Dred Scott and Reparations
- By Curtis Anthony Hervey
- Published 02/21/2010
Curtis Anthony Hervey
My 18,000 word thesis earned me a Masters of Biblical Studies degree (a wholistic plan to empower low-income black America). I'm here to network for publication and to seek out like-minded African Americans (curtis.hervey@yahoo.com). As a Distinguished Graduate of OCS, I seek to apply battle-tested military principles to solving black pathology by issuing a national warning order. I'm an iconoclast, my doctrine is Washingtonian (as in Booker T.) and my role is that of Socratic Gadfly.
Few things annoy me more than the scam of reparations. This rhetoric is just another distraction that will never materialize.
Deep down inside the heart of every black person, he knows that the white power structure will NEVER agree to pay blacks one dime. And why should they? Wheres the legal precedence?
Did not the Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling of 1857 conclusively settle the matter of slave rights? Slaves did not have legal rights before the US Consitution. Consequently, the newly-emancipated slaves could not sue for reparations. And, as a result, the descendants of slaves do not have a legal leg to stand on either.
Other reparations apologists trace their argument to the Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (EP). the problem here is that, technically, Lincoln has no legal jurisdiction over the confederacy because of secession. This meant the Emanicpation Proclamation was little more than a political and military tactic to destablize the confederacy. And it worked.
Other reparationists cite the "forty acres and a mule" provision of the EP, but fail to relate how Lincoln's successor, racist Andrew Johnson, REVERSED this policy after June 1865 and returned the confiscated lands to their white owners.
So, then, even though you can make a weak MORAL argument for reparations, you cannot make a legal one, something that would actually stand up in a court of law.
No, there only Three Options for African Amricans we need to consider this Black History Month:
1. we can continue to ask, beg, ;lead, petition for redress and panhandle the establishment for what we think they owe us.
2. We can TAKE what we think is owed to us through by force through violence.
3. we can learn the lessons of segregation and re-establish our autonomy, independence and self-reliance we squandered for the "fools' gold" that was integration (assimilation): Remember the "Black Wall Street" of Greenwood in Tulsa, Oklahoma? Imagine that on a national scale.
Now, option one has been done to death and has failed. We've hit a glass ceiling and the establishment will do nothing that actually threatens white supremacy, so the chances of them ever making blacks equal are nil.
Option two is suicidal considering the fact that blacks consitute only 13% of the US population and are completle surrounded by white suburbs (a tactically nightmare). Besides, it would be an amoral endeavor.
Option three is the only rational and realistic course of action.
This is what I'm all about because I have done my homework and used military principles to reach my conclusion. This is what my National warning Order manuscript deals with. It is an actually plan to be disseminated to the masses. But, it must be proofed by a staff of subject-matter experts which is why I'm here at this forum.
Deep down inside the heart of every black person, he knows that the white power structure will NEVER agree to pay blacks one dime. And why should they? Wheres the legal precedence?
Did not the Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling of 1857 conclusively settle the matter of slave rights? Slaves did not have legal rights before the US Consitution. Consequently, the newly-emancipated slaves could not sue for reparations. And, as a result, the descendants of slaves do not have a legal leg to stand on either.
Other reparations apologists trace their argument to the Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (EP). the problem here is that, technically, Lincoln has no legal jurisdiction over the confederacy because of secession. This meant the Emanicpation Proclamation was little more than a political and military tactic to destablize the confederacy. And it worked.
Other reparationists cite the "forty acres and a mule" provision of the EP, but fail to relate how Lincoln's successor, racist Andrew Johnson, REVERSED this policy after June 1865 and returned the confiscated lands to their white owners.
So, then, even though you can make a weak MORAL argument for reparations, you cannot make a legal one, something that would actually stand up in a court of law.
No, there only Three Options for African Amricans we need to consider this Black History Month:
1. we can continue to ask, beg, ;lead, petition for redress and panhandle the establishment for what we think they owe us.
2. We can TAKE what we think is owed to us through by force through violence.
3. we can learn the lessons of segregation and re-establish our autonomy, independence and self-reliance we squandered for the "fools' gold" that was integration (assimilation): Remember the "Black Wall Street" of Greenwood in Tulsa, Oklahoma? Imagine that on a national scale.
Now, option one has been done to death and has failed. We've hit a glass ceiling and the establishment will do nothing that actually threatens white supremacy, so the chances of them ever making blacks equal are nil.
Option two is suicidal considering the fact that blacks consitute only 13% of the US population and are completle surrounded by white suburbs (a tactically nightmare). Besides, it would be an amoral endeavor.
Option three is the only rational and realistic course of action.
This is what I'm all about because I have done my homework and used military principles to reach my conclusion. This is what my National warning Order manuscript deals with. It is an actually plan to be disseminated to the masses. But, it must be proofed by a staff of subject-matter experts which is why I'm here at this forum.
