The Alamo defenders were mercenaries for slavery and imperialism

[SlowwHand]

Thanks for more evidence that you don't read, you're stupid or both.

[Tupac Shakur]

Why do you keep saying ****ing apologizing. No one's saying to apologize for ****. We're saying to recognize the freaking facts.

Sloww's illiteracy probably led him to confuse "apology" (which no one is asking him for) and "apologist" (which he has rightfully been accused of being with regard to Southern racism and support for slavery).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, buddy, seriously: it was a slave-holders landgrab. This was well-understood at the time. Biting off pieces of Mexico was the favored passtime of Slave Power back then.

This is a lazy view of history and I'm saddened to see that you take it fullscale. Were Texans slave owners? Of course. Was it banned in Mexico? Yes, for years. Was in enforced? Barely.

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

Consequently, Mexico's prohibition of slavery was essentially unenforced.

Did 10 other provinces rebel once Santa Anna came to power and scrapped the Mexican Constitution for a dictatorship? Yes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

On most things I'm all in favour of compromise and seeking balance, but when theres a clear agenda to paint over the wrongs of the past, then no, that requires people to stand up and fight against it. It's not about the details of a historical event, its about bigotry by the back door. The 'Lost Cause' brigade brought about millions of kids being wrongly educated which almost certainly prolonged the civil rights movement by several decades. Maybe one day it won't matter any more in any practical way, but until racism is properly stamped out, it still does.

So because of modern political and social concerns, history should be written in favor of a particular concern rather than searching for what really happened?

[kentonio]

So because of modern political and social concerns, history should be written in favor of a particular concern rather than searching for what really happened?

No, it should be written in the way it actually happened and that means that the pivotal role that slavery played in it all gets included in big bold letters in size 50 type. Were there other factors? Sure there were, but slavery ran thick and vile through the whole mess, and any attempt to deny the driving role it played in Texan independance is revisionism pure and simple.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it should be written in the way it actually happened and that means that the pivotal role that slavery played in it all gets included in big bold letters in size 50 type. Were there other factors? Sure there were, but slavery ran thick and vile through the whole mess, and any attempt to deny the driving role it played in Texan independance is revisionism pure and simple.

So, wait. Slavery was a fact of life. Technically illegal but unenforced (and basically unenforceable) and it was the driving role? How does that make ANY sense?

[kentonio]

So, wait. Slavery was a fact of life. Technically illegal but unenforced (and basically unenforceable) and it was the driving role? How does that make ANY sense?

Slavery banned but the ban generally unenforced. Santa Anna puts in place moves to make Mexico a more centralized state, which would inevitably lead to things like the slavery ban actually being enforced for a change. His governor in Texas starts doing things like refusing to return runaway slaves, which leads to a revolt. Meanwhile the US southern states are happily whipping their slaves and ringing in the dollars. Texas secedes and becomes a massive slave state. Please tell me how it is even possible to not see the obvious link here?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Slavery banned but the ban generally unenforced. Santa Anna puts in place moves to make Mexico a more centralized state, which would inevitably lead to things like the slavery ban actually being enforced for a change. His governor in Texas starts doing things like refusing to return runaway slaves, which leads to a revolt. Meanwhile the US southern states are happily whipping their slaves and ringing in the dollars. Texas secedes and becomes a massive slave state. Please tell me how it is even possible to not see the obvious link here?

There was no overt moves to actually enforce the ban on slavery. Santa Anna wasn't an idiot - Mexico looked the other way on slavery for decades because that's the only way Anglo settlement could occur. The Texians were far more fearful that Santa Anna would enforce the requirements that Texas only produce certain crops. In addition, 10 other provinces revolted at the time of Santa Anna's coup.

I know its in vogue to yell "SLAVERY" for every little thing involving a Southern state, but this isn't the US Civil War where slavery was an overt reason for secession.

[kentonio]

That of course will be why the famous modern revisionist John Quincy Adams said in Congress in 1836..

"the war now raging in Texas is a Mexican civil war and a war for the re-establishment of slavery where it was abolished."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course John Quincy Adams wasn't strongly tied to the abolitionist movement and didn't want to portray Texas in a bad light as a result due to fears of potential annexation.

[kentonio]

Of course John Quincy Adams wasn't strongly tied to the abolitionist movement and didn't want to portray Texas in a bad light as a result due to fears of potential annexation.

Ah so prominent minds of the day were just engaging in pre-emptive revisionism. Good thing you saw through his evil schemes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you don't think Quincy had an agenda...

[kentonio]

Of course he had an agenda, stamping on slavery until it was nothing but a horrid memory. I happen to think that was a pretty great agenda to have, especially in a time when standing up to Slave Power could get you beaten or murdered, even if you were a prominent politician. He opposed the annexation of Texas because he knew it gave the slave states more power, and he was right.

You are however implying that he was lying, and I'm interested to see you prove that accusation.

[Tupac Shakur]

The Texians were far more fearful that Santa Anna would enforce the requirements that Texas only produce certain crops.

Are you really too stupid to see the connection here? Cotton and slavery were inextricably linked. Requiring that Texas settlers only grow food crops (as they were under contract to do) was unacceptable to the cotton-growing, slave-owning Texas elite.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course he had an agenda, stamping on slavery until it was nothing but a horrid memory. I happen to think that was a pretty great agenda to have, especially in a time when standing up to Slave Power could get you beaten or murdered, even if you were a prominent politician. He opposed the annexation of Texas because he knew it gave the slave states more power, and he was right.

You are however implying that he was lying, and I'm interested to see you prove that accusation.

I am implying that he viewed the conflict through a biased eye. And I believe I already have through wikipedia quotes and arguements that slavery was tangential to the conflict itself.