IV. THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES: Who Owes the Debt? 

 (The Bankers, Rule-Makers & Profiteers)

Responsibility for this multi-century rigged game is borne by those who created, maintained, and profited from the unfair rules. This involves concepts of state responsibility, corporate liability, and unjust enrichment.

• A. The United States Federal Government (The Primary "Banker" & "Rule-Maker"):

  • Basis of Responsibility: The federal government's responsibility is paramount due to its unique role in legalizing, protecting, and later perpetuating systemic racism. It actively wrote and upheld the initial "rules" of slavery (e.g., the Three-Fifths Clause (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) , the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) , and the Slave Trade Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1) ). It explicitly sanctioned and profited from a system of human bondage. After emancipation, it failed to enforce true fairness (e.g., failure of 14th Amendment enforcement in the South ) and then actively implemented discriminatory policies that continued to rig the game and actively contributed to the wealth gap. Examples include Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Underwriting Manuals (1930s-1960s) which explicitly encouraged racial segregation and redlining , discriminatory GI Bill Administration (Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944) that systematically excluded Black veterans , and deliberate exclusions in New Deal Legislation.

  • Legal Support (Constitutional Complicity; State Responsibility; Domestic Precedent): Rooted in its constitutional duties (as clauses directly enabled and profited from slavery), international law on State Responsibility for gross human rights violations (slavery is universally recognized as a crime against humanity ) and the UN Basic Principles on Reparation (Resolution 60/147) which affirm states' primary responsibility for human rights and corresponding obligation to provide remedies when they perpetrate or allow abuses. The domestic precedent of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (Japanese American Internment), which provided reparations to Japanese Americans, serves as a direct example where the U.S. acknowledged culpability for a past systemic injustice and provided legislative redress.

  • Mechanism: Primarily through legislation by Congress , leveraging its unique power to waive sovereign immunity and appropriate funds.

• B. State and Local Governments (The Local "Rule-Enforcers" & "Property Seizers"):

  • Basis of Responsibility: States and local municipalities were active architects and enforcers of discriminatory systems. This includes enacting and enforcing Jim Crow Laws through state constitutions and statutes across Southern and other states, fundamentally denying equal rights and opportunities. They actively used their police power and were complicit in private racial violence (e.g., standing by during massacres like Tulsa and Rosewood, participating in lynchings, police brutality). They also engaged in property rights violations (e.g., eminent domain abuse in urban renewal projects that displaced thriving Black communities without adequate compensation, and complicity in land theft from Black farmers).

  • Legal Support: Their actions directly violated the 14th Amendment and demonstrate state-level complicity in human rights violations. While states enjoy sovereign immunity, it is not absolute and can be waived or abrogated by federal law.

  • Mechanism: Primarily through non-monetary redress (e.g., formal apologies, educational reform, targeted community investment, land restitution for specific local harms, criminal justice reform, housing equity) and localized initiatives, potentially with federal incentives.

• C. Private Institutions and Corporations (The Direct "Winners" & "Loan Sharks"):

  • Basis of Responsibility: These entities directly benefited from and often perpetuated the systems of exploitation and discrimination. Their endowments, infrastructure, and early capital accumulation are directly traceable, in part, to this unjust benefit.

    • Illustrative Examples: Financial Institutions (e.g., JPMorgan Chase & Co., which accepted enslaved individuals as collateral on loans between 1831 and 1865 and took ownership of about 1,250 of them when owners defaulted; Aetna, which sold life insurance policies on enslaved people in the 1850s; New York Life Insurance Company, which similarly sold policies insuring enslaved people; Wells Fargo, through acquired predecessors like Wachovia, which owned enslaved persons and accepted them as collateral; and others like Bank of America, Citibank, Brown Brothers Harriman ), who financed or insured slavery. Textile/Consumer Goods Companies (e.g., Brooks Brothers, which manufactured "negro cloth" ; many Early Textile Mills, especially in New England, reliant on slave-picked cotton ), reliant on slave-picked cotton. Railroad Companies (e.g., CSX, Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, Canadian National), whose predecessor lines were built or operated using enslaved labor. Universities (e.g., Georgetown University, which sold 272 enslaved people in 1838; Harvard University, whose early leaders/donors enslaved people and endowments were built on slave wealth; Yale University, whose benefactors were involved in slave trade; Brown, Princeton, Columbia, University of Virginia, Rutgers ), whose endowments benefited from slave labor or actively engaged in discriminatory practices. Also, Plantation Owners/Descendants and Real Estate Companies/Developers who actively enforced restrictive covenants or profited from segregated housing markets. These examples demonstrate various forms of complicity and provide concrete targets for accountability. Many have undertaken research and some have apologized or taken action.

  • Legal Support (Unjust Enrichment; Corporate Liability): Primarily based on unjust enrichment (reinforced by Lacks v. Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. (2024), where a federal court allowed a lawsuit to proceed claiming unjust enrichment against a modern corporation profiting from Henrietta Lacks's cells taken without consent in 1951, which supports the application of unjust enrichment against entities deriving ongoing benefit from historical unconsented actions with intergenerational impact ), and in some cases, breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Mechanism: Through public pressure, shareholder action, and targeted legislation, compelling contributions to reparations funds or specific reparative initiatives. While not always directly "suable" in a class action for historical harms, private entities face immense public pressure and ethical obligations to acknowledge and make amends for their historical complicity.

BENEFICIARIES                                                                                                                                               AVENUES OF REDRESS