Slavery Reparations

A few years ago I heard Randall Robinson on C-SPAN make a case for slavery reparations, and he had the guilty southern white boy in me feeling all shades of black guilt. And I was just about ready to cut a check.

But, then they started taking phone calls, and a black caller told Mr. Robinson that he was trying to instill in his children a sense of responsibility for their own futures and that Mr. Robinson was undoing that by trying to get people to shift the blame for their own failures onto someone else. Mr. Robinson really dropped the ball on that one by feigning pity for the caller who he said was "self loathing" and unable to see reality. I put away my checkbook.

Fast forward to the present. A federal judge just dismissed a slavery reparations lawsuit in Chicago. And, there are a couple of pretty good blog items about slavery reparations, one by Professor Bainbridge who addresses the impracticality of trying to punish a corporation for wrongdoing. It merely punishes the shareholders who were blameless.

As always in corporate accountability, both efficiency and morality require that punishment be directed solely at those who actually commit wrongdoing. In this context, it would be the directors, officers, or controlling shareholders who actually enslaved people. Since they're long dead, there is nobody left who properly can be punished.

Curmudgeonly Clerk points out that Professor Bainbridges' post addressed retribution not compensatory damages or unjust enrichment.

But what about mere compensatory damages? Perhaps, one might respond that those who are owed compensation have passed away in this instance, but would such a claim expire with the claimant's passing? (If "Y" owes a sum of money to "X" when "X" dies, doesn't "X"'s estate have a claim for the money owed by "Y"?)

Would an unjust enrichment theory of liability fare better if the compensatory one fails? I understand that the corporate organization exists in order to allow investors to risk no more than their investment, but might an otherwise innocent third-party be required to disgorge profits that were reaped via another's wrongdoing?

As one might infer from the question marks in the foregoing paragraphs, I am wondering aloud. I have no answers and do not purport to possess any expertise in this area. Moreover, I am content to see these claims dismissed for a whole host of reasons. It is just that I suspect that the must be more moral and legal explanation than the one that Professor Bainbridge has offered thus far.

I believe that law schools sometimes unknowingly convince future lawyers that they'll get paid by the number of issues they can raise. And, one might not know which issue a judge might want to hand his hat on. But, in this case, it's very simple. There has to be a cut off time within which to file a civil lawsuit. And a lawsuit filed long, long after the statute of limitations has passed must fail. Furthermore, there has to be a "wrong" before there can be damages of any sort. You can't sue a person or corporation because of something he/she/it did which might be wrong now, but wasn't wrong at the time.

Now, I can understand why some white people feel black guilt - I feel it too even though my ancestors couldn't have afforded a slave. There should be no reason why those people cannot contribute as much money as they want to some sort of compensation package of the type Mr. Robinson proposes. But, it should be optional - it's their decision.

Addendum. Subquently on these pages: Skeletons in the closet, slave traders in the family tree on 6/23/08 about the POV tv show "Traces of the Trade" and on 10/28/08 How firm is Mr. Obama's stand against slavery reparations? Does it matter?.

Comments

[Julia Dudley Najieb]

Please support our movie “Stars too High” which dramatically explores reparations and advocates how to cherish the black heritage and let the past go for a better future. Thank you.

[fish_hfd]

It's nice

[MdicialviewStics]

Hi
I don't know what happend? Where are you many?
Bye