Waco1947 said:

---

Slavery was the cause of Tx Revolution
Racism is real. It's more than the n-word or living next door to African Americans or your best friend is black.

---

it was not

Racism is real but not as you portray it

Your last sentence needs further explanation as it has no direction or context

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Slavery was the cause of Tx Revolution
Racism is real. It's more than the n-word or living next door to African Americans or your best friend is black.

---

it was not

Racism is real but not as you portray it

Your last sentence needs further explanation as it has no direction or context

---

You're such a simpleton

I thought this link was particularly informative. The author gets right to the point and does not mince words.


https://texasreader.com/2021/03/texas-history-newsletter-slavery-the-texas-revolution%E3%80%80%E2%80%AF%E2%80%88%E2%80%84%E2%80%8A%E3%80%80%E2%80%82/

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Slavery was the cause of Tx Revolution
Racism is real. It's more than the n-word or living next door to African Americans or your best friend is black.

---

it was not

Racism is real but not as you portray it

Your last sentence needs further explanation as it has no direction or context

---

My apologies for lack of clarity. Thank you for the question. I meant that whites are prone to say "I'm not racist because:"
1) "I don't see color"
2) "Civil Rights legislation gave African Americans all the rights that whites have."(except there is always white backlash and laws were passed to circumvent those rights)
3) "I don't say the n-word." (Terrific but not enough
4) "I have black friends."
5) "I voted for Obama."(Again Trump's election is white backlash against Obama's election.)

Yes, the Revolution was about slavery because
1) the Constitution of 1836 (the same year as the Alamo and San Jacinto)
2) Austin was was a slave owner as were other leading Texians and they petitioned constantly to Mexico's abolitionists policies and they circumvented Mexico's laws which allowed for indentured servants so the slave holders wrote laws allowing 1,000 year contracts for slaves.
3) The South that was in the US wanted another slave state to outvote the North and they got their wish in 1845 when Texas became a state

Notice there are no ad hominin attacks in my response. I would ask the same of you.

Robert Wilson said:

---

You're such a simpleton

---

Notice there are no ad hominin attacks in my response. I would ask the same of you.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

You're such a simpleton

---

Notice there are no ad hominin attacks in my response. I would ask the same of you.

---

You don't respond to points that anyone makes. Engaging in substantive conversation with you is an absolute waste of time.

---

Which points. I am curious.

whiterock said:

---

I thought this link was particularly informative. The author gets right to the point and does not mince words.

---

Santa Anna did not march north to free the slaves, as one U.T. history professor has recently said. His intent was to put down Federalist resistance to his Centralist dictatorship in all the northern Mexican states, of which Coahuila and Texas was just one.
1) No one is making that argument.
The rebellion in those states had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do Santa Anna tearing up the Constitution of 1824 and abolishing the state governments.
2) "Tearing up those constitutions" The Coahuila y Tejas state did indeed abolish slavery but Santa Ana torn them up to consolidate his power not re-institute slavery.
In fact, the majority of Texas slaveholders were members of the Peace Party who stood against independence until Santa Anna made clear his intent to run them out of Texas along the hot-heads of the War Party.
3) Immaterial because they were still slaveholders.

Areas that rebelled against Santa Anna and Centralist Rule
Santa Anna was able to crush the rebellion in the rest of the Mexican states. Not so in Texas. When you understand the facts, it is plain the men who fought Santa Anna had reasons other than slavery for taking up arms.
4) "Reasons other than slavery" does not take slavery off the table. As soon as the Independence was fought, they formalized slavery in the constitution of 1836.




Texas Quote

"The reasons for a partial toleration of this evil have now ceased; and the true prosperity and happiness of Texas require that an everlasting bar should be interposed to the further introduction of slaves I am of the opinion that Texas will never become a slave state or country. I will be candid with you on this point, and say I hope it never may." SFA
5)This one quote is over against other letters in which he encouraged slaveholders.. He was Jeffersonian because he ambivalent about slavery.

"Historiography, the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination."
His analysis is lacking because he fails under critical examination.

Waco1947 said:

---

My apologies for lack of clarity. Thank you for the question. I meant that whites are prone to say "I'm not racist because:"
1) "I don't see color"
2) "Civil Rights legislation gave African Americans all the rights that whites have."(except there is always white backlash and laws were passed to circumvent those rights)
3) "I don't say the n-word." (Terrific but not enough
4) "I have black friends."
5) "I voted for Obama."(Again Trump's election is white backlash against Obama's election.)

Yes, the Revolution was about slavery because
1) the Constitution of 1836 (the same year as the Alamo and San Jacinto)
2) Austin was was a slave owner as were other leading Texians and they petitioned constantly to Mexico's abolitionists policies and they circumvented Mexico's laws which allowed for indentured servants so the slave holders wrote laws allowing 1,000 year contracts for slaves.
3) The South that was in the US wanted another slave state to outvote the North and they got their wish in 1845 when Texas became a state

Notice there are no ad hominin attacks in my response. I would ask the same of you.

---

Allow me to channel my innermost Samuel L. Jackson character and retort!

1. I did not used to see color but over the past year I opened my eyes and ears a little more. Now I see color and the color black is far and away out of control. Blacks are driving a huge wedge between whites and blacks and destroying years of progress made.

