United Nations Panel: U.S. Owes Black People Reparations for History of Slavery

A United Nations-affiliated group in Geneva is calling for the U.S. to give African Americans reparations for the country’s history of slavery, according to a recent report by the group.

The group’s statement was part of a study by the United Nations’ Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a group that reports to the international organization’s High Commissioner on Human Rights.

The group of experts, made up of leading human rights lawyers from around the world, presented its findings about the link between the U.S.’s history of slavery and present injustices, such as the recent police shootings of African Americans.

“In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,” the report stated. “Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.”

The panel said that police shootings of African Americans during the past year have caused a “human rights crisis” that is in urgent need of addressing and compared recent shootings to acts of lynchings in the late 1800s.

The group said the reparations could come in a variety of forms, such as “a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities, … psychological rehabilitation, technology transfer and financial support, and debt cancellation.”

Ricardo A. Sunga, one of the panel members who was asked about the presidential race in the United States, talked about “hate speech … xenophobia (and) Afrophobia” prevalent in the race, but did not call out any candidates by name.

The reparations, however, are unlikely to occur since the group’s recommendations are non-binding and unlikely to influence policy in the United States.

Just for clarification, do you believe that slavery, as it existed in the south at the time of the civil war, should have continued to be legal?

You do realize that Slavery continued in the North for longer than it did in the South? The Slave States of Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri were all Union Slave States during the war and Slavery still continued in some of them after it was abolished in the South.

So how do you explain the tolerance of Slavery in the Union states, if "ending slavery" was the purpose of the war? Couldn't they have "ended slavery" in the Union States first? I mean the supply lines would have been much shorter!

Here is what William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State said about the Emancipation Proclamation:

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Yeah, that was kinda hypocritical, don't you think?

Abraham Lincoln wanted to end slavery, but he also wanted to preserve the union even more, no matter the cost. I personally consider him a hero, but what if he was wrong?

Well he *was* wrong. The right of states to leave a larger Union is articulated in the Declaration of Independence and is in fact the very foundation of our own US Government. Beyond that, Lincoln himself said that the right to independence is a sacred right which all people everywhere posses.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

Of course he was speaking of Texas' Independence, which he supported in 1848 when they were breaking away from Mexico, but which he completely opposed in 1861 when they were breaking away from him.

You think of Abraham Lincoln as a Hero, as did I before I learned better, but this is because you have been taught a deliberately false history of what happened and why.

Lincoln himself said in August of 1862 that if it would end the war, he wouldn't free any slaves. He would keep them all in bondage.

When one looks at the History objectively, one realizes that Lincoln was less the hero, and more the monster than we have been led to believe.

“So how do you explain the tolerance of Slavery in the Union states, if ‘ending slavery’ was the purpose of the war?”

If you go back an re-read the post to which you replied, you will find that I never said that was the purpose of the war. My exact words were “Lincoln wanted to end slavery, but he also wanted to preserve the union even more, no matter the cost.”

“When one looks at the History objectively, one realizes that Lincoln was less the hero, and more the monster than we have been led to believe.”

History is complex. It is difficult to understand and not allow preconceptions to taint one’s perspective.

Lincoln was a human being. Like almost all human beings, he had flaws. He also may have changed his mind on occasions, or come to a new understanding about certain matters.

I think Bush Jr. was an honorable president who made a choice to wage war in Iraq with the right motives. But I think the facts of the matter later showed that the risks from Saddam Hussein were overblown. And maybe that was due to his saber rattling. And also I think Bush had handlers who knew how to manipulate him to achieve the desired outcome which was war. And that war has turned out to be a disaster, mostly because the keys to the kingdom changed hands.

Lincoln may have had similar motives to “save the Union”. While I agree that there can be a moral case for secession, there is not ALWAYS a moral case in every case. In some cases it represents insurrection. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges this ability as part of the natural right of self-government.

On the other hand, would you be willing to accommodate the Black Lives Matter call for areas where their followers can practice “self government” by not allowing law enforcement inside?

The very document you cited explicitly confirms that Lincoln was opposed to slavery. He just considered saving the Union to be more important. That is essentially what I said earlier.

“You do realize that Slavery continued in the North for longer than it did in the South? ... Yeah, that was kinda hypocritical, don’t you think?”

I’m sure there was plenty of hypocrisy to go around. There were Christian abolitionists arguing to end slavery before this nation was even formed. In trying to address the issue, which is something that has existed nearly everywhere since the dawn of man, Christian leaders consulted the Bible. They came to various conclusions. On the one hand, both the Old and New Testaments at the very least allow for the existence of slavery. It is not treated as innately evil like many proscribed things are. God had no problem telling all nations that their idolatry was abominable. Yet He allowed slavery to exist in the legal system He designed for Israel. And His apostles did not go around stirring up slaves to revolt or commanding their masters to free them.

