If the lawyers in the Slavery Reparations case don't get sanctions, they may.........

Look
If I run a stop sign and kill you and I die as well, my estate pays your estate. Sure the slaves should have sued their masters- they were barred.

Hey look, slavery not only depressed the wages of slaves to zero (and the lack of freedom obviously was much worse) it signficantly depressed the wages of EVERY WORKER. And these are the people who took up arms to protect that economic blight. Wonder why there was little public education back then?

 

Yes but if your great grandfather ran a stop sign and killed my great grandfather does that me that you owe me money?

The poor white people in that era were not necessarily supporters of slavery. The fact that slaves provided free labor took jobs away from the poorest element of ante- bellum society. The poor white folks who took up arms to "protect that economic blight" probably did so not out of conviction to the system but because the military provided a wage. The very fact that slavery existed is a dark spot on the history of the "home of the free and the land of the brave" but whats that got to do with anybody who is still alive today? The govenrment rightfully paid reparations to the Japanese-Americans who were interned during WWII. Some of those people are still alive today and some of the perpetrators of their persecution are still alive today. Nobody who is not a direct victim of slavery should be entitled to a check paid for by anybody who was not a slaveowner. All former slaveowners and former slaves are now dead. While it is probable that a majority of African American citizens are descendents of slaves the descendents of slaveowners are a very small minority of the rest of the population whether they are white, Hispanic, Asian or other. Should descendents of Irish, Italian, Polish or German emigrants who came to this country after slavery had been abolished have to have their tax dollars pay for the sins of long dead people to the descendents of long dead former slaves? Should an Hispanic American or an Asian American born in the 60's or 70's have to pay for something that was not even a part of their ethnic history? Is 30 year old African American whose great great grandfather was enslaved entitled to a check?

 

Administrative nightmare?
That's an understatement.
Starting with who is the defendant?

 

Yes but if your great grandfather ran a stop sign and killed my great grandfather does that me that you owe me money?

No because my ggf wasn't barred from suing your ggf.

The SCt will kill this for administrative reasons, among other things. BUT considering former slaves couldn't sue masters, IF a person could trace his ascendants to slaves and then trace the descendants of the masters, I could see a case for collecting for direct harm if there is money left.

Now that's not what they're doing- they want some general damages which is silly.

 

A lot of poor whites believed the war was about protecting the interests of the plantation owners and refused to support the Confederacy. Eastern Tennessee, western NC, and West Virginia are examples.

 

I smell a Civil War battle brewing.
Slavery was wrong. Period. Anyone who tries to wiggle otherwise is wrong also.
But as a southerner circa the 21st Century, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the obvious South bashing.
Do some research and find what the term anti-slavery really meant in the North.
It meant anti-black to a large, large portion of Northern politicans and so-called thinkers.
What many in the North wanted was no blacks on this soil, slave or otherwise.
And post-war, the North did not open its bosom to the freed blacks.
In fact, they did just the opposite and did it legislatively.
The general idea of reparations are opened up, the potential plaintiffs and defendants are not just blacks and southerners.
There is a laundry list of aggrieved and aggriever.
Back to reparations in this context.
In no way am I confident the O'Connor Court would necessarily be constrained by administrative reasons for not finding a Constitutional basis for reparations to descendants of slaves.
Now if it cost Big Business anything, certainly they would find a reason to avoid reparations.
But if it could be crafted to assist Big Business in any way and make a social point, they'll find it.

 

I hope you're kidding. Your argument has no logic. Those who were "hurt" by Jim Crowe aren't the one's being helped by Affirmative Action. Further, the one's being HURT by A.A. were not the one's who were around during Jim Crowe.

The way A.A. is set up, you have RICH black kids taking the spot of poor white kids. The rich white kids are going to get theres - THEY HAVE THE CONNECTIONS. That's why Bush and other rich whites don't mind A.A. If A.A. was set up correctly, it would have POOR kids (white and black) taking the place of rich kids (white AND black). The Bush's and Gore's of the world can't have that - THEY would have been the one's who wouldn't have gotten into Yale and Harvard, respectively.

 

Reparations could very well be given a right status by the Supreme Court.
Just referring to it as a right gets Souter and Ginsburg's vote.
If it can be framed as providing dignity to a group, it gets Kennedy's vote.
If it can be framed as advancing diversity, it gets O'Connor's vote.
If it can be assured not to hurt Big Business, it gets Breyer's vote.
Wake up Stevens and tells him it benefits blacks and Scalia is probably against it and it gets Stevens vote.

 

I was just pointing out that there were some poor white Southerners who didn't support the Confederacy.