The Crisis Continues: The Freedmen's Bureau and the Black Proprietor

“That is the large legacy of the Freedmen’s Bureau, 

the work it did not do because it could not.”1 

- W. E. B. Du Bois, 1901 

I. Abstract 

The history of slavery and its socioeconomic impacts on the African American community still lead to unjust economic and environmental outcomes. The Freedmen’s Bureau, a federal program during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era, established important precedents for federal interventions in civil rights, social welfare, and labor relations. Nevertheless, African American communities–particularly those living in historic Freedmen Settlements–continue to experience environmental racism. 

By recreating the Freedmen’s Bureau in the Department of the Interior, Congress would help bring the work of black liberation to the point of economic reality. By recognizing Freedmen’s Settlements and providing incentives for environmental and cooperative development within these Settlements, the Department of Interior would achieve the unfinished policy objectives of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act–namely, establishment of the Black Proprietor. By identifying a compelling governmental interest in remediating disproportionate environmental impacts in Freedmen’s Settlements, Congress would authorize local governments to exercise Eminent Domain takings of the land upon which polluting entities operate. Local governments could then transfer such land to private fiduciaries for the Freedmen’s Settlement, leading to more democratic local economies and just environmental outcomes among African American communities. 

This paper explores the history and context of the Freedmen’s Bureau; examines the current state of Freedmen’s Settlements; and proposes solutions Congress should enact through legislation. 

II. History and Context 

A. The Civil War and the Reconstruction Era 

The Civil War era brought a kind of liberation to the enslaved Black community in the South. Masses of freedpeople and refugees fled the South, and with the conclusion of the war, many more sought relocation, reunion, or remaining freely in place. As the national–and especially Southern–economy reeled and readjusted, the nation became a guardian for some 4,000,000 unemployed persons. As W. E. B. Du Bois put it, “this was no ordinary matter of temporary relief, but a national crisis; for here loomed a labor problem of vast dimensions.”2 Not only were such persons suddenly removed from the economy of enslavement; colonialism had robbed freedpeople of the capital, education, and wisdom traditions necessary to achieve lasting self-determination. 

In 1863, two years prior to the conclusion of the Civil War, the US Secretary of War Edwin McMasters Stanton created the American Freedmen’s Inquiry Commission.3 The Commission was tasked with investigating the status of former slaves freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation earlier that year, “to consider and report what measures are necessary to give effect to those acts and proclamations, so as to place the Colored [sic] people of the United States in a condition of self-support and self-defense.”4 

In 1862, Congress abolished slavery in Washington, DC in the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act.5 This act compensated slave owners up to $300 dollars per freedperson.6 Between 1865-1870, Congress passed the “Reconstruction Amendments,” which included the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.7 While the Emancipation Proclamation disrupted the Southern wartime economy by fomenting liberation among enslaved people, the question of slavery was not settled at the national level until after the Civil War when Congress passed the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude–except for those convicted of crime.8 Congress made federal representation for former Confederate states contingent upon ratifying the 13th Amendment, and the several States had ratified the 13th Amendment by the end of 1865.9 

The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and prohibited States from making any law that denied equal protection under law.10 This Amendment also provided Congress with a mechanism to reduce federal representation for States that denied voting rights to male citizens 21 years and older,11 which was later reinforced by the 15th Amendment protecting Black men from disenfranchisement on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress banned anyone from holding office who had engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States (although Congress reserved the right to “remove such disability” by a two-thirds vote of each House).12 Finally, Congress declared that neither the United States nor any State could pay “any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss of emancipation of any slave,” holding all such claims illegal and void.13 

Neither the D.C. Compensated Emancipation Act, the Emancipation Proclamation nor the Reconstruction Amendments provided any mechanism for compensating enslaved people for their labor or other significant socioeconomic harms. While the Department of War provided liberation and refuge to enslaved people, it also treated such persons as assets. 

