It is odd, but not surprising, that this analysis of wealth is weighted towards labor instead of land. And presumes that wealth will make Black Americans happy. It is the labor versus land debate that entrenched residual problems that make for unhappy citizens today ...
History is helpful here, but seldom is the history of Reconstruction taught (well) in the US. Understanding Reconstruction, especially beyond the presupposed end of the era with the election of Hayes, explains that Black Americans themselves rejected your concept of fair reparations from enslavement.
The reality is Freedmen demanded one thing: land. Land. Land. Land. They repeated their demand to farm their own land to Johnson, Grant, Congress, etc. The Port Royal experiment in South Carolina was the only sizable transfer of farming land to Freedmen, but the acreage was small. (Millions of acres had been seized from Confederates after the War.) And there was never a sizable transfer of land to Blacks in Northern states despite the North's white savior narrative.
The solution, imposed by Northern abolitionists, was: labor. Freedmen were to labor "freely" in factories (where "free" was a term coined during the era). The idea was that Black Americans would rise as a labor class by earning wages. Black Americans were to also be freely educated. Even Booker T. Washington championed vocational schools for Blacks to raise their status, and Radical Republicans fought to fund these via taxpayer dollars.
This labor "solution" was supported by, sadly, newly elected Black Republicans to both the US House and Senate. The Congressional Black Caucus, founded in 1971, would have us believe that Black politicans never held power to reform the socioeconomic status of Black Americans. That is not historically accurate given that Black politicians represented the South well into the late 1800s.
The Left is too quick to blame Jim Crow for failure rather than the labor reform itself. The Black Codes of Jim Crow developed slowly after Southern Democrats regained power, but this was not sudden. It is ahistoric to think that in 1877 all reforms ground to a halt. The vocational schools and factories in the South were there to stay.
It's easily forgotten that the Southern States were reverted to territories under military occupation after the War and Presidentially appointed governors. Even after regaining State sovereignty, the Civil Rights Acts of the 1800s kept Black politicians and white Radicals in power for decades in the South. Radical Republicans could do anything in the South. Yet they ignored the common Freedman's cry for farming their own land. A vocational certificate and a job in a factory were considered the best reparation for Freedmen.
Obviously, Reconstruction failed -- even the interpretation of Long Reconstruction (by Foner) shows that failure happened slowly and in nuanced ways. The important point, however, is lost to time.
The solution of labor reform didn't work. Black Americans did not gain wealth by public education and job placement. Freedmen did not gain wealth during Reconstruction, as some of these data indicate. Some of this should be attributed to Southern Democrats after they regained power, especially via Black Codes of the 1900s. But a thorough reading of history shows that both white Northerners and Black politicians deprived the common Freedman of the one thing they consistently demanded during Reconstruction: a simple piece of land to call home. If Black Americans had been deeded title to vast acreages of land, I suspect Southern Democrats would have had a terrible time creating Jim Crow.
When politics ignores what makes its citizens happy, and presumes a solution based on ideology, then it is doomed to failure. I don't think most politicians are interested in what makes the common citizen happy. The reparations debate is serving politicians more than it would benefit the common Black American. It is similar to Reconstruction politicians who benefited from educated Freedmen signing up to work in their Southern factories. Many politicians, and their supporters, would rather push an ideology about an ideal society onto the common person than give citizens what they demand.
"We didn’t then, because Andrew Jackson and White conservatives nixed the plans. We should today." Shouldn't this be Andrew Johnson?
Yes, thank you for the correction!
It is odd, but not surprising, that this analysis of wealth is weighted towards labor instead of land. And presumes that wealth will make Black Americans happy. It is the labor versus land debate that entrenched residual problems that make for unhappy citizens today ...
History is helpful here, but seldom is the history of Reconstruction taught (well) in the US. Understanding Reconstruction, especially beyond the presupposed end of the era with the election of Hayes, explains that Black Americans themselves rejected your concept of fair reparations from enslavement.
The reality is Freedmen demanded one thing: land. Land. Land. Land. They repeated their demand to farm their own land to Johnson, Grant, Congress, etc. The Port Royal experiment in South Carolina was the only sizable transfer of farming land to Freedmen, but the acreage was small. (Millions of acres had been seized from Confederates after the War.) And there was never a sizable transfer of land to Blacks in Northern states despite the North's white savior narrative.
The solution, imposed by Northern abolitionists, was: labor. Freedmen were to labor "freely" in factories (where "free" was a term coined during the era). The idea was that Black Americans would rise as a labor class by earning wages. Black Americans were to also be freely educated. Even Booker T. Washington championed vocational schools for Blacks to raise their status, and Radical Republicans fought to fund these via taxpayer dollars.
This labor "solution" was supported by, sadly, newly elected Black Republicans to both the US House and Senate. The Congressional Black Caucus, founded in 1971, would have us believe that Black politicans never held power to reform the socioeconomic status of Black Americans. That is not historically accurate given that Black politicians represented the South well into the late 1800s.
The Left is too quick to blame Jim Crow for failure rather than the labor reform itself. The Black Codes of Jim Crow developed slowly after Southern Democrats regained power, but this was not sudden. It is ahistoric to think that in 1877 all reforms ground to a halt. The vocational schools and factories in the South were there to stay.
It's easily forgotten that the Southern States were reverted to territories under military occupation after the War and Presidentially appointed governors. Even after regaining State sovereignty, the Civil Rights Acts of the 1800s kept Black politicians and white Radicals in power for decades in the South. Radical Republicans could do anything in the South. Yet they ignored the common Freedman's cry for farming their own land. A vocational certificate and a job in a factory were considered the best reparation for Freedmen.
Obviously, Reconstruction failed -- even the interpretation of Long Reconstruction (by Foner) shows that failure happened slowly and in nuanced ways. The important point, however, is lost to time.
The solution of labor reform didn't work. Black Americans did not gain wealth by public education and job placement. Freedmen did not gain wealth during Reconstruction, as some of these data indicate. Some of this should be attributed to Southern Democrats after they regained power, especially via Black Codes of the 1900s. But a thorough reading of history shows that both white Northerners and Black politicians deprived the common Freedman of the one thing they consistently demanded during Reconstruction: a simple piece of land to call home. If Black Americans had been deeded title to vast acreages of land, I suspect Southern Democrats would have had a terrible time creating Jim Crow.
When politics ignores what makes its citizens happy, and presumes a solution based on ideology, then it is doomed to failure. I don't think most politicians are interested in what makes the common citizen happy. The reparations debate is serving politicians more than it would benefit the common Black American. It is similar to Reconstruction politicians who benefited from educated Freedmen signing up to work in their Southern factories. Many politicians, and their supporters, would rather push an ideology about an ideal society onto the common person than give citizens what they demand.