The Alamo defenders were mercenaries for slavery and imperialism

[kentonio]

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.

Lets not beat about the bush, he said it was a war over slavery, and you're saying that is not true. So either one of Americas former presidents and greatest diplomats was lying to further his agenda, or he wasn't.

I also seem to have missed your argument about what it supposedly WAS about? People keep saying '10 other states rebelled too' but that doesn't really mean anything. Tupacs already pointed out how the crops argument is a losing one for you, so what exactly do you think the war was about?

[Tupac Shakur]

The "10 other states rebelled too" argument is also stupid. It's no surprise that many Mexican states would be unhappy about a move away from federalism, as each had interests that could be threatened by a strengthened central government. The threatened interest in Texas' case was the cotton economy and its attendant slavery.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lets not beat about the bush, he said it was a war over slavery, and you're saying that is not true. So either one of Americas former presidents and greatest diplomats was lying to further his agenda, or he wasn't.

Politicians bend the truth due to their agendas? Unbelievable!

what exactly do you think the war was about?

The War was about Texans who heretofore had been left alone in a federalist society being incensed by a centralizing coup by a military leader. The same reason the other states rebelled. Now, do I think if slavery had been more clamped down upon Texas would have revolted then? Yes, I do. But this revolt wasn't at its core a slavery protection rebellion. Like I said, this wasn't the US Civil War. Slavery was more tangential - this is also reflected in the respective Wikipedia articles. Slavery in the US Civil War article is quite large while the Texas Revolution article gets 1 paragraph.

[kentonio]

Politicians bend the truth due to their agendas? Unbelievable!

You're not accusing him of bending the truth, you're accusing him of lying, either it was a war for slavery or it wasn't. I'm still not seeing your evidence to back up that accusation.

The War was about Texans who heretofore had been left alone in a federalist society being incensed by a centralizing coup by a military leader. The same reason the other states rebelled. Now, do I think if slavery had been more clamped down upon Texas would have revolted then? Yes, I do. But this revolt wasn't at its core a slavery protection rebellion.

Then what was it about? What specifically did Santa Anna do that made the Texans decide to rise in violent revolt that could very easily have led to their deaths?

[Tupac Shakur]

Slavery in the US Civil War article is quite large while the Texas Revolution article gets 1 paragraph.

One paragraph that identifies slavery and the cotton economy as the primary cause of the revolt. You forget that other people in this thread have read and linked to that Wikipedia article...

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then what was it about? What specifically did Santa Anna do that made the Texans decide to rise in violent revolt that could very easily have led to their deaths?

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

In April 1833, settlers called a convention to discuss proposed changes in immigration, judicial, and other political policies. The delegates also advocated separate statehood for Tejas and elected Austin to carry a proposed state constitution to Mexico City. The new Mexican President, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, approved many of the proposals, but refused to agree to separate statehood; Austin was jailed when he wrote a letter advocating that Texians act unilaterally on statehood.[13]

In 1834, because of perceived troubles within the Mexican government, Santa Anna went through a process of dissolving state legislatures, disarming state militias, and abolishing the Constitution of 1824. He also imprisoned some cotton plantation owners who refused to raise their assigned crops, which were intended to be redistributed within Mexico instead of being exported.

In early 1835, as the Mexican government transitioned from a federalist model to centralism, wary Texians began forming Committees of Correspondence and Safety. A central committee in San Felipe de Austin coordinated their activities.[14] The Texians staged a minor revolt against customs duties in June; these Anahuac Disturbances prompted Mexican President Antonio López de Santa Anna to send additional troops to Texas.[15] In July, Colonel Nicolas Condelle led 200 men to reinforce Presidio La Bahía.

The following month, a contingent of soldiers arrived in Béxar with Colonel Domingo de Ugartechea.[16] Fearing that stronger measures were needed to quell the unrest, Santa Anna ordered his brother-in-law, General Martín Perfecto de Cos to "repress with strong arm all those who, forgetting their duties to the nation which has adopted them as her children, are pushing forward with a desire to live at their own option without subjection to the laws".[15] Cos landed at the port of Copano on September 20 with approximately 500 soldiers.[16]

Austin was released in July, having never been formally charged with sedition, and was in Texas by August. Austin saw little choice but revolution. A consultation was scheduled for October to discuss possible formal plans to revolt, and Austin sanctioned it.[17]

[kentonio]

Yep I've already read the wiki article, but please point out what in there actually made them rebel? They were Mexicans who decided they didn't want to be Mexican any more, what made them come to that decision? Customs duties? On what exactly? What were they trying to export when they had contracted to grow food?

You also reference the Anahuac Disturbances, remember how they started?

Tensions between Bradburn and the colonists escalated. Bradburn strongly supported the Mexican law forbidding slavery. In August 1831 he gave asylum to two men who had escaped slavery in Louisiana. The owner retained local lawyer William Barret Travis to represent him in trying to get the slaves returned.[9] In May 1832, Bradburn received a letter, ostensibly from a friend, warning that 100 armed men would come from Louisiana to reclaim the slaves. When Bradburn realized that the letter was a hoax, he arrested Travis for questioning.[10] He intended to send Travis to Matamoros for a military trial on charges of attempted insurrection to separate the territory from Mexico. Conviction on this charge would lead to Travis's execution.[11] Unfamiliar with Mexican law, the settlers were outraged that Bradburn could arrest the man without a warrant, a statement of charges, or trial by jury. Most assumed they were still covered by the United States Bill of Rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If someone came into power in Washington who started to dissolve state legislatures, disarm state militias, and abolish the Constitution, my state of Georgia would declare independance before the guy got to the end of his statement.

And from your wiki quote:

Unfamiliar with Mexican law, the settlers were outraged that Bradburn could arrest the man without a warrant, a statement of charges, or trial by jury. Most assumed they were still covered by the United States Bill of Rights.

Like I said, slavery was tangential. The guy was arrested due to machinations involving slavery, but the outrage was due to the manner of the arrest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, this was the flag of the revolution:



That's a cannon that Mexican officials were trying to take as part of the disbanding of the state militia.

[Tupac Shakur]

If someone came into power in Washington who started to dissolve state legislatures, disarm state militias, and abolish the Constitution, my state of Georgia would declare independance before the guy got to the end of his statement.

You don't need to convince us that Georgia is a treasonous state prone to secession. We know.

[Felch]

Hell, Georgia seceded just on the fear that their slaves were going to be taken away.

[SlowwHand]

OK, Felch. Al made this thread to bash Texas. If you want to bash Georgia, start your own thread.

[MrFun]

I say we use this thread to bash backward Southern states in general.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like Iowa

[molly bloom]

I'd argue against the building itself being stupid, except in the sense that I suppose it would do very poorly on an IQ test.

And yet still beat Al and Kidicious's combined scores.