Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two African-American Activists Sue US Corporations for Slavery
VOANEWS.com (Voice of America) ^ | 5/17/02 | Jenny Badner

Posted on 05/27/2002 10:06:40 AM PDT by Mom_Grandmother

VOANEWS.com (Voice of America)

Two African-American Activists Sue US Corporations for Slavery

Jenny Badner

New York 25 May 2002 20:39 UTC

U.S. federal courts are now considering two separate lawsuits brought by African Americans seeking reparations for slavery during the 1800s. The potentially historic lawsuits follow other successful legal action brought against German corporations who used slave labor during the Nazi era.

Slavery, as an institution, ended in 1865 in the United States after a bloody Civil War. Now, for the first time, more than 100 years later, two class action lawsuits accuse large U.S. corporations of profiting from slavery.

The first case, filed in U.S. Federal Court in New York in March, named three companies, Aetna Insurance, FleetBoston bank and the railroad company CSX. About one month later, another suit in nearby New Jersey named New York Life Insurance, the investment-firm Brown Brothers and Norfolk Southern Corporation.

In the words of the March lawsuit, "the practice of slavery constituted an immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans' life, liberty, African citizenship rights and cultural heritage."

Two African-American activists brought the suits. They seek historic company documents and a jury trial that would determine the payment of punitive damages to the African-American community, along with the appointment of an independent commission.

Attorney Diane Sammons, who represents the plaintiffs, says, "U.S. corporations benefited from stolen labor, from stolen people and from crimes against humanity. And they are still holding on to the benefits of those particular crimes and they should not be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains."

Ms. Sammons says a multi-billion dollar settlement against German companies, which used slave labor under the Nazi-era in the 1930s and 1940s, set a legal precedent for the lawsuits.

But critics argue there are differences. They say that although the U.S. corporations or their predecessors named in the suits may have unjustly profited from slavery, the events are so old that the survivors of slavery and their children are no longer alive.

In a statement, New York Life Insurance spokesman, William Werfelman, says his company regrets that its predecessor, Nautilus Insurance, sold insurance policies on the lives of slaves between 1846 and 1847. Nonetheless, he says a company should be judged by its current actions and he expects to win in court.

"The fact that slavery was legal in certain parts of the United States at the time does not make it any less repugnant," he emphasized. "Regarding the lawsuits, any lawsuits about events 150-years ago face huge legal hurdles. And we fully expect to prevail in court."

The lawyers who brought the cases argue that the statute of limitations can be extended, since slavery is considered a crime against humanity in international courts. In addition, the claims are based on the legal concept of corporate liability.

Roger Wareham, who also represents the people who brought the cases, says the lawsuits are the latest in a growing campaign, pressing for reparations for slavery. Behind the efforts lies the argument that although slavery was abolished in the 19th century, about 35 million African American descendants of slaves continue to suffer from it through institutionalized racism.

Mr. Wareham says statistics show that as a group, American blacks lag behind whites in economics, education, health and life expectancy. "In every indicator of life, if you took at those statistics of the black community and the white community, and you place them on a chart next to each other, no one would believe that you are talking about people who are supposed citizens of the same country, [who] had the same opportunities, the same access," Mr. Wareham says. "You would think that you were talking about the comparison between a developing country and a developed country."

The U.S. government has never officially apologized or compensated African-Americans for slavery. Mr. Wareham says attorneys are searching for ways to get around the legal rule [sovereign immunity] that exempts the U.S. government from slave reparations lawsuits.

Meanwhile, new class-action lawsuits against additional companies accused of benefiting from slavery are expected to be filed in courts across the nation in the next month.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: New York; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: raparations; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last
"The fact that slavery was legal in certain parts of the United States at the time does not make it any less repugnant,"

JMHO: This little legal fact right here is what is going to defeat them in a court of law, unless there is a hidden law somewhere that says our future decendents can/will be held morally and fiancially responsable for all that we do today, even if the laws have changed then.

1 posted on 05/27/2002 10:06:40 AM PDT by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Hey, just think of all the murder convictions that will be possible if abortion is ever made illegal.
2 posted on 05/27/2002 10:22:32 AM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: fhayek
"Hey, just think of all the murder convictions that will be possible if abortion is ever made illegal."

That's my point exactly, how can you try, convict and sentence anyone today for what was not a crime then, but is today, especially if we had nothing to do with it? That's like holding my grandchildren guilty for our laws today, sometime in the future, it's insane!