2. Civil rights were there for the picking. Guess who was too lazy to reach down and pick them up?

3. I do. Now. I said it a few times in elementary school but then can't remember uttering it until someone (black, white, brown, whatever) acted like a N!%%er. Who cares? It is just a word and if someone deserves to be called one then use it when you need to. It has no effect though and it shouldn't. I've uttered the term WHITE N!%%er many more times personally.

4. I have a few. Primarily because we were teammates for years and spent a lot of time together. I call a few of them to check on them occasionally. That's about as far as it goes and we both like it like that. I've told a few of them that I love them like a brother.

5. I could not vote for a man that was nowhere close to being qualified.


Your sad attempt at painting Texians as racist is embarrassing. We should have banned all black slaves from coming across the Sabine or Red Rivers and worked out labor conditions with a far superior worker just South of the Rio Grande.

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

My apologies for lack of clarity. Thank you for the question. I meant that whites are prone to say "I'm not racist because:"
1) "I don't see color"
2) "Civil Rights legislation gave African Americans all the rights that whites have."(except there is always white backlash and laws were passed to circumvent those rights)
3) "I don't say the n-word." (Terrific but not enough
4) "I have black friends."
5) "I voted for Obama."(Again Trump's election is white backlash against Obama's election.)

Yes, the Revolution was about slavery because
1) the Constitution of 1836 (the same year as the Alamo and San Jacinto)
2) Austin was was a slave owner as were other leading Texians and they petitioned constantly to Mexico's abolitionists policies and they circumvented Mexico's laws which allowed for indentured servants so the slave holders wrote laws allowing 1,000 year contracts for slaves.
3) The South that was in the US wanted another slave state to outvote the North and they got their wish in 1845 when Texas became a state

Notice there are no ad hominin attacks in my response. I would ask the same of you.

---

Allow me to channel my innermost Samuel L. Jackson character and retort!

1. I did not used to see color but over the past year I opened my eyes and ears a little more. Now I see color and the color black is far and away out of control. Blacks are driving a huge wedge between whites and blacks and destroying years of progress made. African American fight for change and there is always backlash. Your comment is an example.

2. Civil rights were there for the picking. Guess who was too lazy to reach down and pick them up?
What? Let me guess who is lazy? African Americans! Civil rights were not easy to pick. History says it was a slog. The best example is the brutal put down at Pettus Norman Bridge.

3. I do. Now. I said it a few times in elementary school but then can't remember uttering it until someone (black, white, brown, whatever) acted like a N!%%er. Who cares? It is just a word and if someone deserves to be called one then use it when you need to. It has no effect though and it shouldn't. I've uttered the term WHITE N!%%er many more times personally.
"It's just word?" Try it with a few blacks.

4. I have a few. Primarily because we were teammates for years and spent a lot of time together. I call a few of them to check on them occasionally. That's about as far as it goes and we both like it like that. I've told a few of them that I love them like a brother.
"Loving them like a brother" doesn't absolve you of racism. It is a deeper issue.

5. I could not vote for a man that was nowhere close to being qualified. Terrific but way off point. It was the backlash against his election not whether he was qualified.


Your sad attempt at painting Texians as racist is embarrassing. We should have banned all black slaves from coming across the Sabine or Red Rivers and worked out labor conditions with a far superior worker just South of the Rio Grande. Texians were racist by their simple support of slavery.Slavery is a cruel dehumanizing institution that the Texians supported.

---

Pettus Norman was a pretty good tight end for the Cowboys back in the late 1960s, but to my knowledge he never had a bridge named after him.

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Slavery was the cause of Tx Revolution
Racism is real. It's more than the n-word or living next door to African Americans or your best friend is black.

---

it was not

Racism is real but not as you portray it

Your last sentence needs further explanation as it has no direction or context

---

My apologies for lack of clarity. Thank you for the question. I meant that whites are prone to say "I'm not racist because:"
1) "I don't see color"
2) "Civil Rights legislation gave African Americans all the rights that whites have."(except there is always white backlash and laws were passed to circumvent those rights)
3) "I don't say the n-word." (Terrific but not enough
4) "I have black friends."
5) "I voted for Obama."(Again Trump's election is white backlash against Obama's election.)

Yes, the Revolution was about slavery because
1) the Constitution of 1836 (the same year as the Alamo and San Jacinto)
2) Austin was was a slave owner as were other leading Texians and they petitioned constantly to Mexico's abolitionists policies and they circumvented Mexico's laws which allowed for indentured servants so the slave holders wrote laws allowing 1,000 year contracts for slaves.
3) The South that was in the US wanted another slave state to outvote the North and they got their wish in 1845 when Texas became a state

Notice there are no ad hominin attacks in my response. I would ask the same of you.

---

1) I see color every morning in the mirror culture differentiates us more than skin tone.
2)which laws still currently circumvent my rights?
3) moving on
4)when are "my people" going stop telling me to quit acting white?
5) The "Obama backlash" was really slow you do know he won a second term right? His policies were on trial and they were voted out.

