Reparations for Slavery?
Introduction
The idea of reparations for slavery has been around in one form or another since the time of the Civil War.[1] Recently, the subject has received renewed attention as several Democratic candidates for president have announced their support for the idea. They argue that the legacy of slavery and its attendant evils are largely responsible for the disparities we see today between whites and blacks in terms of their respective educational achievement, household income, net worth, homeownership, unemployment and incarceration rates, etc.
The idea of reparations for slavery has been around in one form or another since the time of the Civil War.[1] Recently, the subject has received renewed attention as several Democratic candidates for president have announced their support for the idea. They argue that the legacy of slavery and its attendant evils are largely responsible for the disparities we see today between whites and blacks in terms of their respective educational achievement, household income, net worth, homeownership, unemployment and incarceration rates, etc.
Whites
have a significantly higher household income ($71,300) than blacks ($43,300).
Homeownership
is more common for whites than for blacks:
72 percent vs. 43 percent.
The
unemployment rate for blacks (as of 2015) was 10.3 percent, more than double for that
of whites at 4.5 percent.
Things
have improved a great deal since then for both groups. As of the first quarter of 2019, white
unemployment was down to 3.7 percent and black unemployment down to 7.1 percent.[2] It should be noted that not only did the rates for both groups go down, but the difference between them
narrowed, as well.
Median
net worth is 13 times greater for whites than blacks: $144,200 vs. $11,200
There
are several other statistical disparities that we could point to, as well. The claim is that these disparities are due
to the “legacy of slavery,” followed by decades of racial discrimination, and
that to make up for these injustices, reparations ought to be paid to the
descendants of slaves. This is
fundamentally a moral argument, a
matter of justice. The question is, what
are we to make of the argument? A
little historical perspective is necessary.
Slavery: A Universal Phenomenon
The
first thing to be said is that slavery has been a universal phenomenon. It’s doubtful there has ever been a nation,
tribe, or people, that has not either been
enslaved or has not traded in slaves
at some point in its history. Most have
both in their experience. Every
civilization for which we have contemporary or near contemporary written
documentation, archaeological evidence, or reliable oral traditions provide
evidence of this. Slavery was practiced
in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Israel, Greece, Rome, among the tribes of
Europe, in India, China, Africa, and among the native populations of North and
South America. It would be a mistake to
think that slavery was a uniquely American institution or that it necessarily
has a racial component to it.[3]
To
underscore this point, consider the origin of the word slave. It derives from Slav, the name of an Eastern
European people, including Belarusians, Russians, Ukrainians, Czechs,
Moravians, Poles, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, and many others. In the Middle ages, so many Slavs were
captured by the Germans to supply the slave markets of Europe that their ethnic
name (Slav) became associated with someone in forced servitude (i.e., a slave).[4]
Slavery
Today
Unfortunately,
slavery has not been entirely eradicated even today. According to some estimates, there are nearly
25 million modern day slaves. This map
shows the modern incidence of slavery as a percentage of the population of each
country. The lighter the shade, the
lower the percentage of the total population is enslaved.
Of
the estimated 25 million slaves today, 16 million are exploited for their labor,
5 million are victims of sex-trafficking, and 4 million are in state-sponsored
forced labor systems[5]
African
Slavery
African
slavery preexisted contact with Europe, which is to say that Africans enslaved
other Africans long before any Europeans did.
This shouldn’t be surprising. This was true of other ethnic groups, too. Mesopotamians
enslaved other Mesopotamians, Europeans enslaved other Europeans, and native
American Indians enslaved other native American Indians.
It
should also be noted that most of the Africans brought to the New World by
Europeans weren’t captured and enslaved by Europeans, but by other Africans who
sold them to the Europeans. Often, they
were captured in inter-tribal wars or were sold into slavery as a punishment for
crime. The Europeans simply tapped into
an already existing slave market in Africa.
Evidence suggests, however, that as European demand for slaves increased
due to the need for cheap labor in the New World, powerful tribes along the
west coast of Africa undertook wars specifically for the purpose of capturing
people to sell to the Europeans, though this wasn’t necessarily known at the
time.[6]
The
first European nation to traffic in African slaves was Portugal. In the mid-15th century, the
Portuguese began to explore the west coast of Africa to see if they could find
a sea route to India and thus bypass the long, expensive, and troublesome overland
trade routes through Muslim held territory in the Middle East. In 1441, twelve African men were captured in
a raid on the Atlantic coast, taken back to Portugal, and presented as a gift
to Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460).
