The Alamo defenders were mercenaries for slavery and imperialism

[Tupac Shakur]

Ozzy Osbourne

[Hauldren Collider]

As someone pointed out on poly a while ago (don't remember when), the Texans imported Tennesseans at the Alamo and still lost. Texas

[Dinner]

There's nothing "alternative" about the history in Albie's OP. It's the mainstream historical consensus that the Texas Revolution was fought over slavery and the Mexican-American War was a transparent imperial landgrab.

Indeed. That is the status quo historical concensus and has been since around the period in question.

[giblets]

As someone pointed out on poly a while ago (don't remember when), the Texans imported Tennesseans at the Alamo and still lost. Texas

Wow, I don't understand how they could be outnumbered ten to one and still lose if they had a couple of Tennesseans. Texas

[PLATO]

Wow, I don't understand how they could be outnumbered ten to one and still lose if they had a couple of Tennesseans.

Me eithier.

[Al B. Sure!]

Indeed. That is the status quo historical concensus and has been since around the period in question.

Apparently not in Texas, Chicago, or New Jersey, judging from Sloww's, Ming's, and Imran's responses.

[Dinner]

Yeah, well Southerners still like to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery even though the VP of the Confederacy named it as THE primary reason for secession in his inaugural address. Not to mention all the historical documents which confirm Southerners had an irrational fear that Lincoln was going to steal all of their slaves despite the fact that he had repeatedly said he wasn't and had made no moves against slavery before Southerners plunged the country into war. It's kind of like how modern right wing conservatives keep insisting Obama is going to steal all of their guns despite the fact that all Obama has done is expand gun rights. Southerners have a massive irrational looney tunes streak in their culture. "It's true because I want it to be true/think it should be true even though all the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion."

[Dr Strangelove]

A new low has been identified. As we discussed, Moron, Imbecile, Idiot and the new low, Alby.

Alby, Spain gave authorization for Texas to be colonized and act as a buffer between Comanches and Mexico.
It wasn't out of the goodness of their heart.

Mexico declared its independence in 1810, Spain recognized Mexicos independence in 1821. Mexico issued grants to empesarios inorder to bring in immigrants to boost the population of the area, The first American settlers arrived in 1822, so, no, Spain wasn't involved at all.

[PLATO]

Yeah, well Southerners still like to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery even though the VP of the Confederacy named it as THE primary reason for secession in his inaugural address. Not to mention all the historical documents which confirm Southerners had an irrational fear that Lincoln was going to steal all of their slaves despite the fact that he had repeatedly said he wasn't and had made no moves against slavery before Southerners plunged the country into war. It's kind of like how modern right wing conservatives keep insisting Obama is going to steal all of their guns despite the fact that all Obama has done is expand gun rights. Southerners have a massive irrational looney tunes streak in their culture. "It's true because I want it to be true/think it should be true even though all the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion."

That would have been a good response had this been a thread about the civil war. Since it is about the Texas revolution, it is funny in a completely different way.

[Dr Strangelove]

There were a number of issues actually. Settlers from the US were actually held by contract to grow food crops, but many of them grew cotton instead. The Mexican government had begun arresting some of those who violated their contracts. Three were also arrests of slaveowners. Santa Anna pushed through a new constitition giving him the power to elect governors.

[Pax]

I don't think people have to be apologists or revisionists. We can all have our own opinions no matter how wrong.
I'm with Albie and Pac on the actual causes of revolution. Follow the money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There were a number of issues actually.

Sad that some can't see nuance and have to reduce it to one or the other. I do count Alby & Dinner as well as Sloww in that, btw.

[Hauldren Collider]

Me eithier.

The Volunteer State

[kentonio]

I don't think people have to be apologists or revisionists. We can all have our own opinions no matter how wrong.

Sad that some can't see nuance and have to reduce it to one or the other.

The problem is that even if someone isn't intending to be a slavery apologist, when you try and dilute the evils of the time, you end up doing exactly that regardless. It is very true for instance that many of the people fighting for the south during the civil war were not fighting for slavery directly, but slavery was still the reason for the war. If you let people chip away at that fact, then eventually you end up with people being educated that it was all about states rights and freedom and all that bull****. A false ideal ends up being created that is nothing more than a lie, and that is not ok.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So it is better to hew to one side of the black vs. white divide than to attempt a nuanced view at history? That seems to be to be submitting to the beast because "you have to". I imagine a better way.