More from Texas General Land Office, via Medium.com

The author of the original article wasn't. Lazy blacks was a huge racist belief and a justification for slavery in many quarters.

Granger said Freedman so he was obviously only referring to blacks so it is a racist statement, that should he have or had a statue or bust of him posted in a public place it ought to come down. But he probably anticiapated that and so he does not have a statue or bust that I can think of even on any of the battlefields he fought on.

I was referencing the post by libertyag, not the clipping from the general.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I found it odd that they proclamation bothered to mention idleness. If you were a black person in 1865 Texas, idleness would result in starvation.

---

Exactly. At that time everyone (black, white, yellow, red, brown) who wanted to eat worked or, if unable to work, got assistance from family or friends. I cannot imagine many people being idle back then. Today, millions of people are idle and are taken care of by the government (out tax dollars). We now reward idleness.

Although I doubt there is any way to find out, I would love to know his thoughts as to why he mentioned idleness. Perhaps it was a fear of people just hanging out doing nothing (temporarily) as the transition took place and the intent was for people to find a job.

Reading between the lines he was telling them don't look to the Federal government to take care of you or provide you jobs now that we don't need you any more. Throughout the war, the Freedmen found jobs mostly through the Federal Government. A freedman in most cases during the war was either going to be a soldier or a laborer supporting the army or some Federal infrastructure project.

libertyag said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I found it odd that they proclamation bothered to mention idleness. If you were a black person in 1865 Texas, idleness would result in starvation.

---

Exactly. At that time everyone (black, white, yellow, red, brown) who wanted to eat worked or, if unable to work, got assistance from family or friends. I cannot imagine many people being idle back then. Today, millions of people are idle and are taken care of by the government (out tax dollars). We now reward idleness.

Although I doubt there is any way to find out, I would love to know his thoughts as to why he mentioned idleness. Perhaps it was a fear of people just hanging out doing nothing (temporarily) as the transition took place and the intent was for people to find a job.

---

Because it was a racist belief from the time (and still occasionally brought up) that black people tend to idleness if they are not forced to work. There's no reading between the lines. Those were the assumptions. Political cartoons that attacked Reconstruction often used the imagery of lazy black people living off of the work of white people.

Dr. Watson said:

---

libertyag said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I found it odd that they proclamation bothered to mention idleness. If you were a black person in 1865 Texas, idleness would result in starvation.

---

Exactly. At that time everyone (black, white, yellow, red, brown) who wanted to eat worked or, if unable to work, got assistance from family or friends. I cannot imagine many people being idle back then. Today, millions of people are idle and are taken care of by the government (out tax dollars). We now reward idleness.

Although I doubt there is any way to find out, I would love to know his thoughts as to why he mentioned idleness. Perhaps it was a fear of people just hanging out doing nothing (temporarily) as the transition took place and the intent was for people to find a job.

---

Because it was a racist belief from the time (and still occasionally brought up) that black people tend to idleness if they are not forced to work. There's no reading between the lines. Those were the assumptions. Political cartoons that attacked Reconstruction often used the imagery of lazy black people living off of the work of white people.

---

I am not able to read his mind. Just find it odd to read about idleness in 1865, a time when I don't imagine too many could be idle and live, whereas today there are so many idle people.

What percentage of those people are of working age, not disabled, and still not working at all? Needing public assistance is not the same as being idle.

Still a large problem in African nations. Read personal accounts from modern day Congo and there are close comparisons to the descendants here. Even after a couple hundred years of separation.

I've been to a few Juneteenth celebrations at what used to be called Town Lake in Austin.
Still haven't seen a Ramadan celebration in person.

Dr. Watson said:

---

libertyag said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I found it odd that they proclamation bothered to mention idleness. If you were a black person in 1865 Texas, idleness would result in starvation.

---

Exactly. At that time everyone (black, white, yellow, red, brown) who wanted to eat worked or, if unable to work, got assistance from family or friends. I cannot imagine many people being idle back then. Today, millions of people are idle and are taken care of by the government (out tax dollars). We now reward idleness.

Although I doubt there is any way to find out, I would love to know his thoughts as to why he mentioned idleness. Perhaps it was a fear of people just hanging out doing nothing (temporarily) as the transition took place and the intent was for people to find a job.

---

Because it was a racist belief from the time (and still occasionally brought up) that black people tend to idleness if they are not forced to work. There's no reading between the lines. Those were the assumptions. Political cartoons that attacked Reconstruction often used the imagery of lazy black people living off of the work of white people.

---

I'm sure Chicago and Detroit don't support the theory of idleness when people on join gangs or hang out along the road drinking beer doing nothing all day long waiting on a government check to buy more beer and bullets!

I've celebrated the day for the past 36 years. My anniversary!!! I've been in the Middle East to a Ramadan feast at night!

tmaggies said:

---

Watson you are such a clueless liberal......

---

Take it to the politics board. This kind of brilliant analysis belongs there.

You shouldn't be so emotional. Try making some points to argue your opinion. Although it appears that you have nothing of value to add so maybe you should leave the table while you are only slightly behind.

tmaggies said:

---

Your liberal and what you think intellectual analysis belongs someplace else also. If your in fact PHDed and teach....lord help your students.

---

I've met a lot of folks who make similar arguments. They all seem to confuse philosophy and history. History doesn't care what your partisan philosophy is or believes. It has happened and should be analyzed. If you actually care about history, then you won't get pissy if it doesn't reinforce your personal beliefs and will go where the evidence leads. Conservative political beliefs are not always right and are not always borne out by history. Accept it and learn from it. Leave the pissing and moaning about who I am and what I believe on another forum.

kkk

Your right and I am wrong so leaving the dinner table....

kberma2009 said:

---

kkk

---

Total bullcrap.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

kberma2009 said:

---

kkk

---

Total bullcrap.

---

Actually it pegs you to a T.