True, but that’s not an argument against reparations. That’s just an argument that the US government apologized and ended slavery.

Presidential administrations are parts of government, but they’re not the US government as a whole, or the entire legal system of government. You’re conflating the legal system and existence of a federal government with elected leaders who run portions of the federal government.

My point isn’t useless, because the US government doesn’t recycle itself into a new national government every 4 years. The government is 234 years old, following the application of the constitution.

The answer to your question is the point I already gave. The US government that established, allowed and expanded the practice of slavery is responsible for the practice of slavery in the country.

Apologizing and abolishing slavery doesn’t necessarily mean reparations shouldn’t happen. Also, the US government has made reparations to numerous groups over events that happened in different presidential administration. If it can be legally argued that the US government is responsible for the actions that justify reparations of various native tribes and Japanese Americans, why can’t it be legally argued that the extant US government is also legally responsible for the existence of forced labor of millions in previous administrations?