Evidently, too, slaves were a source of strength to the Confederacy, and were being used as laborers and producers. ‘They constitute a military resource,’ wrote the Secretary of War, late in 1861, ‘and being such, that they should not be turned over to the enemy is too plain to discuss’...14 

Thus both the Executive and Legislative branches treated enslaved persons as confiscated property for which market value must be paid until passage of the 14th Amendment. While these efforts ransomed such persons from the enslaved economy, they did little to reestablish the black proprietor, with all the sociopolitical contexts and enabling community economic activities that contribute to successful enterprise. In 1865, the Ku Klux Klan was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee in the wake of the Civil War by former Confederate officers.15 While the Klan began as a drunken exercise in the stupor of despair among Confederate veterans, it quickly escalated into a terroristic insurgency during the Reconstruction Era, targeting freedmen and Freedmen’s Bureau agents, particularly when it came to exercising the right to vote.16 Meanwhile Confederate sympathizers and other racist interests confounded the purposes of the Reconstruction Amendments and the Black struggle for liberation from within ostensibly legitimate State courts, executives, and legislatures by enacting the “Black Codes,” then Jim Crow laws, which re-effectuated the socioeconomic conditions of slavery for decades, particularly in the South.17 

B. Freedmen's Bureau Created 

In 1864, as a result of the American Freedmen’s Inquiry Commission’s findings, Congress took up the issue of freedmen and economic refugees, which had until then been handled ad hoc by frontline army camps who frequently met masses of freedpeople fleeing toward, then trailing a liberating army.18  

Three characteristic things one might have seen in Sherman’s raid through Georgia, which threw the new situation in deep and shadowy relief: the Conqueror, the Conquered, and the Negro. Some see all significance in the grim front of the destroyer, and some in the bitter sufferers of the lost cause. But to me neither the soldier nor fugitive speaks with so deep a meaning as that dark and human cloud that clung like remorse on the rear of those swift columns…19 

Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill,20 which established the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands (commonly known as the “Freedmen’s Bureau”) in the War Department under President Andrew Johnson.21 Union soldiers necessarily staffed the Bureau, as Congress appropriated no money for salaries and expenses (except for the State and federal Commissioners).22 

The Bureau was responsible for managing and supervising programs relating to refugees, freedmen, and lands which were abandoned or seized during the Civil War.23 The Bureau operated in former Confederate States and bordering territories.24 

           Former Confederate States Bordering Territories 

1. Alabama 1. Delaware 

2. Arkansas   2. Indian [sic] Territory 

3. Florida 3. Kentucky 

4. Georgia     4. Maryland 

5. Louisiana 5. Missouri 

6. Mississippi 6. Washington, DC

7. North Carolina 

8. South Carolina 

9. Tennessee 

10. Texas 

11. Virginia

Congress authorized the Secretary of War to issue provisions, clothing, and fuel “for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen and their wives and children.”25 Congress also authorized the President to appoint a commissioner, assistant commissioners for each State declared to be in insurrection, and to assign any military officer to duty under the Act.26 

Congress empowered the Commissioner to set apart up to 40 acres of land which was abandoned,  confiscated or bought by the United States, for use by every male citizen among the “loyal refugees and freedmen.”27 The Act provided that refugees and freedmen who were assigned such lands would “be protected in the use and enjoyment of the land for the term of three years,” with annual rents paid to the United States. The Act capped rents based on the land’s tax appraisal value of 1860, with the United States charging no more than 6% of the land value annually.28 At the end of that three year period, the occupants could purchase the land for the value appraised in 1860.29 By 1865, nearly 400,000 acres were taken up by nearly 10,000 freedmen.30 The Bureau’s work grew to include supervision of schooling; oversight of labor contracts between freedmen and plantation owners; operating hospitals and refugee camps; managing apprenticeships; facilitating legalization of marriages entered during slavery; operating Bureau courts in Southern states; and relocation efforts, including reuniting families. In later years, the Bureau gained other duties, such as “assisting Black soldiers and sailors in obtaining back pay, bounty payments, and pensions.”31 During the Bureau’s operation, most of the land transferred to freedmen occurred when black soldiers finally received their back pay for military service.32 

Originally, the Bureau was authorized to function for the duration of “the present war of rebellion, and for one year thereafter.”33 Subsequent legislation extended the Bureau’s authorization until 1868, when the Bureau’s functions were limited to education and claims assistance.34 The Bureau was ultimately disbanded by Congress under President Ulysses S. Grant in 1872.35 

In January of 1865, Major General Sherman met with Black leaders in Savannah to discuss emancipation.36 As a result of that meeting and spurred on by President Lincoln, Sherman issued Special Field Orders No. 15, which set aside a 30-mile-wide strip of land from Charleston, South Carolina down to Jacksonville, Florida.37 Commonly referred to as “40 acres and a mule,” these orders essentially provided an autonomous region in which freedmen could organize settlements, with each family receiving up to 40 acres of land as well as assistance in relocation and bringing agricultural products to market.38 

