the result.

One of my umteen gggg grandmothers was an indian. Lets dig her up to, I need the money we owe her for mistreatment of all indians. Forget that she was rich.

Reparations to former slaveholding families is prohibited by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Further, slaveholders in New Jersey sued the federal government over the obvious illegal takings, also prohibited by the Constitution, and lost in the Lincoln Supreme Court, who ruled that the 13th Amendment overruled the "illegal takings" clause.

So, this is a non-starter.

VINMAN · 08-29-2006, 03:41 AM

My grandparents had to stay in the lowest part of the ship when they came over from Italy. Their shoes got ruined from the bilge water. I think my family is owed something for that.

GDSOB · GDSOB's Garage

One of my favs. Good stuff starts about 3 min in.

gaijindabe · 08-29-2006, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by snowman
Reparations for slavery, YES. I think we should reimburse all slave owners for property taken from them. There is no excuse for the unconstitutional taking of property that happend during the civil war.

I think we should take the families of slaveholders who would look for reparations and lock them in a room with the families of those they "owned" and let them come to an equitable agreement.

Who is owed what and what form of reparations can be agreed can be left up to the parties involved.

Why as taxpayers should the rest of us have to pay anything?

NICKG · 08-29-2006, 07:12 AM

you know it is funny to hear the younger black guys in the warehouse here whine about the $ I OWE their race because I am white...

sammyg2 · 08-29-2006, 08:57 AM

How much does a cruise ship charge to take someone on a 4 week cruise, say from Africa to the US?
Seems to me like lots of folks got a free ride .............
I wonder what that cost would be adjusted for inflation over the past 200 years or so?

BTW this was simply a joke in line with the other posts and the entire thread. If you are offended by it, IMO you are too thin skinned and need to lighten up. No I will not apologize so don't ask.

Besides, the slaves and slaveholders are all dead. Gone. Buried.
If anyone was owed to anyone or anyone, it was them and not their decendants.

Moneyguy1 · 08-29-2006, 09:05 AM

As the wise man once said:

"We have morphed into a nation of victims."

fastpat · 08-29-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gaijindabe
Why as taxpayers should the rest of us have to pay anything?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

snowman · 08-29-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GDSOB

One of my favs. Good stuff starts about 3 min in.

Worth watching

Moneyguy1 · 08-29-2006, 02:02 PM

The reparations, if ever, should be paid by those able to trace their American lineage back to the time of slavery. The rest of the citizenry, being descendants of more recent immigrations, by virtue of the fact they were not here at the time, should be exempt.

jdm61 · 08-29-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by curlesw
The Civil War was started over state rights, not slavery. Slavery was not a specific issue until the fall of 1862…the Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the union. Agree with the statement that the Supreme Court upheld slavery.

Wayne C.

The VAST majority o southern troops did not own slaves. I read that the numbers weresomething well north of 90%. The fought to defend their homes. Admittedly, they may have been somewhat decieved by their leaders who put them in that situation, but that it why they fought nonetheless. Why would a Scotch-Irish dirt farmer from North Carolina give a damn about slaves or states rights?

jdm61 · 08-29-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It wasn't "taken for public use". An entire category of property was abolished by a change in the Constitution itself, which eliminated that whole sticky little legal problem caused by the Emancipation Proclamation, which, incidentally, did NOT abolish slavery in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and Delaware But you have a point, Pat. The fact that slaveowners and their friends and neighbors who remained loyal to the Union in places like eastern Kentucky and what became West Virginia not only lost their slaves but also were subjected to Reconstruction at the hands of the radcial Republican Congress went a LONG way towards making those areas solidly Democrat for well over 100 years.

scottmandue · 08-29-2006, 02:19 PM

DARN, I thought we were making preparations for slavery...

Nevermind.

fastpat · 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jdm61
It wasn't "taken for public use". An entire category of property was abolished by a change in the Constitution itself, which eliminated that whole sticky little legal problem caused by the Emancipation Proclamation, which, incidentally, did NOT abolish slavery in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and Delaware But you have a point, Pat. The fact that slaveowners and their friends and neighbors who remained loyal to the Union in places like eastern Kentucky and what became West Virginia not only lost their slaves but also were subjected to Reconstruction at the hands of the radcial Republican Congress went a LONG way towards making those areas solidly Democrat for well over 100 years.

It's an "illegal taking" when private property is removed from the owners, even if the purpose is to "set them free".

Nevertheless, as I stated, New Jersey slave owners sued in federal court and lost. No Confederate States slave owner sued because they were prohibited access to the courts at that time.