Should white America, or the United States government, pay reparations to African Americans for slavery?
​

I answer emphatically NO! First off, it is illegal; where in the Constitution did we delegate authority to the federal government to make amends for past transgressions against specific groups? And where does it bestow the ability to punish the children for the sins of the father?


How would we determine who pays? Most whites never owned slaves. At the height of slavery, according to the 1860 census, less than 2% of Americans were slaveowners. In my state of Vermont, we never had legal slavery. Must Vermonters pay for what others who look similar to us did in the past? Further, many slaveowners were Jewish, Native Americans or blacks themselves. Thousands of blacks owned slaves in the South, and so do their descendants receive money from whites who never owned any slaves while their ancestors did? Some areas of Louisiana and South Carolina had a higher percentage of free black slave owners than the white community in which they lived. Do they pay other blacks for owning them?


Every race of people has been enslaved; it is just a matter of how far back. Whites enslaved whites, whites enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved blacks, blacks enslaved whites, and so on. So where do we draw the line?


Also, if they do not see it as unfair to punish later generations who do not own slaves, then it is not unfair for modern disadvantaged blacks to be unfairly treated. You cannot have it both ways; you can’t make modern whites suffer for sins they did not commit and also claim modern blacks should be treated fairly. Otherwise, you are creating a new disadvantaged racial group; you are not ending racism and mistreatment but promoting it.


If anyone owes anyone money, would it not be the blacks, descendants of both free and enslaved blacks, who today owe America money? Blacks in America are better off financially, medically, and materially than anywhere in Africa. They are still reaping the rewards of their ancestors being brought here as slaves (as many white who are ancestors of slaves also do).


Remember, Africa was the original center of slavery; they enslaved each other and other races as well. It was white colonial powers that eventually pressured African societies to abolish slavery. Freedom is a “white privilege idea”; it did not derive from pagan Africa. Meaning blacks owe America twice, once for benefiting from this country, and secondly for whites ending slavery in Africa (to the extent that it has) and freeing blacks in predominantly white countries. Nevertheless, today’s black African countries are never asked for reparations, only white, Western ones. For that matter, neither are Arab nations, even though the Arab slave trade began centuries before the transatlantic trade and continued after it, probably transporting more enslaved people in total over its long history. One has to wonder why the white countries are singled out in this way.


However, there is one entity that I think ought to pay reparations to all its people, and that is the United States Government. Nobody has been more oppressive, stolen more forced and unwilling labor and wealth from a greater number of people than the politicians in D.C. As professor Jason Brennan points out, “we are not volunteers, we are conscripts, we cannot opt out, we are forced into it...governments do not merely advise us to follow their rules...they enforce their laws and rules with violence or threats of violence.” In the “land of the free, but home of the slave,” our government places a heavier financial burden on us today than slaves faced in the Old South; they steal our money without our consent and place us in prison if we avoid paying, where we have far less liberty than even slaves had.


Should they not start paying us? Or at least stop treating us as tax slaves? Why are we blind to the most oppressive group, the government, focusing instead on a small minority of white slaveowners so long ago?


​Let’s stop looking at ourselves as various races, but rather as people, as friends, not enemies, then we might just realize who is committing the true crime today and who sets us at war with each other. We are so busy fighting amongst ourselves that we fail to see the cruelest master of all.

A famous image used to portray the brutality of slavery in textbooks, documentaries, and other media is of a runaway slave commonly referred to as “Peter” or “Gordon.” This image, of a former slave with a lacerated back, is then depicted as giving the standard treatment of slaves, who, we are told, often faced a gruesome whipping for misbehavior. However, there is more to the story.



The University of Edinburgh published an article in Edinburgh Research Explorer titled “‘A Typical Negro’: Gordon, Peter, Vincent Colyer, and the Story Behind Slavery’s Most Famous Photograph” by David Silkenat. The author writes that the story behind the image “was largely fabricated and much of what we think we know about ‘Gordon’ may be inaccurate.”


The familiar context of the image leaves one to imagine that the plight this slave was in, and endured, was normal, typical of the South. The truth of the matter is that laws were in place to prevent harsh punishment and to protect slaves equally to free whites. And whipping was far less common than generally believed.[1] For example, in their attempts to make slavery seem far worse and harsher than what really existed, Silkenat asks, why are there not far more images of such treatment? The abolitionists loved this image and did everything they could to reprint it, copy it, and proclaim it to the world. Why would they need to if this were the typical slave treatment? They should have hundreds, thousands of such images to spread. Why only a few? Instead of proving the harsh treatment of the millions of enslaved Southern blacks, they depict only the mistreatment of one. Their argument somewhat proves the opposite of what they desired, that the mistreated slaves were rare. The absence of evidence in this case is, if not itself evidence, at least indicative.