So Christian leaders were divided over slavery in America (”the land of the free”). But they almost universally either preached the treating of slaves kindly, or the end of slavery altogether. Almost none were saying that blacks ought to be tortured, lynched for non-capital crimes (according to God’s laws), kidnapped from their home lands, sexually abused, or otherwise treated as sub-human. But, make no mistake, slavery was abolished in the US because Christians saw it as their Christian duty to do so.

Only God knows what would have happened if the Civil War had not been fought. I think that slavery would have been abolished eventually even if the war never happened. But that is merely an opinion.

Slavery is a hot button issue that is difficult for many people to discuss rationally or objectively. And attempting to do so causes some to feel that the very act of rational discussion is egregious because it is like Nazi’s discussing the practicality of turning Jewish bodies into lampshades. But at risk of that, I think it is wise to ask WHY God did not absolutely prohibit slavery. In that context, I would point out that the legal system God gave Israel did not have prisons. Can you imagine the abolition of prisons?

It is also interesting to see how God allowed Joseph to be sold into slavery before becoming a powerful ruler. Later, the whole nation of Israel became slaves to the Egyptians. And God provided for reparations to them from the Egyptians for their unpaid labor. At the same time, He led the Israelites out of Egypt to a different land.

In the case of Joseph, God gave him wisdom which he shared with his brothers who betrayed him, that they “meant it for evil, but God meant it for good”. Similarly, blacks in this nation, in spite of the lasting consequences of slavery on them, are fortunate to have been born in the greatest nation on the planet, ever. And, while the slave trade that brought their ancestors here was a great evil, God worked it out for the good of the blacks who are here today because of slavery.

Was the Civil War unfair to some people. Sure. Was the slave trade unfair to some people. Of course. Are there repercussions today that are unfair for blacks? Yes. Whites? Yes, also. Is it fair that, as a conservative I have almost no representation in the federal government? No. But I would not trade places with someone born in another country. There are a lot of unfair things. There are many injustices in the world. The question is: What are we going to do about them?

Lincoln was a human being. Like almost all human beings, he had flaws. He also may have changed his mind on occasions, or come to a new understanding about certain matters.

Especially when it is in his, and his backer's economic interest for him to change his mind.

Lincoln without a dog in the fight says Independence is a "Sacred Right". Lincoln with massive losses of Federal Revenue from uncollected Tariff's and Lincoln with Wealthy and Powerful Financial backers from the North Eastern Industries jumping up and down on his back, quickly decides that maybe "Independence" is not so much of a "Sacred Right" as he previously believed.

Lincoln may have had similar motives to “save the Union”. While I agree that there can be a moral case for secession, there is not ALWAYS a moral case in every case.

According to the Declaration of Independence, it is up to the people who want independence to decide that they should have it.

,That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Pretty clear to me. Didn't see any conditions stipulated in that document.

In some cases it represents insurrection.

The population of the South which demanded independence was larger than all the original 13 colonies combined. I'm sure the British thought the colonies were engaging in "insurrection" too, but our system of governance is based on the idea that people have a right to become independent of a government that no longer suits their interests.

I’m sure there was plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

It is not a question of other people being hypocrites. Bad behavior on their part does not justify bad behavior on Lincoln's part, and since Lincoln was the sole man responsible for initiating and continuing the war, it is his hypocrisy and that of his invaders which should be focused upon.

But, make no mistake, slavery was abolished in the US because Christians saw it as their Christian duty to do so.

That is the narrative that the Union Government, having killed 750,000 people, having destroyed half a nation's worth of economic wealth, and having caused a massive and lingering social disaster, would prefer that your believe. It is not however, the truth.

Slavery was ended for the purpose of making good on a war tactic threat. It was a "Dirty Harry "Make my day" " event. Lincoln thought that if he could threaten them with the loss of their capital and the core of their economic engine, he could intimidate them into capitulating. They fought on, and he made good on the threat he had made.

Again, if slavery was ended for "Christian" and "Moral" reasons, that "ending" would have started with the Union Slave States, not the enemy slave states. Here is what the London Spectator said about the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the coming conflict....The principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.

That is the most accurate summation of it I have ever seen.

“According to the Declaration of Independence, it is up to the people who want independence to decide that they should have it...
Pretty clear to me. Didn’t see any conditions stipulated in that document.”

It is clear. But your position is not so much. Slaves were people. Slaves wanted independence. Should they not have received it?

