Resentful lefties are making a new push for reparations. My own research reveals they know nothing about American history

The push is back on for slavery reparations.

In July, the New York Civil Liberties Union issued a report urging the immediate adoption of reparations. As Lanessa Owens-Chaplin — one of the report’s authors and Director of the Racial Justice Center at NYCLU — puts it:

“Reparations are a debt that is owed. Enslaved Black people built the foundation of New York’s economy… Reparations must be extended to all Black New Yorkers descended from those enslaved by New York State.”

The NYCLU report is predicated on an undeniable reality: the persistent wealth gap between black and white households. But all this fails to grapple with the central problem of reparation payments: Not all white New Yorkers benefited from slavery, but all New Yorkers would have to shell out to support the payments.

I uncovered the complications of the issue when, as part of a local America 250 project, I researched the history of slavery in my own Westchester County suburb. The town of Rye was once an agricultural village on the shores of the Long Island Sound. Small family farms stood side-by-side larger estates on which the enslaved labored, raising beef cattle and produce bound for the Manhattan market.

Here’s the complication: Slave ownership among white people was far from universal. Of 130 slaves present in the town in 1790, 68 were owned by only six families — including the family of John Jay, the country’s first chief justice and a leading abolitionist. Moreover, households that did not own slaves at all (163) were far greater in number than those that did (42).

Most white townspeople, in fact, were poor. Seventy-seven households were listed as owning only “house and lot.” Their tiny properties were worth less than $500, or around $10,000 adjusted for inflation. Some were worth as little as $60 — about $1,000 today.

There were also wealthy landowners who did not engage in slavery at all — including, notably, a family of Quakers. That family’s members all worked the land on their own and competed with the unpaid labor force of the slaveowners.

In 1799, Gov. John Jay signed the Gradual Abolition of Slavery Act, which freed the children of slaves born after July 4, 1799. Then, in 1817 another law required that all slaves born before 1799 also be freed over the next 10 years. Rye’s slaveowners freed most of their slaves well ahead of this deadline — by 1820, only 14 slaves remained in the town compared to 126 freed black people.

Notably, by 1850 the town’s population began to swell with the arrival of white Irish and German servants and laborers who arrived long after slavery had disappeared.

Nor was my town an outlier. Census records show that in 1800 417 of 4,320 residents of lower Manhattan were enslaved. That’s a significant number. But 76% of households had no slaves. It becomes difficult to make the case that their descendants should be made to pay reparations for something they had no part in and may actively have fought against. But that’s the logic of a state budget item for reparations.

States considering reparations have had to reckon with these complications. Such questions have stalled efforts in California. The Golden State has even gone so far as to establish a “Reparations Task Force” to sort out these issues. California lawmakers passed a slate of reparations bills in 2025, including one that would have given college-admission priority to descendants of the enslaved. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed many of these but signed another intended to create a structure to administer payments.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, an African-American Democrat, took the courageous step of vetoing legislation for the state to study reparations — appropriately emphasizing the need for government to seek to advance the economic prospects of all citizens. The state General Assembly then overrode his veto.

The history I discovered in my own town suggests Moore was right.

Reparations advocates also miss another dangerous fact: Government intervention can have unanticipated effects. Consider, for instance, another historical injustice they highlight, slum clearance. The NYCLU is correct that the razing of black neighborhoods can be connected to the current disparity in assets between white and black households, which lost property and businesses during such processes.

But slum clearance to “renew” cities was promoted not by racists but by progressives, including Harry Truman. He believed that demolishing poor black neighborhoods and replacing them with public housing would benefit black Americans.

The benefits of reparations may prove elusive, as well. A one-time cash payment will not likely do much to close the wealth gap — and will inevitably prove politically divisive. It certainly won’t help as much as an effective public-education system and public safety would. Better to invest in those practices than ask those who weren’t involved in the sin of slavery to pay for it.

Howard Husock is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “The Projects: A New History of Public Housing.”