Reparations: A Moral and Legal Consideration
April 10, 2025
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Co-host: Pastor Matt Recker
Guest: Attorney David New
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 4/10/25. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.
Sam Rohrer:
Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today, and it’s also our bimonthly emphasis on the constitution and American history of which you’re going to get a little bit of both today, but all from a biblical worldview perspective. Now in just a few moments, returning and expert guest constitutional attorney, David New will join us again along with co-host Pastor Matt Recker, pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Manhattan, New York City. As we have a conversation about a theme that here in America is, well, I can hardly think of a time about when it’s brought up or discussed that it is not within close association with such emotional sentiments as embarrassment or fear or guilt and ignorant and mostly in the context driven by a politically correct thought process. And you say, now what in the world are you talking about? Well, that subject is the concept of reparations.
When I say reparations, what do you think? Well, well, reparations itself has precedent in some form for, well, literally thousands of years, and it has a basis in law and morality. The underpinnings of this concept, I’m going to say is little known today, but the sense of guilt surrounding it in today’s discussion, particularly as it relates to the long past issue of slavery, reparation, slavery, okay, now that’s the connection over which, if we recall, the Civil War was fought where over 600,000 Americans lost their lives and that costly war due to the sin of slavery. The sin of slavery, as I’ll put it right out there, the sin of slavery, that it continues mostly now today in the form of a strategy when it’s brought up to foment some type of continued guilt and manipulation of public policy or taxes and political posturing for sure.
However, I’m going to say because this issue remains alive, alive in this fashion as the latest focus now sitting in the state of Maryland where a bill passed by the legislature sits on the governor’s desk there dealing with the issue of yes reparations, setting up a formal study committee to consider reparations in some form for slavery, non-existent in this country for over 150 years because of people who are no longer alive that time’s gone. But to take from people living today to give to people generations away from the time for which the well, the justification for reparations, it’s real distant past it’s history, but the issue of reparations are not limited to the matter of slavery. And I want to bring it in. You may not have heard this just Monday of this week as a part of Donald Tariff strategy to help, as he says, stop foreign nations from taking advantage of the United States.
The President has demanded that Europe pay the United States yearly reparations. It’s an old discussion, but it’s not. It’s very new discussion. In part, the president said this, we take their cars, Europe, we take their cars, Mercedes, Volkswagen, BMW, we take their millions of cars. They don’t take anything from us, so we put a big tariff on Europe, but they’re now coming to the table talking about Europe. They want to talk, but there’s no talk unless they pay us. Here’s the key. But there’s no talk about tariffs unless they pay. They Europe pay us the United States, a lot of money on a yearly basis, number one for the present, but number two also for the past. And it’s this concept of reparations that he’s talking about with them that’s now on the table that we want to consider today. So the title I’ve chosen to guide our conversation is this Reparations a Moral and Legal Consideration and that David, welcome to the program.
David New:
Well, it’s wonderful to be with you and blessings to everyone with us today.
Sam Rohrer:
David, before we get into some historical, another basis for reparations, because you’re going to lay out a lot of information here in America for which people are probably not aware at all. But from a constitutional perspective, what provision, if any, should govern the consideration of preparations of any type by the federal government first or in the state of the case of Maryland, other states where reparations would be put taxed effectively from citizens alive now, but for actions committed generations ago where they had no direct involvement, what’s the basis for that?
David New:
Well, you’ve just hit the million dollar question right there. It is a very weak basis. We’ll be discussing that more, but the principle of reparations for wrongs done by the government is a valid constitutional principle in that we have established here in the United States what’s called a court of claims, a court of claims, and what this is is when the government does something wrong to you in some fashion, your business or whatever, you can file with the court of claims to get reparations, to get justice, to get your money back or to be made whole. So it’s a basic doctrine that governments have inherent within them by being government to be able to make right for an injustice done in the past, possibly the general welfare clause and section eight provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. You could use that maybe as a basis for reparations by the United States government.
Sam Rohrer:
Alright, David, so there’s a basis for it and we’ll get into more of that ladies and gentlemen for sure. But I find it interesting, David, just for a quick comment on this that in the demand, and I’m going to read all this in the demand by the president for example, I’m going to jump back over now to Europe because on one context you have it here in this country and people can understand it on a broader scale, it’s being demanded of one national leader, the president of other nations of Europe, okay, that’s a different level, same concept, but in Ukraine it’s being demanded of Ukraine. And one of the things that they are stating is that they’re saying, according to the Washington Post, this article was, it says the draft, the Washington draft. The Trump draft looks as if Ukraine was at war with the United States, lost, was captured, and now has to pay lifelong reputations. Whenever you talk about reparations, David, there’s always an attitude that comes along with it as if why me? Right?
