Happy Juneteenth

[billvon 3,107]

158 years ago today, Major General Gordon Granger issued an order freeing all the slaves in Texas, the last US state to officially sanction it.  It was over two years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and had already been abolished in the Southern states that had been defeated in the Civil War.  After today's date 158 years ago there was no legal, government-sanctioned slavery in the US.  It was far too long in coming, but it was a very important milestone for civil rights in the US.

[winsor 236]

I am guessing the OP is in favor of Juneteenth.

I invite anyone interested to read the raw, unredacted text of the 'Emancipation Proclamation.'  Among other tidbits, the author specifically excluded from scope all Union Slave States and Commonwealths, as well as (for some reason) the counties and parishes proximal to Norfolk, VA and New Orleans, LA.

Thus, it is an historical fact that, after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, there were Yankee Generals who still, quite legally, owned slaves in the United States.  Also, since the Confederacy was a separate country at the time (how many Confederate citizens voted for or against Lincoln in 1864?), Lincoln had the same legal authority over the areas he specified that I do over Laos.

While I applaud freeing the slaves of Texas - Texas seceding from Mexico and being amongst the United States specifically because Mexico forbade ownership of human beings (come to think of it, I don't recall the U.S. supporting Mexico's attempt to quash the secession of a state to enable slavery) - after June 19th slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and the aforementioned portions of Virginia and Louisiana were still slaves.

It wasn't until the 13th Amendment was ratified and signed on 06 December 1865 that the slaves in the areas specifically omitted from the Emancipation Proclamation were freed.

I view slavery as repellent, but see our revisionist view of the subject to be an exercise in ignorance.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[wmw999 2,584]

And to expand on this, then one has to consider the long legacy of Jim Crow, and its normalization via the legal system, on to the currently documentably uneven enforcement of laws against people of color in some jurisdictions.

It's people. Abraham Lincoln isn't evil for having "ignored" the slaves in the Union states; it was hard enough to avoid roiling the government with freeing them in the seceded states. Sometimes moral purity means that nothing ever happens. And sometimes it gets done wrong.

There were plenty of Union soldiers who were pro-slavery; they were fighting to preserve the Union, which was only 84 years old at the beginning of the Civil War; colonial existence was a far more immediate memory, and one that people could rally around.

Wendy P.

[ryoder 1,590]

A couple years I watched many hours of lectures by Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar, and read 2 of his books. An interesting point he made about Lincoln was that although he was an open abolitionist, there simply wasn't enough support in Congress to abolish slavery. So Lincoln's election was really not a viable threat to it.

But immediately upon Lincoln's election, the Southern states began seceding, and started a war with the North. The war gave Lincoln war powers, which enabled him to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, for the purpose of weakening the South.

So by freaking out about Lincoln doing something he did not have the power to do, they gave him the power to do it.

[kallend 2,146]

53 minutes ago, ryoder said:

 

So by freaking out about Lincoln doing something he did not have the power to do, they gave him the power to do it.

That pesky Law of Unintended Consequences struck then, and it continues to strike now.

[billvon 3,107]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And to expand on this, then one has to consider the long legacy of Jim Crow . .  .

 . . . and all the slaves that were held by Southerners and Texans even after the Emancipation Proclamation.  A pedant could point out that since human trafficking still exists, there are slaves today, and thus slavery never ended.

But to choose a single point in time that was the most pivotal, June 19th is an excellent choice.

[normiss 891]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

 . . . and all the slaves that were held by Southerners and Texans even after the Emancipation Proclamation.  A pedant could point out that since human trafficking still exists, there are slaves today, and thus slavery never ended.

But to choose a single point in time that was the most pivotal, June 19th is an excellent choice.

The display of racism and hatred is quite prevalent on Facebook and Twitter both, in response to Juneteenth.

Not surprising, yet still reprehensibly disgusting. 

[billvon 3,107]

14 minutes ago, normiss said:

The display of racism and hatred is quite prevalent on Facebook and Twitter both, in response to Juneteenth.

Not surprising, yet still reprehensibly disgusting. 

Yep. 

So for those people I guess, happy . . . woke madness?

[jakee 1,593]

8 hours ago, winsor said:

Also, since the Confederacy was a separate country at the time 

Incorrect. Regardless of the actions of a group of treasonous insurrectionists the southern states were still part of the USA. Maybe you should work on being less ignorant of the legalities of secession. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by jakee

[JoeWeber 2,932]

9 hours ago, winsor said:

I am guessing the OP is in favor of Juneteenth.

I invite anyone interested to read the raw, unredacted text of the 'Emancipation Proclamation.'  Among other tidbits, the author specifically excluded from scope all Union Slave States and Commonwealths, as well as (for some reason) the counties and parishes proximal to Norfolk, VA and New Orleans, LA.

Thus, it is an historical fact that, after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, there were Yankee Generals who still, quite legally, owned slaves in the United States.  Also, since the Confederacy was a separate country at the time (how many Confederate citizens voted for or against Lincoln in 1864?), Lincoln had the same legal authority over the areas he specified that I do over Laos.

While I applaud freeing the slaves of Texas - Texas seceding from Mexico and being amongst the United States specifically because Mexico forbade ownership of human beings (come to think of it, I don't recall the U.S. supporting Mexico's attempt to quash the secession of a state to enable slavery) - after June 19th slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and the aforementioned portions of Virginia and Louisiana were still slaves.

It wasn't until the 13th Amendment was ratified and signed on 06 December 1865 that the slaves in the areas specifically omitted from the Emancipation Proclamation were freed.

I view slavery as repellent, but see our revisionist view of the subject to be an exercise in ignorance.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Please don't tell me the Battle of Thanksgiving wasn't on the third Thursday in November.

[normiss 891]

32 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Please don't tell me the Battle of Thanksgiving wasn't on the third Thursday in November.

Wasn't it at the end of October? I think it started because people were already playing Christmas music, then someone said "Happy Holidays" and it was on.

[wmw999 2,584]

20 minutes ago, normiss said:

Wasn't it at the end of October? I think it started because people were already playing Christmas music, then someone said "Happy Holidays" and it was on.

That’s when we told the Canadians it was

Wendy P. 

[billvon 3,107]

47 minutes ago, normiss said:

Wasn't it at the end of October?

And if you don't want to trigger right wingers, do NOT bring up the actual date of the birth of Christ.

[JoeWeber 2,932]

Just now, billvon said:

And if you don't want to trigger right wingers, do NOT bring up the actual date of the birth of Christ.

Or the date of his immaculate conception.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

14 hours ago, ryoder said:

A couple years I watched many hours of lectures by Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar, and read 2 of his books. An interesting point he made about Lincoln was that although he was an open abolitionist, there simply wasn't enough support in Congress to abolish slavery. So Lincoln's election was really not a viable threat to it.

But immediately upon Lincoln's election, the Southern states began seceding, and started a war with the North. The war gave Lincoln war powers, which enabled him to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, for the purpose of weakening the South.

So by freaking out about Lincoln doing something he did not have the power to do, they gave him the power to do it.

Lincoln campaigned on a policy that all new states admitted to the union had to be non-slavery states.  At the time of Lincoln's election the senate was evenly divided between slave and non-slave states so Congress was unable to pass anti-slavery legislation.  However that was certain to change if Lincoln could implement his anti-slavery policy for new states, as several territories were moving towards statehood.  For that reason the slave states saw Lincoln's election as a grave threat to the long-term, or even relatively short-term viability of slavery in the US.