a lot of historians would disagree. the issue of slavery was definitely a driving motive the texas revolution. mexico had banned slavery in 1829, but they allowed the anglos to bring in "indentured servants". they rescinded that policy and were threatening to liberate the slaves in texas. that was a major spark in the revolution. "texas must be a slave country because circumstances and unavoidable necessity compels it and it is the wish of the people there" - stephen f. austin check out a book called "exodus from the alamo" if youre interested in reading a different perspective on the history of the texas revolution. either way, 1836 is a dumb name for a sports team. its also stupid from a marketing standpoint. if i was fatty i certainly wouldnt be taking credit for it!
sorry brah. i do a little sidelining as a texas historian and when the subject comes up i just cant help myself.
Here's the Texas declaration of independence and there's no mention of slavery or white supremacy in it. http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/tdoi.htm Austin was a pragmatist on the issue of slavery just like our slave holding founding fathers and it's quite unfair to distill him to one sentence.
and here is Section 9 of the General Provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas “All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude ... Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from bringing their slaves into the republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall congress have power to emancipate slaves.” https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1836/general_provisions i hate to derail a good fatty-bashing thread, but there are plenty of primary sources from the 1820's-1830's discussing slavery in texas and the fact that mexico had outlawed slavery and was threatening to emancipate the slaves already in texas as reason for declaring independence. "There is a considerable number of slaves in Texas also, who have been introduced by their masters under cover of certain questionable contracts, but who according to our laws should be free. Shall we permit those wretches to moan in chains any longer in a country whose kind laws protect the liberty of man without distinction of cast or color?" - Santa Anna - February 16, 1836 http://jackiewhiting.net/Collab/West/MemoSA.htm “The land speculators of Texas have tried to convert it into a mart of human flesh where the slaves of the South might be sold and others from Africa might be introduced, since it is not possible to do it directly through the United States.” - Lorenzo De Zavalla “Most of them have slaves, and these slaves are beginning to learn the favorable intent of the Mexican law to their unfortunate condition and are becoming restless under their yokes…” - Gen. Meir y Teran “Their (Mexican government) intention is to gain the friendship of the different tribes of Indians; and if possible to get the slaves to revolt.” - Ben Milam “Texas must be a slave country. It is no longer a matter of doubt.” - Stephen F. Austin “they have, contrary to justice, and to law, intermedled [sic] with our slave population, and have even impotently threatened …to emancipate them, and induce them to turn their arms against their masters.” - William H. Wharton - 1835 In March 1836 the committee at Brazoria, alarmed by news of the fall of the Alamo, claimed to have been appraised [sic] that the “treacherous and bloody enemy” intended to recruit Negroes “as instruments of his unholy and savage work, …thus lighting the torch of war, in the bosoms of our domestic circles.” By the late summer of 1835, Austin proclaimed, “There is no other remedy but to defend our rights, ourselves, and our country by force of arms.”84 The Matagorda Committee of Safety and Correspondence wrote about the Mexican soldiers advancing upon Texas as follows: “to give liberty to our slaves, and to make slaves of ourselves; to let loose the blood hounds of savage war upon us, …”85 The two sets of people “functioned under basically different assumptions in essential areas of human behavior.”86 Austin went so far in an appeal to the United States in 1836 that Santa Anna meant to exterminate the American population of Texas and fill “that country with Indians and Negroes.”87 Texans could not have protected slavery had they lost the war with Mexico.88 anglos didnt even want free blacks living in texas... "On December 2, 1835, the Beaumont Committee sent a letter to Major Henry Millard regarding free black persons, and it stated, in part, as follows: “We earnestly recommend that you bring before the Council a bill prohibiting all black persons or persons whatsoever from emigrating to Texas or residing within its boundaries under any pretext whatsoever.” https://www.johnfrankhinrichs.com/articles/slave-insurrections-played-minor-role-texas-revolution/
You're conflating the use of slaves with the reasons for revolution which are expressly listed in the declaration. Nobody is disputing that Texas was a slave holding nation,
no, i was just disputing your statement that its absurd to compare the confederacy and texas independence. slavery and mexicos call to end the practice in texas was a bigly factor in anglos desire for independence from mexico.
I think Fatty's frustrated by the over-sensitivity, and, personally, I think he's right. One person in this discussion said, "You don't get to choose what is offensive to someone." While this is true, we DO get to choose what WE are offended by. Offense is the result of two facets of communication: message delivery (including content, context, medium, and intent), and message receipt. A person could look at my shirt and be offended because its colors (no specific pattern) are the same colors as the flag of their enemy. So, am I wrong and racist because I wore a shirt with certain colors? Are people going to be offended by my hairstyle? My shoes? If you go through life with this perspective you will only result in frustrating yourself. There will always be something you've done that could be interpreted as being offensive to someone else. Yes, we should be mindful of our actions and not intentionally use blatant signs of prejudice; but we also can't walk around on eggshells all of our lives. To battle true prejudice, we all must do two things: Change our actions such that we reduce direct and clear signs of prejudice; be less sensitive to indirect and unclear signs of prejudice from others. Unfortunately, it has become a trend in our society to be MORE sensitive, not less. This isn't good for anybody. If we're hypersensitive, and go around being offended by anything and everything we see, we're just going to be hurt, miserable, and angry in our lives. And being hypersensitive also vilifies others who have done nothing wrong other than simply wearing a colored shirt.
I don't have signatures turned on. Not even sure what mine says. Thanks. Caught it. How long has that been sitting there unbeknownst to me? You'd think one of these a-holes would have said something.
This is interesting I am a huge History need and History teacher but did not know this. This was and is not taught in Texas History. Need to read more about this.
that book i mentioned (exodus from the alamo) challenges so many things we were taught as kids...aside from the slavery issue and the politics of the revolution, the main part discusses the battle itself and makes a pretty solid case for most of the garrison fleeing once the alamo was over-run, only to be decimated by mexican cavalry who were posted south and east of the alamo. i dont think it detracts from their courage or makes them less heroic in any way...it was literally fight and die or flight and fight another day. the author uses lots of primary sources, post-battle newspaper accounts (from the u.s. and mexico) as well as first-hand accounts from people who were there. its amazing how much of that stuff has been ignored by historians over the years. also, if you never saw the billy bob thornton alamo movie, its definitely worth watching. i do a little sidelining as a history buff and its actually one of the more historically accurate movies ive ever seen (imo).
