It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Booker's New Bill - Money for Descendants of Slaves

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 02:37 PM

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Trueman

According to the document, the money will go directly to Cory Booker and he hands it directly to who he decides deserves it.

With that method, I bet we find out there really are not that many people related to slaves. Only a select few get the hand out.

It'll depend on how they vote.

posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 03:18 PM

originally posted by: roadgravel
Rumor is the payouts will be in Confederate money. Can Paypal convert that into US dollars?

Don't forget about the Union, they used escaped slaves during the war, after they told them to escape.

posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 03:29 PM
I agree 100% with this bill because the day it is passed, I think I'll "identify" as a black decedent of a slave.

posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 03:48 PM

originally posted by: CADpro

originally posted by: carewemust
Some of the slaves lived better here than they did in Africa.

They were never happier as slaves. Massa made sure they were cared for in every way being a slave was expensive. They had food, clothing, housing etc.. Would you take a sledge hammer to your John Deere tractor every day?

If anything, slaves owe massa the cost of their purchase.

Most were housed in their own quarters with a roof over their head and food on their plate while their old tribe was running from captors and wild animals. If you read unrevised history, you'll see most of them weren't abused like today's revised telling likes to say. It doesn't tug the strings as hard when you give the truth.
edit on 12-4-2019 by LSU2018 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 03:56 PM

originally posted by: Graysen
Why should the government have to pay reparations? The federal government never owned a single slave (though Virginia and Louisiana did.).

Likewise, the US Army spent the bulk of its energy trying to keep white pioneers from stealing NA lands. The black hills were originally tribal territory that white civilians were forbidden to enter. Then gold was found and a few hundred federal horsebacks were powerless to hold back 50,000 white "immigrants."

And again, the Trail of Tears (referred to as "removal to the west") was the federal attempt to get native Americans, particularly the "civilized tribes" like the Cherokee, out of harm's way. Harm was white rapists and claim jumpers.

Federal government, including its officers, worked hard to limit slavery and eventually end the practice. They also wanted to leave natives with some degree of autonomy. The fact that they were unable to control the great mass of the population doesn't mean that they should be punished for trying....

My ancestors were abolitionists involved in pushing for an invasion of the south to end slavery immediately. Do I get a discount?

That's not exactly accurate. The federal government had no use for slaves but didn't push to stop slavery until the end of the Civil War, it was never, never, the reason for the war starting. The first emancipation was directed at slaves south of the states that bordered the Mason-Dixon Line. IF they could escape and make it north of the MD Line, they would be free men, Lincoln said so. So when those slaves escaped and ran into the Union Armies, they were taken and used to the benefit of the Union. They had to cook, clean, and mend/make clothes for the soldiers.

new topics

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in