I think we simply see the distinction between law and morality differently, bobbo. I don’t believe that moral duties are merely a means to establish legal responsibility; morality can extend far beyond what is required by law. On the other hand, I don’t believe that legal duties are limited to what morality dictates.

If the state fails to enforce a legal duty, or engages in activities without legal authority they can be sued

No, bobbo, there is an important distinction in the law between what is required by law, and whether those requirements can be enforced in a court of law. The state may have a legal obligation, and yet no one has a legal right to have that obligation enforced. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is merely one example of this, and this is precisely what that doctrine says: that in certain cases, the sovereign may not be sued, even if a court could find a legal obligation.

Things should not be left open ended.

I agree, and this is one reason why I don’t support reparations lawsuits. Legal principles such as the statute of limitations are quite important in order to ensure that matters can be litigated fairly and that the affairs of people and institutions can have stability.

However, I think the distinction between children and grandchildren may be rather arbitrary. If you want to propose that this is precisely where the line should be drawn, that’s fine.

There is also a principle in the law which calls for extending the normal time frames for legal claims in the event that people are unable to seek legal redress in a timely manner (for instance, because they were unaware of the underlying facts, or because they were improperly prevented from pursuing their legal rights, as was certainly the case with freed slaves and their descendants).

Each year/generation after that, the immediacy of that trauma lessens.

This might be true if the issue at hand was about a trauma passed down through the generations. In the case of reparations for slavery and discrimination, the argument is usually about the impact on the current generation of these historic events, not about a trauma transmitted intergenerationally.

In this case, too, the issue isn’t that victims are too traumatized to pursue their legal rights immediately. The former slaves and their descendants were kept from pursuing their legal claims by a racially discriminatory society.

I understand and agree that part of some reparations claims TODAY include a notion of the continuing harm of discrimination that is part and parcel of the slavery that existed before making many blacks CURRENT VICTIMS of that harm. Its why there is currently already the availability of lawsuits for discrimination based on race.

You say that this is “a poor remedy,” and you’re certainly right. This is merely a remedy for new discrimination today, not for the consequences today of past discrimination.

Just to be clear, the claim with reparations isn’t that past events have helped to cause current discrimination. Present discrimination is against the law. The claim is that black suffer harm today because of past discrimination and other wrongdoing.

Bobbo, why would you be in favor of paying reparations to the children of victims, and not to their grand-children or other descendants? /// Things should not be left open ended. Most causes of action have a “Statute of Limitations” in order to be “fair” to the parties and to society and to offer some order in the court. I did say “perhaps” to the kiddies in recognition that the immediate victims of injustice can be too traumatized to protect their interests and the children often have damages directly as a result of that trauma. Each year/generation after that, the immediacy of that trauma lessens.

I understand and agree that part of some reparations claims TODAY include a notion of the continuing harm of discrimination that is part and parcel of the slavery that existed before making many blacks CURRENT VICTIMS of that harm. Its why there is currently already the availability of lawsuits for discrimination based on race. A poor remedy, but its there.

So–I don’t think the harm from slavery is being passed down to this day. Its worse.

There’s an important legal distinction between a state’s legal obligations and the ability of private parties to enforce those obligations against the state in court. Sovereign immunity is essentially immunity from litigation only, so it does not exempt the state from its legal duties, including any obligations to make restitution.

It’s also not clear to me that John was making a legal argument when he said that states have “a clear duty of restitution” for their role in slavery. I suspect that he may have been making a moral argument with political implications, as many reparations advocates do.

Reparations advocates offer a variety of visions for the form which reparations should take. Some hold strictly to a traditional model of financial compensation to individuals who are identified as the descendants of slaves. Others advocate broad-based government social programs to assist those descendants of slaves (or broader groups) still struggling with disadvantage, or to improve schools, infrastructure, and whole communities.

Other proponents of reparations advocate different remedies. One common suggestion, for example, is to allow the descendants of African slaves to enjoy free education, at all levels, for a generation. Another suggestion would replace free education with an exemption from taxation.

As far as legislative proposals, as far as I’m aware, the only legislation currently pending on reparations is John Conyer’s H.R. 40, which would merely establish a federal commission to study the issue, including specific proposals for reparations. So the door is wide open on the specifics.

Bobbo, why would you be in favor of paying reparations to the children of victims, and not to their grand-children or other descendants? Is this simply your rough measure of how long it takes for harm to stop being transmitted from parents to children?

If that’s the case, does that mean you would support reparations for slavery and discrimination, if you could be convinced that the harm from those events is still being passed down in many American families?

I challenge anyone to identify “a clear duty of restitution.” The general rule is that the State is immune from litigation unless it specifically grants it in specific cases.

I also would challenge any pro-reparations advocate (or James by way of examples) just what a reparations program in the USA circa 2009 should look like. What is given and who recieves?

I am against reparations to anyone except direct victims of an injustice and perhaps their kiddies. Doesn’t matter who or what the issues are. These historical and oft time horrible issues are in the past. Looking for “meaning” from the past is never a good thing. It gives us unending disputes we can see all over the world.

I have violated a general ru le of good debate–going off h alf cocked. Each “plan” of reparations would stand on its own merits. Some think reparations means acknowledging the prior history and offering apologies. I’m fine with that. Some might say only similar experience of “like kind” can provide the moral equivalence==slave for a summer vacation? I would not su pport that. How about affirmative action of some sort? I think we have already done that. What other programs of reparations are suggested/sought for/set forth in legislative bills?

While for most plans I would probably object and not want, I would be perfectly happy to allow a majority vote of those participating to make such laws. Its the sort of thing where I think the Majority should have their way. It wouldn’t be the worst law I could think of.

It’s about acknowledging the deep involvement of our society and its institutions in slavery and its aftermath, and pondering whether our society therefore has any responsibility for the consequences.

I would just add that the “slave states” included both northern and southern states. The northern states had slavery from their earliest days as colonies, and the north had not finished emancipating its slaves by the time of the Civil War.

Northern complicity in slavery went beyond slave-owning, too, to include undertaking most of the slave-trading and profiting enormously from slavery in other ways, as well.

So the duty of restitution of the state, if any, would seem to extend to all of the original states, at least, and to the federal government as well.

However, the slave states *as states* were involved in a crime against humanity. The full weight of the law and police were arrayed against slaves, and even against anti-slavery whites. As a Catholic Christian I could have been jailed or even lynched for teaching slaves to read, let alone performing an act of mercy to a runaway.

As the oppression came from the state, the state has a clear duty of restitution. To me the case is quite clear and compelling.