Unfortunately, most of the land which the Union Army confiscated was returned to its original owners, providing “little opportunity for Black land ownership.”39 As early as 1865–just one year after Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bill and mere months after Field Order No. 15–President Johnson began issuing special pardons to former Confederates, and ordered the Commissioner to evict Freedmen on any land which had not already been sold.40 This devastated the freedmen who had been working on and improving the land, with conversion back to Confederates amounting to unjust enrichment, again permitting Confederates to benefit from Black labor with no compensation. With the Amnesty Act of 1872, Congress restored all Confederates’ office-holding rights and restored confiscated property to them,41 which extinguished the balance of the 800,000 acres which the Bureau was tasked with redistributing.42 

C. Legal and Political Ramifications 

From its inception, the Bureau faced many political and legal challenges in the North. When the matter was put before Congress, debates centered on the issue of slavery in se, not effective delivery of bureaucratic services.43 President Johnson described the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill as “unconstitutional, unnecessary, and extrajudicial.”44 While many in the North considered land transfer from former masters to former slaves as a form of poetic justice, other constituencies regarded the extraordinary powers of the Bureau as a threat to the civil rights of all citizens.45 

Bureau courts functioned to provide a more impartial forum for freedmen, but “Bureau courts tended to become centres simply for punishing whites, while the regular [Southern] civil courts tended to become solely institutions for perpetuating the slavery of blacks.”46 Many in the North, then many more in the defeated South, were bitterly opposed to freedmen becoming wards of the State.47 Yet the alternative, “to make those wards their own guardians by arming them with the ballot,” faced an uphill battle.48 The bill originally provided that the Bureau would function for the duration of the rebellion and one additional year, and as time went on, this temporary provision drew many more opponents to the Bureau. Nevertheless, as du Bois put it, as the Bureau died, it gave birth to the 15th Amendment.49 

Such was the work of the Freedmen’s Bureau. To sum it up in brief, we may say: it set going a system of free labor; it established the black peasant proprietor; it secured the recognition of black freemen before courts of law; it founded the free public school in the South. On the other hand, it failed to establish good will between ex-masters and freedmen; to guard its work wholly from paternalistic methods that discouraged self-reliance; to make Negroes landholders in any considerable numbers.50 

While the Bureau did not accomplish the purpose of placing freedmen “in a condition of self-support and self-defense,” it did establish a precedent for federal government interventions with respect to social welfare and labor relations.51In the year following establishment of the Freedmen’s Bureau, for instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the first of its kind in the United States, protected the rights of freedmen in economic, judicial, real estate, and penal systems.52 

D. Aftermath of Dissolution 

While the slave trade and the enslaved economy enjoyed comprehensive sociopolitical support, legal underpinnings, and extensive private sector investment and support, the liberated economy among freedmen enjoyed virtually none of these benefits. The Freedmen’s Bureau, while it functioned, helped establish formal contracts between labor and those who owned the means of production, such as land, tools, seeds, housing, and access to markets. These new contracts gave rise to the sharecropping system, wherein black and poor white laborers would work a property owner’s land in exchange for a share in the crop their labor yielded.53 

While sharecropping contracts were ostensibly “free market” agreements, modern courts would find such agreements unconscionable. For example, the North Carolina Landlord Tenant Acts of 1868 and 1877 entitled property owners, not the market, to set the worth of their share of crops at the time the sharecroppers settled up.54 Sharecroppers did not have capital to buy land, housing, fertilizer, tools, animals, or machinery, which required them to borrow such goods on credit from landowners and merchants, who were not required to put such agreements in writing.55 Exorbitant interest rates, land tenure patterns, uncertain and arbitrary contract terms, and natural phenomena extracted or destroyed what little wealth sharecroppers built, such that many freedmen were living in materially worse conditions than that of slavery, leading many to dub the sharecropping system “slavery under another name.”56 

Hoping to escape such abysmal political and economic conditions and build something better, many freedmen headed West and south into Florida to found or settle in Black towns. The Homestead Act, in conjunction with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, provided an opportunity for Black Americans to obtain title to land in the West.57 This allowed some 3,500 to acquire land as independent homesteaders or as part of black homestead colonies.58 

III. State of Current Freedmen Settlements 

Freedmen settlements and historic black towns have been identified in over 20 states spanning from Maine to California, especially in Texas and Oklahoma. In Texas, over 500 such communities have been identified,59 while Oklahoma is home to over 50 such communities.60 Black towns began emerging as early as 1738, when the Spanish governor of Florida established Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose (Mose) for runaway slaves.61 The number of towns then exploded after 1865, and spread westward. While establishment of such towns were important in helping to draw down the racial wealth gap to present, these communities have experienced both natural and unnatural challenges. In the Plains, drought conditions and other phenomena challenged homesteaders. Across the nation, direct and explicit racial animus stalled or defeated efforts to grow self-determined and self-defending communities, through outright violence (such as the Tulsa Race Massacre), wage and property theft, and underrepresentation. 

