“Juneteenth” (June 19, 1865) was not the end of slavery in the United States. “Juneteenth … specifically commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, to announce that the Civil War had ended and that the last enslaved Black Americans were finally free.” Union troops had reached the last outposts of the Confederacy, where slaves were liberated by the emancipation proclamation. And under pressure from Lincoln and Congress, the states containing areas of the Confederacy exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation (Louisiana and Tennessee) had abolished slavery in their new Constitutions. Two of the four border slave states that did not secede, Maryland and Missouri, had also abolished slavery by early 1865. But slavery still existed legally in Delaware and Kentucky until December 6, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.
"was limited in many ways." <--it was passed as a 'war measure' indeed reflecting a different era when the Constitution was interpreted such that slavery was considered an issue left mostly to the states.
“I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me……
This Fourth July is yours, not mine.
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.
……if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slaveholding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.
Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand, it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”
(From “What to the Slave is the 4th of July?”—Fredrick Douglass)
"and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it"
It initially expressly permitted the slave trade for a period of time though by the time Douglass wrote that (1852) that time period would have elapsed. Nevertheless there is: "Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." <--and of course in the antebellum period most famously Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Difficult to describe that as something other than pro-slavery.
1. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”
Do you see the word “slave” or “enslaved” or any such word?
That's a lawyerly quibble. "Import" generally refers to property. Even when used as in "They imported technicians to install the new equipment", it isn't talking about immigration, as "migration or importation" also shows.
Everyone then understood it meant slaves, and the same applies to the 3/5 clause. It's correct to say the Constitution doesn't directly authorize slavery; but neither does it ignore it.
It IS a quibble to claim the constitution is free of the taint of slavery. To claim so on the basis of not finding the word "slavery", when at least two clauses acknowledge the existence of slavery, is a lawyerly quibble.
The constitution also does not include the word "legislator". Your quibble is the equivalent of saying the constitution does not support legislators.
There are many others missing from the constitution. "Bureaucrat", "gun", how many other examples do you want?
“Juneteenth” (June 19, 1865) was not the end of slavery in the United States. “Juneteenth … specifically commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, to announce that the Civil War had ended and that the last enslaved Black Americans were finally free.” Union troops had reached the last outposts of the Confederacy, where slaves were liberated by the emancipation proclamation. And under pressure from Lincoln and Congress, the states containing areas of the Confederacy exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation (Louisiana and Tennessee) had abolished slavery in their new Constitutions. Two of the four border slave states that did not secede, Maryland and Missouri, had also abolished slavery by early 1865. But slavery still existed legally in Delaware and Kentucky until December 6, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.
I rarely see Juneteenth described correctly. Maybe because we’ve retconned the Civil War as a war to end slavery instead of a war to stop succession.
"was limited in many ways." <--it was passed as a 'war measure' indeed reflecting a different era when the Constitution was interpreted such that slavery was considered an issue left mostly to the states.
“I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me……
This Fourth July is yours, not mine.
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.
……if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slaveholding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.
Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand, it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”
(From “What to the Slave is the 4th of July?”—Fredrick Douglass)
"and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it"
It initially expressly permitted the slave trade for a period of time though by the time Douglass wrote that (1852) that time period would have elapsed. Nevertheless there is: "Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." <--and of course in the antebellum period most famously Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Difficult to describe that as something other than pro-slavery.
“Section 9
1. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”
Do you see the word “slave” or “enslaved” or any such word?
PS—Find “slavery” in the Constitution?
That's a lawyerly quibble. "Import" generally refers to property. Even when used as in "They imported technicians to install the new equipment", it isn't talking about immigration, as "migration or importation" also shows.
Everyone then understood it meant slaves, and the same applies to the 3/5 clause. It's correct to say the Constitution doesn't directly authorize slavery; but neither does it ignore it.
It’s not a quibble it’s what’s not written that’s important.
It IS a quibble to claim the constitution is free of the taint of slavery. To claim so on the basis of not finding the word "slavery", when at least two clauses acknowledge the existence of slavery, is a lawyerly quibble.
The constitution also does not include the word "legislator". Your quibble is the equivalent of saying the constitution does not support legislators.
There are many others missing from the constitution. "Bureaucrat", "gun", how many other examples do you want?
It acknowledges reality. It doesn’t mention slavery. That’s NOT a quibble.
4th of July also the day that Union prevailed at BOTH Gettysburg AND sometimes overlooked Vicksburg.