Texas independence was about slavery:
1)was our war with England about slavery? Its mentioned in our US constitution
2)if Santa Anna had only changed his slavery policy, no Texas Independence fight according to your argument. This is flawed.
3) The sneaky United States was playing the long game and waited years to get a new southern slave state. It's a long time between 1836 and 1845

You continually proclaim to know the picture of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle based on what you see on one piece

---

What other pieces do you see?

Waco1947 said:

---

Thee University said:

---

African American fight for change and there is always backlash. Your comment is an example.

No backlash. In the end you get what you deserve but more importantly you get what you worked for.


What? Let me guess who is lazy? African Americans! Civil rights were not easy to pick. History says it was a slog. The best example is the brutal put down at Pettus Norman Bridge.

Wall Street Journal headline on Aug.16, 1965: "Behind the Riots: Family Life Breakdown in Negro Slums Sow Seeds of Race Violence: Husbandless Homes Spawn Young Hoodlums, Impede Reforms."

"It's just word?" Try it with a few blacks.

If given the reason to throw it out there I have no problem using it. Blacks, whites, browns, yellows can all warrant it. However, given that I live in a county that is 73% snow white, 23% brown and 2% black I have never had the occasion to use it. Are you insinuating that a word might cause someone to commit a violent act upon me????

"Loving them like a brother" doesn't absolve you of racism. It is a deeper issue.

No it does not. You do not know what is in my heart.

Terrific but way off point. It was the backlash against his election not whether he was qualified.

He was not qualified. Enough said. He was a token. It made everyone feel good. For a little while at least.

Texians were racist by their simple support of slavery.Slavery is a cruel dehumanizing institution that the Texians supported.

100% of the Texians? In the early 1800's? You are lumping all Texians together when there were only a small number with slaves. You are just like the mouths crying on tv every evening. Everybody is a racist! BS! You are driving people to racism!

Today: India (18.4 million), China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000) and the Philippines (784,000).

Why don't you take up residence in one of these countries and do some modern day good?

---

---

Robin Hood, King Arthur and the wizard Merlin, Paul Bunyan, Johnny Appleseed and John Henry the steel-driving man all come to mind. They aren't history, exactly, but they are often based on real people and in their gauzy, myth-filled forms they help fuel a people's collective imagination about who they are and where they came from. They can feel as real as any flesh-and-blood character, but there is a catch. You gotta know where the history stops and the mythology starts, or else you'll find yourself entranced by your own mythology. Authors Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson and Jason Stanford found out the hard way this week that some myths in Texas are so important, many powers that be in Texas prefer them undisturbed by facts that might reframe the story. An hour before the Bullock Museum in Austin was to host a discussion about the authors' new book about the Alamo, the museum abruptly canceled. No apology and no explanation and no guts, either. Thumbs is no scholar, but it sure knows this: True Texans aren't afraid of talking about their past, no matter how uncomfortable. Facts should never send a museum a history museum of all places stepping into the censor's role.

There are times when not even two fingers are enough to properly register the Thumbs' disgust. There's another player whose role in the too-afraid-to-talk-about-it tale of the Alamo who deserves his own hand gesture. On Friday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick took responsibility for the cowardly call to cancel the book event. He said he demanded the museum cancel the event because "this fact-free rewriting of history" has no place in the history museum, without bothering to say which facts were missing or which parts of history he felt was being rewritten without them. "Forget the Alamo," the trio's book, claims based on oodles of research that one reason Davy Crockett and company took up arms against Mexico in 1836 was to preserve slavery in Texas. That could have been one heck of a lively conversation, but Patrick would rather cancel it." Houston Chronicle

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Slavery was the cause of Tx Revolution
Racism is real. It's more than the n-word or living next door to African Americans or your best friend is black.

---

it was not

Racism is real but not as you portray it

Your last sentence needs further explanation as it has no direction or context

---

My apologies for lack of clarity. Thank you for the question. I meant that whites are prone to say "I'm not racist because:"
1) "I don't see color"
2) "Civil Rights legislation gave African Americans all the rights that whites have."(except there is always white backlash and laws were passed to circumvent those rights)
3) "I don't say the n-word." (Terrific but not enough
4) "I have black friends."
5) "I voted for Obama."(Again Trump's election is white backlash against Obama's election.)

Yes, the Revolution was about slavery because
1) the Constitution of 1836 (the same year as the Alamo and San Jacinto)
2) Austin was was a slave owner as were other leading Texians and they petitioned constantly to Mexico's abolitionists policies and they circumvented Mexico's laws which allowed for indentured servants so the slave holders wrote laws allowing 1,000 year contracts for slaves.
3) The South that was in the US wanted another slave state to outvote the North and they got their wish in 1845 when Texas became a state

Notice there are no ad hominin attacks in my response. I would ask the same of you.

---

1) I see color every morning in the mirror culture differentiates us more than skin tone.
2)which laws still currently circumvent my rights?
3) moving on
4)when are "my people" going stop telling me to quit acting white?
5) The "Obama backlash" was really slow you do know he won a second term right? His policies were on trial and they were voted out.

Texas independence was about slavery:
1)was our war with England about slavery? Its mentioned in our US constitution
2)if Santa Anna had only changed his slavery policy, no Texas Independence fight according to your argument. This is flawed.
3) The sneaky United States was playing the long game and waited years to get a new southern slave state. It's a long time between 1836 and 1845

You continually proclaim to know the picture of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle based on what you see on one piece

---

What other pieces do you see?

