DGS49
Diamond Member
The day now known as "Juneteenth," the 19th of June, 1865, is the day when it is believed enslaved people in Galveston, TX, received word that they had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863. The proclamation reads, in pertinent part:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free..."
But there are some significant problems with the Emancipation Proclamation. First of all, there is no such thing as a "proclamation," and it does not have the force of law, let alone the force of a Constitutional Amendment. It is about as meaningful as a Presidential "signing statement" would be today, to wit, it was/is a President stating how the Executive department will interpret and carry out a law. But of course the EP was not carrying out any law; it was contrary to both laws and the Constitution.
More importantly, the EP, had it been legally effective, would have been a clear and gross violation of the Fifth Amendment, which states that no one shall be "deprived of...property without due process of law." Unfortunately, the enslaved individuals were at the time "property," owned by their respective masters. The President had no more power to free slaves than he had to demand that American cattle farmers release their livestock onto the open range. In short, he didn't have that power, and had he tried to exercise it, the slave owners would have had to be compensated for the value of their lost property ("slavery reparations"?).
Parenthetically, the Emancipation does not even purport to free the slaves in the Border States of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, because, perversely, the President acknowledged that he lacked the power to do so. In effect, he was telling The World that (a) the rebellion had no effect and the states in rebellion were actually still part of the United States, but (b) the Constitution did not apply in those states. Hmmm.
Suffice it to say that the enslaved people were effectively emancipated on December 6, 1865, with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.
What purpose does it serve to celebrate a date that had no legal meaning or status, rather than the actual date when the event occurred? Why not celebrate January 1 (1863); it has more legitimacy than June 19th. One suspects that it is merely one of a million examples of Leftist attempts to destroy our history by claiming that "What you have been taught all your life was WRONG!"
And now we have what? The Senate passes a bill that makes "Juneteenth" a national holiday - of which we already have far too many. If they are serious, they should think about de-holidizing Christmas, which if I'm not mistaken is a RELIGIOUS OCCASION that should not facilitate a government worker paid holiday.
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free..."
But there are some significant problems with the Emancipation Proclamation. First of all, there is no such thing as a "proclamation," and it does not have the force of law, let alone the force of a Constitutional Amendment. It is about as meaningful as a Presidential "signing statement" would be today, to wit, it was/is a President stating how the Executive department will interpret and carry out a law. But of course the EP was not carrying out any law; it was contrary to both laws and the Constitution.
More importantly, the EP, had it been legally effective, would have been a clear and gross violation of the Fifth Amendment, which states that no one shall be "deprived of...property without due process of law." Unfortunately, the enslaved individuals were at the time "property," owned by their respective masters. The President had no more power to free slaves than he had to demand that American cattle farmers release their livestock onto the open range. In short, he didn't have that power, and had he tried to exercise it, the slave owners would have had to be compensated for the value of their lost property ("slavery reparations"?).
Parenthetically, the Emancipation does not even purport to free the slaves in the Border States of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, because, perversely, the President acknowledged that he lacked the power to do so. In effect, he was telling The World that (a) the rebellion had no effect and the states in rebellion were actually still part of the United States, but (b) the Constitution did not apply in those states. Hmmm.
Suffice it to say that the enslaved people were effectively emancipated on December 6, 1865, with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.
What purpose does it serve to celebrate a date that had no legal meaning or status, rather than the actual date when the event occurred? Why not celebrate January 1 (1863); it has more legitimacy than June 19th. One suspects that it is merely one of a million examples of Leftist attempts to destroy our history by claiming that "What you have been taught all your life was WRONG!"
And now we have what? The Senate passes a bill that makes "Juneteenth" a national holiday - of which we already have far too many. If they are serious, they should think about de-holidizing Christmas, which if I'm not mistaken is a RELIGIOUS OCCASION that should not facilitate a government worker paid holiday.