Where in the U.S. did slavery still exist after Juneteenth?
Posted June 19th, 2016 by James DeWolf PerryCategory: History Tags: 13th Amendment, California, Delaware, Emancipation, Juneteenth, Kentucky, New Jersey, Oregon, U.S. Civil War
Today, June 19, is widely celebrated as Juneteenth, which marks the day in 1865 when Union troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, bringing word that the Civil War had ended and the enslaved population was free. This is a joyous occasion, one which acknowledges the horrors of slavery, but commemorates the jubilation with which the first word of freedom was celebrated at many times, and in many places, throughout the United States.
Yet at the time of this first Juneteenth, slavery had not yet been abolished throughout the United States, even by law. That momentous occasion wouldn’t occur until ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865, more than half a year after the surrender of Confederate forces as Appomattox.
Where in the U.S. did slavery manage to persist after Juneteenth had come and gone? The answer, and even the sheer number of places, may surprise you.
The Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment
The Emancipation Proclamation, issued on January 1, 1863, was Lincoln’s order, as commander-in-chief of the Union’s military forces, that slavery was abolished in those parts of the U.S. which had been in rebellion and which had been re-captured by Union troops.
This meant that slavery remained legal in those slave states which had remained in the Union. This included the border states, such as Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland, but also those northern “free states” which permitted slavery under certain circumstances, such as when the slave owner claimed to be a permanent resident of a southern state. Those states legally permitting slavery under such circumstances stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The Emancipation Proclamation also did nothing to discourage the practice of informally permitting slavery in many northern states where it was no longer permitted by law. Many African-Americans remained in slavery under this practice, which also existed from coast to coast in the “free states,” often quietly but in many cases quite openly.
Aside from these exceptions carefully built into the Emancipation Proclamation, it was also a wartime order from the president, and was unlikely to withstand the legal challenges which would surely come after the Civil War had ended. And so, with great difficulty, the northern-controlled U.S. Congress was finally persuaded, late in the war, to propose the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which would abolish slavery throughout the United States. That amendment, however, was rejected by several northern states, and so its adoption would have to wait for the re-admission of southern states in the months following the end of the war.
Where slavery was still legal after Juneteenth
Where did slavery remain legal, even after the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War?
Maryland and Missouri, both border states which found themselves on the Union side, had finally abolished slavery late in the war.
Yet Delaware and Kentucky rejected all efforts by the Union to end slavery, and these two border states firmly rejected the 13th Amendment. ((Delaware wouldn’t ratify the 13th Amendment, thus acquiescing in the end of slavery, until 1901. Kentucky resisted the 13th Amendment until 1976.)) As a result, slavery remained perfectly legal in both states for another six months after Juneteenth, until the secretary of state certified that the 13th Amendment had been ratified by enough states to become law throughout the U.S.
As mentioned above, slavery had also been perfectly legal in many northern, “free” states at the time of the Civil War, under certain circumstances, and while those (intentional) loopholes had gradually been closing, there certainly remained states on the Union side where there continued to be legal slavery after the Civil War.
For instance, out west, in California, slavery had been banned in 1850, as a condition of admission to the Union. Yet slavery had remained common in the Golden State, in part because slave owners didn’t bother to inform the enslaved of their freedom, and in part because many slave owners were allowed, by law, to keep enslaved people in the state. In fact, the California state legislature voted in 1852 to permit all who had been brought into the state as slaves to remain enslaved, as long as they were not considered to be in the state permanently and might, someday, be returned to the slave South.
As a result, California had roughly 200-300 enslaved people at the end of the Civil War, and Juneteenth did nothing to change that. Only after the 13th Amendment passed would slavery cease to exist (at least legally) in California.
Where slavery was still practiced openly after Juneteenth
Where was slavery still practiced in the U.S. after Juneteenth? The answer is in quite a few places.
In the Northeast, New Jersey still had enslaved people of African descent living within its borders after the war ended. For many years, this was believed to involved just 18 people, presumably kept quietly enslaved, and perhaps leaving many white people in New Jersey unaware of what was still happening in their state. In fact, however, recent research shows that up to 400 African-Americans remained enslaved in New Jersey at the end of the war, and this situation would not be rectified until long after Juneteenth.
Oregon is another troubling example of a “free state” which practiced slavery after the Civil War. Oregon’s provisional government had outlawed slavery in Oregon Country in 1844, and followed that up shortly with a ban on free blacks settling in the territory. Yet many white families continued to bring enslaved people with them to Oregon to help them establish themselves, and rarely saw fit to free them.
The most prominent case of slavery in Oregon in these years was that of Robin and Polly Holmes, and their children, who were brought as slaves from Missouri to Oregon in 1844, and put to work on their owner’s farm in the Willamette Valley. That owner, a prominent Oregon lawmaker named Nathaniel Ford, openly defied the law and continued to keep them as slaves. In 1850, he freed Robin and Polly, but insisted on keeping their children enslaved, until 1853 when the Holmes family won its freedom in court (the first and only time an Oregon court would free anyone who was enslaved).
