the united states federal government ought to pay reparations to descendants of slaves

I will be arguing that the Federal Government ought to pay reparations to the decedents of slaves. Contention 1: We are in agreement here. Nothing done today will affect in anyway what was done in the past. The past is already settled and those whom were enslaved are long since dead. We can in no way do right by them. Contention 2: While simply handing out money would be a bad idea for every reason you cited, it would also be bad for other reasons as well. I will not be making the argument that simply handing over sums of money is the right way to go. William T. Sherman's Special Field Order No. 15, issued on Jan. 16, 1865 declared freedmen would be given 40 acres. Not only was this merely land he was ordering handed over, he was also setting up an all 'negro' government within those lands as well. The idea today would look something like the Native American reservations we have. While they would still be part of the US in some ways, they would simultaneously be autonomous too. This order was revoked by Andrew Johnson in 1867. It was not only revoked, but the land that had already been settled by 40,000 freedmen under order 15 was then confiscated from those blacks and reallocated to the whites who owned it before the civil war. Andrew Johnson stole that land and then handed it back to the very people that had declared war on the North to begin with. . http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu... With this in mind, I strongly feel as though the Federal Government ought to return land to the descendants of those freed slaves as reparations. Because giving out that exact land would harm people that were not alive during those times, I advocate for the release of Federal lands to be turned over to the descendants of slaves. This land would be like a reservation for those blacks. It should require that this reservation be governed by descendants and land rights should be restricted to those same bloodlines. Since it will be governed by descendants, they will set their own genealogical requirements though. This could mean that all blacks are welcome to occupy land and own or not own it. Or it could mean only certain bloodlines could occupy and own the land. One necessary restriction to this self governance would be that this new government could not allow emigration from outside the US to the new reservation. Contention 3: This is a misguided approach to debt. We, as a Nation, have shared debts. We can no more forgive the debts of a prior generation than we can forgive our own personal debt. If we could, all we would need to do is declare that no one in the newest generation is responsible for the National Debt because they were not alive when it was accrued. Then we simply wait until all prior generations are deceased and then we wipe out the national debt and start over. No, that is simply not how debt works on a National level. And make no mistake, we all owe a debt for the free or nearly free labor we received as a Nation on the backs of slaves. This debt can not be denied by anyone who claims any semblance of a moral character. So while it is true that I did not own any slaves and I did not directly benefit from their enslavement; it is also true that I inherited the debt owed to them. Much in the same way that I still owe part of the National debt that was incurred before I was born. This also includes all those whom emigrated after the slaves were freed. When you emigrate to a new Country you take the benefits and the debt onto yourself. Furthermore, I believe that some monetary form of reparations must be given along with this land. This money and land would be a package deal. No one could refuse the land and retain their right to any money. The amount is a very complicated math problem though. I would argue that you would need to set an amount owed for the prior ill gotten labor and then reduce it for every subsequent generation. There are two distinct reasons for this reduction. 1. Every generation enjoyed more liberty and were more able to accumulate wealth than the prior enslaved generation. Because of that I feel there needs to be a reduction in the payment. 2. Assuming the slaves were paid and spent none of that money, when they died they would have been subject to estate taxation. So for every generation after the enslaved one, we would need to reduce the amount paid by the percent of estate tax of the time. You do run into some math problems here though. The Revenue Act of 1862 and the War Revenue Act of 1898 imposed an estate tax of sorts but bother were repealed not too long after they were passed. It wasn't until 1916 that we have a true estate tax. I would not argue that simply handing money over is a good idea. I would argue that granting land with some money to establish that land is a good idea. Of course there will be some of the descendants that have a pretty good life now and would not be inclined to relocate and start over. After all, what they stand to lose by doing this can be vast. The rewards can be immense too though. But even with some (possibly many) refusing this land we would, as a Nation, finally have a real reparation to point to. This could even go so far as to assuage the guilt that seems to be pervasive with many Americans. We would finally have something to point to when others tell us that we are all manner of evil towards blacks. I would want to see the land come from the current Federal land holdings. Ideally this would be many reservations and not one vast one. I would also propose the money to be paid out should come from the immediate end to foreign aid. We would need to end foreign aid until we accumulate enough money to pay this debt. I would also like to see a modest lump sum payment be made and then a monthly payment be made until the debt is no more. Something like 50% up front and 2% per month for the next 25 months. This would help to build the land and homes and ensure that for 2 years an economy can be built, aided by this financial buttressing. Finally, I am making a distinction here for the rational behind the land and monetary reparations. I only argue that the labor was illicit and non-compensated and that we owe for their past wages with modest interest. I do not claim that we owe anything for ill-treatment or other such physical or emotional injuries. We can not set a precedent that every crime against ones bloodline is now grounds for payment. If we did, then far too many people would make such claims in an attempt to be granted payment. Furthermore, paying an descendant of one whom suffered physical or emotional maltreatment would also be an admission of guilt. That admission would be grounds for other legal actions seeking judicial restoration of bloodlines. Only the ill gotten labor must be admitted to and paid for. Again, I thank you for your arguments and rebuttals. And happy Labor day.