Wed 27 Feb, 2008
U.S. Senate to consider slavery apology
Comments (28) Filed under: RemediesTags: Apologies, Legislation, Sam Brownback, Slavery, Tom Harkin, U.S. Congress
The U.S. Senate will consider an apology for slavery and the subsequent history of legalized discrimination, under a plan announced by senators Sam Brownback and Tom Harkin and covered in an article made available by USA Today this evening.
Harkin and Brownback have already lined up 14 co-sponsors, including presidential candidates Clinton and Obama, for their proposed apology, which they plan to introduce in the Senate as early as March.
Harkin (D-Iowa) notes that several states have already apologized for slavery in the last year, and says that he’s “really shocked, just shocked” that the U.S. Congress hasn’t acted on an apology yet.
Like several of the state apologies, the Senate proposal would contain language stipulating that the apology could not serve as the basis for reparations lawsuits.
Brownback (R-Kansas) had previously announced his intention to sponsor such an apology with a Democratic ally last fall, when he was running for the Republican presidential nomination.
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) introduced an apology resolution in the U.S. House last year. His proposal, H.Res. 194, is currently before the House Judiciary Committee and has attracted 120 co-sponsors.
Cogito says:
I think the Democrats, since they are the main proponents, should set an example by apologizing for slavery first. After all the “Party of Disunion” ’s apology is long overdue.
James says:
Thanks, Cogito.
I’m not quite sure I follow your reasoning, though. The proponents of this legislation — both Republicans and Democrats, by the way — aren’t suggesting that anyone alive today should apologize for slavery (or could, if they wanted to). They’re arguing that Congress should apologize, on the theory that Congress was around at the time and passed laws keeping millions of people enslaved.
The Democratic Party could, of course, issue its own apology as an institution for its actions in advocating many of the policies for which this legislation would apologize. (This is particularly true if you consider the party to be responsible for the actions of its predecessor, the Democratic-Republican Party, which was deeply involved in the institution of slavery, as was its contemporary, the Federalist Party.)
However, the Republican Party also bears its share of historical responsibility for the congressional actions to be apologized for. So the Republican proponents of an apology are hardly coming to the table with hands any more clean than those of their Democratic colleagues.
Perhaps both parties should take this up at their national conventions this summer? I wonder whether we would see an equal response on this issue from the delegates of both parties?
Dick says:
Why would a sane man apologize for something he took no part in?
James says:
Why would a sane man apologize for something he took no part in?
No reason that I know of, Dick.
Of course, that’s very different from an institution apologizing for something that it did do, which is what we’re talking about here.
Dick says:
I think the Civil War, which gutted this nation, was apology enough.
James says:
I think the Civil War, which gutted this nation, was apology enough.
Thank you, Dick, for raising this common objection to apologizing for slavery.
It’s important for all Americans to understand that the Civil War was not fought in order to end slavery. True, disputes over slavery were among the frictions which lead to the separation of the southern states. There were abolitionists in the North who wanted to see slavery end, and there were struggles over the admission of new free and slave states. But there was no abolitionist movement in the Union to launch a civil war to end slavery, and the tensions over the admission of new states primarily reflected concerns about the future of northern and southern culture and economic organization.
Even if slavery had caused the Civil War, it’s hardly an “apology” for the evils of slavery to note that the perpetrators eventually suffered in part because of the institution, too. Just as stopping an evil practice does not amount to making up for it, either, which is why the frequent argument that the nation atoned for slavery in the course of fighting the Civil War elicits such derision in many quarters.
Dick says:
Okay, I can agree with a few of those causes, but I still refuse to apologize, as a person or nation, for acts (legal then none the less) committed centuries earlier.
What about reparation? Do you believe we should pay someone a dollar figure, for an act that was never committed against them?
James says:
It sounds like we’re getting somewhere, Dick!
I still refuse to apologize, as a person or nation, for acts (legal then none the less) committed centuries earlier.
Okay. Can you say something about why you’d refuse to have the nation apologize for its role in slavery? After all, the nation was deeply involved in slavery — and slavery was legal, in fact, only because the nation said it was.
It’s true that this happened long ago, but I think it’s clear that slavery, and its aftermath, still remain very much “in the air” between many whites and blacks in our society. Not to mention that the tangible consequences of slavery and discrimination remain with us to this day.
What about reparation? Do you believe we should pay someone a dollar figure, for an act that was never committed against them?
Good question. No, I don’t.
Dick says:
Simply because an apology is an admission of guilt.