David New:
Yes. I am not particularly familiar with the incident that you’re talking about.
Sam Rohrer:
Well, that’s all right. You don’t have to comment any further because the time is up. We’re in the break. But the point being is that even when you bring up, which we’re going to get into ladies and gentlemen later in the program as we walk into it, when anybody brings up the idea about you, you listening to me right now, me, anytime that anybody brings up and says, you owe us something for something that was done a long time ago, doesn’t it just kind of get under your skin a little bit? It’s like, why me? Well, it’s not just here in the matter of reparations as regarding slavery, which is now discussion again, props in Maryland, but also now being created in the attitude of citizens across Europe who are saying, wait a minute, why us? Well, we’ll get into history and further discussion. Stay with it.
We’ll be right back. Well, if you’re just joining us today, thank you for being on board. This is our Thursday Standing in the Gap today program. You may be hearing this later today, or for all of you who are listening across Kenya, Africa, and some other nations over there, we want to welcome not only welcome you, you’ve been a part of this listening audience, but to let you know, we do think about you as well, though you will hear this program on Friday. Now that being the case, our theme today is this Reparations, a Moral and Legal Consideration, constitutional attorney David New who’s also an author and speaker, and an historian, favorite guest on this program. I know that it’s not just my opinion, many of you have passed along the fact I you like David knew on this program. Well, we do too. And along with the and Him today is co-host Pastor Matt Recker.
Now the issue of reparations, it does contain, as David animated just briefly in the last segment, it does contain both a legal framework by which it happens and a moral consideration I’m going to submit as should it take place and when and how. There’s a lot of things that go into that demand for a reparation. Not everybody agrees, not both parties always agree on what ought to be, but yet I would submit that without understanding God’s definition of morality or justice and his procedure for doing so, the issue moves from one that is morally driven to one that is often far more politically driven as a political strategy using some past event to assert well some type of dominance and control of one party over another. Moving reparations from one of moral rightness. I’m going to submit to political control. Now, David, here in America, reparations associated to past slavery.
It’s not the only time that reparations been considered here. In the next segment, you’ll give some historical indications that slavery was not always the basis for reparations here in America, but whenever it is related to slavery, it almost always comes up in some type of a guilt ridden conversation. The demand for reparation from Donald Trump I just mentioned across Europe, including now Ukraine and some others, they are evidencing that same kind of response. It’s almost like a guilt piece that’s being put onto that. And so everyone’s got to be dealt with. But here’s my question. Let’s define the word reparation first. We’ve used it a number of times, but define it and give the basis the legal basis for it on that concept of reparations. What is it?
David New:
Basic definition of reparations can be found in the Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary, which is the most authoritative dictionary in the United States. It says it’s an act of making amends, offering expiration or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury, something done or given as amends of satisfaction, the payment of damages and deification. These are the concepts that surround that word reparations.
Matt Recker:
David, thank you for bringing some light to this heated subject and really a subject that many of us might not know a lot about from a legal standpoint. So according to history and precedent, it would seem though that reparations have taken several different forms under law. So could you identify some of these different forms and the differences between them?
David New:
Yes. There are basically five different types of reparations. The first is restitution. This aims to restore the victims to their original situation before the violation occurred, such as returning property, restoring liberty or reinstating employment. The next one is compensation. This involves providing financial and other forms of compensation for any economically economic damage done either loss of earnings or moral damages. The third one is rehabilitation. This includes providing medical, psychological, social, and legal assistance to help victims recover from the harm that they have suffered. The fourth one is satisfaction, and several states have already done this involves actions taken that acknowledge the harm caused and demonstrate accountability such as public apologies, memorials, or sanctions. So far, about 10 states have apologized publicly, legally, officially for their involvement in slavery. That includes Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and California. Now the last form of reparations is guarantees of non repetition. These are measures that are taken to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future, such as law reform, human rights training, and other things like that. So those are your basic five types of reparations. They can be monetary, but they don’t have to be.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, David, before I ask you for the biblical basis, I’m going to ask you this question in advance of that, and that is from a legal perspective, and again, you’re a constitutional expert, and I asked you this question a little bit on the first segment I want to back up and visit. Do any of these that you mentioned restitution, different forms of reparation, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation satisfaction, guarantees of non repetition, those five versions of reparations, are any of them at all directly recognized within the Constitution?