For the Holmes family, then, slavery in Oregon ended in 1853. For many others, however, slavery didn’t end with the Civil War … or with Juneteenth … or even with the 13th Amendment. Even Oregon’s former territorial governor, General Joseph Lane, was allowed to keep at least one person enslaved on his farm in Roseburg until 1878.
And so Juneteenth, while a momentous celebration of freedom, must also be remembered as being only one in a long, agonizing series of steps by which our nation’s enslaved managed to win or, in some cases, were granted emancipation from slavery.
August 6th, 2016 at 8:47 pm
Juneteenth is a Texas holiday that was brought to other states by Black people moving elsewhere. I work with people from other states who've never heard of it.
Slavery is a terrible blight on this country's reputation. But, the USA, is not the only country that had slaves. I get pissed off when other countries get on their high-horse and forget their history. As a Black American, the idea of the enslavement done to my ancestors, is poison. White ppl don't get it.
Ancient Romans, would go to a country, fight them in a war-win, and make them all or most of them slaves. Same thing for all of the ancient empires. I understand that. BUT, Americans went to a specific country, because they thought the ppl not human and only fit for labor. They stole most from their home and enslaved them. Of course you have your bad characters in Africa (there are bad people everywhere) who would sell their grandma for a glass bead, but generally speaking, they were stolen.
That's the point. Europeans/Americans didn't fight an African nation in a war and therefore enslaved some of the ppl to enforce their will on them. They selected the populace as being subhuman. Then they misinterpreted a Bible verse so they would feel good about themselves.
So, to them, they were actually doing us a favor. They gave us something to do. Thanks but no thanks.
Other races can come over here and speak their native languages at will. That was beat out of the slaves. We were not allowed to retain anything from our native lives. As for me, my family's native language (from their master) is Creole. I can't speak it but wish I could. But my dad said the white man used to look down on us when we spoke what was native for us. Unfortunately, I can't trace my family pass the 'masters language'.
April 25th, 2019 at 9:21 pm
The Roman's were pretty well white.
If you dont think it's better here, go to Africa and witness the constant battle for life where your ancestors native descendants are currently. You should be rejoiced in the life benefited to you on the innocent backs of your ancestors, same a Christian's do Jesus' innocent sacrifice on the cross.
If you dont think you have it better; tell that to and adult African migrantor refugee, then listen to what they have to say about it.
Your hate vs history and "I'm still a victim 5 but generations late to the party" attitude is what has halted progression in the country.
Creole isn't a language. The "Creole" you're thinking of is what happened when French rural folks *and some of their slaves* picked up English from English rural folks. Not a darn thing special about it or some "white man's" language forced on your ancestors. In fact, it happens to be a beautiful blend of the undesirables of 3 cultures who fought ignorance with shared knowledge. English hick with a French twist and the cool yet direct delivery of African islanders, The fact that black folks are representatives for your idea of what Creole is lies within the tenacity of your ancestors to survive the swamps vs the hell of becoming victims of the cultural upheaval taking place in more "progressive" areas, as well as the fact that uncle Sam has a tough time forcing descendants off land given to ex-slaves.
I could say much more, but I feel it'll fall on deaf ears, if the admin even posts this.
Open to rebuttal, discussion or debate
April 25th, 2019 at 8:03 pm
There is so much to be gained from this article, especially being the top result in a few of my queries. It's a shame that is is so speculative, and lacking any sources/actual research. Even unedited.
I grew up in Williamsburg Virginia and was separated by only 1 generation from living alongside enslaved peoples. I am 33. An assistant teacher in a children's home i was in briefly was thought/but not confirmed to be the last person born into slavery in the state. Clickbait articles more focused on tags than facts, such as this, push legitimate information off the map. Thanks for destroying history in this new era of "#for-profit-awareness".
Sincerely,
Some percentage of the population
April 18th, 2021 at 12:06 pm
The belief that black Americans should feel lucky to be here rather than Africa is at once ridiculous and incredibly stupid, because it negates what should be obvious. Perhaps African life would be vastly different if African people had not been stolen and used to build the United States – instead of Africa. Take a moment to image what that would look like. All of the brilliance and beauty, and blood and tears that helped create American wealth could have been employed to create a stable, self-sufficient Africa. Then, who would be looking down its nose? And yet, against all odds black people in both lands, splintered souls and all, have survived unspeakable atrocities to keep moving forward.
November 4th, 2021 at 12:11 am
I would like to point out that largely the slaves sold to the traders in both the east and west African slave trades were sold there by their own people. White people were not running around Africa snatching up everyone and their momma to sell in the americas. There were also quite a few other ethnic groups sold into slavery as well.
March 20th, 2022 at 8:18 pm
It's really too bad that most don't even want the truth. It's more convenient to ignore it, Especially when it doesn't re-enforce the chose narative.
Facing the fact that African's were predominantly 'not stolen but sold into slavery by their own countrymen is not convenient truth for sure. Facing another fact that Liberia , which was establish to repatriate freed slaves to Africa actually resulted in the those very same 'freed' slaves being re=enslaved by the same or similar who had sold them in the first place.
