Slave owners, reparations, and retroactive laws

[John Dibble]

Ok, this has nothing to do with modern day reparations, rather it has to deal with reparations just after the slaves got their freedom.

I just had a heated discussion with someone else(who I later found was taking the other side but I didn't know it ) about reparations and whatnot. Anyways, my philosophy is that when someone commits a crime against someone, they should pay back the victim. I also view slavery as a horrible institution that violates human rights. However, during the discussion retroactive laws came up. I don't believe that someone should be punished for doing something that, while possibly reprehensible, was legal at the time they did it.

It's always been my policy that the actual slave owners should have paid reparations at the time, however after the discussion I realized that my stance on retroactive laws was a direct contradiction of that. I'm a person who believes that you shouldn't believe in contradicting things, because they both can't be true if there is really a contradiction. So, right now I'm not sure, and I'm still thinking on it so I can resolve the contradiction one way or another.

[AuH2O]

no/no, but the government should have worked out a compromise deal that would have resulted in compensated emancipation to prevent some lunatic like Lincoln from launching a genocidal war.

It's actually illegal for reparations to be paid now under the UN Charter, though an act of Congress can override international law obviously. In any case it should not happen and never, ever, ever will.

[minionofmidas]

Where's the
"yes, but the government shouldn't have insisted on four years back taxes / yes, in exceptional cases such as this one only" button? (Voted yes/yes)

[WalterMitty]

i like the virginia idea of offering scholarship money to those (black or white) that were negatively affected by the school closures of the late 50s.

background info:  some school districts in virginia closed their public schools in an effort to keep blacks out. they offered tuition credits to private shcools for white kids, but many whites still couldnt afford it even with the credits.

result:  many kids, mostly black, missed a lot of education.

[John Dibble]

Ok, been thinking, and we've got some food for thought.

Saddam. Evil guy, tyrannical dictator. He will be going to trial soon for the actions he commited while he was in power. Now, technically speaking everything he did was legal - in Iraq, his word was law - so if you advocate punishing him for those thing(not for violating the WMD agreement, but his actions that killed his own people) then you are saying that in that case a retroactive law punishment is justified.

We can also look at Hitler's men who were punished for the actions of the Holocaust. The Jews killed in Germany were killed 'legally' because the Nazis ran the government(though, arguably those killed in invaded countries were not because an unjustified invasion and conquest of another country could be viewed as illegal, so actions performed by the conquerers to the populace wouldn't be legal). Same as above - retroactive law.

Remember, just food for thought.

[Emsworth]

No/ no

[MODU]

I would have to say no/no as well, and just for the reason you posted.  At the time when people owned slaves, it was legal, so why should they be punished after the law changed if they did not add new slaves to their holdings?  That would be like me getting a speeding ticket because I use to drive down a road at 45mph when the speed limit was 45mph, before they had downgraded it to 35mph.  I can't go back in time and tell myself "Hey, in the future this will be illegal, so you better not do it now."

[Emsworth]

Saddam. Evil guy, tyrannical dictator. He will be going to trial soon for the actions he commited while he was in power. Now, technically speaking everything he did was legal - in Iraq, his word was law - so if you advocate punishing him for those thing(not for violating the WMD agreement, but his actions that killed his own people) then you are saying that in that case a retroactive law punishment is justified.

We can also look at Hitler's men who were punished for the actions of the Holocaust. The Jews killed in Germany were killed 'legally' because the Nazis ran the government(though, arguably those killed in invaded countries were not because an unjustified invasion and conquest of another country could be viewed as illegal, so actions performed by the conquerers to the populace wouldn't be legal). Same as above - retroactive law.

In these cases, one could argue that there is a "law of nations" that prohibits such actions.

[John Dibble]

Saddam. Evil guy, tyrannical dictator. He will be going to trial soon for the actions he commited while he was in power. Now, technically speaking everything he did was legal - in Iraq, his word was law - so if you advocate punishing him for those thing(not for violating the WMD agreement, but his actions that killed his own people) then you are saying that in that case a retroactive law punishment is justified.

We can also look at Hitler's men who were punished for the actions of the Holocaust. The Jews killed in Germany were killed 'legally' because the Nazis ran the government(though, arguably those killed in invaded countries were not because an unjustified invasion and conquest of another country could be viewed as illegal, so actions performed by the conquerers to the populace wouldn't be legal). Same as above - retroactive law.

In these cases, one could argue that there is a "law of nations" that prohibits such actions.

Actually I began thinking something similar. The job of any government should be to protect the rights and well-being of it's citizens, not to oppress them, so such governments would be violating the trust of the people and are therefore breaking the 'law'.

[J. J.]

No, but those in rebellion should have been heavily fined.  Guess what the money would have been used for.  :-)

[John Dibble]

No, but those in rebellion should have been heavily fined.  Guess what the money would have been used for.  :-)

Filling the pockets of corrupt beauracrats and politicians?

[David S]

Ok, this has nothing to do with modern day reparations, rather it has to deal with reparations just after the slaves got their freedom.