---

Reinstatement of the 1824 constitution became a rallying cry in Texas before the fighting broke out.

Texans could not get lasting solutions to their differences with the central government, as the flip flop of the ever changing government often reversed decisions made by previous ones.

Throughout the first half of 1835, serious disturbances started up between American-born merchants on the Texas coast and Mexican customs collectors. In May 1835, Santa Anna abolished the Coahuila-Texas government. The government of Santa Anna had instituted a new policy of closer control over Texas. A new garrison was established at Anahuac to support a new customs house there and at Galveston and Brazoria.(anahuac disturbance of 1835)

Mexico had long neglected Texas, and some of the locals felt they would be better off as an independent nation. Three Tejanos signed Texas' declaration of Independence on March 2, 1836 , and Tejano soldiers fought bravely at the Alamo and elsewhere.

The issues that lead to the battle of Gonzalez

Big puzzle with lots of pieces

Side note- Houston's final act as governor in 1861 was to step down in protest of Texas' joining the Confederate States of America.

---

Cotton picked by slaves was the number #1 crop exported. Mexico was stepping on their cotton which was picked by slaves. Slavery bolstered those exports. There is no hiding slavery and it's driving in our economy

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Slavery was the cause of Tx Revolution
Racism is real. It's more than the n-word or living next door to African Americans or your best friend is black.

---

it was not

Racism is real but not as you portray it

Your last sentence needs further explanation as it has no direction or context

---

My apologies for lack of clarity. Thank you for the question. I meant that whites are prone to say "I'm not racist because:"
1) "I don't see color"
2) "Civil Rights legislation gave African Americans all the rights that whites have."(except there is always white backlash and laws were passed to circumvent those rights)
3) "I don't say the n-word." (Terrific but not enough
4) "I have black friends."
5) "I voted for Obama."(Again Trump's election is white backlash against Obama's election.)

Yes, the Revolution was about slavery because
1) the Constitution of 1836 (the same year as the Alamo and San Jacinto)
2) Austin was was a slave owner as were other leading Texians and they petitioned constantly to Mexico's abolitionists policies and they circumvented Mexico's laws which allowed for indentured servants so the slave holders wrote laws allowing 1,000 year contracts for slaves.
3) The South that was in the US wanted another slave state to outvote the North and they got their wish in 1845 when Texas became a state

Notice there are no ad hominin attacks in my response. I would ask the same of you.

---

1) I see color every morning in the mirror culture differentiates us more than skin tone.
2)which laws still currently circumvent my rights?
3) moving on
4)when are "my people" going stop telling me to quit acting white?
5) The "Obama backlash" was really slow you do know he won a second term right? His policies were on trial and they were voted out.

Texas independence was about slavery:
1)was our war with England about slavery? Its mentioned in our US constitution
2)if Santa Anna had only changed his slavery policy, no Texas Independence fight according to your argument. This is flawed.
3) The sneaky United States was playing the long game and waited years to get a new southern slave state. It's a long time between 1836 and 1845

You continually proclaim to know the picture of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle based on what you see on one piece

---

What other pieces do you see?

---

Reinstatement of the 1824 constitution became a rallying cry in Texas before the fighting broke out.

Texans could not get lasting solutions to their differences with the central government, as the flip flop of the ever changing government often reversed decisions made by previous ones.

Throughout the first half of 1835, serious disturbances started up between American-born merchants on the Texas coast and Mexican customs collectors. In May 1835, Santa Anna abolished the Coahuila-Texas government. The government of Santa Anna had instituted a new policy of closer control over Texas. A new garrison was established at Anahuac to support a new customs house there and at Galveston and Brazoria.(anahuac disturbance of 1835)

Mexico had long neglected Texas, and some of the locals felt they would be better off as an independent nation. Three Tejanos signed Texas' declaration of Independence on March 2, 1836 , and Tejano soldiers fought bravely at the Alamo and elsewhere.

The issues that lead to the battle of Gonzalez

Big puzzle with lots of pieces

Side note- Houston's final act as governor in 1861 was to step down in protest of Texas' joining the Confederate States of America.

---

Cotton picked by slaves was the number #1 crop exported. Mexico was stepping on their cotton which was picked by slaves. Slavery bolstered those exports. There is no hiding slavery and it's driving in our economy

---

Your argument was that slavery and becoming a slave state in the US was the singular motivation for Texas independence. you have been proven wrong. Nobody is denying slavery existed, just that it was not the primary cause. Take the L and move on

---

Singular is your word not mine but slavery is certainly at the top of list.

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Slavery was the cause of Tx Revolution
Racism is real. It's more than the n-word or living next door to African Americans or your best friend is black.

---

it was not

Racism is real but not as you portray it

Your last sentence needs further explanation as it has no direction or context

---

My apologies for lack of clarity. Thank you for the question. I meant that whites are prone to say "I'm not racist because:"
1) "I don't see color"
2) "Civil Rights legislation gave African Americans all the rights that whites have."(except there is always white backlash and laws were passed to circumvent those rights)
3) "I don't say the n-word." (Terrific but not enough
4) "I have black friends."
5) "I voted for Obama."(Again Trump's election is white backlash against Obama's election.)

Yes, the Revolution was about slavery because
1) the Constitution of 1836 (the same year as the Alamo and San Jacinto)
2) Austin was was a slave owner as were other leading Texians and they petitioned constantly to Mexico's abolitionists policies and they circumvented Mexico's laws which allowed for indentured servants so the slave holders wrote laws allowing 1,000 year contracts for slaves.
3) The South that was in the US wanted another slave state to outvote the North and they got their wish in 1845 when Texas became a state

Notice there are no ad hominin attacks in my response. I would ask the same of you.

---

1) I see color every morning in the mirror culture differentiates us more than skin tone.
2)which laws still currently circumvent my rights?
3) moving on
4)when are "my people" going stop telling me to quit acting white?
5) The "Obama backlash" was really slow you do know he won a second term right? His policies were on trial and they were voted out.

Texas independence was about slavery:
1)was our war with England about slavery? Its mentioned in our US constitution
2)if Santa Anna had only changed his slavery policy, no Texas Independence fight according to your argument. This is flawed.
3) The sneaky United States was playing the long game and waited years to get a new southern slave state. It's a long time between 1836 and 1845

You continually proclaim to know the picture of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle based on what you see on one piece

---

What other pieces do you see?

---

Reinstatement of the 1824 constitution became a rallying cry in Texas before the fighting broke out.

Texans could not get lasting solutions to their differences with the central government, as the flip flop of the ever changing government often reversed decisions made by previous ones.

Throughout the first half of 1835, serious disturbances started up between American-born merchants on the Texas coast and Mexican customs collectors. In May 1835, Santa Anna abolished the Coahuila-Texas government. The government of Santa Anna had instituted a new policy of closer control over Texas. A new garrison was established at Anahuac to support a new customs house there and at Galveston and Brazoria.(anahuac disturbance of 1835)

Mexico had long neglected Texas, and some of the locals felt they would be better off as an independent nation. Three Tejanos signed Texas' declaration of Independence on March 2, 1836 , and Tejano soldiers fought bravely at the Alamo and elsewhere.

The issues that lead to the battle of Gonzalez

Big puzzle with lots of pieces

Side note- Houston's final act as governor in 1861 was to step down in protest of Texas' joining the Confederate States of America.

---

Cotton picked by slaves was the number #1 crop exported. Mexico was stepping on their cotton which was picked by slaves. Slavery bolstered those exports. There is no hiding slavery and it's driving in our economy

---

Your argument was that slavery and becoming a slave state in the US was the singular motivation for Texas independence. you have been proven wrong. Nobody is denying slavery existed, just that it was not the primary cause. Take the L and move on

---

Singular is your word not mine but slavery is certainly at the top of list.

---

maybe you should go back and read the very first post of this thread, you might know the guy who posted it.

---

OK I said it. My apologies. What other causes not related to slavery?

Of course 47 says nobody has ever refuted anything he has said. Which of course is false, here is a small compilation of SOME of the remarks refuting or correcting his foolishness that have been posted. Of course none of them matter to him since they don't agree with him. There were a lot more, but went with folks who seemed to have a real working grasp of History.

Quote:

---

The "americans" that moved to Texas were mexican citizens. The problems started when Mexico's republic government which made certain promises to the Texas region of Mexico changed its ruling processes when the political leadership and style of govt changed.

Heros like Bowie married a local Mexican woman and had children. There is a statue of Juan Seguin at the Alamo. The locals were not marginalized. The sacrifices made by the men and women who fought for independence at Goliad, Gonzalez, Refurio, the Alamo, and San Jacinto should not be marginalized by idiots who havent taken the time to read the letters and journals to get to the internal thoughts and feelings of those who were there

The US didnt want another slave state, Texas was a republic for years before becoming a state.

Everything about this book appears to be bias slanted trash having little to do with the truth of what happened.
Many of the Tejanos in Texas before 1900 were rich land owners in South Texas.

They were certainly incorporated into Texas political, economic, and cultural life.
The abolishment of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was the primary cause: "One of Mexico's first constitutions written in 1824, which was about the time that the first settlers arrived in Texas. This constitution was heavily weighted in favor of states' rights (as opposed to federal control). It allowed the Texans great freedom to rule themselves as they saw fit. This constitution was overturned in favor of another that gave the federal government more control, and many Texans were outraged (many Mexicans in other parts of Mexico were, too). Reinstatement of the 1824 constitution became a rallying cry in Texas before the fighting broke out."

Other reasons were: The chaos in Mexico city and the Federal government. The strong economic ties between Texas settlers and the USA. Along with the bad treatment of Texan envoys to Mexico city, prohibition of further immigration to Texas from the United States, and increased taxes also increased the desire for independence.

Slavery (or the fear of losing it) was not the primary or even secondary driving force of Texas and the Central government of Mexico coming to blows.
The Alamo defenders did not fight for slavery. That's just reductionist bull***** You just gave a perfect example of out of context.

They fought for independence from Mexico. There were a lot of reasons for that - primary among them was Mexico not honoring its own Constitutional obligations towards Texas. Many of them were merely fighting against the heavy boot heel of Santa Anna. Few of them owned slaves or were even farmers. A few were and did, but they managed to continue that while part of Mexico anyway.

You think Davy Crockett went to Texas to fight for slavery? He went to Texas because he was pissed off he lost a Congressional election in Tennessee to the Jacksonians (another group I'm sure you detest) and he went west trying to find a frontier and a new place to live out the rest of his life, then got caught up in the revolution.
Its worth remembering that the dispute originally started primarily because the Texas Anglo settlers wanted Texas to be its own Mexican state. Accordingly, its difficult to see how protecting slavery was their primary goal.

The dispute escalated and the men at the Alamo died fighting for their right to live where they had control over their own destiny; the same reason their ancestors had fought the British. Slavery was a meaningful consideration to some but not all of both groups.

But what is most important is the central ethic of both conflicts-a people has a right to self-rule. Abolition, suffrage and the civil rights movement were expansions of that theme: that all people should have a right to democratic self rule. It would have been nice if all those principles came to fruition in 1776 or 1836, but humans evolve rather than mutate.

So while it is worthwhile to understand the nuances, we are missing the forest for the trees. The main point of 1776 and 1836 is that freedom advanced. It was simply the arc of the universe bending towards justice, although not achieving perfect justice. Those events are worthy of celebration.
My ancestor was an Alamo defender from Gonzales TX. He and his wife owned no slaves. They had a small farm, and were only interested in a quality of life for Texans.

Know your **** before you start spouting your *****
While I criticize the right far more often, the left does things that drive me crazy also. Ignoring the progress we have made and refusing to accept incremental progress are the two that make me the craziest.
Similar. Mine was a dirt poor, illiterate, young man from Illinois who came to Texas in 1833 to apply for a land grant. He joined just after the Revolution broke out and died on March 6, 1836.
his probate inventory listed only eighteen head of cattle, eleven hogs, and a branding iron. No slaves.
Not only was that the average bio of a Texas Independence war solider....it was the average bio of a civil war solider (USA or CSA).
The woke and their attempt to attack these men makes my blood boil.
These were young poor men.


You're not dealing in history. You're dealing in grievance resolution on matters long since settled. Please stop. It's embarrassing.

Santa Anna was a tyrant, an arrogant aristocrat and a murderer. I believe that the men of the Alamo stayed and fought because they thought help was coming. It didn't come and disaster fell. The men in Goliad chose a different path to the same conclusion.

Yes, there were some bad people involved on both sides. Yes, there were men that supported slavery and much of the Mexican army were forced soldiers. What is the difference there? But the result is great. Mexicans are still desiring to cross the Rio Grande into the promise land where jobs are plentiful.


And of course the OP doesn't mention that a big part of Crockett's beef with the Jacksonians had to do with Indian removal. He was basically alone on what's now seen as the right side of history.


...arrived in areas so devoid of Mexican citizens that the Mexican government gave millions of acres of land grants to empresarios who were citizens of another country to bring citizens in from all over the world to settle drylands with marginal rainfall which were so cold in the winter, hot in the summer, and full of marauding indian tribes that Mexican citizens simply would not live there.

If it weren't for ideology, your posts would have no ideas at all.

Yep, the author is attempting to describe the picture on a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle using only one piece

You have zero comprehension of Texas history .

You have zero comprehension of the history of the West .

You have zero comprehension of US history .

Believing the effort, sacrifice, and cause weren't noble or just because there was injustice in the world at the time. It's really a fatal flaw in your's and many in the historical grievance camp.
One hundred eighty-nine men from 23 states and seven countries that included England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Mexico brought Jim Bowie, William Travis and the legendary David Crockett to the Alamo to defend her against the Mexican Army led by Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

The most immediate cause of the Texas Revolution was the refusal of many Texas, both Anglo and Mexican, to accept the governmental changes mandated by "Siete Leyes" which placed almost total power in the hands of the Mexican national government and Santa Anna. ... Many Mexicans felt exactly the same way.

Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control.

To say the fight was primarily about Slavery is like saying immigrants coming in from the southern border is primarily about expanding the drug trade and drug cartel influence.

The Battle of the Alamo had 180+ Texan deaths. 500-800 Mexican army deaths and 800-1000 Mexican army wounded. Mexican captain Fernando Urizza said "another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil". It was not much of a massacre...more like a very costly Pyrrhic victory.

The Mexican army that invaded Texas is said by historians to have been about 4,000-6,000 men strong.

So their army was delayed for almost two weeks taking the Alamo. They lost 1/4th to maybe even half their fighting strength taking the fort. Massive amounts of ammo, gun powder, and supplies were used up trying to take the fort.

It gave time for Gen. Houston and his Texas forces to move east, organized, and let volunteers join them.

It hurt Mexican army morale (no longer any talk of a quick campaign to put down the Texas rebels), while giving a huge boost to Texan morale and fighting motivation.

And cost the mexican army valuable men and material that they could not easily replace from far away Mexico City.

It is impossible to know if things would have worked out better had Travis evacuated the Alamo and headed East. He had no draft animals to take the artillery pieces with him. And we can't second guess history. The Texas cause was ultimately successful.

"While the Mexicans won the Battle, the troops under Santa Anna felt that the battle was a loss for them due to the number of lives lost, and the fact that the losses they suffered could have been avoided."

https://lurj.org/issues/volume-1-number-2/alamo

I have read historians and books that think the battle of the Alamo should have been avoided. But not that the Mexican army was in good morale after it took place. The average Mexican solider was shocked the Alamo defenders could hold out for two weeks and shocked at the cost in blood.
During the early 1830s, the Mexican government wavered back and forth between federalist and centralist policies. When the pendulum swung sharply towards centralism in 1835, several Mexican states revolted.

Texas was sharply divided but originally many settlers like those in the town of Gonzalez was pro Centralist Mexican govt.

since the mexican army wasnt able to spare troops for protection, the settlers formed the texas militia. The mexican army did loan the town a small cannon to help fend off the comanche attacks. The commander of all mexican troops in Texas felt it was unwise to leave the cannon with the town during these later times of unrest once the revolts began. Troops were sent to retrieve it.

On sept 10, a Mexican Soldier beat a Gonzalez citizen and the town was outraged. In late september, when the small group of soldiers arrived as ordered to pick up the cannon, they were turned away.

Both sides received reinforcements, after voting to resist, October 2 the Texans forcefully pushed the Mexican army back and kept the cannon.



Besides being the first military engagement, it also marks a shift of the centralist support for Santa Anna in Texas to the support for Texas Independence. Many Texans pushed for supporting Santa Anna and the centralist govt in the early 1830's

Anahuac Disturbance Of 1835 clearly shows the texan settlers were upset of unfair taxing policies.

i am not disputing that

You say Texas independence was about slavery, i am telling you that your key evidence of Austin's adverts doesnt help your cause that Independence was fought for slavery since Austin didnt want to be independent from Mexico

Texas Quote
"The reasons for a partial toleration of this evil have now ceased; and the true prosperity and happiness of Texas require that an everlasting bar should be interposed to the further introduction of slaves I am of the opinion that Texas will never become a slave state or country. I will be candid with you on this point, and say I hope it never may."
Stephen F. Austin

in a letter to potential immigrants to Texas from Alabama, June, 1830

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Of course 47 says nobody has ever refuted anything he has said. Which of course is false, here is a small compilation of SOME of the remarks refuting or correcting his foolishness that have been posted. Of course none of them matter to him since they don't agree with him. There were a lot more, but went with folks who seemed to have a real working grasp of History.

Quote:

---

The "americans" that moved to Texas were mexican citizens. The problems started when Mexico's republic government which made certain promises to the Texas region of Mexico changed its ruling processes when the political leadership and style of govt changed.

Heros like Bowie married a local Mexican woman and had children. There is a statue of Juan Seguin at the Alamo. The locals were not marginalized. The sacrifices made by the men and women who fought for independence at Goliad, Gonzalez, Refurio, the Alamo, and San Jacinto should not be marginalized by idiots who havent taken the time to read the letters and journals to get to the internal thoughts and feelings of those who were there

The US didnt want another slave state, Texas was a republic for years before becoming a state.

Everything about this book appears to be bias slanted trash having little to do with the truth of what happened.
Many of the Tejanos in Texas before 1900 were rich land owners in South Texas.

They were certainly incorporated into Texas political, economic, and cultural life.
The abolishment of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was the primary cause: "One of Mexico's first constitutions written in 1824, which was about the time that the first settlers arrived in Texas. This constitution was heavily weighted in favor of states' rights (as opposed to federal control). It allowed the Texans great freedom to rule themselves as they saw fit. This constitution was overturned in favor of another that gave the federal government more control, and many Texans were outraged (many Mexicans in other parts of Mexico were, too). Reinstatement of the 1824 constitution became a rallying cry in Texas before the fighting broke out."

Other reasons were: The chaos in Mexico city and the Federal government. The strong economic ties between Texas settlers and the USA. Along with the bad treatment of Texan envoys to Mexico city, prohibition of further immigration to Texas from the United States, and increased taxes also increased the desire for independence.

Slavery (or the fear of losing it) was not the primary or even secondary driving force of Texas and the Central government of Mexico coming to blows.
The Alamo defenders did not fight for slavery. That's just reductionist bull***** You just gave a perfect example of out of context.

They fought for independence from Mexico. There were a lot of reasons for that - primary among them was Mexico not honoring its own Constitutional obligations towards Texas. Many of them were merely fighting against the heavy boot heel of Santa Anna. Few of them owned slaves or were even farmers. A few were and did, but they managed to continue that while part of Mexico anyway.

You think Davy Crockett went to Texas to fight for slavery? He went to Texas because he was pissed off he lost a Congressional election in Tennessee to the Jacksonians (another group I'm sure you detest) and he went west trying to find a frontier and a new place to live out the rest of his life, then got caught up in the revolution.
Its worth remembering that the dispute originally started primarily because the Texas Anglo settlers wanted Texas to be its own Mexican state. Accordingly, its difficult to see how protecting slavery was their primary goal.

The dispute escalated and the men at the Alamo died fighting for their right to live where they had control over their own destiny; the same reason their ancestors had fought the British. Slavery was a meaningful consideration to some but not all of both groups.