The Declaration of Independence is an important document because it explains WHY the Revolution happened. It provides some guidance as to the intent of the founders when interpreting the Constitution and early laws. But the Declaration of Independence does not have any governing authority like the Constitution does.

The Constitution does NOT provide any specific condition in which secession is warranted. Nor does it provide a method for doing so. It does, however, specifically grant authority to Congress to suppress insurrections:

“The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.... Article I, Section 8, Clause 15

Further, your analogy breaks down because, in order to achieve independence, the colonies DID have to fight a war. But you are arguing that the South should have been able to simply put the Union on notice that they were seceding without a war being necessary. Even if secession is justified, the expectation that this can happen by simply drafting a letter is unrealistic.

“our system of governance is based on the idea that people have a right to become independent of a government that no longer suits their interests”

Can I take that as a “yes” as to BLM getting to set up their own private government within areas of the country that are mostly black? They want police no-go zones. Are you okay with towns in Michigan being governed by Shariah law if the majority there prefer it?

“The population of the South which demanded independence was larger than all the original 13 colonies combined.”

The 13 colonies were fighting for their freedom. The South was fighting to keep freedom from millions of slaves.

How about the rights of those who had been born into a system of slavery? Do they not have a right to a government that represents them?

“That is the narrative that the Union Government”

It is not merely a “narrative”. It is a historical fact that Christian abolitionists were working hard since before the founding of this nation to end slavery. They had not reached enough support in public opinion to resolve the issue when the nation was founded. But many were against slavery and for emancipation from the start. And it was the Christian influence. Protestant Christian particularly. And it is not simply a matter of the majority identifying as Christian. It is particularly BECAUSE of their Christian faith that they took this position and actually tried to change society.

“Slavery was ended for the purpose of making good on a war tactic threat.”

Now you are getting into kooky conspiracy theory territory. Regardless of financial or political reasons for Lincoln or others to support the war and emancipation of slaves, the majority in the north wanted to end slavery. The war was not fought merely to save face for Lincoln.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing that the Civil War was the only way or the best way to resolve the slavery issue. I agree with the conclusion many people draw that the rights of states were damaged in the process. But the notion that slavery, as it existed in the US, was acceptable, is an untenable position.

And your argument for an independent South does not make the case successfully. It fails to address the human rights of the slaves who were not citizens at the time but were humans under the jurisdiction of this nation. They had human rights which were not being protected. And that had to change. One way or the other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html?utm_term=.b6c8c8f06cb1

If you are citing the Washington Post, you have already lost the argument.

Just for kicks, I looked at the arguments of the Vermont Liberal Sociology (not History) Professor. He gets a few things right, but some of the essentials he gets absolutely wrong.

The "Tariff" is a misrepresentation of the real issue. Yes, the South was paying 3/4ths of the Tariff revenue, but that is not the larger aspect of the economics involved.

The larger economic issue was the 40% of all value which New York was siphoning off from Southern exports through their Shipping, Banking, Warehousing and Insurance monopolies. The manner in which New York had focused nearly all European trade to flow through their City is clearly Illustrated by this map.

The fact that 3/4ths of that money represented by those Coins over New York was created in the South, was not lost on the Southern businesses that created that wealth. (Yes, through slavery.) Independence would let the South gain 3/4ths of that trade money represented by those tariff collections, and it would also mean that the Wealthy and Powerful Robber Barons who backed Lincoln for the Presidency would not only *LOSE* that money, but would also face newly capitalized Southern Competition for their own existing Industries.

The Fact is, Southern Independence would have been economically ruinous to the Wealthy Northern Interests as well as directly ruinous to the Union Federal government revenues.

The money involved, representing a large chunk of the total economic activity of the North Eastern States, was easily enough of a reason to launch a war to Stop this threat to their interests by stopping the Independence that was causing it.

As Anti-Slavery Author Charles Dickens noted at the time:

…the Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.…Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as many, many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Southern Independence was a Deadly financial threat to the power blocs of New York/New England, and *THAT* is why there was a war.

It is clear. But your position is not so much. Slaves were people. Slaves wanted independence. Should they not have received it?

Well the Founders didn't think so. Despite Jefferson having written "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..." he apparently didn't apply this idea to his own slaves, nor did any of the other founders apply it to their slaves, so we must conclude that they didn't mean for it to apply to slaves in general. The Union also did not apply this idea to slaves for "Four Score and Seven Years" either. They only got the notion that this should apply to slaves in January of 1863. For some reason they just seized upon the idea 18 months after the war had started.

But as a moral issue, yes, all people should be free, but it wasn't for a moral reason that the Union invaded the South. At best it was for a pseudo-legal technicality of "preserving the Union". At worst, even this was just a made up excuse.

