Should the United States compensate Black Americans for historical injustices? The discourse surrounding reparations often presents a challenging dilemma: should we leave an essential debt unsettled, or should we burden a generation not directly responsible for these wrongs? It is evident that many individuals hold firm views either in favor of or against reparations, and some may dismiss this discussion if it deviates from their beliefs. However, various considerations merit attention, and the discussion is far from straightforward. Those who are entirely for or against reparations may find themselves at odds with the eventual conclusions presented here.

To those who oppose reparations, I pose this question: Should individuals alive during the conclusion of slavery have compensated former slaves? When we acknowledge that reparations of $20,000 per person and a formal apology were issued to Japanese Americans interned during World War II, it becomes clear that reparations for former slaves are equally justifiable. Notably, an order to compensate former slaves was issued but later reversed by President Andrew Johnson, leading many freed individuals to anticipate such reparations. Furthermore, in Washington, D.C., the federal government compensated slaveholders $300 (approximately $9,000 in 2023) for each slave they were compelled to emancipate. Clearly, the need for reparations at that time is undeniable. The pressing question is not whether reparations are due, but whether they should be paid now, after such an extensive delay and after the last former slaves have passed.

How extensive was this delay? Slavery was abolished in 1865, yet the Jim Crow era perpetuated systemic oppression, relegating Black individuals to second-class citizenship until the 1960s. Slavery existed in what is now the United States since 1619, meaning that for approximately 350 years, Black individuals were legally viewed as property or second-class citizens. In contrast, it has only been about 60 years since the end of Jim Crow. Many individuals who lived during that period are still alive today.

Should reparations be extended to the descendants of former slaves? From a moral standpoint, the answer is yes. The principle of justice asserts that every injustice ought to be rectified. The prolonged delay in addressing this wrong suggests that reparations should include interest rather than be forgotten entirely; however, the truth remains that the original wrong cannot be fully rectified. All former slaves died without receiving what was rightfully theirs. Additionally, it is unjust to impose a debt on individuals born after the fact due to the misdeeds of their ancestors. The failure to pay reparations by the original perpetrators reflects a neglect of moral responsibility. This dilemma is complex: while reparations ought to be paid, modern Americans should not be compelled to shoulder this burden. Instead, they should feel a desire to contribute to reparations without being legally obligated.

Moreover, considering the historical trajectory of oppression as a continuum raises the question of whether contemporary Americans owe reparations for Jim Crow laws. Here, the answer leans toward an emphatic yes. Few people today played a significant role in establishing those discriminatory laws; nonetheless, the debt incurred during that time remains unpaid, with most of the direct actors having evaded their responsibilities through death. The injustice itself continues to merit compensation. Thus, while modern Americans should aspire to contribute to reparations for Jim Crow, they should not be legally required to do so. However, all contemporary Americans must address the ongoing repercussions of those laws that persist today.

The extensive oppression endured over 350 years has resulted in a profound inequality in contemporary America. By 2021, the average wealth of Black families was only about one-tenth that of White families (specifically, White families possessed 9.2 times the wealth). This stark wealth disparity is a direct result of laws designed to disadvantage Black Americans across various dimensions. The systematic destruction of any potential for generational wealth within Black communities has not only impacted those who lived through that era but continues to disadvantage today's Black Americans. This cycle of oppression is self-perpetuating; merely abolishing the laws that caused it is insufficient. There must be proactive measures taken to counteract this cycle, and the responsibility for implementing these measures rests with contemporary American society.

If one’s father caused harm to another family, one could argue that they are not responsible for that act. However, if the damage continues to this day and one does nothing to rectify it, that constitutes a moral failure. Should modern Americans feel compelled to amend wrongs committed before their time? Ideally, they should want to, but not feel obligated. However, there is a moral imperative to intervene against ongoing injustices.

What might such intervention entail? In an ideal scenario, it would involve governmental action to help Black Americans reach parity with the national average. However, realistically, this is unlikely to happen due to a lack of political will and the immense strain such wealth redistribution would place on the system. Additionally, it could exacerbate inflation and increase government debt. When discussing moral arguments, it is essential to distinguish between what “should be” and what is feasible. It is prudent to consider the pragmatism expressed by Otto Von Bismarck, who stated that “Politics is the art of the possible.”

The impacts of poverty are far-reaching, resulting in lower happiness levels, poor health outcomes, diminished educational access, and higher crime rates. Consequently, America must seek to reverse the intentional impoverishment of Black communities through a multifaceted approach. For example, criminal justice reform is crucial. If individuals resort to crime for financial survival, providing them with support for pursuing legal income sources—such as education and career development—after their release from prison would be beneficial. This rehabilitative approach should not be limited to Black Americans; it would assist individuals of all races.

Reforming public school funding presents another opportunity for positive change. Many Black schools suffer from inadequate funding because public education is primarily financed by local property taxes. Low-income areas tend to generate less property tax revenue due to lower property values. A more equitable system could involve pooling property tax revenues at the state or national level and redistributing them based on the tax rates municipalities choose to impose, regardless of the revenue they generate. Such a change would ensure that schools in economically disadvantaged areas receive fair funding, leveling the playing field for impoverished municipalities. While this would benefit all low-income individuals in America, it would significantly impact wealth generation within Black communities, as many Black individuals have been marginalized by a history of systemic oppression.

Other initiatives, currently underway in part, should be expanded, such as programs that assist with obtaining loans, home and vehicle ownership, credit building, education, and healthcare costs. If there is sufficient political will, direct payments or tax relief could also be justified. America must actively work to eliminate the entrenched poverty that continues to disadvantage today's Black Americans, a direct consequence of past policies. Creative and assertive policies should be enacted to address this issue. While we may inherit the current situation, there is no justification for allowing fellow citizens to endure a manufactured inequality. This responsibility lies squarely with us.