Thus began the European trade in African slaves.[7] The trade was small and sporadic at first,
but steadily grew, with the Spanish, Dutch, and English eventually getting into
the game.
The
importation of African slaves into the New World began in 1518 when a cargo of slaves
arrived in the Spanish colony of Hispaniola, the island of Haiti and the
Dominican Republic.
African
slavery was introduced into the British colonies of North America in 1619, when
a Dutch ship brought 20 slaves to Jamestown, only thirteen years after its
founding. The importation of slaves
would continue during the colonial era and in the early republic until 1808. As a concession to the southern states, the
Framers of the Constitution prohibited legislation banning the slave trade
until that time.
Article
1. Section 9.
“The
Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight…”
This was a compromise for
the sake of uniting the newly independent states for strength and security
reasons. Slavery was a very troublesome issue
that threatened to divide the states and thus make them vulnerable to attack by
European powers who still had a stake in the New World. The members of the Constitutional Convention kicked the can down the road, to be
dealt with at a later time. No
legislation could be passed banning the importation of slaves until 20 years
after the Constitution was ratified.
When
the time came, Congress acted swiftly. On
March 2, 1807, Congress passed, and President Thomas Jefferson signed the Act
Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves.
This went into effect on January 1, 1808, the very first day permitted
under the Constitution. Keep in the
mind, the bill didn’t outlaw the ownership
of slaves, but the importation of new
slaves. Many believed this would eventually
lead to the abolition of slavery.
Unfortunately, it didn’t.
How
many slaves were imported into the New World?
The map below gives us a good visual. The range (it says) is somewhere between 10-15
million. Most historians put the number
below 12 million. The figures on the map
total 11 million.
By
comparison, the number of Africans taken across the Sahara Desert to Muslim
North Africa or shipped through the Persian Gulf and other waterways to the
Middle East totaled 14 million, about one-third more than were brought to the
New World.[8] As Thomas Sowell observes, it’s somewhat ironic that in the 1960s
there was a movement among American blacks to repudiate their European names
and take Arabic names instead. A couple
of famous examples include Cassius Clay and Lew Alcindor (Muhammad Ali and Kareem
Abdul Jabbar).[9] He further observes that:
“North
Africa’s Barbary Coast pirates alone captured and enslaved at least a million
Europeans from 1500 to 1800, carrying more Europeans into bondage in North
Africa than there were Africans brought in bondage to the United States and the
American colonies from which it was formed.
Moreover, Europeans were still being bought and sold in the slave
markets of the Islamic world, decades after blacks were freed in the United States.”[10]
The following map shows the number of slaves in the British colonies of North America
in 1770, just prior to the War for Independence. The numbers indicate the number of slaves in
each state; the colors represent the slaves as a percentage of the state’s
population. The darker the color, the
higher the percentage.
Slavery
was finally outlawed in 1865 with the ratification of the 13th
Amendment.
Amendment
XIII
“Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or
any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Jim
Crow
Shortly
after the 13th Amendment was passed, many southern states enacted
Jim Crow laws, which mandated racial segregation in public facilities and permitted
private businesses to discriminate against blacks. These laws were challenged in the courts, but
eventually upheld by the Supreme Court’s Plessey vs. Ferguson decision of
1896. The Court held that state laws
requiring racial segregation were not unconstitutional so long as the public
facilities provided for blacks were equal to those provided for whites. This became known as the “separate, but
equal” doctrine and resulted in many countless scenes like the following:
In
theory and in law it was separate, but equal.
In practice, however, facilities for blacks were consistently inferior to
those for whites. This simple photo
illustrates the point rather well.
If it had been only a matter of water fountains, waiting rooms, and laundromats,
perhaps the impact would have been negligible.
But discrimination in employment and by lending institutions, and segregation
in schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods had a devastating impact on the
well-being of black families—not to mention the denial of voting rights. Facilities provided for blacks—when they were
provided at all—were consistently underfunded.
This was seen especially in schools.