I just had a heated discussion with someone else(who I later found was taking the other side but I didn't know it ) about reparations and whatnot. Anyways, my philosophy is that when someone commits a crime against someone, they should pay back the victim. I also view slavery as a horrible institution that violates human rights. However, during the discussion retroactive laws came up. I don't believe that someone should be punished for doing something that, while possibly reprehensible, was legal at the time they did it.

It's always been my policy that the actual slave owners should have paid reparations at the time, however after the discussion I realized that my stance on retroactive laws was a direct contradiction of that. I'm a person who believes that you shouldn't believe in contradicting things, because they both can't be true if there is really a contradiction. So, right now I'm not sure, and I'm still thinking on it so I can resolve the contradiction one way or another.

Actually my thinking was much like yours, but now that you mention it retroactive laws are "ex post facto" laws which are forbidden by Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution.

[John Dibble]

Ok, this has nothing to do with modern day reparations, rather it has to deal with reparations just after the slaves got their freedom.

I just had a heated discussion with someone else(who I later found was taking the other side but I didn't know it ) about reparations and whatnot. Anyways, my philosophy is that when someone commits a crime against someone, they should pay back the victim. I also view slavery as a horrible institution that violates human rights. However, during the discussion retroactive laws came up. I don't believe that someone should be punished for doing something that, while possibly reprehensible, was legal at the time they did it.

It's always been my policy that the actual slave owners should have paid reparations at the time, however after the discussion I realized that my stance on retroactive laws was a direct contradiction of that. I'm a person who believes that you shouldn't believe in contradicting things, because they both can't be true if there is really a contradiction. So, right now I'm not sure, and I'm still thinking on it so I can resolve the contradiction one way or another.

Actually my thinking was much like yours, but now that you mention it retroactive laws are "ex post facto" laws which are forbidden by Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution.

I'm still thinking on it, and I'm leaning towards no/no as an answer to the poll. On the other hand, I do believe that certain rights are inherent to all humanity, and that violation of those rights, even if that violation is legal, should be punished(or there's the reverse - even if it was illegal, I'd have no problem with a slave killing his master to attain freedom). The jury is still out on this one.

[J. J.]

No, but those in rebellion should have been heavily fined.  Guess what the money would have been used for.  :-)

Filling the pockets of corrupt beauracrats and politicians?

They would have been REPUBLICAN politicians and there were not that many bureaucrats, as FDR hadn't been born yet.

[opebo]

Yes/Yes.

[A18]

No, but those in rebellion should have been heavily fined.  Guess what the money would have been used for.  :-)

Filling the pockets of corrupt beauracrats and politicians?

They would have been REPUBLICAN politicians

Grant, Harding, and Nixon weren't corrupt at all.

[dazzleman]

Very interesting question.

In general, I don't think retroactive laws are justified.  I do think it would have helped immensely had we done something for the former slaves after they were free, but I don't necessarily think the former owners should have been required to do it, since they had now lost their "property" and probably a lot else as a result of the outcome of the war.

John Dibble's concerns about applicability of laws have a very strong ally -- Winston Churchill.  Churchill had grave reservations about the trial of former Nazi leaders for war crimes because he was afraid of the precedent it would set in retroactive criminalization of policy issues, effectively allowing the strong and victorious to retroactively impose justice.  I think his concerns were well-founded, and that today we have too much of an emphasis on justice and legality on issues of policy, leading to the attempted criminalization of policy differences.  We have been afflicted by this both domestically and internationally, and it is widespread.

I definitely oppose the idea of reparations today for descendants of former slaves, and lawsuits against "companies" that were involved in 19th century slavery.  This is absurd, in my opinion, and will help nothing, including those it is supposedly intended to benefit.

[MonkeyPooo4U]

I absolutely believe in reparations to specific victims.  People often point to reparations for japanese americans who were interned during WWII as a precedent for reparations for slavery.  The difference is that for the japanese americans, money was given to specific victims.  If you do something unlawful to a person, they deserve compensation, but that only applies to the specific person.

Retroactive reparations are an awful idea though.  If we gave reparations for slavery, the legal precedent would set off a massive chain reaction.  Everyone whose ancestors had at some point been repressed would be entitled to compensation.  If I could point to an Irish ancestry, I could claim that my ancestors that came to America to escape the Irish potatoe famine were wronged.  I think the prolific "No Irish Need Apply" signs on buisnesses at the time make a strong case for injustice.  Reparations for blacks, native americans, and other wronged minority groups would be disastrous, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

[Erc]

I absolutely believe in reparations to specific victims.  People often point to reparations for japanese americans who were interned during WWII as a precedent for reparations for slavery.  The difference is that for the japanese americans, money was given to specific victims.  If you do something unlawful to a person, they deserve compensation, but that only applies to the specific person.