Africa operated on slavery and so was an easy place to find slaves when the Irish Slaves sent by the United Kingdom ran slim. So much unpopular history. But rewriting it doesn't help.
March 21st, 2022 at 9:17 am
You're absolutely right that the historical truth is vital in conversations like these. And that people often have a hard time accepting historical truths that don't fit their preconceived narratives.
To that end, yes, Africans taken across the Middle Passage were predominated enslaved by other Africans. But they were generally not "their own countrymen," but people from other societies entirely. This wasn't a coincidence, but is fundamental to how slavery has worked in most times and places in human history. We usually enslave the "other," foreigners if you will, and Africa was no exception. (There is also the fact that the enslavement of Africans was primarily driven by organized demand from abroad, but that's another matter.)
You're also correct that the history of Liberia is a painful one, although historians generally attribute that to a natural conflict between the area's longstanding inhabitants and the arrival of large numbers of strangers from across the ocean looking to colonize the land. It isn't as if family members were returning home, now is it? That sort of thinking would suggest that all inhabitants of an entire continent, and all of their descendants from anywhere else in the world, are fundamentally close kin, simply because of the social construct of "race."
Finally, there were no Irish slaves sent to the Americas by Great Britain. That's a myth. But as you yourself suggest, myths like this tend to persist because they fit preconceived narratives that people want to promote.
June 20th, 2023 at 10:00 am
You "REALLY NEED TO CHECK YOUR HISTORY!" What Irish slaves; do you mean indentured servants? Hell that's what helped to establish the first record of known slavery in America. But it certainly wasn't Irish slaves. People and those like you that don't accept the true horror of slavery; then want to go on to try to mitigate it's intrenched social injustices and say well other people were slaves too. That may be true, but what other democratic, world power, civilized country continues to deprive it's citizens of real equality and then have those like you say well " that most don't even want the truth" I do love my country I spent 24 years in the Army and still work for the government, but come on there are some things "WE" have been taught, that aren't truths and it's hight time it was faced and some things done about it!!! .
April 18th, 2021 at 12:27 pm
I forgot to comment on the borderline sacrilegious comment that would dare to compare slavery to Christ’s sacrifice. How could you liken the TAKING of innocent lives by putting people in bondage for the purpose of greed, to the GIVING of an innocent life for purpose of setting us (Christians) free from the bondage of sin. There is no comparison. Slavery, and the atrocities that accompanied it, were inspired by Satan, while Christianity was born from the sacrifice of a loving savior, sent by God to deliver us from sin (and the evil mindset that would even begin to see the two as one and the same).
October 8th, 2021 at 11:37 am
Romans weren't White.
May 11th, 2022 at 3:52 pm
Slavery has historically been widespread in Africa. Systems of servitude and slavery were common in parts of Africa in ancient times, as they were in much of the rest of the ancient world. Slavery in contemporary Africa is still practiced despite it being illegal. In the relevant literature African slavery is categorized into indigenous slavery and export slavery, depending on whether or not slaves were traded beyond the continent. Plantation slavery also occurred, primarily on the eastern coast of Africa and in parts of West Africa. The importance of domestic plantation slavery increased during the 19th century, due to the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade. Many African states dependent on the international slave trade reoriented their economies towards legitimate commerce worked by slave labor. Human sacrifice was common in West African states up to and during the 19th century. Although archaeological evidence is not clear on the issue prior to European contact, in those societies that practiced human sacrifice, slaves became the most prominent victims. The Annual Customs of Dahomey was the most notorious example of the human sacrifice of slaves, where 500 prisoners would be sacrificed. Sacrifices were carried out all along the West African coast and further inland. Sacrifices were common in the Benin Empire, in what is now Ghana, and in the small independent states in what is now southern Nigeria. In the Ashanti Region, human sacrifice was often combined with capital punishment. Many nations such as the Bono State, Ashanti of present-day Ghana, and the Yoruba of present-day Nigeria were involved in slave trading. Groups such as the Imbangala of Angola and the Nyamwezi of Tanzania would serve as intermediaries or roving bands, waging war on African states to capture people for export as slaves. Historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University have estimated that of the Africans who were captured and then sold as slaves to the New World in the Atlantic slave trade, around 90% were enslaved by fellow Africans who sold them to European traders.[48] Henry Louis Gates, the Harvard Chair of African and African American Studies, has stated that "without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred." The entire Bubi ethnic group descends from escaped intertribal slaves owned by various ancient West-central African ethnic groups.
May 11th, 2022 at 4:59 pm
Slavery has historically been widespread on all inhabited continents, and not just Africa. So why note that fact? Similarly, it is a basic historical fact that African societies were deeply involved in the transatlantic slave trade.
So what? What does this have to do with a blog post about the end of U.S. slavery? I don't want to assume what point you might be making, but it almost sounds as though you're dismissing the history of U.S. chattel slavery by noting that there were other perpetrators who shared responsibility for it. Isn't this a bit like noting that southern U.S. slavery couldn't have existed without the active participation of many white northerners? It's true that many African societies were complicit in slavery—but many of those countries are ahead of the U.S. today in acknowledging that history.