But the Declaration of Independence does not have any governing authority like the Constitution does.

The Declaration is the mother of the constitution. It lays down the foundational authority under which the Constitution derives it's own legitimacy. The Nation operated with no constitutional charter from 1776 to 1781, and it didn't ratify the actual constitution until 1789.

If the principle upon which the Declaration is based is invalid, then so too is the legitimacy of the US Constitution. This is sort of like that old "time travel" adage of "Killing your Grandfather." If you reject the legitimacy of the Declaration, then you have no legitimacy under the Constitution.

The Constitution does NOT provide any specific condition in which secession is warranted.

And why would it? It was understood by all and sundry in 1787 that the Declaration cites Natural Law as the basis of the Government. The constitution merely lays out a blueprint for what the founders believed would be a relatively well functioning governance. The Founders recognized that the Declaration was based on the laws of God, and the Constitution was based on the laws of Man.

Further, your analogy breaks down because, in order to achieve independence, the colonies DID have to fight a war.

The British Government was founded on the concept of the "Divine Right of Kings." It regarded allegiance as eternal. When the founders declared a right to independence based on the "laws of nature and of nature's God", they adopted a new paradigm. They put forth an explicit recognition of a right to independence for any people that wish it.

It is understandable that a nation should have to fight a war to change an existing standard which doesn't allow independence, but once that standard has been changed, why should it necessitate fighting a war with a nation that recognizes a right to be independent? Why did Lincoln shift the paradigm back to that of King George III, instead of that which the founders adopted "four score and seven years" earlier?

Can I take that as a “yes” as to BLM getting to set up their own private government within areas of the country that are mostly black?

If they so wish. Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan and others have proposed this very thing. It would not bother me if they chose to do this. In fact, such a thing would legitimize that foundational idea which Lincoln destroyed, that people have a right to self determination.

The 13 colonies were fighting for their freedom. The South was fighting to keep freedom from millions of slaves.

Please stop with the histrionics. Both the North and the South regarded slavery as Legal when the war began. For "Four Score and Seven Years", This was the flag of slavery.

They didn't go to war to stop slavery, so the South's position on it was not relevant to why the North invaded. You can't justify the bloodshed by an "after the fact" act of atonement with other people's lives and money.

They had not reached enough support in public opinion to resolve the issue when the nation was founded. But many were against slavery and for emancipation from the start.

The abolitionists of the day were mostly regarded in the manner that liberal kooks are regarded nowadays. Most of the people in the North who were opposed to slavery were not opposed to it on moral grounds so much as they were opposed to it on the basis of labor and wages. Most men of the day had to earn a wage to survive, and the absolute most hateful thing in their mind was someone working for free and putting them out of work.

If you will look at the modern Northern States, you see that they are heavily Unionized, and very much in favor of protectionism and Federal subsidies. Their modern disposition is little different from what it was in 1860. The same attitudes and social dynamics are at work in 2016 Ohio as existed in 1860 Ohio.

Dickens also sums up the conditions prevalent in most Northern States of 1860.

Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."

Lincoln also had great disdain for blacks, and was one of the executive members of an Illinois organization dedicated to deporting them to other countries. There were laws in Illinois which banned blacks from settling in that state.

Please do not think me so gullible as to believe that people who viciously hated blacks, would fight a war out of concern for their plight. Yes, maybe a few abolitionist kooks, but the vast majority of Northern men did not give one sh*t about blacks being enslaved.

It is not kooky conspiracy theory because Lincoln made it clear that keeping slavery was an acceptable option to him.

If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Lincoln was quite clear on the point.

The war was not fought merely to save face for Lincoln.

No, it was initially fought for economic supremacy. After awhile, it was fought simply for revenge, and to assert dominance. Abolishing slavery was both a "revenge" against the South for having fought so hard, and a demonstration of "dominance" to rub their faces in the fact they had been beaten.

But the notion that slavery, as it existed in the US, was acceptable, is an untenable position.

Except that Lincoln explicitly said that was an acceptable outcome. That statement from Lincoln is quite difficult to square with the official narrative, isn't it?

Here's a statement from General Sherman speaking in 1864 to the people of a Southern town he had captured.

Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late,--all the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves any more than their dead grandfathers."

Apparently he saw the issue as negotiable in 1863 if the South would stop fighting.

It fails to address the human rights of the slaves who were not citizens at the time but were humans under the jurisdiction of this nation. They had human rights which were not being protected.

My argument ignores it as a factor, because we have evidence from two powerful Union leaders that it wasn't really a factor in their decisions. For "four score and seven years" it wasn't regarded as a factor.

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.