Retroactive reparations are an awful idea though.  If we gave reparations for slavery, the legal precedent would set off a massive chain reaction.  Everyone whose ancestors had at some point been repressed would be entitled to compensation.  If I could point to an Irish ancestry, I could claim that my ancestors that came to America to escape the Irish potatoe famine were wronged.  I think the prolific "No Irish Need Apply" signs on buisnesses at the time make a strong case for injustice.  Reparations for blacks, native americans, and other wronged minority groups would be disastrous, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

One branch of my family is composed almost entirely of White Southerners from Mississippi, some of whom did fight for the Confederacy.  Therefore, I owe reparations to descendants of former slaves.

Another, smaller branch, of my family, is Cherokee.  I therefore am owed reparations from Andrew Jackson's estate.

A third branch of my family is Dutch, and I am therefore in the midst of arbitration with King Juan Carlos I of Spain to pay me back damages for the harm done to my ancestors during the War for Dutch Indpendence.

[MonkeyPooo4U]

I absolutely believe in reparations to specific victims.  People often point to reparations for japanese americans who were interned during WWII as a precedent for reparations for slavery.  The difference is that for the japanese americans, money was given to specific victims.  If you do something unlawful to a person, they deserve compensation, but that only applies to the specific person.

Retroactive reparations are an awful idea though.  If we gave reparations for slavery, the legal precedent would set off a massive chain reaction.  Everyone whose ancestors had at some point been repressed would be entitled to compensation.  If I could point to an Irish ancestry, I could claim that my ancestors that came to America to escape the Irish potatoe famine were wronged.  I think the prolific "No Irish Need Apply" signs on buisnesses at the time make a strong case for injustice.  Reparations for blacks, native americans, and other wronged minority groups would be disastrous, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

One branch of my family is composed almost entirely of White Southerners from Mississippi, some of whom did fight for the Confederacy.  Therefore, I owe reparations to descendants of former slaves.

Another, smaller branch, of my family, is Cherokee.  I therefore am owed reparations from Andrew Jackson's estate.

A third branch of my family is Dutch, and I am therefore in the midst of arbitration with King Juan Carlos I of Spain to pay me back damages for the harm done to my ancestors during the War for Dutch Indpendence.

That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about.  I'm sure everyone who cares could look into their family history and find some point where their ancestors were wronged.  That makes reparations rediculous.

[Gustaf]

Heh...I agree this is a tough one. Perhaps one could argue that certain things are so basic that current laws do not matter? Because total opposition to retro-active laws would have made it impossible to convict Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or Hitler in Germany, and so on. The political leadership could simply legalize whatever tyranny they wish to have and then not be punished for it. Worrying for a libertarian, no?

[Gustaf]

Ok, been thinking, and we've got some food for thought.

Saddam. Evil guy, tyrannical dictator. He will be going to trial soon for the actions he commited while he was in power. Now, technically speaking everything he did was legal - in Iraq, his word was law - so if you advocate punishing him for those thing(not for violating the WMD agreement, but his actions that killed his own people) then you are saying that in that case a retroactive law punishment is justified.

We can also look at Hitler's men who were punished for the actions of the Holocaust. The Jews killed in Germany were killed 'legally' because the Nazis ran the government(though, arguably those killed in invaded countries were not because an unjustified invasion and conquest of another country could be viewed as illegal, so actions performed by the conquerers to the populace wouldn't be legal). Same as above - retroactive law.

Remember, just food for thought.

Didn't see this, but yeah. I think my position is that laws that allows violations of individual rights that the state has no right to violate can be disregarded. Basically, it's the same thing as civil disobedience towards a law that is in existence.

[Democratic Hawk]

No/no. The plantocracy, by and large, were benevolent paternalists who took care of their slaves. That's the story that's passed down through generations of my family anyway

Dave

[John Dibble]

No/no. The plantocracy, by and large, were benevolent paternalists who took care of their slaves. That's the story that's passed down through generations of my family anyway

Dave

Personally, whatever your answer to the poll is, I feel that it is irrelevant how the owner treated the slave. Slavery is slavery, even if it is 'benevolent'. Would you tolerate me forcing you to work for me whether you wanted to or not, even if I was benevolently paternalistic and took care of you?

[Democratic Hawk]

No/no. The plantocracy, by and large, were benevolent paternalists who took care of their slaves. That's the story that's passed down through generations of my family anyway

Dave

Personally, whatever your answer to the poll is, I feel that it is irrelevant how the owner treated the slave. Slavery is slavery, even if it is 'benevolent'. Would you tolerate me forcing you to work for me whether you wanted to or not, even if I was benevolently paternalistic and took care of you?

No - but it is now 2004, not the 1861 and I think we've moved on from then since times have changed. It was just the way things happened to be back then. The South was primarily agrarian and negroes were much more adapted to working in hot conditions than whites were, they could have been free, I suppose, but they weren't whatever the rights and wrongs of it. Had I been around, it's possible, just like my grandfather (in the segregated South of the 20s and 30s), that I could very well have been ahead of my time, in believing that slavery, like segregation, was morally wrong. I don't know

Perhaps in the context of the time, slaves being provided for was marginally preferable to ex-slaves working for a pittance and having to provide for themselves - but things have fundamentally changed since then and are not really applicable to today's socio-economic context

Dave