David New:
Well, I would think you would have to say restitution and compensation for sure. I think at different times, all five of these have been done like guarantee of non, we won’t do this again type thing. We promise the government promises not to do this bad behavior again to you. So I’m not aware by the way of any major case taken by anybody to argue that reparations fundamentally are unconstitutional. I don’t know of a single case where that has happened. Perhaps somebody in our audience might know of some, but I’m not aware of any. I think it is quite constitutional for governments to try to make amends for the wrong that they do. In fact, the Declaration of Independence basically is a giant reparations document, and the constitution is based upon the Declaration of Independence. It fulfills it. And in that sense, when we laid out our government, we are making reparations to show that what the British did was wrong and we’re now going to fix it with a new constitution.
Sam Rohrer:
Hey, that’s a great example, Dave. That’s a great example. But it goes, what you’re doing is explaining the breadth of the concept of reparation and the many different forms it can take. It’s an effort to correct a wrong. So, all right, that’s great that you mentioned that we don’t have too much time left, so let’s go to this now. And that is the biblical basis because if the Constitution, which you cited doesn’t say anything about it, doesn’t prohibit it because it seems to be really more of a moral issue that does take us to the biblical basis. So where would you go to in scripture to establish the biblical foundation for the concept of reparation in any one of these five forms?
David New:
Definitely the law of Moses. The law of Moses has restitution loud and clear. Exodus 22, verse one, if a man shall steal an ox or sheep and kill it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep, verse 12 again. And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. So reparations is definitely a biblical concept. And basically our salvation experience is to some extent, definitely involved in reparations. We sinned, we owe, we have to pay damages, but we don’t pay the damages. Jesus Christ is our reparation.
Sam Rohrer:
That is perfect, David, because that takes it right to the heart, ladies and gentlemen, do you get that? The idea of reparations has been around, has said for thousands of years, right? Gotcha. Goes right back to the garden of Eed. And when sin entered the world, now there’s a penalty to be paid. Harm has been done to God. We’ve broken the relationship with him. In everything we talk about here on this program, a biblical worldview and the implementation of God’s plan of redemption all leads to what restoration. That does involve everything that we’re talking about here. So it’s very real, it’s very practical, and we thought just because of everything that’s being discussed, take another look at. So when we come back, we want to go to David and Matt and I are going to talk with him and seek actually quite a few historical examples of reparation, how it’s been done here in America.
Okay, David, let’s now move into some history. We’ve talked a bit about the Constitution, the issue of reparations. Ladies and gentlemen, just joining us, we’re talking about reparations most often for us as Americans, that term is in the context of a topic most people don’t like to talk about, but we ought to, and that was slavery in this country. And for which, and I just brought up a current example, the legislature in Maryland, as an example, have by an overwhelming vote of that body. The legislature have advanced to the governor a legislation to establish an investigative information committee to consider what Maryland and the citizens of Maryland may be obligated to do in regard to reparations as a matter for slavery. Okay, so that’s new. I mentioned also earlier that the president as a part of negotiations and all of that with Europe, has laid down the demand for reparations from Europe, European nations, going all the way back and trying to reclaim obligations and effectively money that the United States put into World War II and may go even before then.
We fought two wars in Europe. So the president is basically saying, you owe us in reparations. And he has used those word, you need to pay us reparations and you need to be giving us money every year from here on out. Alright, so reparations is in the news, different application. One of Maryland one, the president of Europe, and then David in the last segment, you brought it around to fundamentally reparations comes right off the pages of scripture. And all we have to do is look at the matter of salvation, redemption, sin, and what God has done for us and what our sin has done. And it all establishes the provisions of what in fact is the basis for reparations. Now it’s very interesting, so it’s a very applicable and relevant subject. But that being the case, David, going now here to American history past. Can you give some historical examples of past reparations that have actually been brought up to completion? Because it’s far more than what most people would think?
David New:
Yes, it is definitely. For example, after World War ii, during World War ii, the American Indians distinguished themselves extremely well in battle and the fight against Imperial Japan, they were able to communicate very effectively, provide very timely realtime information and say it openly. And the Japanese could hear it, but the Japanese could never understand the Indian language. They never could touch it. In fact, there was a movie called Wind Talkers about them. Well after World War ii, the Congress after debating what should we do with the Indians and all the things that we did wrong with them in terms of their land, they passed in 1946, a law called the Indian Claims Commission. And this commission paid out 1.3 billion to 176 tribes and bans, and it commission consisted of four judges. Only monetary compensation was given, no land was returned. Now here’s some examples. One of the largest awards was $35 million for land that was taken in West Texas.
