Posted on 06/19/2006 6:35:38 AM PDT by since 1854
Today, Americans celebrate “Juneteenth” – when in 1865 slavery finally ended throughout the entire United States. Sadly, few people know that Juneteenth was a high water mark for African- Americans. Soon after that great day, the Democratic Party defeated the Reconstruction policies of the Republican Party, postponing the civil rights movement until the 1950s.
An important fact which most history books ignore is that Abraham Lincoln’s 1864 running mate was a Democrat, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. And so after Lincoln’s assassination, it was a Democrat who would be President of the United States for the first four years after the Civil War. That first President Johnson did all in his power to prevent African- Americans from experiencing Lincoln’s “new birth of freedom.”
(Excerpt) Read more at republicanbasics.com ...
Gee, better tell those kids, etc. in Sudan; and the women & kids in Thailand & Eastern Europe & elsewhere under the bent-knee of rapists/forced prostitution industry that slavery ended 7 score ago..."you're free to move about the country."
I read somewhere that FDR vetoed a republican effort to pass anti lynching laws.
They ended real slavery in the western world.
Not quite. FDR didn't actively support any of the anti-lynching bills that came up for fear of alienating southern democrat voters, but it was filibusters by southern senators that actually killed them. Nothing ever passed to get to FDR's desk to sign or veto.
What about Vermont? It abolished slavery when it became a [free] state in 1777.
You must have meant Vermouth..or whatever it is you drink for breakfast.
Boy are you guys in trouble when the rebels wake up and see what you've posted. Put on your asbestos knickers.
Also you may want to look at this. From the Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, even the Vermont representation admits that while slavery was 'abolished' in Vermont, it existed many years later. But heck what could he know? He was just there. I'm sure you've got something to refute eyewitness accounts from a US Representative...
You must have meant Vermouth..or whatever it is you drink for breakfast.
No, I do my best not to emulate the corrupt drunkard that was the 18th President...
(1) Not really. Human trafficking, even if illegal, is still practiced in the Western World.
(2) Secondly, many humans are enslaved as ever when it comes to addictions and the power of sin.
The anecdote from the Congressional Globe doesn't say that at all. It's about a Vermont farmer being willing to compensate southern slaveowners for their slaves, but not wanting them in his town.
Why don't you tell us then what Representative Collmer said then?
Mr. [Jacob] COLLAMER [R-Vt.]. As the gentleman has called me out, I may be allowed to say that the inhabitants of the town were about three thousand, and the proportion was about one to six.
COLLAMER, Jacob, a Representative and a Senator from Vermont; born in Troy, N.Y., January 8, 1791; moved with his father to Burlington, Vt.; attended the common schools, and graduated from the University of Vermont at Burlington in 1810; served in the War of 1812; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1813 and practiced in Woodstock, Vt., from 1813 to 1833; member, State house of representatives 1821, 1822, 1827, 1828; State’s attorney for Windsor County 1822-1824; judge of the superior court 1833-1842; elected as a Whig to the Twenty-eighth, Twenty-ninth, and Thirtieth Congresses (March 4, 1843-March 3, 1849); chairman, Committee on Manufactures (Twenty-eighth Congress), Committee on Public Lands (Thirtieth Congress); appointed Postmaster General by President Zachary Taylor 1849-1850; again judge of the superior court of Vermont 1850-1854; elected in 1855 as a Republican to the United States Senate; reelected in 1861 and served from March 4, 1855, until his death in Woodstock, Windsor County, Vt., November 9, 1865; chairman, Committee on Engrossed Bills (Thirty-fourth Congress), Committee on Post Office and Post Roads (Thirty-seventh through Thirty-ninth Congresses), Committee on Library (Thirty-eighth and Thirty-ninth Congresses); interment in River Street Cemetery.
The Representative from the State of Vermont confirmed the anecdote from the Representative from Wisconsin. That's exactly what he says
Sure. Here's the anecdote in its entirety:
A VERMONT STORYAll Collamer is doing is confirming the story and correcting the population of the town. Are you actually trying to claim, based on this story, that the 20% of the population of Vermont in 1843 were slaves?From a speech on emancipation, by Sen. J.R. Doolittle of Wisconsin, March 19, 1862.[2]
I can give you a case directly in point. A very distinguished gentleman from Vermont was first elected to Congress, I believe, about 1843. One of the well-to-do farmers in his neighborhood called upon him, the evening before he was to leave for Washington, to pay his respects. He found him in his office, and told him that he came for that purpose, and to bid him good bye.
