I was careful to include only the Union casualties. If both the Union and Confederates are include, the total comes closer to 600,000 total. This was way more than the total of US casualties for WWI and WWII combined.
Those rifled muskets shooting huge caliber bullets were nasty. Accurate and nasty.
I just thought that the Union should get some kind of credit for sacrificing all those men basically to free the slaves.
You’re missing the point. The Confederacy was sacrificing men to keep them enslaved, and was also part of the US. So you have to deduct the Confederate dead from the Union dead, not add them (in this bizarre “credit for the dead” scenario, that is).
The Union, for the most part, didn’t give a shit about slavery. They were fighting to keep the South from leaving.
Everyone who marks the Guilt Checkoff box on their federal income tax return. Fill in the desired amount or defer to the suggested percentage of annual income.
Problem solved.
Bumped.
have you read comments by Black NC Lt Governor Mark Robinson saying similar, that Blacks “owe” Whites for slavery
How many black residents aged 71 or older who have lived their entire life in California are there? How would California pay for this? We’re talking about a state that recently tried to impose taxes on former residents for up to ten years after they left for other states.
one aspect that hasn’t been noted here is “environmental racism”–I read the May 9 Washington Post article about West Oakland, that cites FHA ‘encouraging’ industrial and transportation Red-lining in the Bay rea, with the systemic health consequences. This is area where both zoning and related health-related costs to Black community could be grounds for “make-good” actions
The people who are long dead and the truly rich who profited from free slave labor. The former can’t and latter won’t, so don’t saddle me with it. The middle class tax payers are always the “fall guy” for everything.
So how much of a payment is sufficient?
Would it be per person or per household?
Is it a one time payment or in perpetuity?
What percentage of Black ancestry would be required to qualify?
Do you need to be able to prove Black ancestry dating back to earlier than 1865?
Would you need to prove a chain of unbroken familial residency in the USA since 1865?
Should Northern states need to contribute as much as Southern states?
Disclaimer: I’m an upper middle class white liberal, and recognize that my views are undoubtedly colored with that privlege and perspective.
Regarding the California reparations task force, I think that their proposals, (and Tony Pierce’s $200 million in particular) far from advancing the cause of racial equality has probably significantly set it back, to the point that I would not be surprised if they were infiltrated by GOP operatives.
First off is that fact that their proposal has an exactly 0% chance of actually being enacted. The money is not there, and the cost to the tax payer base would be so high that it would crush the states finances and anybody who actually voted for it would be out of office next term with the possible exception of those who came from majority African American districts. I assume that the panel knows this and so the proposal is meant to be primarily symbolic.
But even as a symbolic gesture it fails. Their proposal basically stands up as a poster child to everything that Conservatives are pointing to about Wokeism run amok. The claim by Republicans is that wokeism is all about Black people given preferential treatment that catapults them ahead of white people, which is precisely what this proposal would do. This the right’s straw man of what liberals want come to life. Its a fleet of wellfare queens in limousines with fur coats, pearl necklaces and diamond bracelets.
It can also be used as a weapon by the right to discourage the Black vote. By setting unreasonable expectations of cash payouts in the million dollar range, failure to meet those expectations by the Democrats can be presented as Democrats having no desire to help Blacks, and so being no better than Republicans.
Finally (and this is more of a personal feeling), I hate that this is all about money. I realize that here in America Money is all we seem to care about (hence the reason the producers of the Great American Bakingshow felt the need to ruin the charm of the original by adding a 1 million dollar grand prize). But reducing the legacy of slavery to a one time settlement loses sight of the continuing social and political legacy of racism, and does little do address the underlying issue. Its like BP oil paying off coastal residents for the spill but then just going off to drill a new well underwater well without implementing any new safety protocols.
I would much more of preferred that they admitted that there is no way that the government would ever be able to fully compensate those who have been harmed by racism through the generations. They can go ahead and calculate their numbers to set up some perspective, and compensation for certain varifiable recent injustices might be warranted. But I would rather have their main thesis to be directed at how to correct the systemic racism that exists in the current system instead of trying to put a price on the priceless.
PS: anyone know how reneging on 40 Acres and mule to the 4 million freed slaves translates to $200 million to each of 41 million African American’s today?
Apparently he thinks 40 acres of land cost the equivalent of $200 million in the 1860s?
(ETA, posted before I reached the bottom of your post.)
BTW, that “40 acres” was only about a specific 400,000 acres in coastal South Carolina and Georgia, so there was only ever enough for 10,000 people suggested.
Spike Lee knows that: 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks - Wikipedia