Dictionary.com a-pol-o-gy Pronunciation [uh-pol-uh-jee]
1. a written or spoken expression of one’s regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another: He demanded an apology from me for calling him a crook.
2. a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.
3. (initial capital letter, italics) a dialogue by Plato, centering on Socrates’ defense before the tribunal that condemned him to death.
4. an inferior specimen or substitute; makeshift: The tramp wore a sad apology for a hat.
If I didn’t commit the act, then I’m not guilty; therefore no apology by myself, or any other resident of the United States should ever be made.
Sorry, not interested in any way, shape, or form.
James says:
If I didn’t commit the act, then I’m not guilty; therefore no apology by myself, or any other resident of the United States should ever be made.
I’m not sure quite where we went astray here, Dick.
I agree that an apology is an admission of guilt, and as I said before, I don’t believe that anyone should apologize for anything they haven’t done.
But you were trying to explain why you don’t believe that the nation should apologize for its role in slavery. This situation seems to meet your criterion perfectly: the nation did, in fact, commit the acts for which it would be apologizing (establishing and maintaining slavery, punishing those who defied slavery, etc.). This is true whether you want the apology to come from the United States (which appears to be what you meant by nation) or from the U.S Congress, which is what is being proposed on Capitol Hill.
dick says:
It was legal then, m’kay?
James says:
It was legal then, m’kay?
As I pointed out above, though, it was legal simply because the government said so. By this logic, the government need never apologize for anything, as long as it carries out its actions by enshrining them in law. Would you say that postwar Germany could not have apologized for its actions under Hitler, because Hitler’s policies were authorized by duly-enacted laws and regulations?
More important to me, however, is that we not conflate law and morality here. Slavery is a classic example of a practice which has almost always been legal, but which we consider to be morally repugnant. To take another example, should a person apologize for committing adultery? Should it matter whether adultery happens to be legal in the particular state where the couple lives?
Dick says:
Look James, I appreciate what you’re thinking. I really do.
If you want to apologize, and I can tell that you’re dying to, go right ahead. Just do not include my name, or that of the US in it, okay?
James says:
Dick, as I’ve said, I don’t believe that any individual today should be apologizing for slavery — certainly not you or me.
As for the U.S., if you would prefer that our government not apologize for slavery, you’re going to have to engage in the discussion and persuade others. This is an active issue before Congress, with a great many supporters, and given the success of the movement in the southern and northern states, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it passed at the national level, too.
If I understand what you’ve said, you’ve raised one objection to an apology from Congress: that in actively supporting slavery and discrimination, Congress made those practices legal. And I’ve explained why I find that argument entirely unpersuasive.
If that’s your only objection to an apology from an institution which was directly involved in slavery, then we’ve reached the point where we need to agree to disagree. But I suspect you’re going to find that the legality argument isn’t going to carry the day with most members of Congress, or with the general public.
Thanks for bearing with me, Dick, on a difficult subject!
Dick says:
No sweat. I left a comment here last night and now it seems to be deleted?
James says:
I left a comment here last night and now it seems to be deleted?
Hmm. I don’t see a comment that isn’t displaying. Perhaps it was caught in the Akismet spam-filter (which catches a huge amount of spam, so I don’t dare disable it), or was blocked for offensive language (which doesn’t sound like you)?
Do you remember what you said, Dick?
jan says:
A couple of questions, if i may, James?
Ok…so if this bill passes on the nantional level, the congress/senate, would be making the apology on behalf of the NATION, admitting guilt/remorse for a past injustice, correct?
Would this open up the NATION for lawsuit/s (class action perhaps?), for remuneration for decendents of slavery? Reparation?
Thank you.
James says:
Great questions, Jan.
Cohen’s resolution would have the House of Representatives apologize for its role in supporting and maintaining slavery and discrimination. Brownback and Harkin’s apology hasn’t been introduced yet, but apparently it would have Congress apologize for its role.
Either way, then, these are not apologies on behalf of the nation, but on behalf of the institution of Congress (or one of its chambers).
As for opening the door for reparations, the answer is a simple “no.” The Senate version, for instance, will contain a provision specifically ruling out the possibility that it could be used to further a lawsuit for compensation, and this type of language has been frequently inserted into the state apologies, as well. These provisions aren’t strictly necessary, as there’s no legal theory under which an apology would make a difference in court, but they’re politically useful in clarifying the intent of the apologies.
