Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
"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

How do you and I (we are the "it" you are referring to and are thus morally
responsible) pay then? How is the pay determined? To whom is the payment
made?

Allen

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

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


That's not correct. Slavery preceded the establishment of the US.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

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


That's not correct. Slavery preceded the establishment of the US.

Yes, it would be more correct to say that it preserved and protected
the legal framework of slavery.

--

FF

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

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

That's not correct. Slavery preceded the establishment of the US.

To be more pedant-resistant, I would have to have said "The US erected the
legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible in the US".

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

To be more pedant-resistant, I would have to have said "The US erected the
legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible in the US".


That's not correct. The legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible
in the US was erected prior to the establishment of the US.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

To be more pedant-resistant, I would have to have said "The US erected the
legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible in the US".


That's not correct. The legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible
in the US was erected prior to the establishment of the US.

Depends on what you mean by 'legal framework'. The founding fathers
chose what to include in the legal framework of their new country.

They CHOSE to include slavery, and not without considerable
controversy.

--

FF

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 in message
ups.com...

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.

Yet you continue to champion the cause.

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.

So if it were not impractical you are in favor of having your tax dollars go
to some group of yet to be identified persons in some yet to be determined
amount? My ancestors came to the United States after he Civil War. Are we
included in the payor group?

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve by your stance.

Allen