Let's talk reparations for a minute. Dems have always wanted to give blacks TODAY reparations for the country having slaves in the 1800s. (History lesson for @bradleygator, the reason why the dems in New Jerseystan were against slavery was because it gave an economic advantage to the South. The North used slavery extensively up till the 1850s or so. Once they figured out that much of the climate and soil in the North wasn't suitable for farming as it was in the South, they decided that the entire country needed to stop using slaves).
But let's say you are a black man from Africa, who is bought as a slave in 1860 by a dem in the United States. A few years later, you would have been freed, and every one of your descendants would have been born in the US as a free person.
On the other hand, if that same black man had stayed a slave in Africa, he would have likely died in Africa as a slave. And every one of his descendents likely would have been born in Africa, and many into slavery.
How do you make the case that those descendents are owed reparations for growing up free in the United States, versus possibly being a slave in Africa?
