Issue Date: July 25, 2005

Slavery Reparations

PRINTEMAILSAVETEXT

George Eastman House/Samuel N. Fox/Archive Photos

A shirtless slave, tied to a whipping post, awaits punishment, c. 1860. On the platform above the whipping post is a stockade.

The first African slaves were brought to the U.S. in 1619, beginning a period of sanctioned slavery that would last for nearly 250 years. That period represents, for many Americans, one of the most painful and sensitive topics in this country's history. Although most people agree that slavery constituted a grave wrong done to Africans and their descendants, there is a great deal of disagreement about how to atone for that wrong. Some people believe that African-Americans, as the descendants of slaves, are owed reparations, or payment for past injustices.

Until very recently, the slavery reparations movement was widely considered a radical, fringe movement in the U.S. Many people held that, more than 100 years after the end of slavery, reparations would never be seriously considered. "For so long it was just ludicrous for black folk to even bring up the notion that they might be entitled to...compensation," says Michael Eric Dyson, professor of religious studies at DePaul University in Chicago. "It was simply crazy."

However, in recent years, the idea that African-Americans should receive reparations for slavery has garnered increased support. Recent reparations victories by other wronged groups have added momentum to the fight for slavery reparations. In 1988, for example, Japanese-Americans interned by the U.S. during World War II were awarded $20,000 apiece and given a formal apology by the U.S. government. In addition, survivors of the Jewish Holocaust, which occurred before and during World War II (1939-45), have collected nearly $60 billion from the German government in recent years for their suffering in German concentration camps. Such victories have led many African-Americans to demand similar recognition and reparation for the historic wrong of slavery. [See 1999 Holocaust Reparations]

Public opinion on reparations for slavery is largely divided along racial lines. While blacks tend to support the reparations movement, whites are less likely to believe that African-Americans should receive reparations for slavery. For example, in a June 1997 ABC News poll, 65% of African-American respondents said that the federal government should pay reparations for slavery, while only 10% of white respondents said that they support reparations. Public opinion, however, is not completely divided along racial lines. There is significant opposition to the reparation movement among some African-Americans, just as there is a good deal of support for reparations among some whites.

Jeremy Eagle

Those who support reparations say that because slaves were forced to work without pay for almost 250 years, their descents should be compensated for that unpaid labor. Furthermore, supporters say, blacks should be compensated for the legacy of racial discrimination that slavery left in the U.S. They claim that slavery and its legacy of entrenched institutional and social discrimination is responsible for current economic and social disparities between blacks and whites. Reparations should therefore be paid to African-Americans to correct the continuing racial inequalities in the U.S., advocates say.

Meanwhile, opponents of reparations counter that it has been more than a century since slavery was outlawed in the U.S., and no slaves or slaveholders are still alive. It would be unfair, they say, to reward African-Americans for the injustices done to their ancestors. In addition, it is unfair to hold whites responsible for the sins of their forefathers, they say. Even though many people admit that freed slaves should have received compensation in the wake of emancipation, many think that the time when reparations could have been paid has long since passed. If the nation wants to move forward and address the racial tensions in the U.S., it is important to stop dwelling on slavery and start focusing on current issues, opponents of reparations say.

Should African-Americans receive reparations for slavery and its legacy of discrimination in the U.S.? Or is it impractical and unfair to pay a group of people for a wrong that was inflicted upon their ancestors more than a century ago? Will opening a national discussion about reparations help improve racial relations in the U.S., or will it just increase racial tension?

The Quest for Slavery Reparations

The quest for slavery restitution in the U.S. began almost immediately after the December 18, 1865 ratification of the 13th Amendment, which abolished legalized slavery in the U.S. The 13th Amendment officially freed--or emancipated--all of the approximately four million slaves in the country. In the wake of emancipation, however, former slaves found themselves bound by a new set of social and economic shackles. For the most part, they were released penniless and illiterate, and, furthermore, were subject to discrimination and segregation.

AP/Wide World Photos

The Million Youth March was held in New York City's Harlem neighborhood in September 1998. It was organized partly to promote the view, held by many black groups, that blacks are entitled to reparations as compensation for their slave ancestors' suffering and unpaid labor.

Gen. William Sherman, a well-known Union commander during the Civil War (1861-65), led the first effort to provide freed slaves with restitution. With the support of the War Department, on January 16, 1865 Sherman issued Field Order No. 15, which promised 40 acres of land and a mule to each freed family. In order to fulfill its promise, the government seized and set aside Confederate land in South Carolina and Florida for freed slaves.

However, only 1,000 families were able to take advantage of Sherman's offer before the government went back on its promise. Under increasing pressure from the southern states, President Andrew Johnson (D) reversed the "40 acres and a mule" provision in the summer of 1865. He ordered the seized land returned to the white plantation owners, and all former slaves were summarily forced from the land.

After the government reneged on its promise to provide "40 acres and a mule," advocates of reparations began focusing their efforts on getting a reparations bill passed by Congress. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R, Pa.) introduced the first reparations bill for African slaves in the U.S. on March 11, 1867. Stevens, a progressive congressman who championed emancipation and voting rights for blacks, believed strongly that slaves were entitled to restitution.

Stevens's slavery reparations bill would have provided each freed adult male slave with 40 acres of land and $100 to build a dwelling. However, the southern states kept up their pressure on Johnson and he vetoed the bill.

Demands for reparations continued for the rest of the 19th century and into the 20th century, but mostly garnered little public attention. It was not until the late 1960s, while the country was actively addressing questions of civil rights and racial equality, that the issue of reparations reemerged as a subject of national discussion.

The National Black Economic Development Conference (NBEDC), a group addressing issues related to black community development, emerged as one of the most vocal groups championing the reparations movement during the late 1960s. In April 1969, the NBEDC adopted a "Black Manifesto," which demanded that white churches and synagogues pay a total of $500 million in reparations to African-Americans.

According to the manifesto, the money would not be paid to individuals, but would instead be used in the African-American community to establish major printing and publishing companies, a television network and a research center. It would also be used to lend money to blacks for purchasing land.

In May 1969, James Forman, a black activist and member of the NBEDC, interrupted Sunday services at Riverside Church in New York City to present the group's "Black Manifesto." While some churches and synagogues responded with donations, the group fell far short of its $500 million goal. Although Forman's actions and the NBEDC's "Black Manifesto" inspired commentary in newspapers and magazines, and temporarily reopened public discussion of reparations, debate on the issue faded quickly.

In recent years, advocates have fought to reinvigorate the reparations debate. Rep. John Conyers (D, Mich.) has introduced a slavery reparations bill in every Congress since 1989. Conyers first introduced the bill November 20, 1989 as the Commission to Study Reparations Proposals for African-Americans Act. The bill has since been renamed House Resolution 40 (H.R. 40), in reference to the government's original promise to provide former slaves with "40 acres and a mule."

Conyers's resolution calls for the creation of a national commission to study the impact that slavery has had on African-Americans. The commission would also recommend "appropriate remedies" to deal with the impact of slavery and its legacy. However, in every session that Conyers introduced H.R. 40, the bill failed to win a hearing. "What we're trying to do is start a discussion," says Conyers. "This is the most averted subject matter in the congressional agenda."

While the issue of reparations for African-Americans has made little headway at the federal level, the subject has recently received increased attention at the municipal level. In May 2000, the Chicago City Council overwhelmingly passed a resolution that would urge Congress to consider the question of reparations. Other cities have also passed similar measures to encourage federal hearings on the issue. Those cities are: Detroit, Mich.; Cleveland, Ohio; Dallas, Texas; and Washington, D.C.

Advocates hope that the passage of these measures will encourage further discussion about reparations at the national level. "With Chicago, the third-largest city, running with the issue, I don't think it will be so easy for politicians in Washington to evade it," says Kevin Hopkins, associate professor of law at John Marshall Law School in Chicago.

Despite progress at the municipal level, the repeated failure of Conyers's bill at the federal level has led many activists to focus their efforts on legal, rather than political, avenues. While Conyers vows to continue his fight for a legislative hearing on reparations, others have begun preparing lawsuits seeking compensation for slavery and its legacy. "This country has never dealt with slavery. It is America's nightmare. A political solution would be the most sensible, but I don't have a lot of faith that's going to happen. So we need to look aggressively at the legal alternative," says Charles Ogletree, a professor at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass.

Ogletree and several other powerful civil-rights and class-action lawyers recently formed a coalition called the Reparations Assessment Group. In November 2000, the group announced that it would file a class-action lawsuit against the government and private companies that profited from slavery. "We will be seeking more than just monetary compensation," says Ogletree. "We want a change in America. We want full recognition and a remedy of how slavery stigmatized, raped, murdered and exploited millions of Africans through no fault of their own."

Members of the Reparations Assessment Group predict that their lawsuit will have a dramatic effect on the reparations debate and on broader racial issues in the U.S. "This will be the most important case in the history of our country," predicts Alexander Pires Jr., a member of the group.

Reparations Defended

Many Americans believe that reparations for African-Americans are long overdue. Slaves, they say, were forced to work without pay for almost 250 years, and their descendants deserve to be compensated for that labor. "We're not talking about welfare," says Lerone Bennett, the executive editor of Ebony magazine. "We're talking about back pay."

The U.S is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and many historians argue that the cheap, backbreaking labor that slaves were forced to provide fueled the nation's economic progress. It is unfair and inexcusable, they say, that a country with so much wealth has made no significant effort to compensate African-Americans for their contribution. Supporters say that the U.S. government, as a collective institution that benefited from the labor of slaves, therefore owes reparations to its African-American citizens.

Advocates argue that African-Americans are also entitled to compensation for the pain and suffering that their forefathers endured as slaves. Slavery was a government-sanctioned institution in the U.S. for nearly 250 years, and the government must take responsibility for the massive crime against humanity that it condoned and enabled, observers say.

Even though slavery has been illegal in the U.S. for more than a century, advocates of reparations maintain that the responsibilities of a nation have no time limit. Federal and state governments, advocates say, can still be held responsible in 2000 for the actions and policies they embraced a century ago. "For every wrong there is a remedy, and...that remedy is not extinguished by time," says Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of national organizations committed to the protection of civil rights.

Others support the reparations movement because they believe reparations could serve to correct current racial inequities. Advocates argue that the harm of slavery has outlived its immediate victims, and although no former slaves are still alive, the legacy of slavery lives on in the U.S.

The social, economic and cultural repercussions of slavery are still having a detrimental effect in the African-American community today, they argue, and restitution should be paid to help ameliorate those negative effects. "Reparations is not about making up for the past, but dealing with current problems," says Richard America, a lecturer at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business in Washington, D.C.

The legacy of slavery, critics say, can be seen in the economic gap that has existed between blacks and whites throughout this country's history. Reparations advocates point out that slaves, because they were not compensated for their labor, were unable to pass on wealth to their descendants. Although the 13th Amendment freed millions of blacks, it released them to fend for themselves without money, property or education. Because freed slaves had no material wealth, they had nothing to pass on to their children.

In contrast, advocates say, whites, who reaped the economic benefits of slavery, had wealth to pass on to their descendants. Consequently, supporters of reparations say, in the years following emancipation, the already profound economic and social disparities between African-Americans and whites grew even worse.

According to the Census Bureau, in 1999 some 23.6% of African-Americans lived in poverty, compared with 7.7% of non-Hispanic whites. Such statistics show that slavery's legacy lives on in the U.S., observers say. "America is in denial," says Chicago Alderman Dorothy Tillman. "We are still feeling the effects of slavery. The white community was able to pass wealth to their descendants, and we were passed down poverty."

Furthermore, advocates of reparations argue that if other victimized groups such as Holocaust survivors are entitled to reparations, then surely African-Americans are too. "Has any other group anywhere suffered so long and so grievously and received so little in apologies and recompense? Has any other group anywhere bled more, cried more, and died more?" asks Bennett. It is a great injustice, and a further outrage, that African-Americans' claims to reparations are somehow considered less legitimate than the claims of other victimized groups, advocates say.

In order to achieve racial equality, many say, it is essential to address the inequities and transgressions of the past. "This issue...is still with us. It will not go away," says Rep. Tony Hall (D, Ohio). "This hurt lingers unless you settle it." Reparations offer a way to address the past and thereby begin the process of healing the deep psychological, social and cultural wounds created by slavery, supporters say. "We are not talking about an unsophisticated raid on the U.S. Treasury, nor am I trying to win a debate. I'm trying to heal. And I don't think we can get to a healing on this issue, black or white, unless we take an informed look back at the oldest, most sensitive problem on the American scene," says Conyers.

Reparations Contested

Meanwhile, opponents of reparations for African-Americans argue that there should be a statute of limitations on collecting restitution. No former slaves are still alive, they say, and living descendants should not be paid for their ancestors' losses.

While many people admit that slaves should have received compensation in the late 1800s or early 1900s for their labor and suffering, the time when reparations could have been paid has long since passed, opponents say. At this point, "slave owners cannot be punished and slaves cannot be rewarded," says Walter Williams, chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Opponents claim that although slaves themselves should have received compensation for their losses, it is impossible to recognize claims for compensation a number of generations later.

Critics of reparations point out that although Japanese-American internment victims and Holocaust survivors have been awarded reparations for injustices, in those cases recompense was paid to the immediate victims. The case of slavery reparations, they say, presents a completely different scenario. It would be impossible to determine who should pay reparations for slavery, how the payment should be distributed or exactly how much money descendants deserve. There are no simple answers to these questions, and there is bound to be a great deal of debate and disagreement on those points.

Consequently, reparations would prove to be a divisive force both within the African-American community, and between different racial groups, critics say. Furthermore, opponents claim that forcing whites to pay reparations to blacks would foster increased racial resentment in the U.S. By perpetuating racial antagonism, they say, reparations would serve to move race relations backward rather than forward. Some observers predict that reparations would create a whole new set of racial problems rather than helping to ease current racial tensions.

In addition, no white Americans alive today were actually slaveholders, opponents say, and whites should not be held responsible for what their ancestors did generations ago. The idea of collective or inherited guilt is severely flawed, and reparations encourage the idea that descendants are responsible for the sins of their forefathers, they argue. "The notion of collective guilt for what people did [200-plus] years ago, that this generation should pay a debt for that generation, is an idea whose time has gone. I never owned a slave. I never oppressed anybody. I don't know that I should have to pay for someone who did [own slaves] generations before I was born," says Rep. Henry Hyde (R, Ill.).

Opponents of reparations also point out that most Americans (both whites and minorities) who live in the U.S. today are the descendants of immigrants who came to the country after the Civil War. Descendants of immigrants have no ancestors who were involved in slaveholding, and critics say that it is unfair to hold them responsible for the actions of people to whom they were not related.

"What about immigrants...who only just arrived? They did not participate in discrimination against blacks, nor did their ancestors," says Mona Charen, a conservative columnist and political analyst. Forcing whites to pay reparations amounts to "guilt by skin color" and is egregiously unfair, critics say.

In addition, critics say that demanding reparations from whites furthers the self-defeating and unproductive notion that blacks are victims. The assumption that blacks are too damaged by the past to succeed in the present furthers racial stereotypes and hinders blacks from accomplishing what they are perfectly capable of achieving on their own, opponents claim.

Reparations are "a very silly idea," says Myron Magnet of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank. "Instead of looking back and wallowing in victimization, let's just look forward and say that America has turned itself inside out to become a colorblind society of equal opportunity. Let's as a society say 'you can all succeed' and get on with it."

Although many people would argue that it is not realistic simply to will a race-blind society, others agree that slavery is an issue of the past, and that African-Americans should focus on moving forward. "It's difficult to talk about the future for African-Americans when you are always talking about the past," says Bill Shepard, a spokesman for conservative U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts (R, Okla.).

Other critics contend that the problems that African-Americans face today are not necessarily related to slavery or to race. "Black people in our country have gone further than any other race of people. You cannot portray blacks as victims. It is an insult to their progress and success. Most of today's problems have nothing to do with race; they're social and economic," says Williams.

Some Practical Considerations

Whether or not they support or oppose reparations for slavery, most people agree the issue is highly complex. Compared with previous reparations to victimized groups, slavery reparations would be unprecedented in scope. Never before has such a large community (there are approximately 35.4 million blacks living in the U.S.) been considered for reparations for damage that has occurred over such a long period of time. Most people agree that the issue of slavery and its impact on American society is so complicated that even the most basic questions are extremely difficult to address.

Who would receive payments? Who would be responsible for paying reparations? How should the debt that is owed to African-Americans be calculated? The answers to all of these questions are the subjects of intense scrutiny and debate.

While some people assert that individual African-Americans should receive reparation payments, most experts advocate putting reparations money into community trust funds. Individual payments, they say, would be far less effective in helping African-Americans than would community investments. "If you tried that [individual payments] approach you would just get a small amount," says Hopkins. "That's not going to help anybody or change the status of life for African-Americans."

Rather, reparations money invested in development, human capital (education and training) and black-owned businesses could have a dramatic effect on the lives of African-Americans, Hopkins and others say. "People seem to me to be moving away from the position of financial remuneration," says Conyers. "People are thinking of more permanent things that can be done: education, health care, job opportunities, housing--things that are less tangible but in the long run might really help make [African-Americans] whole."

Although most people who support reparations advocate a massive redistribution of wealth through investments in African-American communities, some people say that the money should be paid directly to the descendants of slaves. This position, however, raises a series of difficult questions, observers say. For example, should individuals who are racially mixed receive payments? What about African-Americans whose ancestors were not slaves, but who nonetheless face racial discrimination in the U.S.?

There is also significant debate over who would be responsible for paying the reparations. While some people say that the responsibility should fall on the descendants of slaveholders, others assert that corporations and businesses that benefited from slavery should be held accountable. For example, critics point out that in March 2000, Aetna Inc., an insurance company that has been in existence since 1853, apologized to blacks for underwriting slave insurance policies. Critics say that Aetna and other corporations that benefited from and helped to perpetuate slavery could be held responsible for paying reparations.

Yet most people think that individuals alive today should not be held personally responsible for paying reparations to African-Americans. Rather, they say, the government is the responsible party because it imposed, encouraged and tolerated slavery for two centuries. Furthermore, the U.S. government is culpable because it sanctioned segregation and discrimination in the years following emancipation, they say.

Meanwhile, other observers wonder if Africans who sold slaves to Americans should also be held responsible for paying reparations to African-Americans. "There is the moral question of whether the sellers as well as the buyers should pay," says historian Basil Davidson. "In several cases the names of the profiteering West African dynasties are known, and their fortunes are still extant."

Finally, there is significant disagreement over the amount of money that African-Americans should be paid in compensation for slavery. Calculations for slavery reparations range from millions to trillions of dollars. The NBEDC arrived at the $500 million demanded in its "Black Manifesto" by calculating that $15 should be paid for each of the 20 million to 30 million African-Americans living in the U.S. at the time.

However, current reparation estimates tend to be much higher than the NBEDC's figure. The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (NCOBRA), a national reparations advocacy group, calculates that African-Americans are owed $8 trillion in reparations for slavery. Other estimates are even higher. Some experts, such as Time magazine columnist Jack White, have quoted figures as high as $24 trillion. It is often unclear how these figures are arrived at, and the extreme differences between such estimates reflect the fact that there is no easy formula for calculating how much money African-Americans might be owed.

A Look Forward

While opponents of reparations for slavery insist that it is counterproductive to dwell on the tragedies of the past, advocates of reparations say that the future of race relations will be shaped by how this nation chooses to address its painful history. Although it is difficult to predict the effects that reparations for slavery would have on race relations in the U.S., many participants in the debate agree that the topic has the potential to change the way that race is perceived.

In fact, some observers see the issue of reparations as the most important topic of racial dialogue in the U.S. today. "The future of race relations will be determined by reparations for slavery," predicts Rep. Bobby Rush (D, Ill.).

While many opponents of the reparations movement think that even opening a discussion about reparations is dangerous and could significantly retard racial progress in the U.S., advocates insist that the topic needs to be addressed in a public forum. "It's surprising that people are so quick to say it won't work," says Ogletree. "The first step should be 'O.K., let's talk about this.'"

While there is considerable disagreement in the U.S. about whether reparations should be a topic of serious discussion, many people agree that this country will continue to debate the issue well into the future. Observers on both sides of the debate admit that it is unlikely that the U.S. will ever completely resolve the complex and sensitive issue of reparations for slavery.

Bibliography

Barnett, Victoria. "Racism, Reparations and Accountability: Payback?" Christian Century (October 25, 2000): 1070-1073.

Cardwell, Diane. "Seeking out a Just Way to Make Amends for Slavery." New York Times (August 12, 2000): B7.

Chavez, Linda. "Playing the Race Card Again." Denver Post (November 8, 2000): B11.

Conley, Dalton. "40 Acres and a Mule." National Forum (Spring 2000): 21-24.

Crowley, Michael. "Debt Relief." New Republic (November 6, 2000): 18-22.

Goldman, Sam. "The Reparations Bandwagon." Weekly Standard (August 21, 2000): 24-25.

Hitchens, Christopher. "Who's Sorry Now?" The Nation (May 29, 2000): 9.

Hitt, Jack. "Making the Case for Racial Reparations." Harper's Magazine (November 2000): 37-51.

King, Colbert. "Reparations: Yes or No?" Washington Post (June 10, 2000): A23.

Richardson, Gwen Daye. "At Least Consider Idea of Reparations." USA Today (June 16, 2000): 29A.

Shepard, Paul. "Group to Seek Slavery Reparations." Washington Post (November 5, 2000): A11.

Starr, Alexandra. "Response on Slavery Reparations is Mixed." Boston Globe (March 2, 2000): A24.

Additional Sources

Additional information about reparations for slavery can be found in the following sources:

Munford, Clarence. Race and Reparations: A Black Perspective for the Twenty-First Century. Lawrenceville, N.J.: Africa World Press, 1996.

Robinson, Randall. The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc., 2000.

Contact Information

Information on how to contact organizations that are either mentioned in the discussion of slavery reparations or can provide additional information on the subject is listed below:

Keywords and Points

For further information about the ongoing debate over slavery reparations, search for the following words and terms in electronic databases and other publications:

Slavery Reparations Update

Since ICOF last covered slavery reparations on December 15, 2000, no federal legislative action was taken on the issue, although it continued to be argued. Meanwhile, advocates of reparations began to explore the idea of holding private companies party responsible. Among the key events:

• On January 3, 2001, Representative John Conyers (D) of Michigan, the most senior black member of the House, reintroduced a bill, which he had been introducing since 1989, to create a slavery reparations commission that would examine ways to compensate black Americans for slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination. Four days later it was reported that the Reparations Assessment Group, a consortium of trial lawyers, was planning a lawsuit against the U.S. government and businesses that had profited from slave labor. On February 23, Fisk University held a conference on the issue, during which speakers drew parallels to the reparations awarded to Japanese-Americans who had been confined in internment camps during World War II and the compensation given to Holocaust victims. The participants declared that sources of reparations might be the federal government, Southern states, and companies and families that profited from slave labor. [See 2001 Facts On File: Civil Rights--Slavery Reparations Considered, Civil Rights--News in Brief]
• After the Brown Daily Herald, the student newspaper of Brown University, ran a paid advertisement denouncing the slavery reparations movement, a group of students on March 16, 2001, seized and destroyed the press run of that day's edition. The advertisement was an article by conservative writer David Horowitz entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery Is a Bad Idea and Racist Too." The advertisement had been printed by only nine of the 51 college papers to which it was submitted, and three of the papers that had run it later apologized. A week before the Brown incident, protesters had stormed the office of the Badger Herald at the University of Wisconsin at Madison to demand the editor's resignation for running the ad. [See 2001 Facts On File: Education--Students Destroy Newspapers in Protest]
• While the idea of legislative redress continued to be debated, the quest for reparations took a new tack, as supporters for the idea began to explore the notion of holding private companies responsible. The first class-action lawsuit seeking reparations from companies that had allegedly profited from the slave trade was filed on March 26, 2002, in U.S. District Court in New York City. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was modeled on recent claims brought by Holocaust survivors who had worked as slave laborers, sought damages from FleetBoston Financial Corp., Aetna Inc. and CSX Corp. On January 26, 2004, a district court judge in Chicago dismissed a class-action lawsuit brought by descendants of slaves seeking reparations from 18 companies. The ruling said that plaintiffs lacked legal standing because they had not shown a connection between themselves or any of their ancestors and the companies being sued, adding that the statute of limitations on wrongs associated with slavery had expired in the 19th century. Among the companies named were Lehman Brothers, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, and the Union Pacific Railroad. Lawyers said they would appeal the decision. [See 2002 Facts On File: Civil Rights--Slavery Reparations Suit Filed; 2004 Civil Rights--News in Brief]