Of course, it’s always possible for people to file lawsuits for reparations or other compensation, even without an apology. But this has been done in the last few years, and the courts resoundingly rejected the idea that there could be a valid legal claim for reparations.
jan says:
James, thank you for answering my questions so quickly!
And now I have one more. 🙂
While I believe there can be no harm in the institutions issuing appologies/regret , do you think that any good benift, comes from doing so? I have heard many say, after some states appologized , that “it” doesn’t go far enough, that “it” changes nothing, that “it” is/are just empty words. Do you think that taking responsibility for past injustices, perpetrated on any race, is a catapault to racial healing?
Ok…that was two questions..;-)
Thank you.
jan says:
Oh…and in spite of my sticky ‘P’ finger, I do know that apology only has one ‘P’ 😉
James says:
do you think that any good benift, comes from doing so? … Do you think that taking responsibility for past injustices, perpetrated on any race, is a catapault to racial healing?
I think there’s no simple answer to these questions, Jan.
In the long run, at least, I do believe that genuine healing can come from a clear and open acknowledgement of the past by our society and its institutions. Doing so could provide many members of our society, often for the first time, with the sense that they are accepted by the majority and that others understand the legacy that they are a part of. That far from rejecting any connection to the sins of the past, the majority accepts that the past, good and bad, is a part of our shared history. Just as the majority can, through the same process, come to understand that there is nothing to fear from the process of healing, that no one, for instance, is interested denouncing the United States or its history, or in laying blame on its citizens for the sins of the past.
In the short run, however, I think that an apology can be counter-productive. If it is intended as a cheap means of scoring political points or alleviating liberal guilt, for example, without demonstrating any genuine feeling on the part of the legislators or most of their constituents, then an apology can do more harm than good. The same is true if the apology, however well-intentioned by its supporters, is issued at a time when many in society are unaware of the facts which necessitate an apology. As Obama said the other day, there are many whites in this nation who have genuine grievances of their own, and if they cannot understand and appreciate the history and present circumstances which make an apology appropriate, then we need more education and dialogue in this country before an apology would begin to make sense.
jan says:
And that, Sir, is why I asked your opinion.
The last paragraph. I believe that so many people are highly cynical of the motives of most of our politicians. And understanding and healing will not come from those scarred from the past and cynical of the present. Too many demand retribution for the sins of the father, and the sons and daughters rightly say “…it wasn’t MY decision, I had no part in it…”, but yet retribution of some sort is still demanded.
Even if aknowledgement, responsibility, and moral and spiritual attonement are sincerely offered forth, will it be accepted with grace and gratitude. In my personal experience, I think not.
I wonder if it is a practice in futility.
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
James says:
Thanks, Jan, for your provocative take on these issues.
Even if aknowledgement, responsibility, and moral and spiritual attonement are sincerely offered forth, will it be accepted with grace and gratitude. In my personal experience, I think not.
While you refer to the final paragraph of my last comment, I believe you’re raising a very different issue than I did there.
You seem to be suggesting that most black Americans will not behave with “grace and gratitude” if whites offer “aknowledgement, responsibility, and moral and spiritual attonement.”
Without getting into whether it’s appropriate for whites to take responsibility or offer atonement for the sins of the past, I’m not sure that you ought to expect “gratitude” from anyone for these actions. To be sure, it can be difficult to acknowledge, take responsibility, or atone, and it’s reasonable to hope that these actions would be received graciously (as, indeed, in my experience they usually are). But no one should accept responsibility or atone for the past in the expectation that anyone, much less those who have suffered the burden of this past, will be grateful for such a bounty.
In any event, I think it’s assuming too much to conclude, on the basis of personal experience, that most people would, or would not, receive these actions appropriately. More importantly, I’m not sure how that would affect the value of offering acknowledgement, responsibility, or atonement, or how this could be a more substantial obstacle than the reluctance of most whites to consider acknowledging the past. Surely it would send the wrong message if the white majority delayed such an acknowledgement on the grounds that it probably wouldn’t be received properly by the black community?
Too many demand retribution for the sins of the father, and the sons and daughters rightly say “…it wasn’t MY decision, I had no part in it…”, but yet retribution of some sort is still demanded.
This is a complicated issue, Jan. I agree that “retribution” would be inappropriate. However, this strikes me as a straw man argument, inasmuch as there seem to be few people calling for retribution, and you seem to use this argument to dismiss any calls to put the past right.
