“It seems to me that there is no way to use or own any rail line east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line without Getting your hands sullied in the slavery business, even if you go out and buy it today.”
Yep. Canadian National isn’t being sued (yet) but is listed in the USA Today article as a slave-connected railroad. We’re talking Canada, a country that didn’t have slavery and indeed was a haven for escaped slaves. Can you even picture a mild-mannered polite Canadian owning slaves?
Seriously, though, we’re talking about a company that didn’t exist until 1918 (CN resulted from a merger of then-existing Canadian railways). We’re talking about a company that never even had a presence in the South until they bought the Illinois Central in 1999!!! :rolleyes:
The original IC didn’t extend into the slave states either, but did buy up some Southern railways in the latter quarter of the 19th Century – the first in 1876 (according to the CN/IC website), which the last time I checked was a date after 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed.
The absurdity of a company being responsible for slavery because of an act it did in 1999 should be patently obvious.
“It seems to me that there is no way to use or own any rail line east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line without Getting your hands sullied in the slavery business, even if you go out and buy it today.”
Yep. Canadian National isn’t being sued (yet) but is listed in the USA Today article as a slave-connected railroad. We’re talking Canada, a country that didn’t have slavery and indeed was a haven for escaped slaves. Can you even picture a mild-mannered polite Canadian owning slaves?
Seriously, though, we’re talking about a company that didn’t exist until 1918 (CN resulted from a merger of then-existing Canadian railways). We’re talking about a company that never even had a presence in the South until they bought the Illinois Central in 1999!!! :rolleyes:
The original IC didn’t extend into the slave states either, but did buy up some Southern railways in the latter quarter of the 19th Century – the first in 1876 (according to the CN/IC website), which the last time I checked was a date after 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed.
The absurdity of a company being responsible for slavery because of an act it did in 1999 should be patently obvious.
Surely you jest, right? So you would be willing to exchange a life-time, and your children’s life-time, of hard labor for a cruddy shack and the scraps from Massa’s table? Please.
The harm of slavery was multi-fold, including the tragedy of not being able to profit from work and build an estate from it. In 99% of the cases, a slave arriving to this country in 1700 would have been no different economically than his descendant a hundred years later. You would be hard pressed to find that level of stasis for a white immigrant and his subsequent lineage. If you disagree with this, I request a citation for this assertion.
**
That might be the case, but in most cases, they would have had SOMETHING to pass on. A few acres of land. A house. A horse. Hell, education and the ability to read and write. Something.
But what unskilled laborers of the North had going for them is a moot point because the fact of the matter is that these people made a contract for their labor and they had some level of choice. If they wanted to work elsewhere, thereotically they could have. We’re comparing apples to oranges.
**
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize this as race-baiting or absurd. Would it be race-baiting if the plaintiffs were former slaves rather than people two or three generations removed from slaves? Was it race-baiting when the interned Japanese Americans sought reparations? Many of those who received compensation were kids during their internment. So where’s the absurdity coming from, exactly?
I’d be curious to know that if it were 1902 instead of 2002, how many of the posters here would still find this case ludicrous.
In another thread on these boards, people are posting their recent connections to Civil War vets, as in great grandfathers or uncles and the like. It’s interesting that when it comes to things we WANT to remember, it doesn’t seem that long ago. But when it comes to the “shameful blots”, we’re suddenly talking about geologic time scales. Well, obviously it wasn’t that long ago if these corporations still existed back then.
A lawsuit on behalf of your long dead ancestors is frivolous and injurious to the call for full equality in the here and now.
A better lawsuit, in my opinion, would be a lawsuit on behalf of the decendants of slaves. If you can show how past slavery is causing injury to you right now, then I think the publicity would be much more beneficial. Not that I think you could or even should win in either case if you are the plaintiff, it still makes a better statement.
We know that slavery caused injury to slaves. What is in debate in today’s society is whether the legacy of slavery is still causing injury to their decendants.
Biggirl, I think that the complaint is alleging that slavery harms people today. The complaint lists injuries done to slaves, notes that segregation and various other harms continued until very recently, then moves to
monstro, the complaint does not allege that these three corporations existed during the period of slavery. The complaint alleges that their predecessors-in-interest were the problem.
So basically what you’re saying is that a company can’t be held responsible–financially–for activities committed in its former name or subsidiary?
So if McDonald’s buys out Burger King today, I can’t sue them for a food-poisoning acquired in a BK establishment? Who can I sue then?
If companies can simply eschew responsibility by changing their name or joining up with a “blame-less” company, then what’s stopping Phillip-Morris from joining up with Nabisco or Johnson & Johnson so they can run away from tobacco-related class action lawsuits?
If you buy out a company or merge with them, you should be prepared to take the assets along with the responsibility that comes with those assets. CN profited, no doubt, by taking over IC. If it can be found that IC was in fact instrumental in illegal or damaging activities related to slavery, CN should be held responsible. At least, that’s this layperson’s thinking. I don’t know what the law says, though.
Just to summarize the lynching statistics by state from the links, above:
Secessionist States:
Whites: 0,512
Blacks: 3,057
Totals: 3,569
Border States: (“Southern” is open to interpretation)
Whites: 153
Blacks: 257
Totals: 410
Other States:
Whites: 602 (Lot’s of cattle rustlers, horse thieves, and gamblers)
Blacks: 127
Totals: 729
United States Totals 1882-1968 using Tuskegee Institue figures (generally deemed to be the most conservative numbers):
Whites: 1,297
Blacks: 3,446
Totals: 4,743
But it’s NOT 1902. That’s the whole point! In 1902, there would probably be more than a few former slaves still living.
That is NOT the case today.
I just hate seeing people argue over attrocities from generations past. Because look at what it DOES to people. Can’t we move on?
When you have so many in the world killing one another over what their ancestors did…it scares the shit out of me.
“If you buy out a company or merge with them, you should be prepared to take the assets along with the responsibility that comes with those assets.”
Within reason. A prudent business examines the potential liabilities of another business it is planning to buy. But such “due diligence” examinations aren’t expected to go back 150 years! We have statutes of limitations because, among other reasons, a business has to able to be reasonably certain that some past action of a company it buys isn’t going to come back as a payout of millions of dollars decades (or in this case centuries!) later. Why not? Because if every company were responsible for actions of a purchased company no matter how many years later, no company would ever buy or invest in any other company.
Now, that may sound like a good thing to some, but it’s not. To stick to this case, if CN or Union Pacific* knew they could be on the hook for SLAVERY just by buying a railway that operated in the Southern states, with no other actions on their part, they wouldn’t have bought those railroads. Which means they wouldn’t have tied together less-productive disconnected railways, engaged in capital improvements in those lines, etcetera. Indeed, no sane company would have bought any railway with any trackage in the Southern states if they thought there was a serious chance they could be held liable to the sum of hundreds of billions. (Yes, hundreds of billions: the suit is for $1.4 trillion dollars. :eek: ) I don’t think having a third-rate crumbing rail system in a large part of the nation is a good thing. Perhaps you do? Maybe you think making Southern railroads a pariah for investors, and therefore un-maintainable, is still appropriate punishment for the Southern states 150 years on?
*UP is another railroad that had no presence in the slave states during slavery but bought slave-connected railroads after Abolition. UP is named in the USA Today article, though not (yet) included in the lawsuit.
Another reason for statutes of limitations, and one I think that is extremely important here, is that evidence is not preserved. Witnesses die (in this case, all of them), documents get destroyed, etc. If there ever was any exculpatory evidence, I’m sure it is long since gone.
At this point in time, the defendants simply cannot get constitutional due process because they have no way to effectively present a defense.
Well, after reading the complaint thoroughly (thanks Robb), why would the statutes of limitations apply? According to the complaint the injury is on-going.
The plaintiff is claiming personal injury on behalf of the whole class of injured black people. Your ancestor didn’t even have to be slaves in order for you to be part of this lawsuit, you just have to be black. And how do you become a member of this class? Is there a melanin test or something?
I’m also wondering how the plaintiffs picked these particular companies. Did FleetBoston finance the building of slave ships? I think tying these companies to slavery will be close to impossible.
I am not a legal eagle so my opinion means nothing, but casting such a wide blanket of blame borders on the ridiculous. The promise of 40 acres and a mule did not come from private companies and to claim that a company who supplied nails to build the rails in the south should pony up reparations weakens what I think this lawsuit is trying to do.
Blackmail? How is this blackmail? The class claims injury because these companies participated in the slave trade. Either these companies did or they didn’t. Either the courts rule that the case has merit or they won’t. How is this blackmail?
A mandamus writ is the remedy in Texas for this situation? Really?
I am honestly asking – we here in Virginia would seek leave to file an interlocutory appeal. I suppose we might have to resort to mandamus if that was denied, but under the original Erofee hypo, the whole point of the trial judge’s intransigence was to get the heat off him and on the appellate courts… so why would he deny permission to prefect an interlocutory appeal?
Statutes of limitations start to run from the moment (a) the action that causes the injury occurs or (b) (in limited circumstances) when a reasonable person would have discovered that an injury occurred and that X person caused the injury.
“On-going injuries”, depending on how broadly you define it, happen all the time and are not relevant for statute of limitations purposes. Example: You are in a car accident. As a result, you suffer migraine headaches the rest of your life. The migraines were caused by the accident and are ongoing, but you can’t wait 50 years to sue. You know what happened and who to sue - that’s when the clock starts.
That’s the key problem here. Other issues include - does your percentage of any damages depend on how black you are? If one grandmother was white, do you only get 3/4 recovery - grandma’s ancestors weren’t harmed by slavery. If you are black but your family immigrated after slavery, you are still harmed by the effects of slavery on American society, but why should FleetBoston be responsible for your injuries?
My guess is that the historical research on these companies and their relation to the slave trade is the strongest. Guess those companies were too trusting when they gave researchers access to their archives.
If I were legal counsel for any other company in the U.S., I would immediately cut off access to company archives to researchers, to avoid being dragged into this.
It’s not blackmail under the law, but think about this. Plaintiffs have no legal case whatsoever (equitable tolling of statutes of limitations almost never happens, and to let it happen here would destroy the concept of statutes of limitations). But the attendant bad publicity is very likely to result in the defendants decided that it would be less costly to their reputations and their business prospects to reach a settlement. This happens in lots of cases beyond this one, and as an attorney, I find lawyers who file meritless lawsuits in order to get a “go away” settlement are no better than extortionists, even though what they are doing isn’t illegal. It’s still immoral.
minty green, I didn’t miss the fact that the referenced case was filed in federal court ; rather, I was describing how one might go about trying to effect litigation blackmail. Mandamus is certainly available, but there is a heavy burden on the party seeking mandamus. Although in our hypothetical case, there would be good arguments for allowing the Court of Appeals to rule on whether a claim is stated, the defense runs the risk of alienating the trial judge if the mandamus fails.
Some of our courts of appeal are more conservative than others; I would not call the courts in Beaumont and Corpus Christi as “very conservative”, and indeed, assuming venue is not a problem, I’d file the case in Jefferson County.
The point of course is that if you create enough doubt in the defense’s mind about the short term results, you may get the defense to the bargaining table.
Even though the referenced case was filed in federal court, that does not mean that the 12(b)(6) motion is an automatic winner. The environmental case I mentioned in my first post also involved a 12(b)(6) motion that the judge simply did not decide. (I’ve searched for a good article on the trial to explain how the judge persistently ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor or ignored the defense – no luck so far.) I am not prepared to say that Jesse Jackson’s visit here had nothing to do with the judge’s recalcitrance (although I would deny a direct connection).
I don’t understand your claim that I have totally miscalculated the political pressure on trial judges. Are you saying I am wrong in stating that there are trial judges in Texas who would be hesitant to dismiss this case? Am I wrong in averring that the basis of such a ruling might be more than just avoiding the immediate appeal and potential reversal? Or are you saying that the most important political influence is the identity of the lawyers making donations to the judge’s campaign, not the nature of the case itself?
Point is, a lot of posters seem to be saying Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 11 will take care of this matter. SuaSponte already pointed out why Rule 11 is likely not going to be used. And I’m saying don’t count on Rule 12(b)(6) to be a lock, either.
You are correct – it should work, but a judge who is willing to deny the 12(b)(6) motion is willing to deny the motion for summary judgment as well. The whole point is to keep the case alive long enough to force the settlement along the lines of what Sua described at the end of the last post.
To give you an idea of what Sua is describing, take a look at:http://www.texnews.com/texas97/chevron082397.html. I can guarantee you this tells only half the story, and in such a way as to be utterly misleading about the corporate defendant. In fact, some Chevron stores in Houston were picketed as a result (not as a direct result of the article, but the bad publicity from the case generally).
Right. But that’s NOT the whole point, sadly. Not when folks like Opus1 think slaves were paid in room and board. Not when other posters believe that compensation for hundreds of years of unpaid labor should be forgotten in some twisted sense of “unity” and “getting-alongness”.
I’m sorry, but that’s not right. There’s a lot of reasons why fighting over slave reparations should be given up, but concern over agitating the white folk is not one of them. Sorry.
**
Why can’t we acknowledge what has been done to others? Hell, I’d just be satisfied with a goddamn apology, and we haven’t even gotten that.
And we HAVE been moving on. That’s the thing. If the government had followed up on its promise and black people had gone to court back when there were slaves living, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
**
There’s no reason to think that this will escalate to violence, Guinastasia. I doubt it will even go to trial, so don’t worry.
I kind of have to go with you on this one. At first I thought that you were wrong, because I thought that I remembered that Clinton had actually apologized. However, a little research revealed that the closest that this came was in his 1998 speech from his trip to Uganda (text here).
As far as I can tell, he expressed “regret” but stopped short of a formal apology. Sheesh! Also, the setting seems a little less than appropriate.
All of this got me thinking, though, and so I have been looking in to my own genealogy. As it turns out, none of my ancestors (as far as we can tell) were ever slave owners but…it looks like one of my uncles (great-great I think) participated in the Oklahoma Land Grab. <Sigh>.