This image and accompanying article in Harper’s Weekly appeared at a low point for the Union, after Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Many believed the North could not defeat Lee and the war would drag for many more years. Most did not desire such a thing. Further, Silkenat wrote, “The Emancipation Proclamation, only months old, remained deeply unpopular among major segments of the Northern populace. So too was conscription, with the first Federal draft of soldiers into the Union army scheduled for July 1863.” It appears, then, that the image was published as a tool to drive Union support against the South. Later in the article, he says “Although the image may have played a powerful role in persuading the Northern public about the merits of emancipation and the enlistment of black soldiers, it did so at the expense of the individual experiences of the real Gordon and Peter.” In other words, it was intentionally misleading the public to garner support for continuing the war.


It is not, as is often portrayed, an example of White supremacy and the cruelty of a master to his slave. In fact, when the whipping of Peter occurred, the master was not even on the plantation! Like many drivers on the plantations that used the whip, (and many did not) those who used the whip on the plantation were more often other slaves, not White masters.


Often left out is that “Peter” was, by his own account, whipped severely as a punishment for attempting to kill other slaves, including his own wife (he said that he had no recollection of doing any of this, but had been told by others that it happened). He was possibly guilty, then, of multiple accounts of attempted murder.[2] And when the master returned to the plantation, he immediately dismissed the overseer from his position upon seeing the excessive nature of the whipping, implemented as a punishment for his crimes. So it was the result of one slave implementing punishment on another for a crime done, or attempted, against other slaves. The slave used excessive punishment on the other. The only time a White individual interfered was the master, who removed the driver for excessive abuse.


In modern times, we would place a man accused in the same way as Peter/Gordon in prison, or perhaps a mental institution, where he could face even harsher treatment than a whip, and would have still less freedom than a typical Southern slave enjoyed. One can look up endless images of brutality in prison, police brutality, in the military, in schools, and much more. Why do we not condemn all such institutions like we do slave owners and slavery? Why do we not carry our all-encompassing prejudice against Southerners due to one example and apply it to the above groups and situations? It's because we know you cannot take one example and apply it to a whole group of people or an institution. Yet it seems we forget this principle when it can be applied to Southern Whites.


Further, many in the Northern press pointed out that worse had been done to pro-South or anti-war “copperheads” in the North, including women. The Boston Courier asked to have the images of this mistreated slave published side by side with those of a woman who was brutalized for having Southern sympathies, to see who received the worse treatment. Of course, this never occurred, as it would have been inconvenient for the desired narrative.


Bad things happen in all societies, and the pre-Civil War South was certainly no exception. But we should not use one iconic image of somewhat uncertain provenance to demonize an entire society and everyone in it. It happened then, as the result of a directed propaganda effort, but there is no reason to let it continue today.

When I really began to delve into the causes of the American Civil War, and as my understanding of it was turned upside down, it bothered me that the North was called the Union, and the South, the Confederacy. I did not so much object to the term Confederacy for the South, but did to Union to describe the North. Was it not Lincoln who transformed the Union into a centralized nation? Did he not overturn states’ rights and the Jeffersonian understanding of the Union that the antebellum American polity operated as? If this is the case, as I think history records, then ‘Union’ is the last term that should be used for the North. Instead, National, Central, maybe even Federal—not Federated, but singular Federal—more accurately describe the North, pointing to the central government as the ultimate authority, which would fit better. After all, they already are often referred to by the term ‘federals.’


I used to think the South should carry the term ‘Union,’ as they maintained and fought for its preservation, to save the Constitution, the Union, and Jeffersonianism from the Radical Republicans and Lincoln. And I still think this is very true, as many in the South believed that was precisely what secession was about. However, there is no question that the Confederate Constitution moved away from the original Constitution in some significant ways. The fear of mob rule, or ochlocracy, along with weaknesses and soft spots in the Constitution that could be easily manipulated or interpreted in a specific way to grant more central authority, arose in the South in reaction to the Republican Party and its backers.


And so the Southern Constitution evolved into an even more libertarian, aristocratic, conservative, and decentralized form than the Founders had intended, perhaps interpreted as a return in some measure to the Articles of Confederation. And during its short life the Confederacy continued in this direction.  The Southern States, too, led by South Carolina, moved in a less political, less democratic, more aristocratic and libertarian direction. And more towards a Christendom than the Founders did. Thus, ‘the Union’ would not fit them either.


As the North moved in one direction from the Founders, the South moved away in the opposite direction. The Northern action caused a Southern reaction. The South was reactionary, in the sense of returning to old ideals. And this is why I think the term Union should not apply to the South or the North, Confederacy fits just fine with the Southern movement. It was a decentralized, libertarian reaction to the Republicans’ transformative actions in the Old Union, erecting a true central or federal  government in place of the Founders’ original vision.

A law currently passing through Parliament in England will from 1st January 2027 outlaw the purchase of cigarettes and tobacco by anyone then under 18, ever at any time during their lives. It will not be illegal for them to possess or smoke tobacco, only to buy it, meaning that they will always have to get someone older to do their purchasing for them. Of course, as time goes on there will be fewer and fewer people left who can legally do the buying, and eventually no one at all, signaling the end of the trade.


Nothing so drastic is proposed yet over here, but I was a bit surprised when I recently purchased food at a local store here in Vermont, I noticed that tobacco cannot be sold to citizens under 21. How is it that we allow young citizens to drive massive cars and trucks at speeds that allow them to kill other innocents (and themselves) at the age of 16, and join the military at 18, but not to choose to purchase tobacco?


Thousands of teenage Americans die across the U.S. each year in car accidents, and I am unsure if even a handful die due to tobacco. It is true that tobacco might kill you later in life, but is that not a lesser evil than dying in a head-on crash at 16? Further, seemingly hypocritically, we allow children who are eight years old to purchase candy bars, soda, and many other chemical-infused addictive products that lead to major health issues and kill millions later in life. We fund this food system through taxation in the public schools.

So why do we allow an eight-year-old to choose products that may one day condemn them to an early grave, but they cannot choose tobacco until 21? And why can an 18-year-old risk his life in battle, but not choose to enjoy tobacco if he wishes?

Perhaps the correct question is to ask why some privileged people are allowed to decide what others can and cannot do. I am sure many who have told others, through laws, that they cannot partake of tobacco, have themselves engaged in dangerous behavior, such as driving or eating processed sugar. It all reminds me of what C.S Lewis once wrote:

“Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It may be better to live under robber barons than under the omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”


And by voting, these young 18-year-olds can decide what laws others must obey, meaning they can decide what adults can or cannot do, what taxes they pay, and more. This, we believe, they are mature enough for, but not for deciding whether to smoke tobacco.
​

Vermont is wonderful: it is rural, beautiful, with four diverse seasons, and is comparatively free of crime, drugs, and many other ills of this country. However, it can be, at times, distant from God and truth, especially historical truth.


In Vermont, puritans and white liberals—particularly women—rule the roost. They profess a love for diversity, but tend to avoid interacting with minorities. They show their care for the poor by voting for welfare and redistributive policies, but resist allowing them to live in their towns through zoning laws, high property taxes, and other devices. These busybodies believe that they alone are knowledgeable, intelligent, compassionate, and logical, considering themselves entirely accepting and well informed. Because they are righteous and without blemish, they often seek to atone for what they perceive as the sins of others, such as those they label as ignorant and backward, particularly in the southern United States.


Understanding that we in the North possess the complete truth about the issues we are encouraged to care about, our education system teaches us to embrace everything related to the North while harboring disdain for the South. We are taught that Lincoln was a champion of equality and freedom, the savior of the nation, the emancipator who broke the chains of slavery, and one who eliminated the lingering influence of racist Southerners like John C. Calhoun from America’s equality-based government. The nation created by Lincoln was the “America” we were always meant to have, or at least it was a gift given to us by God through our greatest President. Our victorious armies in blue showed the people that all along the federal government was their master; they just needed the bayonet to help them remember that.


Reconstruction was an act of grace, preventing the South from rising again and igniting another war that this time would eradicate the blacks. Oh, the South left the “nation” to preserve slavery, which can be summed up as follows; blacks were regularly raped, half-starved to death, half-beaten to death, sold frequently, despised and doomed.


I believed it all, hook, line, and sinker. I had no reason not to. Family, friends, teachers, media, politicians, historians, documentaries, all said the same thing. I mean libraries and libraries of books all stating the same facts, the same story, the same interpretation. How blind, how dumb must one be to reject this truth? Well, some in the deep woods of the South do, and as we were reassured, they are racists, so it must all be one hidden agenda of racism that causes them to be so blind to the truth we all knew in liberal, enlightened Vermont.


Then a funny thing happened: I accidentally ran into a couple of authors named James and Walter Kennedy. Perhaps worse, I then encountered a couple of professors named Clyde Wilson and Thomas DiLorenzo. And the rabbit’s hole of unfiltered authors continued to get wider and deeper. The final collapse of my original stance occurred after spending endless hours reaching original sources. I then took to debating, seeking to see whether my new findings held water or whether my original views were correct all along, and whether I had simply deceived myself, because how could the truth be so diametrically opposed to what I had been taught growing up?


The end of which, of course, has thoroughly transformed my opinions on the war and the South. They are no longer a foe but a friend. I marvel at how easily deceived I was, and how little information was needed to convince me of so many lies. And how blindly accepting I had been to believe it all in the first place.


Hope


But this is not all bad news. Many in the South get the idea that we Yankees in Vermont despise the South and therefore lie about you, misrepresenting due to our biases. But you must understand, biases are learned, they are taught, meaning they can be unlearned and untaught. And with truth on your side, you can turn many former Yankees like me into Southern sympathizers and set us loose to wreak havoc on native New Englanders!


In other words, you are not alone in this fight; do not count out even Vermont. You have many potential allies here. Don’t expect every heart to be willing, but some will listen to reason and logic, and allow history to guide us.