Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:

Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
for it and don't deserve it.


THAT, is another question entirely.

ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an anscestor
did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
interest.

Now, that is not the same thing, but it does show that it is possible
for
a persons to receive payment for debts owed to their ancestors.
Adjudicating a tort retroactively is another matter. Torts usually
have a statute of limitations, but the clock doesn't always
start ticking when the tort was comitted.

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. It
is close to thirty years now (I think) that the Lakota Sioux won
a case against the US government and were awarded an enormous
sum for the land taken in violation of a treaty.

However, they had not sued for money, they sued for ownership
of the wrongfully converted real estate. To take that property
from the current private owners to recomsate the Lakot Sioux
would have done an injustice to the current owneres who bought
it in good faith.

Regardless, the plaintiffs refused on principle to take the money.
IMHO, this was a mistake, they could have used that money for
seed money for real estate speculation and by now would
probably have bought back most of their land.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...
ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an anscestor
did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
interest.

Now, that is not the same thing, but it does show that it is possible
for
a persons to receive payment for debts owed to their ancestors.
Adjudicating a tort retroactively is another matter. Torts usually
have a statute of limitations, but the clock doesn't always
start ticking when the tort was comitted.

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. It
is close to thirty years now (I think) that the Lakota Sioux won
a case against the US government and were awarded an enormous
sum for the land taken in violation of a treaty.

However, they had not sued for money, they sued for ownership
of the wrongfully converted real estate. To take that property
from the current private owners to recomsate the Lakot Sioux
would have done an injustice to the current owneres who bought
it in good faith.

Who would pay the reparations? All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

Allen

"Allen" wrote in message
.net...
Who would pay the reparations? All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such
"ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible.

--Gary

Allen wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor
did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
interest.

...

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ...

Who would pay the reparations?

Recall that I wrote:

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested
freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous

to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then
sending
the calvary in to protect them.

The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those
injustices,
this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not make such a

suit unjust.

--

FF

wrote:
Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. It
is close to thirty years now (I think) that the Lakota Sioux won
a case against the US government and were awarded an enormous
sum for the land taken in violation of a treaty.

However, they had not sued for money, they sued for ownership
of the wrongfully converted real estate. To take that property
from the current private owners to recomsate the Lakot Sioux
would have done an injustice to the current owneres who bought
it in good faith.

Personally, I don't agree with that precedent, since if I buy
stolen merchandise, I'm held liable. But at this point, Indian
law consists of the courts scrambling to think of a legal
reason Indian claims are in the wrong; the Oneida were tied up
in the legal system for decades, and when they finally got
their day in court, the Supreme Court invoked the laches
defense. It doesn't help much that Rehnquist never saw a case
of Indian law where he couldn't rule in an insane way.
According to the Oliphant and Duro decisions, for all practical
purposes any interracial crime on a reservation basically has
to be taken before an all-white jury.

As far as slavery reparations go, it won't help anyone.

Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:

Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
for it and don't deserve it.


As to your "His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it."
argument, did the descendants of those who TOOK it from him
earn it, do they deserve it more?

--

FF

wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:


Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
for it and don't deserve it.



As to your "His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it."
argument, did the descendants of those who TOOK it from him
earn it, do they deserve it more?

No. Few families have a traceable inheritance for 8 or so generations,
so trying to track this down is just dumb. Life isn't fair. Crap
happens. Get over it.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:


Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
for it and don't deserve it.



As to your "His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it."
argument, did the descendants of those who TOOK it from him
earn it, do they deserve it more?

No.

So do we agree that is not a good argument?

Few families have a traceable inheritance for 8 or so generations,
so trying to track this down is just dumb.

Impractical was my choice of words, as youy may recall.

Life isn't fair. Crap
happens. Get over it.

Cliche's are no substitute for rational arguement, and in this
case, the practical argunments against reparations are pretty
good.

--

FF