Waco Explosion

[kentonio]

Would you like to provide some documentary evidence that Texas rebelled against Mexico to preserve slavery, Mr. Historian?

We've discussed this numerous times. Texas was peopled by slave holders, who declared independence not long after Mexico banned slavery and then went on to vastly inflate its slave numbers. They then of course left the USA to preserve the cause of slavery. If you want to believe that preserving slavery was nothing more than a 'fortunate' side effect for the Texans then you are of course free to do so, but it seems a little naive.

[regexcellent]

They were never particularly loyal to Mexico anyway.

[giblets]

We've discussed this numerous times. Texas was peopled by slave holders, who declared independence not long after Mexico banned slavery and then went on to vastly inflate its slave numbers. They then of course left the USA to preserve the cause of slavery. If you want to believe that preserving slavery was nothing more than a 'fortunate' side effect for the Texans then you are of course free to do so, but it seems a little naive.

Your claim that "Texas was peopled by slaveholders" is a generalization, as most Texans did not have slaves. Mexico outlawed slavery from the beginning so it's not like they declared independence "not long after Mexico banned slavery". The political event that immediately preceded the declaration of independence was Santa Anna's decision to disregard the Mexican constitution and impose a dictatorship. The number of slaves massively inflated after that- so? The general population, free and slave, of Texas massively inflated after that. This is what you call evidence?

[MrFun]

Wow. You've really convinced me that Texans had slavery on their minds when they declared independence.

You're ignorant about the general pattern of warfare and the motivation behind such conflicts in human history. I get it.

[giblets]

You're ignorant about the general pattern of warfare and the motivation behind such conflicts in human history. I get it.

Oh yes, obviously the Texan rebels decided to risk execution or getting chased out of their homes for the sake of slavery, it's so self-evident that you don't have to offer a single shred of proof from the primary sources to show that Texans really thought this way.

[SlowwHand]

Do yourself a favor and ignore Fun and his neverending rhetoric._

[Sava]

They are lucky the explosion was so.small. Texas is like 90% manure by volume

[MrFun]

Oh yes, obviously the Texan rebels decided to risk execution or getting chased out of their homes for the sake of slavery, it's so self-evident that you don't have to offer a single shred of proof from the primary sources to show that Texans really thought this way.

The fact that you think there were no economic reasons for why Texans wanted to revolt, is laughable. Money is what makes the world go around, and what makes people do a lot of things.

[giblets]

The fact that you think there were no economic reasons for why Texans wanted to revolt, is laughable. Money is what makes the world go around, and what makes people do a lot of things.

Is it safe to assume that homosexual marriage is about money then?

[DaShi]

All marriage is about money. Love was invented by Hallmark to sell greeting cards.

[kentonio]

Your claim that "Texas was peopled by slaveholders" is a generalization, as most Texans did not have slaves.

This is meaningless. No state in the union ever had a majority of white slave owners. Slaves were expensive.

Mexico outlawed slavery from the beginning so it's not like they declared independence "not long after Mexico banned slavery".

This is not true. They banned slavery in 1829.

The political event that immediately preceded the declaration of independence was Santa Anna's decision to disregard the Mexican constitution and impose a dictatorship. The number of slaves massively inflated after that- so? The general population, free and slave, of Texas massively inflated after that. This is what you call evidence?

As I said, if you want to believe the desire to run Texas as a slave state was not a factor, you are more than welcome to do so. Gee, I guess it was all that 'freedom' the Texans cared about so much (while simultaneously keeping other humans as animals).

[MrFun]

Everything in Texas is big; even blatant hypocrisy and selfishness.

[Sava]

newsflash MrUnfun.. rain is wet
make an unclever photoshop pic about that while you are at it
or find one on whatever blog you are reading
i doubt you are original enough to make even FAILs like these

[giblets]

This is meaningless. No state in the union ever had a majority of white slave owners. Slaves were expensive.

Yes? Then why assume WITHOUT EVIDENCE that they were motivated by slavery?

This is not true. They banned slavery in 1829.

Still a full 6 years before the conflict began (what were they waiting for?) and incidentally this was the last, not first, time they proclaimed the abolition of slavery. And for that matter, in 1829 the Mexican president said the government would provide compensation to slave owners when possible, so your argument is that Texans were motivated to go to war to avoid the mere possibility of suffering a financial loss.

As I said, if you want to believe the desire to run Texas as a slave state was not a factor, you are more than welcome to do so. Gee, I guess it was all that 'freedom' the Texans cared about so much (while simultaneously keeping other humans as animals).

Naturally this goes both ways- you're free to bash Texas and claim Texans were a bunch of zealots for slavery without actually demonstrating what you believe with some actual historical sources. I have no strong feelings on this issue and simply think people should base their historical claims on historical evidence and not some hand-wavy generalization about the course of human history or their regional/national prejudice.

[kentonio]

Yes? Then why assume WITHOUT EVIDENCE that they were motivated by slavery?

Because the people with slaves were the people with money, and people with money are the people with power.

Still a full 6 years before the conflict began (what were they waiting for?) and incidentally this was the last, not first, time they proclaimed the abolition of slavery. And for that matter, in 1829 the Mexican president said the government would provide compensation to slave owners when possible, so your argument is that Texans were motivated to go to war to avoid the mere possibility of suffering a financial loss.

Slave owners historically opposed the destruction of their lifestyle and incomes, in the UK we did pay compensation and yet this was not something the slave owning masses rushed to celebrate.

Naturally this goes both ways- you're free to bash Texas and claim Texans were a bunch of zealots for slavery without actually demonstrating what you believe with some actual historical sources. I have no strong feelings on this issue and simply think people should base their historical claims on historical evidence and not some hand-wavy generalization about the course of human history or their regional/national prejudice.

If it hadn't been for the American civil war, then your argument would be fair. The debate over whether or not Texas was motivated by slave interests when they broke from Mexico is a long running one, and it can't honestly be determined either way based purely on the evidence available.

The fact that just a few short decades later however they joined a movement to break from the USA for the clear and unashamed purpose of maintaining slave power, tilts the argument quite heavily. These were not great people fighting for 'Freedom(tm)', they were people who threw away their loyalty to not one but two countries to preserve their immoral form of economic prosperity.

Or to put it another way, even if we give them a free pass on Mexico, they still destroy whatever moral legitimacy they have during the ACW anyway.