This went to the Kios, the Comanches, and the Apaches. Another award went $15 million in 1965 to the Cheyenne and the Arapahos for lands taken in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas. One of the most interesting is the one involving the Lakotas in the black hills, the black hills of South Dakota. This was a very important piece of real estate to the Lakotas. It was a holy area, holy land. And the United States came along, took it. There was a big war between the United States and the Lakotas, and eventually the government said, we’re going to compensate you. We’re going to give you money for what we’ve taken right now, there is $600 million over that right now that sits in the United States Treasury, unclaimed by the Lakotas. They could take it, but they won’t. They don’t want the money. They want the Black Hills back, not a monetary settlement. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to know when the largest public execution in US history ever occurred that was involving the Lakotas.
The largest execution was on December 26th, 1862 when the United States finally defeated the Lakotas and the United States executed by hanging 38 members of the Lakota tribe. There was supposed to be over 300 that were going to be hanged, but President Lincoln reduced that number down to 38. Other forms of reparations were for forced sterilizations. One of the things this country, I’m ashamed to say did at the turn of the century in the 20th century was they would take people who were mentally retarded or had a very low IQ and they would force against their will to be sterilized. And a lot of people were compensated for that. President Reagan, he was involved. This was the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, where the United States paid the Japanese $1.2 billion and an official apology for the internment of the Japanese during World War ii. Now, what’s interesting about this reparation, it was only given to this living Japanese. There were about 112,000 sent away, but only about 60,000 actually received the reparation. And the average amount was around $20,000 for each one of these individuals that suffered this. And of course, the 20,000 doesn’t anywhere near cover the damages that the Japanese suffered as a result of their internment during World War ii.
Matt Recker:
Very interesting, David, to hear these historical examples, and as you cited earlier, you cited the Webster’s 1828 dictionary that defined reparation as this act of repairing. So you were just describing some historical examples where they’re trying to repair this broken relationships and broken word. Another definition of that dictionary, it says it’s to make amends or indemnification or a compensation for loss or damage. And then it also says in the dictionary though that a loss may be too great for reparation. So even in that early dictionary 1828 edition, it talks about how a loss may be too great for reparation. So in other words, there may be times when this loss, it’s too great in scope or time has passed and there’s no means then for a later generation to pay or maybe the difficulty of determining monetary value. And I think that’s the problem. I think with reparations of blacks and slavery in our country, it’s like should later generations pay? And how do we determine the monetary value? And then who is eligible for those reparation? Or there’s so much time that’s gone by to meet the legal requirements. So the question really here is what are the conditions in your mind that have to be present? We’re demanding where reparations is legitimate for past harms done.
David New:
Your question is excellent, and your comment is excellent as well. There is no question. There is absolutely no question that no matter what we try, no matter how hard we try, no matter how long we try, we never can make the situation right. We cannot put the party back whole before it happened. And slavery is one of those areas. There is just nothing. There is no amount of money you can give for this situation. So slavery is a difficult situation. We’ll be talking about it in the next section where I will be discussing my position on it. But how do you compensate 400 years of slavery in the United States? How do you do that? One of the things I noticed about conservatives, for some reason they’re very reluctant to talk about what’s called America’s original sin. If you remember during the campaign, Nikki Haley was asked about the Civil War and she hemmed and hawed and weaved and did all kinds of nonsense about saying what the Civil War was about except what it was really about. It was slavery. Of course, not everybody in the Civil War went to the because of slavery. A lot of people fought the Civil War to keep the country united, but the abolitionists from day one, slavery was the issue for the Civil War. And of course, by the time the Emancipation Proclamation comes along, Lincoln definitely turns the whole war into an issue of slavery, which had an enormous impacting Great Britain.
Sam Rohrer:
It did indeed, and great question Matt and David. A good response in ladies and gentlemen, stay with us. We move into the final segment. We’ll conclude with giving some final arguments for against reparations, particularly in the matter of slavery, but we’ll talk about some general applications of it as well. As we wrap up today’s program, go to our final segment. Again, thanks for being with us today, wherever you are listening, and just as a point of information, this program is carried on over 550 stations, terrestrial stations meaning not internet, although it can be found that way, but I’m talking 550 physical stations with towers that communicate to physical radios. And between those stations, not every square foot of every state is covered by any means, but portions of every state, including Hawaii and Alaska, are reached by stations that carry this program to which you’re listening right now.
I share that with you just to help you to be aware of the size of the family. I call it the standing the gap today family, because regardless of where you are, there are so many others scattered about that are listening. And the program means a great deal to many people. I know that because many of you write and if you haven’t, could I encourage you to do so? And if you have not chosen to make it a point of praying faithfully for us, that is so important. Could I ask you to do that? You wake up in the morning when you read your Bible and you have your devotions, and do you pray for your list of people for which you pray? Add us to that list. Could you do that? It would mean so much, and I think the Lord would bless you for it.
And also consider that if you’ve never come alongside in a financial way, even a small amount is a very big amount in God’s eyes. And perhaps you can do a lot, perhaps you can do little, but that is also very, very important because that’s the means by which this program is able to continue. And so it’s a necessary function. I don’t talk much about it, don’t like to, but I do pray to the Lord that he would move in the hearts of people. So I just ask you to consider that. Now, that being saying, I want to shift right now and move into it. David, in the context of today’s considerations about reparations, I’ve cited these two examples. We’ve talked mostly about that, which is before most people and most listening right now would be most aware. And that is for the sin, the wrong, the harm caused by slavery.
But that was over 150 years ago. And as you cited, and I ci as well, we fought a civil war over that. There was great cost to this nation. And even Abraham Lincoln, as you cited, knew that it was a moral issue that had risen to the attention of God Almighty. And he said that he feared that this nation, that much blood would be shed because that had not been dealt with earlier. So a lot has been done on that issue, but yet it still continues to continue in the form of continued demands for reparations and other things. And then the President just brought it up again in the matter of reparations from the nations of Europe. So there are always people, David and Matt, I think, who feel harmed. There are always people who may be in a position by which they have power that they think they can take from others. There are a lot of motivations that can underscore the pursuit of what we call reparations. But from your perspective, David, let’s include by focusing primarily on what’s been happening here at home, not as much on the foreign aspect of what President’s doing with Europe, but from the standpoint of that reparations here and slavery give your arguments for and against.
David New:
Yes. Very quickly though, I want to go back to what I said about Great Britain. When the Civil War started in the United States, great Britain had crocodile tears all the way. They naturally would love to see a weakened USA, the Emancipation proclamation. The South had sent agents to Great Britain to try to get them to join the south, support the south, either overtly or covertly or in some way. When Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863, that persuaded public opinion massively in Great Britain in favor of the North. Okay, now let’s go on to the issue of slavery in the United States. I could change my mind on this issue. My feet are not in cement, but I don’t support reparations, at least reparations at this point. An official apology by the United States government for slavery, that would not upset me at all. But a lot of people believe the hundreds of thousands of lies that were lost to end slavery was an apology right then and there.
And that is more than enough. So you can see the debate. But here’s the problem with reparations. Financial reparations, for one thing, they will do absolutely nothing to heal race relations in the United States. Nothing nada because at the moment, the left, the secularists, the progressive secularists, all the people that hate religion and hate the Christian religion are identifying Christianity with racism and saying that we use the Bible to justify racism and slavery. Some did, but we know that that Bible does not justify it. But nevertheless, they’re playing the race card in a way that’s never been done. And so the atmosphere in race relations in this country are extremely toxic. So no matter what you do now, it won’t do anything to bring us together and to bring healing and racism, ladies and gentlemen, is an enormous tax on America. We could be a thousand miles ahead in many different ways if we didn’t have the race problem.
So it is holding us back definitely in many ways. Second, I don’t understand why this generation of African Americans should receive the reparations. None of them were slave. None of them had been slave. If anybody should have gotten reparations, financial compensation, it should be their grandparents or their great grandparents. The Japanese, they got their reparations because they were alive. 60,000. Got it. Third, no one in the United States has ever owned a slave. Nobody. None of us. Look at all the people that came into America through Ellis Island. None of those people had anything to do with it. And yet they’re being asked to pay for slavery. That happened for 400 years in this country. The fourth, what’s going to happen in 20 or 30 years, another generation of African-Americans will say, you should pay reparations to us again, because what you paid before wasn’t enough.
The current generation of African-Americans does not have the authority to bind future generations of African-Americans for any reparations they think they may be entitled to. Finally, with something as bad as slavery, nothing can make it right. And some of the numbers that the academics in this area are talking about are trillions of dollars. So that means that many African-Americans are going to want a million dollars, maybe a more than a million dollars. Where’s all that money going to come from? California estimates that they would have to pay 800 billion for their part in racism and their state. And because of slavery, because some of the people that went out west of California brought their slaves with them.
Sam Rohrer:
And David, we’re just out of time. Thank you. You got the bulk of that in there. And ladies and gentlemen, can I just conclude with this? The Old Testament model was restitution, reparations, or to make a person whole for that which they physically lost, but with it was the goal of reconciliation. Forgiveness is the element that ultimately restores forgiveness. Must be in the hearts of all who have been offended. That’s it.
Recent Comments