"And now, judge," said he, "when you get to Washington, I want to have you take hold of this negro business, and dispose of it in some way or other; have slavery abolished, and be done with it."
"Well," said the judge, "as the people who own these slaves, or claim to own them, have paid their money for them, and hold them as property under their State laws, would it not be just, if we abolish slavery, that some provision should be made to make them compensation?"
He hesitated, thought earnestly for a while, and, in a serious tone, replied: "Yes, I think that would be just, and I will stand my share of the taxes." Although a very close and economical man, he was willing to bear his portion of the taxes.
"But," said the judge, "there is one other question; when the negroes are emancipated, what shall be done with them? They are a poor people; they will have nothing; there must be some place for them to live. Do you think it would be any more than fair that we should take our share of them?"
"Well, what would be our share in the town of Woodstock?" he inquired.
The judge replied: "There are about two thousand five hundred people in Woodstock; and if you take the census and make the computation, you will find that there would be about one for every five white persons; so that here in Woodstock our share would be about five hundred."
"What!" said he, "five hundred negroes in Woodstock! Judge, I called to pay my respects; I bid you good evening;" and he started for the door, and mounted his horse. As he was about to leave, he turned round and said: "Judge, I guess you need not do anything more about that negro business on my account." [Laughter.]
Mr. President, perhaps I am not going too far when I say that honorable gentleman sits before me now.
Mr. [Jacob] COLLAMER [R-Vt.]. As the gentleman has called me out, I may be allowed to say that the inhabitants of the town were about three thousand, and the proportion was about one to six.
Not the same at all.
Did you even bother to read the link you provided before posting your screed? There's a whole section in there on Vermont , and not a single word about any specific laws passed against blacks. I guess you were in such a hurry to make your point you didn't read past the chapter headings on the homepage huh?
Vermont abolished slavery in 1777 when it became a free state. It affirmed that principle when it joined the Union in 1791. You slander Vermont's good name when you assert this information is "useless" or otherwise mention it in conjunction with Black Codes. Now either substantiate your [false] claim against Vermont or retract it forthwith.
Unionist slave-states had abolished slavery by June 1865, and the only place in the USA where slavery was still being practiced was Texas.
Delaware voted on February 18, 1865 to reject the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution and so voted unsuccessfully to continue slavery beyond the Civil War. Delaware symbolically ratified the amendment on February 12, 1901—40 years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery ended in Delaware only when the Thirteenth Amendment took effect in December of 1865.
I just learned what Juneteenth means today (native Los Angeleno, I knew May 5 wasn't a Mexican holiday from the time I was a child).
MUI Juneteenth is supposed to be a time when blacks and others celebrate the values of education, bettering oneself and the like.
As I noted, how sad it is that the invented phony baloney PC Hate-Whitey "holiday" kwaanzaa is "celebrated" across the USA while very few know about the much more important and truly real Juneteenth.
I am not a part of the Black community but this must be a massive shame. Juneteenth should be when we come together to celebrate our shared values and to ponder and plan for success for all of us -- together.
Something to think about...
Junteenth is a Texas, not an American holiday. It was on Junteenth that word of the emancipation reached Texas.
Billbears, you completely misread what was stated, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as a fellow Southerner. ;-) Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, so at no time following statehood was slavery ever permitted. Where you misread the discussion regarding Congressman Collamer and his constitutent, is that they were talking about slavery EN MASSE down South, since none existed in Vermont. The doctor was "charitable" enough regarding some monetary provisions being made for slaves post-emancipation, but when Collamer mentioned that were they to be fully fair towards the soon-to-be former slaves and to take them in in direct proportion to their OVERALL population in the entire country at the time, it would swell the population of tiny Woodstock by 500 persons. The thought of 500 poor people of color coming to town put the good doctor off that notion of emancipation entirely.
I may have the statement backwards what I heard from a Black comedian said some 40 years ago, mentioning the difference of White racism of the North vs. the South. "Up North, they don't care how big you get, just as long as you don't get too close. Down South, they don't care how close you get, just as long as you don't get too big." Northerners could often afford to take very gracious and seemingly generous stances towards Blacks because they lived far away and rarely had to associate with them, but heaven forbid if they ever decided to move in and associate with them beyond a handful. Northerners were noted for sometimes acting in a far more visceral and reactionary way towards Blacks that were "in their face" than their Southern brethren.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.