A. Environmental Challenges 

Freedmen Settlements currently experience severe environmental racism, leading to disproportionately poor health outcomes62 and other significant infrastructure and economic challenges. For example, Freedmen Settlements are much more likely to be located near Superfund sites.63 Many Freedmen Settlements are surrounded by polluting industrial facilities.64 Freedmen Settlements are uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, sea level rise, and extreme weather events due to pre-existing vulnerabilities resulting from repeated flooding65 and drought,66inadequate infrastructure,67 and lack of municipal services. 

B. Infrastructural Challenges 

A host of infrastructural challenges face Freedmen Settlements. Many do not have access to clean water.68 Other Freedmen Settlements lack adequate stormwater and sewer infrastructure.69 Many residents of Freemen Settlements do not have access to private transportation70 or public transit.71 These challenges depress or actively depreciate property values in Freedmen Settlements, leading to capital flight and low population density.72 

C. Economic Challenges 

Environmental and infrastructural challenges create economic challenges in Freedmen Settlements as well. Many do not have sufficient enabling economic activity to support civil and physical infrastructure.73 This is in no small part due to systemic dispossession of land through the public sector74 and private actors (many times by former enslavers and their descendants).75 Because Freedmen Settlements do not tend to own and control land, several second-order challenges follow, such as lack of zoning sovereignty, working capital, and food deserts. 

D. Social Challenges 

Because many Freedmen Settlements are facing financial collapse or development encroachment, Freedmen Settlements are struggling to preserve their identity76 and history.77 While some efforts are being made to preserve this history in popular media and documentaries,78the economic benefits of these efforts are often unbounded from existing Freedmen Settlements. 

E. Political Challenges 

Finally (though not exhaustively), Freedmen Settlement communities struggle to maintain proportional representation through exercise of voting power.79 This is largely due to municipal underbounding, the historic Southern strategy of vote dilution among African American and Hispanic communities,80flagrant violations of the 15th Amendment. 

IV. Proposed Solutions 

Congress should legislate to address the unique challenges faced by Freedmen’s Settlement communities. Such legislation (“Freedmen’s Bill”) should direct federal agencies to act–including by reestablishing the Freedmen’s Bureau–as well as create an enabling environment for state and local governments to accomplish the purposes of the legislation. 

A. Direct Federal Agencies to Act 

1. Recreate the Freedmen’s Bureau within the Department of Interior 

While the original Freedmen’s Bureau was crucial in supplying the immediate material needs of refugee freedmen, its efforts to produce lasting change through land transfer for generation were consistently undermined by grassroots terrorism all the way up to federal politics. This led to lasting racial wealth inequality gaps in the United States. When President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, only 1 in 11 Black Americans were free to own property.81 At that time, the white-to-Black per capita wealth ratio was 60 to 1.82 This ratio fell to 7 to 1 by 1950, but lingers at 6 to 1 today.83 A recent economic model from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that “even if wealth accumulation conditions had been equal since 1870, the wealth gap would still be 3 to 1 today, 150 years later, and full convergence would be over 200 more years away.”84 Although Black Americans today comprise 14.2% of the U.S. population, only 2.3% of businesses are Black-owned.85 The white-to-Black homeownership gap has grown since the 1960, with 74.6% of white families owning their homes, compared to 45.3% among Black families.86 

While the original Freedmen’s Bureau was tasked with placing Black Americans in a position of self-determination, the white-to-Black wealth gap is still 6 to 1. In order to facilitate faster convergence of the racial wealth gap, Congress should recreate the Freedmen’s Bureau. The Bureau should have the objective of closing the racial wealth gap by equalizing wealth accumulation conditions, and addressing the environmental, infrastructural, economic, social, and political challenges that attend wealth disparity. 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is already engaged in interdisciplinary work which lends itself to management of the Freedmen’s Bureau. The DOI manages a number of Bureaus and Offices which provide similar services to those needed by current Freedmen Settlements; specifically, the Bureaus of Indian Affairs, Indian Education, Land Management, Reclamation, and Safety and Environmental Enforcement.87 By recreating the Freedmen’s Bureau within the DOI rather than the Department of Defense, Congress would alter the approach from confiscation of enslaved persons as contraband, to trust-based action similar to its duties to Tribes and the environment. 

