Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Don’t get me wrong.  Slavery is evil and should have never been practiced in the United States or elsewhere in the world.  I’ve said repeatedly that the second worst decision by the United States Supreme Court was the Dred Scott Decision.  Basically, the Dred Scott Decision said once a slave always a slave.  The decision was a major factor that helped to bring about the Civil War.

That said, the quest for slavery reparations one hundred and forty plus years after the fact is ludicrous.  Yet, according to an article in the Peoria Journal Star (July 10, 2006, page A3), “’This matter is growing in significance rather than declining,’ said Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor and a leading reparations activist.”

Of course, the article in typical libertine doublespeak never identifies the actual growth of the movement.  It gives some fringe examples of some activity but never states the growth as far as having the government actually pay reparations.  It says the Episcopal Church might make payments.  If they want to, let them.  Who cares other than other Episcopalians?  Realistically, the only significant payment will have to come from the federal government.  If the federal government does, the libertines have retaken control of the government (probably through the courts) and the people of this country will have far greater problems than paying reparations.

However, I wonder if these libertines have thought out the unintended consequences of trying to buy the vote of descendants of past slaves.  First, if I had relatives who had died in the Civil War fighting to help free the slaves, I would sue both the federal government and recipients of the reparations for my share of the booty.  Obviously, slavery would not have ended when it did without the sacrifice of thousands of soldiers from the North who fought to preserve the Union.  

Why should past slaves be the only ones to benefit?  Thousands gave their lives to free the slaves.  They too deserve to be paid for their sacrifice.

Then, of course, we must consider the thousands who have fought and died to preserve the freedom all of us now enjoy.  Shouldn’t they receive reparations for the sacrifices they endured even to the point of death so that all men and women in the United States could be free today?  Perhaps, those who fought and died in the Revolutionary War should get a double portion.  After all, if the colonists had not been successful in the Revolutionary War, there would be no United States today as we know it and slavery might still be the common practice.  

What about those brave military personnel who were held captive and those who died in captivity as prisoners of war?  Surely, they should be paid more than others who did not experience the pain of captivity and death at the hands of an enemy.

What about this.  Should the descendants of past slaves have to make payment to the United States?  After all, if their forefathers and mothers had not been brought to the United States, they would not be enjoying the benefits of living in the United States today.  Thousands upon thousands of people are illegally immigrating to our country to reap the benefits of living here.  If it was not for slavery, these descendants might still be living in other nations.  

Would Michael Jordon have been Michael Jordon if his descendants had remained in Africa?  Does he owe the United States a bundle of money because slavery brought his descendants to our nation?  It seems even slavery had some unintended benefits for those who are descendants of slaves brought to this nation for other reasons.    

That’s not all.  If the Dred Scott Decision was the second worst decision of the Supreme Court, the worst was the decision that allowed a mother to murder her unborn child.  However, that mother was not the only person involved in the creation of the child.  For every mother to be there is a father to be also.  Using the slavery reparations precedent, I can envision a time in the future, when fathers are suing the mothers who murdered the father’s unborn child.  

Supreme Court members do change.  Court decisions do change.  What is constitutional today may not be constitutional tomorrow.  Slavery was constitutional.  Now it is not.  The murder of the unborn has been allowed by the Supreme Court.  It might not be in the future.  If descendants of slaves deserve reparations, should fathers who have lost a child through the acts of the mothers receive reparations?

Don’t stop there.  Think of any large group who has suffered some perceived wrong.  The new battle cry must be: reparations for all!!!  Fair is fair.  Why stop at reparations for descendants of past slaves?  Soon, homosexuals will be suing because the nation once dared to claim that living a homosexual life style was immoral.  

I just thought of that.  Maybe, that is the ultimate goal all along.  After all, black is white and white is black to libertines.  

Be ready to give the country away because that is the ultimate goal of the libertines!  Their goal—death to the United States!!!!!    


Post a Comment

<< Home