Lincoln's Inversion of the American Union

Thought provoking...yes.

Interesting...sure.

Baseless revisionist bullshit...absolutely.

The promise of 40 acres and a mule was made by a Union general...Sherman I think but I could be wrong on this one thing. It was never government policy. I object to reparations because in any civil matter the amount of responsibility is allocated by the courts. Since the U.S. didn't exist in 1637, when the first African slaves arrived, you have to start by blaming England, Holland, and Spain for slavery. When the U.S. did exist as a political entity in 1781 each state had different laws so you have to divide the blame further. 80 years later one half of the country went to war against the other half of the country to, among many things, end slavery. This occurred at great cost in blood and treasure which I think pays the debt fully. The Confederacy was the only political entity in the area that actually codified slavery in their constitution. So we can blame the south for five years worth of slavery. At this point a lawyer would jump up and point out to the court that the slaves were not citizens in a legal sense and therefore have no standing in the court. This same argument could be made against native Americans for many of them were not citizens until 1927. This argument would be useful for the Japanese immigrants (but not the native born Americans) and the 137,000 hispanics deported under FDR. Have any American citizens been deprived of their property without due process (excluding slaves)? Yes, right here in Missouri General Ewing issued general order 11 which forced the displacement of American citizens from their property in three Missouri counties. These citizens were never paid for their property and many found their property in either ruins or occupied by their neighbors following the war. This I do think deserves reparations because those were Americans (Lincoln never allowed that the states were in rebellion so never ceased to be Americans).

In response to one comment; the government following the Civil War was larger than it was before the war but much smaller than today. That much is obvious and a given. My contention is that the government grew again in World War I, got larger under progressive policies, and ballooned in World War II. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

From the article: "Only around fifteen percent of southerners even owned slaves, and the great majority of these had holdings of one to six."

These are estimates that are pretty consistent across any number of commentaries regarding the slave population. The numbers were smaller in the North. How this would translate into the millions who would want a piece of the reparations pie would be a sight to see. Just look at the Pigford fiasco to get a picture...

From the article: "Only around fifteen percent of southerners even owned slaves, and the great majority of these had holdings of one to six."

These are estimates that are pretty consistent across any number of commentaries regarding the slave population. The numbers were smaller in the North. How this would translate into the millions who would want a piece of the reparations pie would be a sight to see. Just look at the Pigford fiasco to get a picture... Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Well, remember we only do this in return for eliminating affirmative action, diversity quotas, contract set asides on highway projects, etc and all the other perpetual government programs that are justified on the basis of past discrimination and the legacy of slavery. Even if it cost two trillion, it would be cheaper in the long run than the current mess.

LOOK> a "race card" playing Republican...Nice Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

That's not playing the "race card", stupid.

That's playing the "racist card". And there is nothing wrong with that if it is true.