2. Complementary Agency Action 

Several other Agencies should be directed to assist in implementing the policy objectives of the Freedmen’s Bill. These include: 

B. Create Enabling Environment for State and Local Action 

1. Articulate a Compelling Governmental Interest to Satisfy Public Use Test for Eminent Domain Takings under the Freedmen’s Bill 

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that “No person shall...be deprived of...property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”88 The US Supreme Court first took up the matter of Eminent Domain Takings in 1876 in Kohl v. United States. There, the Court stated that the authority of government to appropriate property for public use was “essential to its independent existence and perpetuity.”89 Again in U.S. v. Gettysburg Electric Ry, the Court found that the federal government has authority to condemn land for Eminent Domain Taking “whenever it is necessary or appropriate to use the land in the execution of any of the powers granted to it by the constitution.”90 

This power to condemn land has been extended to state and local governments as well. As the Court stated in 1954 in Berman v. Parker, “public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order -- these are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs.”91 There, the Court endorsed municipal Taking of private property for “the purpose of transforming a blighted area into a ‘well-balanced’ community through redevelopment.”92 

In 1984 in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, the US Supreme Court held that an act which transfers private property to other private beneficiaries through the Takings Clause does not violate the Fifth Amendment when the legislature finds a rational public purpose which satisfies the Public Use test.93 There, the Court affirmed the Hawaiian legislature’s Public Purpose when it found that the land ownership system in Hawaii had devolved into oligopoly which “created artificial deterrents to the normal function of the State’s residential land market.”94In order to remedy these artificial deterrents, the State enacted a Takings regime which transferred land from agglomerated private actors to diffuse private actors for the purpose of normalizing the real estate market. 

In 2005 in Kelo v. City of New London, the US Supreme Court declined to adopt a ruling which would hold that economic development does not constitute a public use. Instead, the Court reaffirmed Berman when it held that transferring private property to private third parties through the Takings Clause does not violate the Fifth Amendment, when third parties intend to develop the property consistent with a comprehensive municipal economic development plan. Where the aim of the legislature is to establish a local economic development plan which would benefit the broader community, the Court should find a rational public purpose supporting the Taking and transfer of property to another private party.95 The Court reaffirmed a century-long judicial policy, that the Court show “deference to legislative judgment” regarding what constitutes a public purpose.96 The Court declined to weigh the wisdom and efficacy of socioeconomic legislation, as this was the purview of the legislature.97 

This line of cases lay the foundation for finding that a municipal Taking for the purposes of normalizing real estate values, encouraging public health, and promoting broader community economic development in Freedmen Settlements satisfies the Public Use requirements for exercising Eminent Domain. These precedents should be utilized to promote and protect Freedmen Settlements. Congress should empower local governments to transfer land from private, polluting enterprises to a private fiduciary (such as a local community development corporation, cooperative, or other entity) which holds the property for the benefit of Freedmen Settlements.98 Because Freedmen Settlements are plagued by disproportionate proximity to Superfund sites and 

continuing polluting enterprise; disproportionately poor health outcomes; inequitable access to municipal infrastructure and services; laggard local economies; and resulting depressed real estate values, Congress should include language in the Freedmen’s Bill that supports the Court finding such Takings constitute a public use as an exercise of State police power. This would allow Freedmen Settlements to engage democratically in weighing the relative benefits and harms of industrial operations through contract for lease. 

2. Leverage Conditional Federal Funding 

In order to encourage State and local governments to participate in the policy objectives of the Freedmen’s Bill, the President should direct the Agencies above to make federal funds available under this Bill contingent upon State and local governments’ implementation of complementary policies and ordinance. For example, local governments should develop ordinance enacting deed restrictions or development overlays to preserve the social character of the community in Freedmen Settlements once they receive their designation through the DOI process. This would empower Freedmen Settlements to preserve their historic character and identity. Similarly, such ordinances would promote the objectives of HHS and EPA to ensure there is sufficient space between industrial and residential zones. Finally, Congress should combat historic underbounding by making infrastructure funds conditional upon incorporating designated Freedmen Settlements into local municipalities. 

