The Alamo defenders were mercenaries for slavery and imperialism

[Az]

Slavery and Genocide are the bread and butter of human history. No need to get chaffed about it. Yes, your great-great-grandfather was probably supportive of slavery. I am sure all of the fine German folks I meet and work with on a constant basis have had dads and granddads in the WWII German army or the SS, and previously voted for Hitler.

The mere fact that you are here typing your bull**** in front of a computer is probably a direct consequence of your ancestors being *******s to somebody. Deal with it.

[Lorizael]

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.

It's not revisionism to cite a fact. That you think the fact itself it insignificant is entirely different.

[SlowwHand]

Ken, I don't owe anyone an apology for something that happened 150 years ago. Nobody should sit around with their hand out because their great great great grandfather worked in a white man's field. And that's said with no rebuttal about numbers of slaves or owners. You can think what you want. I don't care. I've had no slaves. I don't know any Black people that have been slaves. Get over it.

[kentonio]

It's not revisionism to cite a fact. That you think the fact itself it insignificant is entirely different.

Disagree. When people do things like that while taking a clear revisionist stance, then it doesn't take a genius to see that they are being intellectually dishonest. As the quote I posted above from the Texas State Historical Association points out, slavery was a dominant part of Texan life, politics and economy. What exactly do you think a post like..

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

..was supposed to signal? It's nothing more than a sad attempt to paper over the states murky past, and that is revisionist crap at its worst.

[kentonio]

Ken, I don't owe anyone an apology for something that happened 150 years ago. Nobody should sit around with their hand out because their great great great grandfather worked in a white man's field. And that's said with no rebuttal about numbers of slaves or owners. You can think what you want. I don't care. I've had no slaves. I don't know any Black people that have been slaves. Get over it.

Which is exactly what I already posted above, you have no reason to feel any guilt about it because it was a different time. What you do have a responsibility to do however is not try and cover up other peoples crimes by pretending things weren't so bad back then.

[SlowwHand]

It wasn't a crime at the time.
The fact remains that more Native Americans were slaves in Texas, but I still don't see any outrage out of your hypocritical self.

[kentonio]

It wasn't a crime at the time.
The fact remains that more Native Americans were slaves in Texas, but I still don't see any outrage out of your hypocritical self.

Please quote a single example of me referring to African slavery rather than just slavery? You might want to go look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary as you don't seem to understand what it means.

Oh and I love the way you can't resist that little 'it wasn't a crime at the time'. **** is wrong with you? All the major powers were emancipating around that time, Texas and the southern states can't use the 'everyone was doing it' argument and get away with it.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

30% not high enough for you?

30%... never knew it was so high in parts of the US, it is about par with Roman empire... any higher and your state starts to crumble, unless you are Sparta that is .

[kentonio]

Georgia had about 43% by the time the civil war started. Crazy stuff.

[Felch]

It wasn't a crime at the time.

Yes it was. Slavery was a crime in Mexico.

[Felch]

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

I like how Sloww still doesn't know what an apologist is.

[SlowwHand]

Felch, I'm not defending anything, and I know the term. I appreciate your amusement though. It doesn't take much to amuse you.
I imagine you can contemplate your navel for hours on end.

[Felch]

It's an innie.

[SlowwHand]

How many hours of study until you made that determination?

[PLATO]

Interesting. It seems that some believe that if you don't believe that slavery was THE issue of the Texas revolution then:
1.) You defend the practice of slavery
2.) You are an apologist for slave owners
3.) You should be ashamed of yourself

That's the revisionist view right there!

Problem is that folks who WANT to be able to say slavery was THE issue can't accept that Texans certainly did take advantage of the opportunity to promote the slave philosophy through the independence movement, but that it was not THE factor of the independence movement.

Let's take a look at Tupac's quote for example:

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...

What did this move to centralism mean?

Here are quotes from the article itself:

Texians were becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Mexican government. Many of the Mexican soldiers garrisoned in Tejas were convicted criminals who were given the choice of prison or serving in the army in Tejas.

Mexico did not protect Freedom of Religion, instead requiring colonists to pledge their acceptance of Roman Catholicism; Mexican Law also required a tithe paid to the Catholic Church

the property tax law, intended to exempt immigrants from paying taxes for ten years, was rescinded, and tariffs were increased on goods shipped from the United States

The new constitution certainly had an impact, as it was unpopular throughout Mexico...again from the quoted article:

The new laws were unpopular throughout Mexico, leading to secession movements and violence in several Mexican states.

Finally, the "economic origin of the conflict" that has been referred to above is certainly an indicator that slavery was AN issue with the revolution.

Taken as a whole picture though, it should be clear to any accept those that insist on WANTING slavery to be THE issue, that the revolution took place for a wide variety of reasons that can be boiled down to the people trying to obtain the freedom to control their own destiny. In fact, given the evidence it should be nearly impossible to say that the revolution would not have occured had slavery not been an issue.

So, while Texas stand on slavery was horrible, it was not the reason for the revolution.

If stating such a simple fact makes me a revisionist in your eyes, then so be it.