4 posted on 05/27/2002 10:26:32 AM PDT by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Why not sue the Sudanese government for slavery today? If they win they can attach Sudanese assets in the US (if any).
5 posted on 05/27/2002 10:27:28 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
JMHO: This little legal fact right here is what is going to defeat them in a court of law, unless there is a hidden law somewhere that says our future decendents can/will be held morally and fiancially responsable for all that we do today, even if the laws have changed then.

Well simply, they have no legal standing. They can make as many faulty analogies as they want with compensation given to living people who were harmed during WWII, but it will make no legal difference. Those who brought these suits think they are smart for creating this scenario of "continued suffering through institutionalized racism", but it will be laughed out of court. I think they also don't realize that if they are bringing a "class action" suit where the plantif is "all african americans", then no "african american" could be on the jury! Wait till they here that in court. They will dismiss their own cases when they find out that only non-blacks can be on the jury.

6 posted on 05/27/2002 10:45:04 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: all
Pathetic
7 posted on 05/27/2002 10:46:46 AM PDT by devildogO341
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
How about a suit on behalf of both white and black slave owners covering periods when slavery was legal for the slaves failure to perform faithfully? There must have been standards of obedience that were based in the then laws.

Of course, these "activists" aren't really interested in the facts of the matter, they are just trying to shake down a couple of outfits with money.

You wonder whether the normal business activities of these companies hurt or helped the lives of the slaves. Did the death benefit paid when a slave (or a horse) expired help the owner maintain the property and other slaves?

These "activists" are nothing more than black racist thugs and their lawyers who are working on contingency.

8 posted on 05/27/2002 10:48:17 AM PDT by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; maknight; South40; condolinda; mafree; trueblackman; FRlurker...
Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

9 posted on 05/27/2002 10:54:59 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

reparations are constitutionally illegal

10 posted on 05/27/2002 11:00:26 AM PDT by rottweiller_inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Just remember, it's not about the money.
11 posted on 05/27/2002 11:04:46 AM PDT by GuillermoX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
I think most conservatives would be quite surprised how much politically correct and multiculturalist propaganda Voice of America spews out over the international airways. Your tax dollars at work.
12 posted on 05/27/2002 11:12:14 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Two African-American activists brought the suits.

Two willing pawns in a dialectical board game.

I wonder if anyone has considered rejecting claims for reparations on the grounds that they constitute ex post facto restitution.

13 posted on 05/27/2002 11:24:39 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Thanks for the ping.
14 posted on 05/27/2002 11:28:52 AM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
They know they are going to lose. They know they have no legal leg to stand on. They know they will not get a dime out of this.

But, after it is over, they will be able to claim that they lost because the system was unfair and racist....."VICTIMS AGAIN BROTHERS!". Its about widening the divide between us and using that division to keep the slaves on THEIR plantation.
15 posted on 05/27/2002 11:32:55 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Well simply, they have no legal standing. They can make as many faulty analogies as they want with compensation given to living people who were harmed during WWII, but it will make no legal difference.

Agreed. In my opinion, this case was probably shopped around to any number of attorneys (with the bait being deep-pocketed U.S. corporations) after it was determined that the U.S. government wasn't likely to give out reparations. Sad as slavery was -- and it certainly was a repugnant and immoral practice -- (1) it was legal at the time, (2) the men who undertook these actions and the slaves have been dead for nearly a century, (3) the statute of limitations has long passed, and (4) if this case is allowed to proceed, it will open up claims to sue decedents of any historically damaging figure. I want it on record now: I'm suing George III's decedents for the massacre at Boston Common. /sarcasm
16 posted on 05/27/2002 11:50:35 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
I wonder if anyone has considered rejecting claims for reparations on the grounds that they constitute ex post facto restitution.

The Cato Institute has: THE CASE AGAINST CIVIL EX POST FACTO LAWS
17 posted on 05/27/2002 11:55:44 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mhking
These things make me nervous, Mike.
18 posted on 05/27/2002 12:02:30 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
I knew the problem would come from the fact that nobody is trying to pass a LAW criminalizing slavery after the fact. In other words, this action is to be decided under civil law, not criminal.

On the other hand, John Conyers has been trying for years to pass legislation in Congress that would effectively order reparations. At that point, the ex post facto argument becomes much more germane.

I don't know that this action has any real legal merit. But when a stupid old lady can sue for millions because she spills coffee on her crotch, anything is possible.

19 posted on 05/27/2002 12:05:15 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
I wonder if anyone has considered rejecting claims for reparations on the grounds that they constitute ex post facto restitution.

This definitely would be "after the fact," rendering it meaningless.

If there were an envelope to arrive in my mailbox that had anything to do with reparations, I will immediately mark it "Return to Sender."

20 posted on 05/27/2002 12:07:02 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson