JP Morgan admits US slavery links

[Judi Lynn]

Last Updated: Friday, 21 January, 2005, 07:34 GMT



JP Morgan admits US slavery links

The US's economic history hides some unpleasant truths
Thousands of slaves were accepted as collateral for loans by two banks that later became part of JP Morgan Chase.

The admission is part of an apology sent to JP Morgan staff after the bank researched its links to slavery in order to meet legislation in Chicago.

Citizens Bank and Canal Bank are the two lenders that were identified. They are now closed, but were linked to Bank One, which JP Morgan bought last year.

About 13,000 slaves were used as loan collateral between 1831 and 1865.
(snip/...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4193797.stm

[UL_Approved]

1. The untold history of the United State

This is more of that "old" money that some people in this country are so proud of to defend. Just more of the dark and hateful legacy that this nation has to its name.

[NNN0LHI]

2. I have been following this story since it broke

The banks first reaction to the charges was to try and lie and obfuscate their way out of this.

Don

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. kick

[Eloriel]

151. Isn't that the response of choice

first, last, and always -- forever or for as long as it works, whichever comes first.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr.Green93]

3. Their assets

should be liquidated and distributed as reparations.

[pop goes the weasel]

4. I don't think that is feasible

but I think that offering free college tuition to the descendents of American slaves would be a good idea. Even if it was done for just one generation, it could make a big change in African American prospects, and it would be in keeping with the promise of education that the United States extended to the freedmen after the Civil War.

[mudderfudder77]

7. In respone to #3

Thats ridiculous...

[gratuitous]

8. Why?

If Morgan's present fortune is built on the suffering it inflicted on folks 150 years ago, and the descendants of those persons continue to occupy an inferior position in our society today, why shouldn't Morgan be given the "death penalty" as a corporation?

I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the punishment, but why is it prima facie "ridiculous"?

[Bono71]

12. What about the statute of limitations? n/t

[Mizmoon]

16. That's going a bit far, don't you think?

How about they fund major scholarships for blacks or provide other services specifically aimed at helping black people?

There are lots of folks who work for these banks now who don't deserve to lose their jobs because of a crime that was committed by people who have been dead for well over a hundred years. There are significant differences between this and the Holocaust reparations.

Some price must be paid, but your suggestions is over-the-top imo.

[struggle4progress]

146. Reparations are certainly fair whenever the money can be traced.

[gratuitous]

6. So, what punishment is appropriate?

The House of Morgan, a highly-respected investment house, sits on a pile of investment money gained in part through a remarkably odious practice at the expense of untold thousands of people which continues to affect those people's descendants to this day.

Does Morgan have an obligation to those descendants? What punishment is meaningful for a corporate entity? Do Morgan's actions belong to the past and their present situation is therefore divorced from those actions? How long is it reasonable for Morgan to expect to be on the hook? Is there a statute of limitations on Morgan's crimes? Knowing that any punishment of Morgan today will affect its employees, none of whom participated in the original crime, what provision should be made for them? Or are they not entitled to consideration?

Interesting questions -- to me, at least. I think our society will have to grapple with them again.

[Bono71]

13. It depends...what they did was legal at the time (abhorrent as

it was)...if I were defending JP Morgan, I'd point the finger at the government and say, you pay reparations.

[TahitiNut]

25. Slavery was NOT legal in all states at that time.

It would be very interesting to look at those states in which these banks were licensed or incorporated - and where the various owners of those banks resided.

Connecticut, for example, prohibited all residents from participating in slave trade for 1788 on. The Vermont Constitution prohibited slavery from 1777 onwards. In 1819, U.S. law equated slave trading with piracy, punishable by death. It's a myth that slavery was "legal" in the U.S. in those days.

[Bono71]

26. Good point. n/t

[cascadiance]

20. JP Morgan also had leadership that tried to launch a coup...

through General Smedley Butler against FDR. I wonder if we should be getting some fines against them for that too.


http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/FDRcoup.html

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/smedley.htm

[sunnystarr]

23. I'm sorry I find this all too ridiculous.

Why not go even further back to the Roman Empire where slavery was part of their society. How many different ethnicities were involved in slavery then? Why shouldn't the descendants of all of those slaves demand reparation from whatever countries exist today that used to be part of the Roman Empire?

This is akin to being sued because one of your ancestors hundreds of years ago who you're related to through marriage got away with defrauding a widow out of her land and property and her descendants want to be paid by you for the current value of that property.

Throughout the history of man there is despicable evidence of inhumanity. Slavery is one of them. Genocide is another. Our history is replete with both. Check into the inhumane treatment of the American Indians. The fact is that we can find injustices at any point in history.

Then we find that there are individuals, every day of every week of every year, who are victimized in a multitude of horrendous ways. Who are to right all these wrongs?

We just lost 220,000 lives to a tsunami. Are we to sue God for creating a nature that takes away all these precious lives? When it's nature we pull together to contribute what we can to the living to rebuild. We don't compensate anyone for the loss of their family.

The fact is that there was never a guarantee or right given that makes life fair. Failings of man are also a failing of nature. But man evolves, slowly and unequally to be sure, and becomes more humane. As a society we create laws that seek to compensate those victimized by others. These laws have a statute of limitation with the exception of murder. However these laws don't allow for compensation 7 generations later.

How many people are alive today that were slaves in our country? Who is most responsible .. the ones who bought a slave, or the ones who captured and sold a person into slavery? How about those who transported those victims across an ocean? At the time slavery was legal. Should someone's descendants be sued over something that was legal and later became illegal?

As a society many have fought hard against the prejudice that so unfortunately is part of our landscape. Laws were passed (and ignored). We still have a long way to go. Instead of focusing on issues from mid 1800's, we should be insisting that our current laws are not only upheld, but stiff penalties be invoked when they're violated. We only have to look at our elections and the ease and lack of accountability for suppressing the black vote. Another election passed with no accountability. We have only to look at the unequal treatment in the application of our laws and prison population.

Our collective responsibility of slavery lies in the injustices of the present, not the past. It now involve people of color; black, brown, and yellow. Life isn't fair and money doesn't right the wrong. Only our actions and attitudes can start to make it better.

Responsibility however isn't all on one side. As a victim of injustice one has the choice of becoming stronger and transforming pain into positive actions and attitudes. It develops understanding and can transcend defeat into victory that can influence our families and the world. In an almost perverse way, one can become stronger with individual potentials unlocked and blossoming into a creative reality. This is where faith meets humanity and leaders emerge. A life of ease with unearned money and opportunity doesn't create character, growth, and self-actualization.

For those of some sort of faith or spirituality, "when God closes a door he opens a window." In the natural order of things, something positive will always bring the lure of something negative, and something negative will always bring the promise of something positive. With free will the direction is up to us.

[Bono71]

24. What about the dead union soldiers who fought (in part) to end

it...do we compensate their families?

Agree, for many reasons, this is a non-issue (legally).

[Tomee450]

70. What the most of the dead

union soldiers fought for was preservation of the Union, not to end slavery. Many of the union soldiers had no respect for blacks whatsoever. Black soldiers were treated badly and sometimes not even paid. Black slaves who ran away to the Union army also were treated badly. In the north there was almost as much prejudice against blacks as there was in the south. Blacks could not even live in some white communities and had to get out by dark if they worked in those areas. In some cities, they could not even ride inside public transportation vehicles. There were riots in oppositon to conscription. Most union soldiers did not care one bit about the blacks. Their attitudes reflected the views of the community from which they came.

[AP]

87. I believe they got paid for their labor and they wilfully signed up

for their jobs.

Their families got their pensions too.

I don't think there's any question about fair, equitable and adequate compensation when it comes to the soldiers.

[Tomee450]

137. According to James McPherson,

black soldiers did not always get paid and had to fight for their wages. When they were first allowed to join the union army, the blacks were resented and not always treated well.

[mudderfudder77]

30. WOW!

That is a fantastic post!

[Tomee450]

65. I am African American and am

very offended by your post and I ask that you not preach to black people. Don't tell us about taking responsibility as if we haven't done so. Black people could not have survived in this country had they not been responsible. In this country, black people, despite great opposition, managed to create great business communities such as that of Rosewood, Florida and in Tulsa Oklahoma. Whites of the era used the excuse of an alleged rape of a white woman to destroy those communities. Blacks in the millions have taken every opportunity afforded them to improve their lives.

It is quite annoying to have people opposed to reparations going all the way back to the Roman Empire to support their opposition. If there are descendants of slaves of the Roman Empire, let them sue those countries. We are not discussing the Roman Empire but what occurred in this country, what happened to millions of slaves and their descendants. In this country, African slaves were denied basic human rights, were treated as chattel with their families being sold away. Women were raped and forced to bear children against their will. All of this happened here in the United States and no one forced slave owners to participated in such brutality. Furthermore, the government allowed this to happen. The government also allowed a hundred years of Jim Crow which was just a milder form of slavery. Black people are always asked to take responsibility but when it comes to the hundreds of years of mistreatment of black people, no one want to take responsibility and blacks are told to forget it.

Wealthy corporations became so through the enslavement of millions of people. Their great wealth continues and they should be held accountable. Black people continue to suffer today for what occurred in the past. Whenever reparations are brought up, it's always said by some that the past should be forgotten. I disagree. The past has greatly affected the present for black people.

Our ancestors labor was stolen and many people profited from that theft. The descendants of those thieves are still enjoying great wealth and advantage while the descendants of those whose labor was stolen continue to suffer. This is a very litigious society. People sue at the drop of a hat but black people with legitimate grievances should not do so we are told. If someone stole your grandfather's land, then discovered oil on it and the thief's descendants continued to enjoy great wealth as a result of the theft, you would not be happy and I have no doubt suit would be attempted.

I am so tired of African Americans being told to forget the past even as they still experience discrimination and a deficit of wealth in the present. We are always asked to do what others are not required to do.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

69. Couple/several points...

Recovery must be based on the rule of law (as you know, not suggesting otherwise). It is not racist to suggest that african-americans would have a difficult time winning a case in which the alleged wrongs took place more than a century ago. There are many roadblocks, and to not acknowledge at least the potential legal pitfalls, is whistling past the graveyard.

Second, african-americans would have a better chance suing for wrongs like JIm Crowe (instead of slavery) because those laws at least affected living people, not four generations removed.

Third, affirmative action, in my mind, is one form of reparation. It may not be enough to ease the pain of the crimes committed against the community as a whole, but it is certainly a form of reparation.

[Tomee450]

78. I disagree

that Affirmative Action is a form of reparations. If so, why are so many other groups benefitting from that policy? White women, Hispanics, Asians, Africans and others who just arrived here, whose ancestors were not slaves, were not subjected to Jim Crow..people living in geographical areas, athletes, children of alumni. Yet, because a few blacks are benefitting from AA, that should be considered reparations? I think not.

[Bono71]

80. Good point. Never thought of that. n/t

[mudderfudder77]

82. An Answer

So what would you believe is a fair and appropriate amount of reperations?

[AP]

145. Well that's the downside of a corporate entity having a "life" that

never ends.

It means you're on the hook for things you did during your lifetime.

Corporations get a million breaks. But life can't be all breaks. Sometimes you have to assume a few burdens in exchange for those millions of breaks.

[mudderfudder77]

9. What?

I don't understand why we would punish todays stockholders for the mistakes made 200 years ago?

[gratuitous]

10. So is any punishment appropriate?

Or can folks commit the most heinous crimes from behind the corporate veil and avoid responsibility forever because they didn't personally commit the crime, but merely profited from it?

Aren't investors in JP Morgan responsible for doing due diligence, and informing themselves of possible liabilities from the company's past? Stock prices can go down as well as up, and sophisticated investors know or should know this. If Morgan's directors concealed the company's past, stockholders would have recourse through the courts for being defrauded.

[Bono71]

15. The second part of your post is an excellent point. Though

I still think that the statute of limitations and the fact that the practice was legal trumps the argument.

Moreover, the victims are long dead.

[gratuitous]

29. Was it legal? Or simply customary?

After all, the thrust of the story is that Morgan is now apologizing for accepting human beings as collateral for loans. If they did nothing wrong, why would they apologize? Is an apology today sufficient for what the company did 150 years ago?

The direct victims, the collateral for the loans, are indeed long dead, yet the repercussions of those long-ago actions continue to this day. Also, at the time of their victimization, they didn't have any rights (see the infamous Dred Scott decision) to bring suit or have other recourse against a large investment firm. JP Morgan controls and oversees fabulous amounts of wealth built on the plight of those long-dead persons. Many of the descendants of those persons continue to live lives whose economic status is lessened because of what happened back then.

Certainly a corporation can't be thrown in jail, and it doesn't seem fair to incarcerate its present-day directors and officers, but is disgorgement of a portion of Morgan's accumulated wealth appropriate? Or perhaps Morgan should set up an account maintained for the benefit of identified descendants, funded by that portion, and managed jointly by Morgan and representatives of the descendants?

As I've said, I don't know, but I think this is a conversation that's long overdue in our society. At this time, it appears that corporations are above the law in a lot of ways.

[Bono71]

33. It was legal. n/t

[DulceDecorum]

38. So why pay for the Holocaust? Or for Japanese internment?

And why is China STILL paying off
reparations to the West for the Opium Wars?
(where China tried to kick out the British drug cartel who were destroying Chinese lives.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

Why is Africa STILL paying out copious sums
because they insist on governing themselves instead of simply accepting the Berlin Conference of 1884?
(wherein Europe divided up Africa amongst itself and then went off to harass the Africans.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference

Why is Latin America STILL suffering from death squads
vying to empty the land of its native population?
WHO from this continent ever formally accepted the legitimacy of the Treaty of Tordesillas?
(wherein the pope takes time off to split the world in two.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

The ONLY reason why JP Morgan might just get off the hook
is because the lives of white people are valued more highly
BY THE WEST
than those of any others on this planet.

However,
there is no statute of limitations on murder,
payback is a bitch,
and JP Morgan is even more broke right now
than Enron is on a good day.

[Bono71]

43. Well where do I start...

First, the Japanese internment and Halocaust victims are still alive...this is not a minor point in the eyes of the law.

Yes, payback is a bitch, but you have to prove an individual was murdered, that JP Morgan was responsible, and that you are a person entitled to receive recompense (ie a Blood relative in that person's immediate family) Good luck...proving those points would be a bitch.

The reason you state in your second to last paragraph is utter horse manure, so I won't address it.

[DulceDecorum]

48. Most of the victims are DEAD

it is their relatives that are doing the complaining.

Perhaps you have heard of Project Coast?
It was something the South Africans and the Rhodesians cooked up to kill off the Africans.

Seeing as how many of the African people that were experimented upon (in search of an ethno bomb)
are still alive and writhing in agony,
do you,
Bono71,
support the contention that they should have all necessary medical care and the expenses should be borne by the companies
(such as Roodeplaat Research Laboratories)
which are responsible for these injuries?

Or do you think that the bloody kaffirs should simply have a clip emptied into their black woolly heads?

Speak up man!!
Tell us how the living mistreated mud-people should be treated.
Bono71,
the blood-stained floor is yours.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

52. CAN BLACK peole EVER be paid for the suffering?

You have defended JP Morgan
by saying that it happened a long time ago.

You say that the Holocaust and the Japanese inernment were recent and so they should be paid.

Well, the whole Project Coast thing is VERY VERY recent.
Most of the players are STILL alive and kicking.
So,
can the African people who were experimented upon
recover compensation for their pain and suffering from those who caused their pain and suffering?
Spit it out.

SYNOPSIS:
Black people.
Get money.
From white guy who mistreated them.
Where do you stand?

[Bono71]

54. You are comparing apples to oranges...in the case of

JP Morgan, I have delineated my thoughts across this thread so I won't do that again here.

I am unfamiliar with the case you are talking about, but if:

1) There is a class of victims readily identifiable
2) They suffered harm and can prove damages
3) The statute of limitations (if one exists) can be tolled
4) They can prove the elemnts of their cause of action

Then I am absolutely for the plaintiff class to receive recompense, regardless of their skin color and irrespective of the defendant's.

[DulceDecorum]

58. Ebony & Ivory vs Apples and Oranges

Since you are now admitting
that there may be an instance
in which a person who is not white may collect damages
from a person who is white
after said white person has harmed said non-white,
I will sit back and allow
my brethren to continue the struggle.

Fellow humans,
you have just witnesses the triumph of personhood
over a corporation.

[mudderfudder77]

60. uh huh

Posts full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. How about some content instead waxing poetic?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudderfudder77]

63. I'm with you.

I'm with you...

[DulceDecorum]

72. That makes TWO who feel that slavemasterJP Morgan

don't owe nobody nuthin.

I understand that they used to say that that only good black person was a DEAD black person.
Since JP Morgan appears to have only that type on its old payrolls,
I guess that really says something about affirming one's actions.

Perhaps Clarence Thomas might be persuaded to take up a position on the JP Morgan payroll. Couldn't do anyone (human) any harm.....

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudderfudder77]

76. Exactly.

Apparently if you don't believe in handing out checks to those who don't deserve it, you're a racist. Who knew?

[Bono71]

77. Lol, my momma forgot to tell me that rule. n/t

[DulceDecorum]

81. Those BLACK slaves WORKED for that money

and they would have left it to the decendants.

So cough it up,
Mr JP Morgan-has-my-trust-fund.

[mudderfudder77]

85. Thats funny.

Unfortunately, "woulda, coulda, shoulda" does not work in the court of law. Any victims of slavery are long gone. Anything they could have earned would be owed to their immediate family, but the law stops there. It doesn't allow for three generations later to collect. Besides how do we determine who gets what?

[DulceDecorum]

95. The grandfather clauses are STILL around.

Dubya would NEVER have made it into Yale without them.

Affirmative Action was enacted as a counterbalance to the GRANDFATHER CLAUSES which STILL allow certain people to avoid doing the heavy lifting needed to pull their weight.
I say we eliminate them BOTH
STARTING with the Grandfather clauses.
(hahahha
That will open up entire new vistas in colege enrollment!)

The GRANDFATHER CLAUSES which are over 100 years old
STILL permit the grandsons of slaveowners
to benefit from their grandfather's misdeeds.
So
why can't the grandson of the SLAVE
get the paycheck his grandaddy was owed?
We can have a seance and give it over to Grandpa-slave if you insist,
just as long as you
FORK IT OVER.

[Bono71]

96. Well, what can I say, other than

I think you will lose in court. Good luck, my man.

[DulceDecorum]

108. That is what they mean, when they say

the deck is stacked.

Democrats votes are not to be counted.
Especially those of BLACK, Latino, Middle-Eastern, or Asian persons,
because
they simply do not count.

And don't think you are going to get a fair shake or a decent paycheck either.
Upity furrners.

[Bono71]

110. I am a furner...and a non-white, and I get paid quite well. It is

all about making the most of the hand you are dealt, and you know it.

[Tomee450]

119. Are you

suggesting that blacks aren't making the best of the hand they have been dealt? I wish you could live the life of a black person one week. You'd change your tune.

[Bono71]

121. No, no, no...misudnerstood...my statement was directed

at the poster who has basically been calling me a racist for the last 30 minutes. Check out what he wrote...

[DulceDecorum]

139. DulceDecorum never called ANYONE here a racist.

And many reading these lines do not feel that THEY come under that umbrella.

[DulceDecorum]

138. Ahmad Chalabi says the same thing

and so does British citizen Iyad Allawi.

[Bono71]

86. Now that is an interesting theory...

And completely different from wrongful death...

We would then have to apply estate laws...you'd probably still be screwed, because I think most states (it's been a long time since law school) have a statue of limitations on claiming an estate...

but an interesting theory, nonetheless.

[Tomee450]

102. But in the minds of some,

blacks are never deserving. When whites were the ones getting welfare benefits, there were few complaints about the system. When the media began making it seems that it was mostly blacks receiving benefits, suddenly there was great opposition. The media refused to tell the truth, that is, most recipients were white.

It seems that the Egyptians, Israelis, Russians, people all over the glove are deserving of money from our government but the descendants of the people whose labor was stolen, people who built this country, are not deserving. Could it be possible that race plays a great role in how some people see this issue?

[Bono71]

105. I think race plays an issue no doubt, but this should not

obscure the facts outlined earlier (lenght of time, difficulty in ascertaing who did what to whom, who would the defendants be, who would the plaintiffs be)...we are talking generations ago.

[Tomee450]

123. The opposition to reparations

is all about race, period. If length of time wasn't being given to support opposition, it would be so meting else.

[Bono71]

126. I don't think so...

There are two issues really...one is reparations as the reult of a lawsuit...I am not against this per se, but I think there are serious legal problems that might not be overcome. That has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the law.

The other issue is whether legislatures should take it upon themselves and try to remedy (through reparations) the wrongs this country perpetrated...I have nothing against this approach.

[Bono71]

127. see post 126, looks like I missed! n/t

[Tomee450]

89. It's hard to believe otherwise.

Whenever it comes to paying out money to blacks, it seems there is great opposition. Apologies seem to be sufficient for some who oppose reparations, no apology is sufficient for others. I wonder if they would support reparations to all of the victims of the syphilis experiments. That occurred during the twentieth century. But no, I guess blacks should not expect compensation for that either.

[Bono71]

90. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they weren't compensated for

that? If not, I am for that...

[mudderfudder77]

94. Actually

I am absolutely for the compensation of the wives and children of the men involved with Miss Evers. However I draw the line at approx 125 years.

[Tomee450]

135. Perhaps there

are other reasons why you draw that line. I have no doubt that many opponents would feel quite differently had there ancestors' land been stolen 125 years ago and they are aware that oil has been found. They would make every effort to get reparations as they watched the descendants of the thieves grow richer every day while they, the real owners, just struggle to get by. The labor of blacks was stolen. There was no opportunity to gain wealth and pass it do descendants. Today, many blacks in this country are suffering from the effects of slavery and a hundred years of Jim Crow. They have very little wealth and are just getting by. That should not be.

[Bono71]

136. In your opinion, what is the answer? n/t

[Tomee450]

141. I don't have an answer.

What I want is a calm, honest discussion of the matter. African Americans are poorer than almost any group in this society and that is a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. There should be a dedicated effort to eradicate that legacy. I think free higher education is a good idea but that would not be enough.

[mudderfudder77]

75. Technically

It wasn't JP Morgan, but a company they purchased last year... I didn't know you were privy to the JP Morgan payrolls.

[AP]

91. Furthermore, there are plenty of legal rights that aren't cut off by death

If death ended the rights of families to recover for torts committed against individuals, it would probably be dangerous to walk out your door every morning.

[Bono71]

93. In most states, it cuts off at the immediate family, not 4 generations

down the road.

[AP]

99. It cuts off when the murderer dies. There's no use prosecuting someone

who is dead. But if you had a 400 year old murderer, the law wouldn't care that the victims family has moved on 10 generations.

[Bono71]

107. It would not for the criminal penalty of murder...it would for the civil

suit...there is a statute of limitations for that...

As for payments as criminal penalties, who would the money be paid to? You would have to prove you were a descendant of the person actually held by JP Morgan as a slave...and you would have to porve that JP Morgan murdered that individual...good freaking luck...not impossible, but certainly improbable...

[AP]

114. Legislatures could make a SoL of any length for any offence, criminal or..

civil.

There's no statute of limitations on federal student loans, income taxes, most fines, and, in some states past due child support. There's no statute of limitations for murder.

[Bono71]

116. Right...it would probably take an act of a legislature to

allow for such a suit, but even then you have the many other logistical problems...

I seriously doubt anyone will recover in a civil lawsuit reparations for slavery...

Now, it might be possible, that states or the feds set up certain programs to "compensate" people for what happen...but under the laws on the books now, I don't see a successful lawsuit...

who knows...

[AP]

122. I bet someone will come up with a good claim.

I can imagine what a good case would look like: business records with names and events, a very clear line from the victim down to a living family member, and a really good personal history about how being denied the value of that person's labor and person in 1865 set that family back in terms of opportunity and wealth. It may only be worth only 10,000 or so, but I can imagine it happening.

Or I imagine a suit with the proceeds being put into a trust fund which, after extensive historical, sociological and economic research, could be put into investments to get wealth into the communities that were most hurt by the fact that people weren't able to recover the value of their lives and labors when the were set free in 1865.

Incidentally, I bet that if ex-slaves got a fair % of the wealth they created for America back in 1865 (ie, if the judicial system respected their claims way back then) then America would be a much much better place today.

I think there'd be a much larger, thriving, wealthy middle class.

[Bono71]

129. Those suit would get shot down...

especially paragraph 2 (if the slaves were set free, why didn't they sue...statute of limitations)...

It would definitely be in the best interests of everyone if the legislatures stepped in and set up trust funds for education, health care or something else...a whole lot of healing...

[AP]

144. Freed in 1865. Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. I think the courts

will understand why they didn't sue immediately.

Why are you always the doubter? Just once I'd love it if you said, "yes, we can do this."

Incidentally, I agree that funds from progressively-taxed income should be set aside to remedy past injustices simply because the economy can't endure the opportunity cost of holding back so many people unfairly (ie, because their ancestors were robbed of their labor and then sent into the free market with nothing but 40 acres and a mule in a few cases).

But I also think that it's important that any wealth in the hands of private entities which can be traced back with a reasonably straight line should also go into a trust fund or back to descendants who can reasonably be traced forward.

The taxpayer shouldn't be the final insurer of private misdeeds all the time. It was wrong to do it with the S&L crisis, or the baliout of Enron insiders by state pension funds, and it would be wrong in this case.

What lesson would that be to private entities making profit off of injustice and misery? I don't think the justice system should send the message that they shouldn't worry because if they ever get caught, the taxpayer will bail them out (especially considering who does and doesn't pay taxes these days).

[AP]

92. Furthermore, there are plenty of legal rights that aren't cut off by death

If death ended the rights of families to recover for torts committed against individuals, it would probably be dangerous to walk out your door every morning.

[jeffrey_X]

149. Please tell that to people born and raised in the ghetto*

nfm

[Nihil]

17. I'd be more impressed with this argument ...

... if it started within living memory, say to all of the American
companies who exploited the pain, misery & murder of World War II
for their own financial good (not forgetting the direct descendants of
those war profiteers).

Once this is all out of the way, move on to all of the American
companies who exploited the pain, misery & murder of World War I
for their own financial good (not forgetting the direct descendants of
those war profiteers - whether or not they differ from the above).

Gradually work your way back through time but acknowledge that after
a certain period, the monetary gains from punishing such companies
would have to be put into trust funds to benefit the "category" of
the oppressed (e.g., specific Native American tribes, descendants
of freed slaves, interned Asians) rather than split up amongst the
myriad possible contenders for "a slice of the pie".

If you can't even get over the first hurdle, it's probably time to
acknowledge that committing the most heinous crimes from behind the
corporate veil and avoiding responsibility is simply the American way.

The best thing you can do is punish the living who are STILL doing
business in this fashion (maybe not in the good ol' US of A but in
one of those danged foreign places ... Africa? Yeah, that's the one).

(Edit: Typo)

[Bono71]

19. From a legal perspective, this idea has some flaws...

1) Statute of limitations has surely run
2) What the companies did might have been legal at the time
3) Who is the plaintiff class
4) In many civil actions, damages are cut-off at the immediate family level...so great grand kids don't get jack...

[Nihil]

21. Yep

Hence my last two paragraphs.

[Bono71]

22. I think I agree...but I don't think I completely understand the

last paragraph.

[Nihil]

27. Why look back for problems if the current evils are still thriving?

> The best thing you can do is punish the living who are STILL doing
> business in this fashion (maybe not in the good ol' US of A but in
> one of those danged foreign places ... Africa? Yeah, that's the one).

American companies are still "committing the most heinous crimes from
behind the corporate veil and avoiding responsibility". Check out
books from Pilger or Klein.

Just because it is not happening (much) in the USA these days, it does
not mean that such behaviour is not happening in far away lands nor
that today's financial institutions are profiting from blood & misery
in the same way as those of a few centuries ago.

(Sorry if I wasn't clear.)

[TahitiNut]

28. What's the "statute of limitations" on crimes against humanity?

:eyes:

Corporations have limited liability for exactly these reasons, imho. The protections of other assets owned by those engaged in such a enterprise are already safeguarded. It's insane to then vest such enterprises with both immortality and some entitlement to perpetuate the profiteering.

Let's never forget that the "Final Solution" was 'legal' in Nazi Germany. If justice is only served when an entire nation is conquered, at the price of millions of lives, then is such wrongful behavior condoned for nations strong enough to continue it? It turns the whole notion of 'justice' on its head!

[Bono71]

39. Good point re: the final solution...

I think though the cards are stacked quite heavilty against the descendants of slaves recovering...

1) Statute of limitation--possibly overcome by an argument that crimes against humanity have none.
2) The descendants would have a huge problem recovering damages...most torts that I am aware of (granted, I am not a tort lawyer) cap family damages at the immediate family level...the descendants are far removed. Crimes against humanity...don't know...but it would be difficult, maybe not impossible.
3) It was legal, so it would be difficult to hold the companies responsible a century or two later...not impossible, but one could argue the real culpability is with the government.
4) Who is the plaintiff class? How does one prove his/her ascendants were slaves?

Tough...

[DulceDecorum]

41. For many in America "humanity" is an exclusive term.

This is how they are able to look at Abu Ghraib as mere hijinks.

Black-haired, brown-skinned people are not seen as fully human.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

50. JP Morgan is in the business of making and KEEPING money

by any means necessary.
They are not about to pay for anything they can get for free.
That is why they got into slavery in the first place.

And people like you
appear to agree with the initial concept and the idea that
since JP Morgan
stole that labor fair and square
then JP Morgan
should get to keep the benefit of that labor
fair and square.

Yet,
I am absolutely certain,
that YOU insist on getting very nickel that YOU have worked for
and that is because the rules are different for YOU.

Justice Tanner felt the same way
when he said that that black people in America have no rights
that a white person needs to respect.

There,
I just gave you a nice Supreme Court quote to wrap you ideas in.
You owe me.

[Bono71]

51. Again, you know nothing about me or my color and if you are

suggesting that the doubters are racist, I feel sorry for you. You obviously have a lot of pent up anger and agression. Must be tough.

And by the way, I'm not white, and I owe you nothing.

[DulceDecorum]

55. So, white people can be paid

but non-white people are there to be tortured or whatever.
And they simply do not count.

My definition of human
includes those who have more or fewer chomosomes than 46.

But it is not so elastic
as to accomodate those
who would destroy us all
and the bonds that bind us together.

[Bono71]

57. What?

Remind me again, are Japanese white?

Ever hear of the phrase apples and oranges?

Comparing JP Morgan issue with Japanese internment is like comparing apples and oranges and it has nothing to do with skin color.

[DulceDecorum]

59. So why can't the BLACK SLAVES in the US get paid?

The Hebrew slaves in Germany are getting paid.

[mudderfudder77]

61. Oh I don't know

Because the black slaves are dead, and the survivors of the holocaust aren't?

[Bono71]

64. Save your keyboard-breath, I have tried to explain this position

to this guy, he can't seem to understand.

And what's with the verse! He's a regular Charles Bukowski.

[DulceDecorum]

84. Michael Jackson is prctically white

can HE get paid for what his ancestors went through?

[Bono71]

88. Why are you hung up on the race issue...seems like you

have some issues to deal with...

[DulceDecorum]

100. Mike ain't getting a dime either.

Man,
what does a black man have to do around here to his paycheck?

[Bono71]

103. I don't think Mike Jordan needs any cash, unless he owes

Charles Barkley gambling debts.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

128. There is a difference between M. JACKSON & M. JORDAN

And yes,
they are both black men whose ancestors were grossly inconvenienced
by certain parties whose misbegotten funds
were placed in the trust of JP Morgan.

[Bono71]

130. You

have an extreme knack in misreading posts...where did I write they were the same...you are too funny.

[DulceDecorum]

140. Post 84--JACKSON and Post 103--JORDAN

This to me indicates that the singer
and the basketball star
were somehow confused in your mind.

An easy mistake to make.

[DulceDecorum]

79. What about BLACK JEWS?

You ever heard of the Falasha?

And what does death have to do with it?

There are THOUSANDS of cases where a Jew DIED
and his estate is claiming the stuff that was taken.
In many cases LIFE INSURANCE
was never paid to the family after the relative croaked
and they are going after it now,
with a vengance.
http://www.insurance.wa.gov/industry/holocaust/sumrpt.asp

Slave owners kept records of their slaves
and the birth and deaths were recorded.
We know who is related to who,
don't we, Sally Hemmings?

Why can't Sally's decendants get the money that Tom never left on the dresser?

[Bono71]

83. Again, you are comparing apples and oranges...

the first claim is based on an insurance contract, the other on tort (I presume). Totally, different in the eyes of the law...apples to apples.

[DulceDecorum]

98. He flushed the Falasha

Damn.
You black people sure can't catch a break nowhow.

OK then.
Since the estates don't count --statute of limitations yada yada yada
then why should the Swiss have to give one dusty penny to the Holocaust victims families?

[Bono71]

101. Well, now we are talking Swiss or European law, and I have

no idea what those suits were about...

Instead of going after slavery reparations, a more strategic suit would target Jim Crowe or wrongs perpetrated more recently...I think african-americans (and other injured classes) would have a better shot recovering.

Just my $.02

[DulceDecorum]

118. JP Morgans owes a whole lot of paychecks -and interest-

to someone,
and I say they should have that money removed from their sticky bony fingers.

The only thing they ever do with it is get the whole lot of us in trouble -- giving it to no-account bums to spend on no-good projects that come back and bite us in the ass.

J.P. Morgan Chase is one of the largest, if not the largest, participant in the overall derivatives markets. According to the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, J.P. Morgan Chase had $34.7trillion in derivatives on their books (measured in notional value) as of September 30, 2003. The bank acts as a dealer in many derivatives markets and uses 99.5% of its derivatives for trading purpose with only 0.5% used for other purchases such as hedging its banking activity;
Derivatives transactions, especially in the amount needed to act as a dealer in OTC derivatives markets, can create large amounts of credit risk exposure. As a result of this activity, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank had $354.8 billion in total exposure – after bilateral netting – through its derivatives trading alone. This amount is equal to 783% of capital, and it is more than three times higher than that for other U.S. banks.
http://www.iccr.org/shareholder/proxy_book04/CAPITAL/DERIVATIVES_JPM.HTM

Perhaps the descendants of the slaves
should hop on Bono71's bandwagon
and start arguing that since they are not entitled to grandpa's paycheck,
then they sure as hell aren't liable for the debts
that the plantation owner's grandkids
done rung up with that stolen paycheck.

[Bono71]

131. I'm not sure what your point is...can you clarify?

[AP]

97. The longer it is, the better off humanity will be. There's no SoL for...

...murder, so, for genocide, mass murder, slavery -- I think it should be at least as long as for murder.

The best way to make sure that shit like that doesn't happen is to make sure that governments know that they will never get away with it.

[Bono71]

104. Agreed, but we are talking JP Morgan...not the government. n/t

[AP]

106. Gov-Corp partnerships: Nazis & IBM, Nazis & UBS, etc.

It's a nexus, and the same logic applies.

[Bono71]

112. I don't think anyone recovered in this country from those situations

if they had been dead for 2 centuries...

[AP]

117. If it took another 150 years for Hollocaust victims' families to recover

the wealth taken from them by private corporations under the eye of the Nazi government, justice still would have been served. The power of their legal arguments would not have diminished over that time.

I don't know what information JPM has in their archives, but if you have the names of the people injured by their actions, I can't see what powerful interest is served by not letting the estates of those victims recover if they in fact could make a good case of a civil wrong having been committed.

[Bono71]

120. Again...its apples and oranges...

The jewish people we either alive or their immediate family members were compensated. In many cases you had eye witnesses...

Now, I am not saying slavery didn't happen or that it wasn't one of the greatest imjustices of all time, all I'm saying is that given what laws are currently on the books in this country (not Europe) and the potential for changing them (little, imho) I think it would be very, very difficult to recover.

A better strategy, in my opinion, would be to attempt to recover for Jim Crow and other more recent injustices...

Just my $.02.

[AP]

125. you're making presumptions about evidence that might not be justified

Businesses benefitting from the slave trade might have very detailed records with people's names and descriptions of what the businesses did to them.

The Hollocaust survivors and the estates of the decesased probably had little more than a passbook and descriptions of the contents of their safety deposit boxes, along with a few business records which put a number on the increase in the value of the banks assets when their customers began disappearing.

[Bono71]

133. Again, that is one issue...we are talking major stumbling blocks

forget sol...if we're going on some kind of "equitable" relief...what about laches? My god, in Virginia 20 years migh satisfy that...we're talking 125+...

[AP]

143. I don't think they've been sitting on their rights. A lot of this info

is just coming out now because corporations are finally coughing it up.

Also, a big reason there wasn't access to the courts in the first 100 years was because we didn't have civil rights for black Americans (which related heavily to the fact that slavery impoverished Black America without compensation in 1865).

Furthermore, the Hollocaust cases seem to be a real threshold moment in human rights jurisprudence. For the first time people are thinking that, yes, these rights do exist, and having these rights respected could be an extremely powerful tool in preventing future injustices of this scale (and perhaps curtailing a few that are still in young adulthood and middle age).

I think ultimately all these considerations will show that the doubters today were on the wrong side of this issue and that people looking for solutions in the courts for injustices like these were on the right side of that long but bending arc of human experience which eventually curves towards justice.

[TahitiNut]

11. "mistakes"?

:eyes: I see. Trafficking in slaves is merely a "mistake" in the view of some.

What's rape then? A "discourtesy"? :puke:



Oh... what's the "we" shit?

[mudderfudder77]

18. What a waste...

So what was the point of this post? To be technical here, they never actually "trafficked in slavery". What they did was allow for "property" as defined by the government to be used as collateral. Additionally it wasn't even J.P. Morgan, it was a company they purchased years later. If we want to find fault, maybe we should hunt down the direct descendants of the Banks Manager at the time. I don't think that stockholders today should be made to pay for slavery. Of course this goes into the whole reperations issue which is an entirely different thread altogether.

[gratuitous]

31. So if you start a corporation

And it traffics in terrible, horrible crimes against humanity, and you or your friends start another corporation and buy the first corporation, everyone's absolved of all wrongdoing because the first corporation is no longer in existence?

[mudderfudder77]

35. Completely unrelated

Interesting scenario, but it has nothing to do with what happened here. These two banks were owned by Bank One which JP bought last year, a good 200 years after the fact. Shouldn't the market take care of this? If people are truly disgusted it will hit them in the pocketbook, but seeing as they broke no laws I can hardly understand why or how you could have the government punish them. No one denies that the slave trade was an abomination, but point in fact, it was legal. Once again I guess this goes into reperations which is another thread...

[gratuitous]

36. Well, it wasn't 200 years

A little closer to 140 years since 1865. And though the corporation's principals from that time are obviously no longer with JP Morgan, is the corporation therefore blameless? How long should a corporation cover up or deny its wrongdoing to be safe? Or should it ever feel safe for engaging in such despicable conduct?

And as for the practice's legality, apparently some of the loans secured with slaves were executed in a state where trafficking in human beings in this manner was illegal.

The house of Morgan is issuing an apology; if they've done nothing wrong, why would they apologize? And is an apology sufficient? Is the apology intended as a public relations move to defuse something larger (talk being a notoriously cheap commodity)? It has been my experience that corporate bad actors are generally not forthcoming with an apology unless there's something potentially worse that hasn't yet been made public. I think the matter bears a little more scrutiny and investigation than simply saying, "Well, it was a long time ago, they said they were sorry, let's let it go."

[mudderfudder77]

37. They issued the apology because...

They intend to do business with the city of Chicago. Under new laws in Chicago you have to disclose any dealings with slavery. They apologized because it was the right thing to do, but I don't think they owe or have any other liabilities besides the apology. First off this article does not mention when the loans were made so we have no idea if it was illegal in Illinois at the time. Secondly even if it was illegal the statute of limitations ran out long ago. Besides, seeing as none of the victims are alive it seems like a pretty moot point. Like I said, the market will decide. If people are truly disgusted, JP will feel it in the pocketbook.

[gratuitous]

42. If it's a moot point

I wonder why the city of Chicago enacted a new law?

And, as I said, Morgan didn't apologize out of the goodness of its collective corporate heart, but because it wants to make more money in Chicago. I agree, however, that the marketplace should have a hand in deciding what punishment is appropriate to the House of Morgan. It would be quite fitting to see it go out of business over this episode, which would never have had a chance of happening without the law being passed in the first place. Morgan could have continued to obscure its past, deny, hide and cover up, and kept its tainted money.

[Bono71]

47. There is absolutely zero chance JP Morgan will go out of business

because of this.

[TripleD]

152. There's more info in this article

J.P. Morgan finds it had ties to slavery
Predecessor banks got slaves in loans

Associated Press. Tribune staff reporter Dan Mihalopoulos contributed to this story
Published January 21, 2005

//

J.P. Morgan officials said the bank undertook the research after Chicago passed an ordinance in 2003 requiring companies that do business with the city to research their history to determine any links to slavery.

//

The bank said researchers had found that two now-defunct predecessor banks--Citizens Bank and Canal Bank, both based in Louisiana--served as banks to plantations from the 1830s until the Civil War.

"Collateral" for mortgages and other loans "included land, equipment and/or enslaved individuals," the statement said.

//

The two banks merged in 1924 but failed during the Depression. In May 1933, another bank assumed some of the failed banks' assets. That bank--the National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans--was a precursor of Chicago-based Bank One Corp., which was purchased last year by J.P. Morgan.

//

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0501210220jan21,1,1448356.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[DulceDecorum]

124. Once you have their money ... never give it back

This is the first rule.
http://www.sjtrek.com/trek/rules/

Since JP Morgan bought that company,
then JP Morgan bought that company's assets
one of which was those unpaid paychecks.

The shareholders
can cry into their beer all they want,
but that money is not their property.
Buying from a fence often results in the forfeiture of the stolen property.

[Bono71]

14. Agree with that. n/t

[Cocoa]

32. I loved her on the Match Game

so I find this very disappointing. Charles Nelson Reilly wasn't involved I hope.

[Cooley Hurd]

34. I know for a fact that Brett Somers owned slaves!

No... no I don't.:evilgrin:

[Godspeed_Democrats]

40. So the Indians get Casinos and the Japanese get

reperations. It would be nice to make sure the decendants of slaves got something for the wealth that was built on their ancestors backs

[mudderfudder77]

44. Um....

The Japanese are getting reperations because they are actual victims, not descedents 4 generations removed... And who would you suggest pay for this?

[Bono71]

46. Let me state that I shouldn't have to since I didn't get here until

the early nineteen-sixties.

[DulceDecorum]

66. Project Coast and the Latin American Death Squads

were active in your lifetime.

Why can't those innocent people be compensated for their pain and suffering?

As we speak, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are just two places that are destroying humans.
This needs to stop.
And those performing the "interrogations" should be tried in the Hague.

The US NEVER did ANYTHING about the soldiers who performed atrocities in Somalia. Most other nations that sent "peacekeepers" there were shocked into action at the suffering their troops inflicted upon the poor starving Somali.

You were alive then, Bono71,
those are you fellow citizens.
They committed acts of war and crimes against humanity.
What do you think should happen to them?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tomee450]

113. So what?

Most people in this country had nothing whatsoever to do with the mistreatment of the Indians and Japanese. Yet tax dollars are going to pay reparations in one form or another to those groups. The only time I hear some people complain about paying out tax money is when it's to African Americans. Unfortunately, we blacks have to face the fact, that many in this country have a strong dislike of black people, feel they are never deserving of anything and should be satisfied with their lot in life.

[DulceDecorum]

142. The same people who paid these two cops $2.4 million

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1448118,00.html

And I want to know why
someone who never worked a day in his life
can collect money from his great-grandfather's estate
and yet the descendants of the guys his great-grandfather ripped off
can't get what rightfully belongs to THEM.

[IA_Seth]

53. Indians get Casinos?!

I don't see how the US is "allowing" them to run the casinos, they have their own rights according to long-ago-screwed-over agreements.

That is the part of slave reparations that I don't understand. Yes, I agree is was a horrible evil and am proud that I had several ancestors who fought for the Union based on anti-slavery sentiments, but reparation should have been made at the time if they were to be made. If we grant everyone who was treated unfairly (in this case it goes beyong unfair to down right evil) reparations then we would owe the Indians of North America a good part of what we now claim as our own.

[Tomee450]

115. What are you talking about?

The ex-slaves had no rights at all. Neither did their descendants. They could not sue. For much of this country's history, blacks could not even sit on a jury especially if the defendant was white. Not only were the slaves not paid for their labor, when they were freed they still could not sue to recover lost wages. For many years, ex-slaves and their descendants lived miserable lives of poverty. They continued to subjected to all kinds of abuse yet some think that fact should be ignored while those corporations and other institutions that profited from the abuse continue to prosper. Sad.

[NNN0LHI]

67. The Indians I seen living reservations a few years ago with my own eyes...

...in South Dakota didn't own no fucking casinos. As a matter of fact, they didn't own nothing. Where do you get your information from?

Don

[Bono71]

71. Some casinos have been built on reservation land in order

to circumvent the prohibition on gambling. Near Lafayette, Loisiana, there are several tribes that are basically printing money from the profits the casinos are bringing in...I don't think they were actually granted charters as a "reparation," however.

[DulceDecorum]

132. The Bureau of Indian Affairs

is screwing the Indians pretty hard even as we speak.

Tradition, old chap, what.

[Bono71]

134. Not the ones in Louisiana...though I don't doubt what you write.

[98geoduck]

147. JP Morgan was also Heavily into Sadomasochism.

Trying to make up for all the pain he caused to society.

[FreepFryer]

148. THESE are the fuckers haunting the Overlook Hotel. "All the Best People!"

...from 'The Shining', a film that uncannily uses Indian imagery (and the lack of any Indian characters) to communicate the timelessness of the suffering of native peoples at the hands of whites.

"Great party!"

[malaise]

150. Barclays Bank is next

There will be reparations but reparations are not only about collecting monies owed to our people for the worst atrocity in history. We want our artifacts and our stolen treasures returned to Africa.

http://www.arm.arc.co.uk/legalBasis.html

http://www.arm.arc.co.uk/NewGlobalOrder.html