Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The idea of slavery reparations has been a topic of considerable debate. The premise is that the federal government should provide some form of restitution for the centuries in which the United States benefited during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Those in support of reparations generally argue that the current economic and social disparities between Blacks and Whites are direct results of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation. This is manifested in problems that African Americans have experienced in acquiring property and income and accumulating wealth, they argue. Supporters of reparations assert that reparations will be a first step toward erasing the existing inequality between Whites and Blacks. Since 1989, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. has introduced a bill each year to study slavery reparations; each year, the bill has failed to garner enough support.

Those against reparations generally maintain that because no African Americans currently living in the United States personally experienced slavery, they are not entitled to such benefits. Furthermore, those against reparations argue that slavery was legal at the time it existed. Thus, although it is evident in retrospect that slavery was morally wrong, there is no legal basis for slavery reparations to be administered. Moreover, they argue that corporations that were involved in the economic exploitation of slave labor have long since mended their ways and should no longer be held liable for the current status of African Americans. Those against reparations also contend that paying reparations would increase racial tensions in this country. This entry discusses the two perspectives and their historical background.

What Supporters Say

Some supporters justify slavery reparations with arguments pertaining to promises of land for the newly freed slaves shortly after the Civil War. General William Tecumseh Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15, which set aside land in the South for the freedmen. Forty acres were to be distributed to each head of a former slave family. The term Forty Acres and a Mule, which is a rallying slogan for reparations supporters, originates from Sherman's order. Even though Sherman never specifically mentioned mules, some believe that the army may have distributed them to help the freedmen till the land. However, after President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated and Andrew Johnson became president, the order was reversed and the land was redirected to Whites.

After emancipation, the lives of the former slaves did not change that much. Although the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were passed to provide equal rights and protection under the law for the newly freed slaves as U.S. citizens, equality was not the reality. Black Codes and Jim Crow laws were instituted so that options were limited for Blacks. Many continued working on the plantations for White landowners. Blacks and Whites were segregated socially and legally.

Moreover, violence against Blacks did not stop with emancipation. The lynching and murder of Blacks also continued, and race riots in Chicago, Illinois (1919); Tulsa, Oklahoma (1921); and Rosewood, Florida (1923), left many Blacks dead or victimized by White rioters. In addition, even though there has been ample opportunity to do so, the U.S. government still has not formally apologized for slavery, and recent legislative proposals by Congress to do so have not been supported either.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading