JP Morgan apologizes for slavery links

[StanT]

JPMorgan: Predecessors linked to slavery

...
The bank said that historical researchers had found that two now-defunct predecessor banks — Citizens Bank and Canal Bank, both based in Louisiana — served as banks to plantations from the 1830s until the Civil War.

"Collateral" for mortgages and other loans "included land, equipment and/or enslaved individuals," the statement said.

The bank estimated that the two banks "accepted approximately 13,000 enslaved individuals as collateral and that the banks came to own approximately 1,250 enslaved individuals as a result" of defaults.

The disclosure did not make clear what happened to those people.

The two Louisiana banks merged in 1924 but failed in March 1933 amid the Depression. A federally chartered bank in May 1933 assumed some of the failed banks assets, and that institution _ the National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans _ was a precursor of Bank One Corp. Bank One was purchased last year by JPMorgan.

So, two Louisiana banks used slaves as collateral in the 1800's and failed during the depression. Through a long chain of events, some of the assets and names ended up with JP Morgan. This seems like an incredibly tenuous connection to me. Is the apology called for? Does JP Morgan really have any responsibility for things done by these banks in the 1800's?

[pan6467]

No. We need to realize we cannot change the past, we cannot pay for the past.... the only thing we can do is try to make the present and future better and LEARN from the past.

To believe otherwise is to have a hidden agenda of revenge and greed. Neither of which benefits society in a positive way.

[Lebell]

No.

It took me awhile to internalize that Corporations are not people AND that they are made up of people.

This means that any corporate identity a particular corporation holds is held by those who live today, and not those who controlled it during a particular time in history.

If J.P. Morgan was still holding assets that could be traced to profits made from slavery, then I could see a logical argument for using those assets for racial healing (NOT reparations, however).

As they do not, then I don't see the issue, other than an attempt at good will publicity.

[Yakk]

If you steal money from someone, then die, passing the money onto your kid, should your child be liable for the stolen money? Ie, should your child have to repay it?

From what I can tell, that is the general moral principle being used here.

[RAGEAngel9]

Originally Posted by Yakk

If you steal money from someone, then die, passing the money onto your kid, should your child be liable for the stolen money? Ie, should your child have to repay it?

From what I can tell, that is the general moral principle being used here.

Ah but what if it wasn't stealing back then?

No real point, but something to think about.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Yakk

If you steal money from someone, then die, passing the money onto your kid, should your child be liable for the stolen money? Ie, should your child have to repay it?

From what I can tell, that is the general moral principle being used here.

Perhaps, but how many generations are you going to go back before you feel justified?

As long as you keep reliving the past the wounds will never heal.

We're talking 170 years ago. To keep bringing the past up and demanding that there are reparations to be paid is ludicrous. It does nothing but divide.

African Americans are starting to get to a point where they are treated and respected, why keep rehashing a past and producing hatred? My feeling is that there are some (Farakhan, Jesse Jackson etc) that want to keep the division so that they don't lose power.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by pan6467

Perhaps, but how many generations are you going to go back before you feel justified?

Almost 2000 years, based off the current Middle East wars.

Originally Posted by pan6467

As long as you keep reliving the past the wounds will never heal.

There are those for whom it feels the wounds are still bleeding.

Originally Posted by pan6467

We're talking 170 years ago. To keep bringing the past up and demanding that there are reparations to be paid is ludicrous. It does nothing but divide.

For as long as the assets persist? Or, at least as long as the person who did the crime persists. There are people fighting to get back the land they lost centuries ago (Ireland, Isreal, Africa, Spain, Aboriginals in North America). As someone on the winning side of historical theft, I can understand why people would want to say 'shut up about it, it is the past, let it lie'.

At the very least, as long as the person's persist. And if JP is the same corperation, in some sense, as the one's that did the deed, they are responsible for that earlier incarnation's deeds.

[martinguerre]

the apology didn't cost money...this isn't reparations. that's an entirely different debate.

even if there's no direct responsibility, for them to acknowledge the history and say publicly that it was wrong is a good step.

[OFKU0]

For JPMorgan to apologize for slavery is like having a five year old German kid apologize for Jews and non-Jews dying in the Holocaust.

It is good PR though.

[CShine]

JP Morgan shouldn't be forced to pay reparations, but if this voluntary apology is serious it should be backed up by voluntarily using some their big cash to help out in the poorer parts of the African-American community. Otherwise, it's just empty words.

[ObieX]

Yea PR is all this is. What are they trying to accomplish by coming forward with this information and apology? was someone trying to blackmail them with this? Would it really matter if someone *was* trying to blackmail them with this? Are they trying to gain more "black" business with this somehow?

Slavery ended a long time ago, its time for people to move on. Pan brought up a good point. The only thing bringing up this crap can accomplish is keeping certain people in power.
There is little to no reason to bring up the "black/white" issue anymore. The ONLY reason i can think of where it is slightly applicable is when it comes to health care. Certain drugs/procedures effect african americans differently than generic_white_ person00. Other than this the differences really are only skin deep.

Continuing to bring this stuff up only helps to ensure its continuation in our society. White children and black children.. and asian children.. etc.. all play togethr fine. As far as they know that kid with different colored skin is just .. another kid, just a friend. It's not until moronic parents or TV shows or news shows thrust thes upon them that they start to think that that friend is different from them in some meaningful way.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Yakk

Almost 2000 years, based off the current Middle East wars.



There are those for whom it feels the wounds are still bleeding.



For as long as the assets persist? Or, at least as long as the person who did the crime persists. There are people fighting to get back the land they lost centuries ago (Ireland, Isreal, Africa, Spain, Aboriginals in North America). As someone on the winning side of historical theft, I can understand why people would want to say 'shut up about it, it is the past, let it lie'.

At the very least, as long as the person's persist. And if JP is the same corperation, in some sense, as the one's that did the deed, they are responsible for that earlier incarnation's deeds.

Look, if we're going to adopt the stance that we must repay formerly oppressed groups for what we took from them, then we have to abandon the country and give it back to the Indians.

I'm not arguing for or against that, but when I point that out it usually makes the reparationists stop and think for a couple of minutes.

If I steal your car I should have to make reparations for it. If your distant relative back in 1780 stole my distant relative's horse, as far as I'm concerned, you don't owe me a horse. It's not your fault, you didnt' do it, you wouldn't have done it, there was nothing you could do to prevent it, so why should you suffer?

I do not believe the son is guilty for the crimes of the father, but that's exactly what the concept of reparations says.



Let's take it another step farther. Let's say my dad was a bank robber. I grew up eating food bought with money my dad stole from the bank. When I grew up, I became an accountant. I never committed a crime. I never helped dad commit a crime. Should I have to pay for dad's crime? Should I go to jail for him? Should I have to pay 3 millon dollars out of my meager accountant's salary because of crimes my father committed? The only sane answer is hell no.

[StanT]

Sorry, the article was kinda long so I edited it.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is the first company to acknowledge that two of its predecessor banks had specific links to the slave trade. The filing was meant to comply with a Chicago ordinance requiring such disclosures.

...

JPMorgan said it was setting up a program called Smart Start Louisiana. The bank will provide $5 million over five years for full tuition undergraduate scholarships for African-American students from Louisiana to attend college in their home state.

I have problems with this on a bunch of levels. While slavery is morally reprehensible, it was legal at the time. The link between JP Morgan and these banks is based on aquisition, merger, and bank failure. JP Morgan itself didn't benefit from this transaction. No one alive today was harmed by this action, additionally, being used as collateral didn't change their situation at the time. Current stockholders have no link to slavery, but are paying the penalty.

I really don't think that this is in anyone's best interest. I'm guessing that the vast majority of JP Morgan stockholders have no direct decendents that owned slaves. I'd also guess that JP Morgan has stockholders that are decendants of slaves.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by shakran

Look, if we're going to adopt the stance that we must repay formerly oppressed groups for what we took from them, then we have to abandon the country and give it back to the Indians.

/shrug. In Canada, we are keeping or renegotiating our treaties with the Aboriginals, to the best of my knowledge. We just recently signed off half of or arctic lands (rich in good old fashoned natural resources) to the Inuit.

I never said the moral principle was cheap.

Originally Posted by shakran

If I steal your car I should have to make reparations for it. If your distant relative back in 1780 stole my distant relative's horse, as far as I'm concerned, you don't owe me a horse. It's not your fault, you didnt' do it, you wouldn't have done it, there was nothing you could do to prevent it, so why should you suffer?

Why should you benefit? Lets say that horse won a derby. Your ancient ancestor ended up with a gold bust done by a famous artist, as the prise for the derby. The bust was just found. Who owns it?

Originally Posted by shakran

Let's take it another step farther. Let's say my dad was a bank robber. I grew up eating food bought with money my dad stole from the bank. When I grew up, I became an accountant. I never committed a crime. I never helped dad commit a crime. Should I have to pay for dad's crime? Should I go to jail for him? Should I have to pay 3 millon dollars out of my meager accountant's salary because of crimes my father committed? The only sane answer is hell no.

And what if you have 2 million dollars you inherited from your father, in a bag?

What if you have 2 million dollars of gold you inherited from your father, that he bought using the money he robbed from the bank?

What if he spend the money to buy a business that you inherited?

The issues I'd have would be certainty and limiting the damages to non-guilty to not exceed the benefit gained from the crime.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Yakk

/shrug. In Canada, we are keeping or renegotiating our treaties with the Aboriginals, to the best of my knowledge. We just recently signed off half of or arctic lands (rich in good old fashoned natural resources) to the Inuit.

I never said the moral principle was cheap.

Good, because treaties were just other vehicles to take their land from them. They used to have YOUR land, not the arctic lands. Unless you're prepared to give your house to the next aboriginal you see, you don't have room to talk.

Why should you benefit? Lets say that horse won a derby. Your ancient ancestor ended up with a gold bust done by a famous artist, as the prise for the derby. The bust was just found. Who owns it?

found? in the guy's house? It's his as far as I'm concerned. Look I could spend a lifetime researching my family's history, find out who had some wrong perpetrated on them, and then go after the wrongdoer's living family. If we get into that game, there's not one person who's ancestors didn't harm the ancestor of someone else, and there's not one person who's ancestors weren't harmed by the ancestor of someone else.

At what point do we say, let's dispense with the bullshit and get on with our lives?

if your great great grandfather killed the man my great great grandmother was going to marry, and that man was rich, should I sue you for the millions I should have inherited if the guy wasn't killed?

Once you start holding the current generation responsible for the wrongs of all previous generations, you start down the path of chaos.


As to whether it's fair or not, well. . .Life just plain isn't fair sometimes. The sooner people start recognizing that rather than expending most of their time and energy beating up on other people to try to make life a little more fair to themselves, the sooner we can improve our society by eliminating the petty bickering.

And what if you have 2 million dollars you inherited from your father, in a bag?

What if you have 2 million dollars of gold you inherited from your father, that he bought using the money he robbed from the bank?

What if he spend the money to buy a business that you inherited?

The issues I'd have would be certainty and limiting the damages to non-guilty to not exceed the benefit gained from the crime.

yes yes yes what if what if what if. We can spend our lives asking what if and demanding the world give us everything we think we're entitled to, or we can spend our lives doing something useful with them. The choice is ours.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by Yakk

There are people fighting to get back the land they lost centuries ago (Ireland, Isreal, Africa, Spain, Aboriginals in North America). As someone on the winning side of historical theft, I can understand why people would want to say 'shut up about it, it is the past, let it lie'.

I see your point but almost every group of people (nations) got their land from someone else. I imagine the same is true almost everywhere. Years from now we will probably be raising hell when someone takes it from us as well. It would be almost impossible to trace back who has original rights to the land. The people today claiming rights to land are in many cases just as guilty of historical theft as those who stole it from them.

While JP Morgan's apology is commendable, I suspect it has more to do with good PR than anything else. As mentioned in the original post, the connection after so many transfers is tenuous at best. When it comes down to it the whole U.S. government is accountable for the slavery that occured here.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by shakran

yes yes yes what if what if what if.

I'm asking questions about morality, and to a lesser extent legality. Please have the politeness to not stand there with your fingers in your ears, yelling "I can't hear you", when someone else is trying to discuss something.

Originally Posted by shakran

Good, because treaties were just other vehicles to take their land from them. They used to have YOUR land, not the arctic lands. Unless you're prepared to give your house to the next aboriginal you see, you don't have room to talk.

Actually, a number of the treaties I've glanced at where decent deals for both sides. The aboriginals have rights above and beyond what I have. Hunting, fishing, government support, self-government, etc. People can freely enter into agreements, you know.

Some of aboriginals we sheltered from American oppression. Some of them we bought land from.

I'll admit Canada and the British Empire did treat some of the Aboriginals poorly -- and the government has a number of programs to recompensate for the harm done. Possibly they are insufficient. But they do exist.

Originally Posted by shakran

Good, because treaties were just other vehicles to take their land from them. They used to have YOUR land, not the arctic lands. Unless you're prepared to give your house to the next aboriginal you see, you don't have room to talk.

Stop projecting American history onto Canadian history. The Canadian history of dealing with Aboriginals wasn't perfect, but it was different.

Originally Posted by shakran

Once you start holding the current generation responsible for the wrongs of all previous generations, you start down the path of chaos.

Sweet deal! Kill all your enemies! Steal what they have! Grind their children into slavery! Do it for your children, because even if you are morally sullied by actions, your children will get the benefits without any legal or moral ramifications.

Think of the children. Commit genocide now, so they don't have to.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by Lebell

No.

It took me awhile to internalize that Corporations are not people AND that they are made up of people.

This means that any corporate identity a particular corporation holds is held by those who live today, and not those who controlled it during a particular time in history.

If J.P. Morgan was still holding assets that could be traced to profits made from slavery, then I could see a logical argument for using those assets for racial healing (NOT reparations, however).

As they do not, then I don't see the issue, other than an attempt at good will publicity.

Lebell,

I wonder if you would reconsider your position in light of the fact that corporations have rights of persons under the law. In some cases, more rights than persons.

In essense, a corporation is viewed under the law as an entity that holds and uses its possessions just like your conceptions of what a person does.

When you apply those factoids to this kind of a situation, it would be more accurate to think of a single 200 year old entity that has possessed things in the past and traded things with others--more like a 200 year old person than a great-grandfather to grandfather to father to son type of entity.

The corporate 'identity' is still held by the corporation today as it was decades or centuries ago. That doesn't shift as a function of who is sitting in the boardroom.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Nice gesture by the group, doesn't mean to much as already asserted.

At any rate I was thinking, aren't seeking reparation and the filing of civil cases against the government and private companies and parties, well for lack of a better word illegal? Seems to me this is the text book definition and application of ex post facto laws. Anyone got any idea on this?

[archer2371]

Originally Posted by pan6467

No. We need to realize we cannot change the past, we cannot pay for the past.... the only thing we can do is try to make the present and future better and LEARN from the past.

To believe otherwise is to have a hidden agenda of revenge and greed. Neither of which benefits society in a positive way.

Hold up a minute, I agree with pan....somethin ain't right here . You've got it exactly right man.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Nice gesture by the group, doesn't mean to much as already asserted.

At any rate I was thinking, aren't seeking reparation and the filing of civil cases against the government and private companies and parties, well for lack of a better word illegal? Seems to me this is the text book definition and application of ex post facto laws. Anyone got any idea on this?

It's not illegal. No one is trying to arrest anyone, and the government isn't charging anyone with a crime.


Yakk, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not being rude, I'm being realistic.


Let's look at the bank robbery scenario again.

If you rob my bank you will be sent to jail to pay your debt to society.


If my great grandfather robbed your great grandfather's bank, but was never caught, and I had nothing to do with it, should I go to jail?

If you're going to tell me I have to make reparations to you for the money that I did not steal, then surely I have to make reparations to society for the debt my great grandfather incurred when he robbed that bank, therefore I should go to jail.

I'm sure you'll see this is ludicrous.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by shakran

It's not illegal. No one is trying to arrest anyone, and the government isn't charging anyone with a crime.

Yakk, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not being rude, I'm being realistic.

Let's look at the bank robbery scenario again.

If you rob my bank you will be sent to jail to pay your debt to society.

If my great grandfather robbed your great grandfather's bank, but was never caught, and I had nothing to do with it, should I go to jail?

If you're going to tell me I have to make reparations to you for the money that I did not steal, then surely I have to make reparations to society for the debt my great grandfather incurred when he robbed that bank, therefore I should go to jail.

I'm sure you'll see this is ludicrous.

Well, I don't believe going to jail pays any kind of debt. To pay a debt there must both be a benefit to the person who is owed -- there is none generated (other than good old revenge) from going to jail. Jail is a pure-cost thing.

Second, I am not proposing punishing the son. I am removing the benefit the son got from the father's crime, and using it to reimburse the harmed party. I would also propose the debt incurred would be a civil matter, and limited (at the extreme) by bankruptcy, if not earlier.

I rob a bank. I give the money to my son. I shoot myself. The money my son possesses is now beyond the reach of the law?

This is an extreme case, but I hope it demonstrates that if a line is to be drawn over which crime is wiped clean, it cannot be drawn at the death of the one who does harm.

I am uncomfortable with a legal/moral position that would make immoral/illegal acts for the benefit of your children, followed by suicide, a practical solution. It does fit with one view of capital punishment: anyone can kill a convicted murderer, if they serve the murderer's sentance. If you commit a crime solely for the benefit of your children, then die, your crime becomes 'justified'?

At any rate I was thinking, aren't seeking reparation and the filing of civil cases against the government and private companies and parties, well for lack of a better word illegal? Seems to me this is the text book definition and application of ex post facto laws. Anyone got any idea on this?

Good point! I don't know. =)

[smooth]

thank you yakk, I didn't want to type all that out.

and no, it doesn't violate ex post facto laws. first of all, it's not a criminal matter. and secondly, as I already pointed out, the liable entities are still 'alive.' They have been and continue to be alive under the law as long as their stock keeps plugging along.

here: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsup...p-sc00-785.pdf

[DJ Happy]

Originally Posted by shakran

If my great grandfather robbed your great grandfather's bank, but was never caught, and I had nothing to do with it, should I go to jail?

Does the Statute of Limitations not deal with such things?


Going back to the topic at hand, two things occur to me:

1) Current generations should not be held responsible for the actions of their forefathers, plain and simple.

2) Why should they be held responsible for something that wasn't illegal at the time?

This whole thing reminds me of a case I heard about a short time ago about some black woman who was suing Lloyds of London because they insured the ships that were used to carry slaves from Africa to America. She says she was robbed of her identity and wants compensation. Sounds to me like all she wants is a fat check. If she really wants her identity, maybe she should go and live in Africa again. Somehow, I doubt that is going to happen.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

Does the Statute of Limitations not deal with such things?

My point exactly. There is no statute of limitations on "reparations" which is why they are so ridiculous.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by shakran

My point exactly. There is no statute of limitations on "reparations" which is why they are so ridiculous.

I posted this in an earlier thread, so I won't go through all the details. Basically, if one could demonstrate that the harm was ongoing, statute of limitations wouldn't apply.

Also, your use of "statute of limitations" is backwards. If there is no limitation, then one can sue at any time, it doesn't render the tort claim "ridiculous."

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

1) Current generations should not be held responsible for the actions of their forefathers, plain and simple.

So I'll repeat my question.

Man robs bank. Man runs home. Man tells son he won the lottery, hands son 1 million dollars, and says he has to rush off.

Man dies in car accident.

Does the bank have the right to take the million dollars, from the son, or not?

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Yakk

So I'll repeat my question.

Man robs bank. Man runs home. Man tells son he won the lottery, hands son 1 million dollars, and says he has to rush off.

Man dies in car accident.

Does the bank have the right to take the million dollars, from the son, or not?

Been thinking about this one. Let's make it more akin to the slavery reparations issue:

Man earns one million dollars from a bank in a completely legal manner.

100 years later, a new law is passed that makes doing what the man did to earn the money illegal.

Should the bank expect a refund from the man's grandson?

[DJ Happy]

Originally Posted by Yakk

So I'll repeat my question.

Man robs bank. Man runs home. Man tells son he won the lottery, hands son 1 million dollars, and says he has to rush off.

Man dies in car accident.

Does the bank have the right to take the million dollars, from the son, or not?

Yes, but they do not have the right to punish the son.