White students had much better facilities and newer text books and
better paid teachers.
Jim
Crow was, in fact, true institutional
racism. That term gets thrown around
a lot today, I think quite inaccurately.
But Jim Crow was straight up institutional racism.
The
separate, but equal doctrine was finally overruled in the case of public schools
by Brown vs. Board of Education (1954).
This involved the Topeka school district and was one of the most important
court decisions of the 20th century.
A series of court cases and acts of Congress in the 1950s and
60s did a great deal more to roll back segregation, ensure civil rights, and appropriately stigmatize
racial discrimination as a great moral evil.
The
Case for Reparations
Those
who argue for reparations say that it’s a simple matter of justice: those held and forced to work against their
will for the benefit of others should be compensated for the work they’ve
done. How much compensation are we
talking about? In other words, how much
would it cost? According to University
of Connecticut researcher, Thomas Craemer, roughly 6-14 trillion dollars.
Craemer came up with
those figures by tabulating how many hours all slaves—men, women and
children—worked in the United States from when the country was officially
established in 1776 until 1865, when slavery was officially abolished. He
multiplied the amount of time they worked by average wage prices at the time,
and then a compounding interest rate of 3 percent per year (more than making up
for inflation). There is a range because the amount of time worked isn’t a hard
figure.[11]
His
estimates are widely considered to be a baseline for consideration. It’s a hefty price tag, to be sure, but if it
is indeed a matter of justice, then the price should be paid. The Lord requires us to act with justice, and
one aspect of justice is that those who do wrong should make things right by
compensating their victims (e.g., Ex. 22:1-15; Lev. 5:14-16).
The
Case against Reparations
Two
questions arise, however, with reparations. First, who
pays? Second, who gets paid? This is not as simple a matter as it may seem. Those
who argue for reparations say the U.S. government should pay. This means, of course, that the American
taxpayer should pay. But among American
taxpayers are many descendants of slaves, in which case they would be
contributing to paying reparations to themselves, which seems absurd.
Perhaps,
then, a new tax could be imposed on everyone except descendants of slaves.
But what about the many people who are of mixed European and African
ancestry? To what extent would they be
responsible for paying, and to what extent
eligible for receiving, reparations? If someone is, say, ¼ black and ¾ white, would
he pay the tax and get a quarter of the benefit back again? And how far back do we go to determine the mix? One generation? Two?
Three?
To make
matters even more complicated, not every black American is descended from a slave. There are now more people of African descent
who came to the U.S. freely in recent years than those who were brought here as
slaves, as the New York Times pointed out fourteen years ago:
The number of
African immigrants has grown even more since then. In fact, eighteen percent of blacks in the
United States today are first or second-generation immigrants.[12] Should they be eligible to receive
reparations? Should they be responsible
for paying reparations? Maybe they’re descended from some of the
powerful tribes who captured and sold their fellow Africans to the
Europeans?
And
what of whites, Hispanics, and Asians who arrived in the U.S. after the Civil
War and therefore had nothing to do with slavery? Most people who live in the United States
today are descended from people who had not even set foot on American soil until
after slavery was abolished. This includes most whites. It’s hardly just to hold them accountable for
sins that neither they nor their ancestors committed.
Perhaps,
then, reparations should be paid by the descendants of white Americans who were here before the Civil War? But not all of them participated in
slavery. According to the 1860 census, only
about a quarter (24.9%) of southern households owned slaves. This represents only 7.4 percent of all U.S. households, both north and
south, who owned slaves.
To
complicate matters even further, among the nearly half-million free blacks in
1860, an estimated 3,000 were themselves slave-owners. Together they owed about 20,000 black slaves.[13]
Not
only did the vast majority of whites not own a slave, many of them were vehemently opposed to slavery. There were many antislavery organizations in
the U.S. at the time, in fact more in the south than in the north. In addition, a great war was fought in part,
at least, to free the slaves, costing the nation a vast amount of blood and
treasure.