There are people in this society who, to this day, suffer the lingering effects of slavery and discrimination. It’s not necessarily unreasonable to ask that they be put right, in some fashion, by the society which caused the harm and which, to this day, enjoys the benefits of that harm (with interest, of course).
This doesn’t mean that anyone should receive any money, or that anyone should be compensated in any way for the suffering of their ancestors. It would also be wrong to hold “the sons and daughters” accountable for the sins of the fathers. However, it’s also too simplistic to say that those offspring don’t benefit, to this day, from the fruits of those sins. It seems to me that there is room to argue here on behalf of a collective social response to the past, and to the injustices which persist to this day.
jan says:
No, Sir! I personally, would never “expect” gratitude or even forgiveness for an injustice I was responsible and aplogised for. However, from what I see and hear around me on a daily basis, no matter my sincere efforts in trying to atone for a wrong I may have caused, I have encountered such cynicism, and questions of my morals and integrity. It just makes me want to throw up my hands and say “Whats the use?” ( You and I apparently have different experiences)
I certainly don’t “expect” or deserve gratitude from an aplogy of an injustice that I had no participation in. I try to live my daily life in hopes that it might be an improvement to those around me and society in general.
The past most certainly does need, NEED, to be put to right, as you said. And I will NOT argue against that one iota. I guess the question is, HOW?…How is it put to right with a sincere apology, taking resposibility, if the effort is NOT accepted as sincere? No strawman here. I will continue my efforts instead of giving up.
” However, it’s also too simplistic to say that those offspring don’t benefit, to this day, from the fruits of those sins.”
And I submit to you, James, that In my 55 years on this planet, that steps, baby perhaps, (not fast enough?) have been taken to try and ease some of that burden that was caused because of errors made by our Nation. I also submit, that the offspring of the slaves have had more of a chance and choice in the last 40 years to accept the hand up and not the hand out. In my personal experience, it just never seems to be enough. And it makes me sad.
“It seems to me that there is room to argue here on behalf of a collective social response to the past, and to the injustices which persist to this day.”
Agreed. I’m not saying it doesn’t need to be done. Absolutely it does! But when you hit a brick wall, time after time after time?…Don’t you try to avoid those brick walls?
Thank you.
James says:
no matter my sincere efforts in trying to atone for a wrong I may have caused, I have encountered such cynicism, and questions of my morals and integrity.
You’re right, Jan. We do have very different experiences. I’ve never atoned for a wrong and encountered only cynicism in response, much less anyone questioning my morals or integrity. You must have had some unfortunate encounters in your lifetime.
How is it put to right with a sincere apology, taking resposibility, if the effort is NOT accepted as sincere?
You have an interesting perspective here, Jan. I’ve heard a lot of complaints, on both sides of this issue, about the supposed lack of sincerity of many of those offering the apology. Never anything about the apology not being accepted with sincerity.
In my 55 years on this planet, that steps, baby perhaps, (not fast enough?) have been taken
You’re absolutely right, of course. There has been real progress in the last 55 years. However, by any measure, that progress has been quite small compared to the distance we have yet to travel.
In my personal experience, it just never seems to be enough.
If the steps to erase the effects of the “errors made by our Nation” have only just begun, and are, at this rate, still generations from being completed … how then do you justify saying, at this early date, that “it just never seems to be enough”?
I think perhaps I would need to hear more about those “brick walls” you say you keep hitting. They sound frustrating, and I’m impressed that your response is merely to be skeptical, while remaining committed to the overall struggle. But I’m not sure exacty who, or what, we’re talking about here, so I don’t know quite how to adjust my understanding and my expectations.
Inheriting the Trade says:
[…] states have now taken such action and several more are considering it. The United States government is also considering bills in the House, and soon the Senate, that would apologize for our […]
Chas Peterson says:
The US should be held accountable for Slavery and the crimes against humanity. The US used African Americans in medical experiments just like the Germans did with the Jews. Do you think saying I am sorry will do the trick? Is it devisive to tell the truth about the US.
James says:
Do you think saying I am sorry will do the trick? Is it devisive to tell the truth about the US.
I suspect, Chas, that it may be even more divisive in the long run if we don't tell the truth about our nation's past.
There's nothing we can do about our nation's history, and it's not the responsibility of anyone alive today. Telling the full truth about that history may initially cause some people to be upset, but at the end of the day, for most of this history, there's simply no one left to be upset at.
Once we're all united in how we look at the past, I suspect there will be fewer divisions than if people remain suspicious that others haven't rejected the past, or retain lingering anger about that past.