3. Incentivize Establishment of Trusts and Cooperative Impact Investment Vehicles 

In order to empower Freedmen Settlements to address the issues they currently face, Congress should direct the DOI to establish incentives for creating cooperative corporations, trusts, community development corporations, and other private sector vehicles to address common problems. Some impact investment areas may include vehicle ownership/ transit; waste management; municipal water, stormwater, and sewer; manufacturing; real estate; and farming and the food sector. By localizing capital through such vehicles, in conjunction with the Takings program and conditional funding detailed above, Congress would establish an enabling environment for sustainable economic development in Freedmen Settlements.

V. Conclusion 

Although the federal government has made important strides in addressing historic repercussions from the enslaving economy which was built into the foundation of the nation, the crisis continues to cultivate unjust outcomes among the African American community. By reestablishing the Freedmen’s Bureau in the Department of Interior, Congress should bring the mission of the original Bureau–to place African American people in the position of self-determination largely through the establishment of the Black proprietor–to completion.

_________________________

1 W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” The Atlantic. 1901. p. 365. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1901/03/the-freedmens-bureau/308772/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022).

2Id. at 355.

3 “United States American Freedmen’s Inquiry Commission records,” Harvard Library. 

https://hollisarchives.lib.harvard.edu/repositories/24/resources/1446 (last visited Oct. 18, 2022). 

4Ibid. 

5 “The D.C. Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862,” U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. 

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/lesson-plan/primary-source-material/emancipation-act-psm.pdf (last visited Oct. 18, 2022). 

6 “Landmark Legislation: The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act,” United States Senate. https://web.archive.org/web/20201210101401/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/DCEmancipationAct.ht m (last visited Oct. 18, 2022). 

7 “Landmark Legislation: Thirteenth, Fourteenth, & Fifteenth Amendments,” United States Senate. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20201230082340/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilWarAmendments.ht m (last visited Oct. 18, 2022). 

8Ibid.

9Ibid. 

10 “14th Amendment,” § 1. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 

11Id. at § 2. 

12 Id. at § 3. 

13 Id. at § 4. 

14 W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” The Atlantic. 1901. p. 354. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1901/03/the-freedmens-bureau/308772/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 

15 “Ku Klux Klan - History,” Anti-Defamation League. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20110212043142/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/history.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_Su bCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk (last visited Oct. 19, 2022).

16 “Freedmen’s Bureau created,” History.com. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/freedmans-bureau-created (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 

17 “Black Codes and Pig Laws,” PBS. https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/black-codes-and-pig-laws/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 

18 W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” The Atlantic. 1901. p. 356. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1901/03/the-freedmens-bureau/308772/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 19 Id. at 356. 

20 “Law Creating the Freedmen’s Bureau”, Freedmen and Southern Society Project, University of Maryland. February 4, 2022. http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/fbact.htm (last visited Oct. 18, 2022). 

21 “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” National Archives. October 28, 2021. 

https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/freedmens-bureau (last visited Oct. 18, 2022).

22 W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” The Atlantic. 1901. p. 357. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1901/03/the-freedmens-bureau/308772/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 23 “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” National Archives. October 28, 2021. 

https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/freedmens-bureau (last visited Oct. 18, 2022). 

24 Ibid. 

25 “Law Creating the Freedmen’s Bureau”, Freedmen and Southern Society Project, University of Maryland. February 4, 2022. http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/fbact.htm (last visited Oct. 18, 2022). 

26 Ibid. 

27 Ibid. 

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid. 

30 William Troost, “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” EH.net. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-freedmens-bureau/ (last visited Nov. 28, 2022). 31 “Law Creating the Freedmen’s Bureau”, Freedmen and Southern Society Project, University of Maryland. February 4, 2022. http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/fbact.htm (last visited Oct. 18, 2022). 

32 W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” The Atlantic. 1901. p. 362. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1901/03/the-freedmens-bureau/308772/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 33 Ibid. 

34 “Records of the Field Offices of the Freedmen’s Branch, Office of the Adjutant General, 1872-1878,” US Congress and National Archives and Records Administration. 2006. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/microfilm/m2029.pdf (last visited Oct. 18, 2022). 