If
reparations were ever appropriate—and I think they were—they should have been
paid at the time of emancipation. Bayard
Rustin, one of Martin Luther King’s closest advisers was a vocal skeptic of
reparations. “The idea of reparations,”
he said, “is a ridiculous idea. If my
great-grandfather picked cotton for 50 years, then he may deserve some money,
but he’s dead and gone and nobody owes me anything.”[14]
It’s
difficult to see how reparations could be paid at this point in history without
committing new injustices. Reparations
would require people who were never slaveowners to compensate people who were
never slaves. But even if we could
unmistakably identify the descendants of slaveowners and the descendants of
slaves, Biblical jurisprudence forbids punishing children for the sins of their
fathers.
Fathers
shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put
to death because of their fathers. Each
one shall be put to death for his own sin.
— Deuteronomy 24:16 (cf. 2 Ki.
14:6; 2 Chr. 25:4)
The
soul who sins shall die. The son shall
not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the
iniquity of the son. The righteousness
of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall
be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20 (cf. Jer.
31:29-30)
The
U.S. has paid reparations before—to
Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II. President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties
Act of 1988 authorizing the payment of $20,000 (equal to $40,000 today) to each
Japanese-American still living who
had been interned in camps during the war.
The U.S. government eventually paid over $1.6 billion in reparations to
82,219 Japanese-Americans.[15]
There
was a proposal at the end of the Civil War to help the newly freed slaves by
giving them a tract of land. This was General
Sherman’s Special Field Order 15. The
order set aside 400,000 acres of confiscated Confederate land along the
southeast coast to be divided among the freed slaves, with each family to be
given up to 40 acres of tillable land.
It wasn’t in the order, but some of the freed slaves also received
leftover Army mules. The plan became
better known by its signature phrase, “40 acres and a mule.” There were several other proposals considered, too (i.e., foreign colonization, domestic
colonization, homesteading, etc.).
President
Andrew Johnson reversed Sherman’s order, as it became federal policy to return
confiscated land to southern whites if they took a loyalty oath to the U.S.
government. Black land ownership did
increase after the war, but it didn’t meet either the expectation of the newly
freed slaves or the promises of white politicians. Most former slaves became wage laborers or
share-croppers, often on the land of their former masters.
Conclusion
Certainly, slavery was one of the most shameful episodes in our nation’s history, but paying reparations at this late date is untenable. Those
who argue for them regard it as
a matter of justice; but how can it be just to require those who have never
been slaveowners to make reparations to those who have never been slaves? This would only create new injustices and inflame racial tensions. The
most effective—and the only just—means
our government has of promoting the success of any racial demographic (including making up for whatever residual effects of slavery remain) is to guarantee
individual liberty for all under the rule of law. Then, “they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid” (Mic. 4:4).
[1] In 1989,
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) introduced the “Commission to Study and Develop
Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act,” also known as H.R. 40. He proposed the bill every year from until
his resignation in 2017. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/40/text
[3] Thomas
Sowell, Race and Culture (New York,
NY: Basic Books, 1994), pp. 186-223
[4] Milton
Meltzer, Slavery: A World History (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, Inc., 1993), vol. I, pp. 3, 210. As Meltzer observes, the same thing had
happened earlier among the Britons.
“After the Anglo-Saxons invaded England in the fifth century a.d., the word in their language for the
persons without freedom was ‘Welshman’—the name of the native Britons they
enslaved. ‘Welsh’ eventually came to
mean slave” (pp. 209-210).
[6] See
Meltzer, vol. II, pp. 17-23; Jeremy Black, The
Slave Trade (London, Eng., Social Affairs Unit, 2006). To read a particularly moving account of a
young African boy captured by a neighboring tribe and eventually sold to
European slavers, see The Interesting
Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the African,
Written by Himself
[7] Meltzer,
Slavery:
A World History, vol. II, p. 1
[8] Thomas
Sowell, Race and Culture, p.
188. See also, Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies (New York,
NY: Basic Books, 2008), p. 163, note 27
[9] See
Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and
Fallacies, p. 163.
[10] Thomas
Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies,
p. 161
[11]
https://www.newsweek.com/slavery-reparations-could-cost-14-trillion-according-new-calculation-364141
[13] See https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/ . See also Larry Koger, Black Slaveholders: Free Black
Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 1985)
[14] Quoted
by Jason Riley, The Illogic of Slavery Reparations at This Late Date, in The
Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2019 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-illogic-of-slavery-reparations-at-this-late-date-11553037261)
Comments