Posted on 04/30/2005 5:21:01 AM PDT by Founding Father
Bank of America insists it can't find slave profits in its past
April 30, 2005
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Under fire from the City Council's champion for slave reparations, Bank of America stuck to its guns Friday: The bank has hired a researcher to dig deeper but has so far has uncovered no evidence that a predecessor bank invested in or profited from the slave trade.
To the contrary, Bank of America said its research suggests that the predecessor, Providence Bank, "distanced itself from and declined to support slavery-related activities." That's even though John Brown -- Providence Bank's founding president, director and shareholder -- was a well-known slave owner who arranged for the transportation of slaves.
Founded in 1791, Providence Bank is a predecessor of Fleet Boston, which was acquired by Bank of America last year.
"First, the research disclosed no evidence establishing that the Providence Bank had investments or profits from slavery. Second, there is no indication of the source of the funds used by Brown to purchase his 23 shares in the bank. Last, the evidence suggests that the bank, in fact, avoided slave-related activities of John Brown or any other bank customer," said the bank's attorney V. Duncan Johnson.
'We won't stop'
Ald. Dorothy Tillman (3rd) accused "arrogant" bank officials of providing "selective and fraudulent" information to a joint City Council committee.
Tillman said research conducted by her daughter at some of the same places Bank of America looked -- the Rhode Island Historical Society and Brown University Library -- has already produced evidence that Providence Bank made loans used to purchase ships that transported slaves.
"The whole reason the bank was founded was so that the merchants could have a bank for their money to go through. Their whole existence was slavery. They had no other existence," she said.
"They thought they could bring this lawyer in and lie and just say, 'Moses Brown [John's brother] was an abolitionist. You see, they were good guys.' The lawyer's job was to protect Bank of America -- not to get to the truth. And we won't stop until we get to the truth."
Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th) cautioned Tillman not to "toss around the words 'fraud' and 'misrepresentation.' "
"It is the opinion of the chair that there has been no fraudulent conduct on the part of these witnesses," he said.
Black, Jewish aldermen clash
Ald. Burton F. Natarus (42nd) also urged Tillman to take a deep breath -- prompting an uncomfortable clash between black and Jewish aldermen.
"Prior to the Civil War, you're going to find almost every one of these corporations were involved with the institution of slavery. You're going to find it, and no matter what you do, you can't hide it. But the problem is, how long are you going to badger them with it?" Natarus said.
That infuriated Tillman, who reminded Natarus that African-American aldermen had supported him in the threat to punish Swiss banks that ultimately resulted in the return to Holocaust victims of hundreds of millions of dollars in gold looted by conquering German armies.
"The Jewish community -- your community -- received reparations. What happened to them was wrong. And you were relentless in making sure that anybody and everybody who had anything to do with the Holocaust would be brought to justice . . . What we're saying is, we have a right to be repaid," Tillman said.
Ald. William Beavers (7th) added, "You want to know how long it's going to go on? It's going to go on as long as the Holocaust. The Holocaust is never going to end, and this is never going to end. So when we support you, you support us."
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
May have been legal but doesn't make it right. What about things like Nuremberg Laws? Those were legal. I think the time for reparations were right after emancipation and the war, entirely too late now to do now.
Why is it disgusting? I don't believe in reparations but I hardly think the comparison is disgusting.
Abe Lincoln's mother and sister are buried on a piece of our old family farm. We are pretty sure what his motives were.
BTW, you gotta' be kidding if you want me to believe this fine gentleman did anything dishonest in his life. That's just Southern propaganda.
I'm sure many slaves were glad for the bit of unconstitutional action.
That's a very good point. To the degree Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional, they were still necessary. Notice that the Union "patched up" the Constitution after the war with 3 amendments.
B of A bought Providence, not the other way around.
B of A is not a yankee bank.
And if people don't think that slavery impacts some people today, my mother was telling me about some of my great aunts, children of slaves in the West Indies. People pass down stories and experiences. It's too bad that a lot of black Americans' ancestors needed Abe Lincoln's "unconstitutional" action to give them what they should have had in the US in the first place.
Is BofA a San Fran bank or a Souvrn' Kolifornya bank?
The institution of slavery was accompanied by all the other sorts of dehumanizing attitudes we anticipate finding anywhere totalitarianism gains a foothold.
Why would they be looking? Who gives a rats butt what the black leaders think or do - tell 'em to eat cake!!
At this point of the debate, I would normally recommend some books on the topic of discussion, but your posts and family history indicate that, perhaps, your mind is closed on this subject. I will say this, my family also had casualties in the Civil War, from Michigan and for the Union. That doesn't change the fact that Lincoln was just another cheap politician.
Agreed. I am doing some reading about the Civil War and it's amazing all the things that went on both sides. History is amazing anyway but reading about the CW/WBTS makes one appreciate America of 2005.
And over 142 years ago!
Please post the books for my benefit and anyone else reading. Thanks :-)
Well. Bank of America needs to manufacture some records. The women and children need the money. After all they are entitled.
Just comparing death to forced labor. (I was not including the slaves who died enroute, or at the hands of hard taskmasters.) I can see how you could compare the two. Of course many imprisoned Jews were forced into labor and later killed. But to any individual being given the choice of death of a lifetime of forced labor, (even with the best of circumstances) both choices would seem inhuman.
This entire arguement was in response to another poster who wanted to use the fact that the decendents of Jews did in fact get reparations from Germany to argue that slave decendents should also get reparations.
In the case of Germany, the rational for the killing of the Jews was largely to deprive them of their property and share these proceeds with the dominant government. In the case of slavery, the humans themselves were captured and sold and the persons who "owed" the reparations would be the slavers and to a lesser extent the slave owners (slavery being supported by the government means the society sharred the debt of slavery). As I said before, to follow up with reparations for slavery one would need a clear link between one who was wronged and one who did the wrongdoing. Even if the government of the United States agreed to be the wrong-doer, the slave decendents would need to show that they were deserving of some monetary reward and that the eventual reward of freedom and a life in this country was not compensation enough.
Okay I understand. The reason why the many Jewish survivors got reparations is because the world has/had a different consciousness than 100-300 years ago. He's seems bitter that black slaves didn't get the same benefits but I guess what can one do? You can't go back and undo history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.