35 Ibid. 

36 Barton Myers, “Sherman’s Field Order No. 15,” New Georgia Encyclopedia. Sept. 30, 2020. 

https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/shermans-field-order-no-15/ (last visited Nov. 29, 2022). 37 Major General W.T. Sherman, “Order by the Commander of the Military Division of Mississippi,” Jan. 16, 1865. Freedmen and Southern Society Project. http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/sfo15.htm (last visited Nov. 29, 2022). 

38 Ibid. 

39 “Freedmen’s Bureau created,” History.com. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/freedmans-bureau-created (last visited Oct. 19, 2022).

40 William Troost, “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” EH.net. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-freedmens-bureau/ (last visited Nov. 28, 2022). 41 “Congress Restores Confederates’ Office-Holding Rights with the Amnesty Act of 1872,” Equal Justice Initiative. https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/may/22 (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 

42 W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Freedmen’s Bureau,” The Atlantic. 1901. p. 358. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1901/03/the-freedmens-bureau/308772/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 43 Id. at 356. 

44 Id. at 359. 

45 Id. at 359. 

46 Id. at 362. 

47 Id. at 364. 

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid. 

50 Id. at 363. 

51 Ibid. 

52 “Civil Rights Act of 1866,” BallotPedia. 

https://ballotpedia.org/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866#:~:text=The%20Civil%20Rights%20Act%20of,United%20States%20Congress%20 and%20the (last visited Oct. 19, 2022). 

53 “Sharecropping, Black Land Acquisition, and White Supremacy (1868-1900),” Duke Sanford World Food Policy Center. https://wfpc.sanford.duke.edu/north-carolina/durham-food-history/sharecropping-black-land-acquisition-and-white-supremacy-1868-1 900/#:~:text=For%20newly%20freed%20people%2C%20many,injustice%20of%20the%20sharecropping%20arrangement. (last visited Nov. 29, 2022). 

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid. 

56 Ibid. 

57 “African American Homesteaders in the Great Plains,” National Park Service. 

https://www.nps.gov/articles/african-american-homesteaders-in-the-great-plains.htm#:~:text=on%20these%20homesteads.-,Black%20 Homesteading,Americans%20were%20eligible%20as%20well (last visited Dec. 15, 2022). 

58 Ibid. 

59 https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/freedmens-settlements (last visited Dec. 15, 2022). 

60 “All-Black Towns,” The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. 

https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=AL009#:~:text=Towns%20that%20still%20survive%20are,renowned%20 of%20these%20was%20Boley. (last visited Dec. 15, 2022). 

61 “Fort Mose,” Florida Museum. 

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/histarch/research/st-augustine/fort-mose/#:~:text=Augustine%2C%20Florida.,more%20than%20sl avery%20and%20oppression (last visited Dec. 15, 2022).

62 “Healthy Eatonville Place,” AdventHealth. August 3, 2018. 

https://www.adventhealth.com/community-benefit/central-florida/blog/healthy-eatonville-place (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 63 “Mobile County, AL Environmental Hazards Report - Superfund Sites.” Homefacts.com. 

https://www.homefacts.com/environmentalhazards/superfunds/Alabama/Mobile-County.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 64 “Highly polluting paper factories in Africatown, Alabama, US,” Environmental Justice Atlas. October 7, 2021. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/africatown-united-states (last visited Oct. 26, 2022); see also Lyndsey Gilpin, “‘Infrastructure apartheid’: Africatown’s fight against toxins, new toll bridge,” September 16, 2021. 

https://southerlymag.org/2021/09/16/africatown-fights-toxins-new-toll-bridge-infrastructure-apartheid/ (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 65 “Maricopa County, AZ”, U.S. Drought Monitor. October 18, 2022. 

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?fips_04013 (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 66 Maricopa County, AZ Risk and Vulnerability Analysis, Disaster and Risk Mapping. National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/mapping (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 

67 “Edmondson (Crittenden County),” Encyclopedia of Arkansas. 

https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/edmondson-crittenden-county-8094/ (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 

68 “A Water Crisis in the Dallas County Town of Sandbranch,” The Takeaway, December 28, 2016. 

