The Alamo defenders were mercenaries for slavery and imperialism

[Berzerker]

touche, your turn Slow

[Imran Siddiqui]

March 1836. During the Battle of the Alamo.

So, after.

[SlowwHand]

Texas revolted over slavery. It's the only state to secede from two countries because it loved slavery so much.

You're even more stupid than Al.

[Tupac Shakur]

Can someone please read this to Sloww?

Economic origin of conflict

Cotton was in high demand throughout Europe and so a lucrative export throughout the southern United States. Much of the land being opened up to Anglos in Mexican Texas was well suited for cotton, but raising cotton was a labor intensive endeavor at the time, profitable only by use of slave labor. Many of the American immigrants from the southern American states had an investment in slaves and ignored the Mexican laws against slavery. The Mexican government had invited immigrants to Mexican Texas with the understanding that they would produce food crops, insisting upon production of corn, grain and beef. Former American settlers found such micromanagement of the land use to be opposed to their economic interests in slavery. They tended to ignore their contracts. If these were enforced, Texas slave-owners stood to lose a large investment in slave labor. While the vast majority of Anglo settlers did not own slaves, the few who did held considerable economic, political and social influence. Consequently, Mexico's prohibition of slavery was essentially unenforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

[PLATO]

Actually, I think that quote does nothing to show the reasons for the conflict. It appears to be the research of someone who is looking very narrowly at what happened.

A couple of things here. I don't see anyone defending slavery. What I see is a disagreement over why Texas declared independence.

It seems quite clear that laws against slavery were not being enforced (this from your own quote!) and therefore would not be a central reason for declaring independence. The status quo seems to have been working adequately for the slave owners.

It seems quite likely that Texas stand for slavery was more opportunistic than it was a root cause for independence.

Far more likely (and historically accurate I might add) is that Texas took part in a general rebellion within Mexico based on the creation of the Mexican dictatorship. This denial of local rights (State's Rights, if you will?) led to many provinces rebelling. Texas bid was successful and would have happened regardless of the slavery issue. The fact that they took the opportunity to constitutionalize slavery is a sad consequence of their success in the fight to determine their own destiny.

One small other item...Most of the Tennesseans were from East Tennessee...a region that had 70% opposition to slavery. It is highly unlikely that the Tennesseans that fought in the conflict would have done so had it been merely an attempt to promote slavery.

Quite clearly, some of us are not as "grossly ignorant" of history as others.

[Tupac Shakur]

Hmmm, why would a slave state that was taking advantage of Mexico's weak central government to openly flout its prohibition on slavery suddenly decide to revolt in 1835 when "in early 1835 .. the Mexican government transitioned from a federalist model to centralism"? Let me think. Wow, this sure is a tough one to figure out...

[kentonio]

A couple of things here. I don't see anyone defending slavery. What I see is a disagreement over why Texas declared independence.

Then you're not looking.

Quite clearly, some of us are not as "grossly ignorant" of history as others.

Quite clearly you are.

Slave population in Texas
Year Population
1825 443
1836 5,000
1840 11,323
1850 58,161
1860 182,566
1865 250,000

Notice a pattern there?

Seriously you and Sloww should be ****ing ashamed of yourselves for this thread. You're not responsible for what people living a few centuries ago did, but this revisionist bull**** taints you by association.

Oh and Albie.

[SlowwHand]

Welcome to Alby's little club.

[kentonio]

When the other club seems to be populated by slavery apologists, I'll happily hang with the Phillie jarhead.

[SlowwHand]

No apologies given. I'm not going to argue with every new kid that comes here. I will say this, posting random numbers doesn't prove your point.

[kentonio]

No apologies given. I'm not going to argue with every new kid that comes here. I will say this, posting random numbers doesn't prove your point.

Who's new, and who's a kid?

Random numbers? You mean a set of numbers showing how as soon as the Texans shook off Mexico their levels of slave ownership absolutely soared? You don't think that might be relevant data to support their ambitions for joining the US?

Oh and..

No matter the time, slave ownership percentages were never high in Texas. Never. Texas has always believed in States Rights, though.

In 1860 30% of the population of state total of 604,215 were enslaved.

30% not high enough for you?

[Lorizael]

Why are you posting the percentage of the population that was enslaved? Were slaves more likely to be slave owners than non-slaves?

[kentonio]

Why are you posting the percentage of the population that was enslaved? Were slaves more likely to be slave owners than non-slaves?

Because its crappy revisionist wordplay talking about the number of 'slaveholders' as a proportion of the population. The only figures that matters a damn is the number of actual slaves, and the effect they had on the economy of the state. Texas was a nasty slave state that as Tupac already pointed out seceded not one but twice over slavery. What makes me angry is that this is history, it doesn't make todays Texans guilty of anything, yet time and again they can't resist trying to rewrite the past because of pride. That is not acceptable.

[kentonio]

Here's a peice from the Texas State Historical Association. Nice to see some Texans being open about the past.

White society as a whole in antebellum Texas was dominated by its slaveholding minority. Economically, slaveowners had a disproportionately large share of the state's wealth and produced virtually all of the cash crops. Politically, slaveholders dominated public officeholding at all levels. Socially, slaveholders, at least the large planters, embodied an ideal to most Texans.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/o...articles/yps01

[Elok]

Human history is one long chain of greed, lies and cruelty. Every nation has some extremely dirty linen in its closet. Some of them come out and admit it, while others, like the Turks, don't. Either way the dead people stay just as dead, so I don't care.

No apologies given. I'm not going to argue with every new kid that comes here. I will say this, posting random numbers doesn't prove your point.

Apologist doesn't mean someone who apologizes, but to a person engaged in apologetics, ie justifying or legitimizing an idea to its detractors.