Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have always known about it. What I have never known is how an entire state could keep a population of people hostage for over two years. I wondered if the US government knew about these hostages, they probably did. Why didn't they do anything about it? Wasn't there a single white person in all of Texas who knew that these people were hostages held in bondage illegally, probably yes. Why didn't they sneek up to a black person and whisper their ear ?
Texas may as well have been Timbuktu back then. Texas slave owners were extremely intransigent. In the last year of the war, huge numbers of slave owners from other states had packed up everything and moved their families and their slaves to Texas in the hopes of retaining their slaves long after the war had ended. These people assumed that they could recreate another slave based Republic in Texas that would be beyond Federal reach.
So this bit of history doesn’t surprise me in the least.
I had heard the term for at least 20 years. In or about 2003 I asked one of the partners of my firm, a female of color from Jamaica what it was. She explained the background as "when slaves in Texas learned the Union had won (the war) and they were free."
I have always known about it. What I have never known is how an entire state could keep a population of people hostage for over two years. I wondered if the US government knew about these hostages, they probably did. Why didn't they do anything about it? Wasn't there a single white person in all of Texas who knew that these people were hostages held in bondage illegally, probably yes. Why didn't they sneek up to a black person and whisper their ear ?
That is what I just learned about, they had to send in the army to get the slaves released two years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
That is what I just learned about, they had to send in the army to get the slaves released two years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Not a surprise; the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states in rebellion. The practical effect was to add a lot of troops consisting of freed slaves in areas which the Union had liberated.
I had heard the term for at least 20 years. In or about 2003 I asked one of the partners of my firm, a female of color from Jamaica what it was. She explained the background as "when slaves in Texas learned the Union had won (the war) and they were free."
Never heard it in my life and only the last 2 weeks i have heard enough and seen enough to make me wanna roll over and die sly.
I agree, I wouldn't say juvenile but the Emancipation Proclamation should be the focus.
The Emancipation Proclamation was nice, but had little effect other than to swell General Grant's army's, then moving through the Deep South. The Army of the Potomac was then fighting in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, and only Virginia's slaves were "freed" by the Emancipation Proclamation. There was little territory in Virginia solidly under Union control at that point. Maryland and the area that became West Virginia was not in rebellion so no slaves in those areas were freed. Ditto Missouri and Kentucky.
On the other hand, General Grant, after some hesitation decided to use freed slaves, and he had lots oft hem at his disposal from Mississippi and Tennessee in particular.
The Emancipation Proclamation was nice, but had little effect other than to swell General Grant's army's, then moving through the Deep South. The Army of the Potomac was then fighting in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, and only Virginia's slaves were "freed" by the Emancipation Proclamation. There was little territory in Virginia solidly under Union control at that point. Maryland and the area that became West Virginia was not in rebellion so no slaves in those areas were freed. Ditto Missouri and Kentucky.
On the other hand, General Grant, after some hesitation decided to use freed slaves, and he had lots oft hem at his disposal from Mississippi and Tennessee in particular.
Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Rebel states--who didn't consider Lincoln their President to begin with.
Andrew Johnson, who would succeed Lincoln as President after his assassination, freed his slaves in 1863 because it was in his political interest to do so. One of them, William Andrew Johnson, was seven years old when he was freed. He would one day meet with FDR, the only living former slave of a US President to meet with a sitting US President.
Emancipation Day would be a better name than Juneteenth, which sounds like something an illiterate person would say. At least people would know what it's about and not feel dumb saying it.
I have always known about it. What I have never known is how an entire state could keep a population of people hostage for over two years. I wondered if the US government knew about these hostages, they probably did. Why didn't they do anything about it? Wasn't there a single white person in all of Texas who knew that these people were hostages held in bondage illegally, probably yes. Why didn't they sneek up to a black person and whisper their ear ?
Texas was part of the confederacy in 1863...of course they didn't release their slaves until they learned tbe war was over, 2 years later in 1865.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