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/water-crisis-dallas-county-sandbranch (last visited Nov. 2, 2022).69 Archie Snowden, “Athens residents say they are left out of city’s new plans,” News 19, June 7, 2022. https://whnt.com/news/athens/athens-residents-say-they-are-left-out-of-citys-new-plans/ (last visited Nov. 2, 2022). 70 Lyndsey Gilpin, “‘Infrastructure apartheid’: Africatown’s fight against toxins, new toll bridge,” September 16, 2021. https://southerlymag.org/2021/09/16/africatown-fights-toxins-new-toll-bridge-infrastructure-apartheid/ (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 71 “2019 Arkansas Public Transportation Directory,” Arkansas Department of Transportation. 

https://www.ardot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2019_PT_Directory.pdf (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 72 Thomas A. Johnson, “Nation’s First All-Black City Facing a Fiscal Collapse,” The New York Times. Oct. 21, 1976. https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/21/archives/nations-first-allblack-city-facing-a-fiscal-collapse.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 73 Ibid. 

74 Lyndsey Gilpin, “‘Infrastructure apartheid’: Africatown’s fight against toxins, new toll bridge,” September 16, 2021. https://southerlymag.org/2021/09/16/africatown-fights-toxins-new-toll-bridge-infrastructure-apartheid/ (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 75 Samuel Morris Ownbey, “‘The once peaceful little town:’ Edmondson, Arkansas, and the Decline of African American Landownership,” May 2020. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5252&context=etd (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 76 Thomas A. Johnson, “Nation’s First All-Black City Facing a Fiscal Collapse,” The New York Times. Oct. 21, 1976. https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/21/archives/nations-first-allblack-city-facing-a-fiscal-collapse.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 77 Association to Preserve the Eatonville Community, Inc. https://preserveeatonville.org/ (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 

78 See The Free State of Jones (Gary Ross dir., 2016); see also The Harder They Fall (The Bullitts dir., 2021); see also Descendant (Margaret Brown dir., 2022).

79 Krista Michelle Jones, “‘It Was Awful, But It Was Politics’: Crittenden County and the Demise of African American Political Participation,” August 2012. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84119108.pdf (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 80 Ben Marsh et al., “Institutionalization of Racial Inequality in Local Political Geographies,” Bucknell University. http://www.cedargroveinst.org/Urban_Geography.pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2022). 

81 Ellora Derenoncourt et al., “Wealth of Two Nations: The U.S. Racial Wealth Gap, 1860-2020,” June 2022. National Bureau of Economic Research. p. 5. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30101/w30101.pdf (last visited Dec. 14, 2022). 82 Id. at p. 2. 

83 Ibid. 

84 Id. at p. 22.

85 Andre M. Perry et al., “Black-owned businesses in U.S. cities: the challenges, solutions, and opportunities for prosperity,” February 14, 2022. 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/black-owned-businesses-in-u-s-cities-the-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities-for-prosperity/ (last visited Dec. 14, 2022). 

86 Tim Henderson, “Black Families Fall Further Behind on Homeownership,” October 13, 2022. The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/10/13/black-families-fall-further-behind-on-homeownership# :~:text=The%20gap%20between%20White%20and,of%20more%20than%2029%20points (last visited Dec. 14, 2022). 87 US Department of Interior. https://www.doi.gov/ (last visited Oct. 20, 2022). 

88 U.S. Constitution amendment V. 

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/#:~:text=No%20person%20shall%20be%20held,the%20same%20offence %20to%20be (last visited 11/1/2022).

89 Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371 (1875). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/91/367/ (last visited 11/1/2022). 90 United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., 160 U.S. 668, 679 (1896). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/160/668/ (last visited 11/1/2022). 

91 Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/348/26/ (last visited 11/1/2022). 92 Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 484 (2005). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html (last visited 11/1/2022). 

93 Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/229/ (last visited 11/1/2022). 

94 Id. at 242.

95 Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html (last visited 11/1/2022). 96 Id. at 469. 

97 Id. at 488. 

98 In the alternate, and because the Courts tend to find in favor of uses that benefit the public at large, DOI is already engaged in managing Trust relationships to the benefit of existing communities and programs. If DOI created a Freedmen’s Trust, which held certain properties to the benefit of all Freedmen Settlements, DOI would create a sustainable revenue stream to support ongoing economic development in designated Freedmen Settlements. However, the history of the federal administration of the Freedmen’s Savings Bank makes concentrated federal control of capital on behalf of such people less desirable than private entities which beneficiaries control themselves. (See: “The Freedman’s Savings Bank: Good Intentions Were Not Enough, A Noble Experiment Goes Awry,” Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. https://www.occ.treas.gov/about/who-we-are/history/1863-1865/1863-1865-freedmans-savings-bank.html (last visited Nov. 2, 2022)).