But what is most important is the central ethic of both conflicts-a people has a right to self-rule. Abolition, suffrage and the civil rights movement were expansions of that theme: that all people should have a right to democratic self rule. It would have been nice if all those principles came to fruition in 1776 or 1836, but humans evolve rather than mutate.

So while it is worthwhile to understand the nuances, we are missing the forest for the trees. The main point of 1776 and 1836 is that freedom advanced. It was simply the arc of the universe bending towards justice, although not achieving perfect justice. Those events are worthy of celebration.
My ancestor was an Alamo defender from Gonzales TX. He and his wife owned no slaves. They had a small farm, and were only interested in a quality of life for Texans.

Know your **** before you start spouting your *****
While I criticize the right far more often, the left does things that drive me crazy also. Ignoring the progress we have made and refusing to accept incremental progress are the two that make me the craziest.
Similar. Mine was a dirt poor, illiterate, young man from Illinois who came to Texas in 1833 to apply for a land grant. He joined just after the Revolution broke out and died on March 6, 1836.
his probate inventory listed only eighteen head of cattle, eleven hogs, and a branding iron. No slaves.
Not only was that the average bio of a Texas Independence war solider....it was the average bio of a civil war solider (USA or CSA).
The woke and their attempt to attack these men makes my blood boil.
These were young poor men.


You're not dealing in history. You're dealing in grievance resolution on matters long since settled. Please stop. It's embarrassing.

Santa Anna was a tyrant, an arrogant aristocrat and a murderer. I believe that the men of the Alamo stayed and fought because they thought help was coming. It didn't come and disaster fell. The men in Goliad chose a different path to the same conclusion.

Yes, there were some bad people involved on both sides. Yes, there were men that supported slavery and much of the Mexican army were forced soldiers. What is the difference there? But the result is great. Mexicans are still desiring to cross the Rio Grande into the promise land where jobs are plentiful.


And of course the OP doesn't mention that a big part of Crockett's beef with the Jacksonians had to do with Indian removal. He was basically alone on what's now seen as the right side of history.


...arrived in areas so devoid of Mexican citizens that the Mexican government gave millions of acres of land grants to empresarios who were citizens of another country to bring citizens in from all over the world to settle drylands with marginal rainfall which were so cold in the winter, hot in the summer, and full of marauding indian tribes that Mexican citizens simply would not live there.

If it weren't for ideology, your posts would have no ideas at all.

Yep, the author is attempting to describe the picture on a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle using only one piece

You have zero comprehension of Texas history .

You have zero comprehension of the history of the West .

You have zero comprehension of US history .

Believing the effort, sacrifice, and cause weren't noble or just because there was injustice in the world at the time. It's really a fatal flaw in your's and many in the historical grievance camp.
One hundred eighty-nine men from 23 states and seven countries that included England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Mexico brought Jim Bowie, William Travis and the legendary David Crockett to the Alamo to defend her against the Mexican Army led by Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

The most immediate cause of the Texas Revolution was the refusal of many Texas, both Anglo and Mexican, to accept the governmental changes mandated by "Siete Leyes" which placed almost total power in the hands of the Mexican national government and Santa Anna. ... Many Mexicans felt exactly the same way.

Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control.

To say the fight was primarily about Slavery is like saying immigrants coming in from the southern border is primarily about expanding the drug trade and drug cartel influence.

The Battle of the Alamo had 180+ Texan deaths. 500-800 Mexican army deaths and 800-1000 Mexican army wounded. Mexican captain Fernando Urizza said "another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil". It was not much of a massacre...more like a very costly Pyrrhic victory.

The Mexican army that invaded Texas is said by historians to have been about 4,000-6,000 men strong.

So their army was delayed for almost two weeks taking the Alamo. They lost 1/4th to maybe even half their fighting strength taking the fort. Massive amounts of ammo, gun powder, and supplies were used up trying to take the fort.

It gave time for Gen. Houston and his Texas forces to move east, organized, and let volunteers join them.

It hurt Mexican army morale (no longer any talk of a quick campaign to put down the Texas rebels), while giving a huge boost to Texan morale and fighting motivation.

And cost the mexican army valuable men and material that they could not easily replace from far away Mexico City.

It is impossible to know if things would have worked out better had Travis evacuated the Alamo and headed East. He had no draft animals to take the artillery pieces with him. And we can't second guess history. The Texas cause was ultimately successful.

"While the Mexicans won the Battle, the troops under Santa Anna felt that the battle was a loss for them due to the number of lives lost, and the fact that the losses they suffered could have been avoided."

https://lurj.org/issues/volume-1-number-2/alamo

I have read historians and books that think the battle of the Alamo should have been avoided. But not that the Mexican army was in good morale after it took place. The average Mexican solider was shocked the Alamo defenders could hold out for two weeks and shocked at the cost in blood.
During the early 1830s, the Mexican government wavered back and forth between federalist and centralist policies. When the pendulum swung sharply towards centralism in 1835, several Mexican states revolted.

Texas was sharply divided but originally many settlers like those in the town of Gonzalez was pro Centralist Mexican govt.

since the mexican army wasnt able to spare troops for protection, the settlers formed the texas militia. The mexican army did loan the town a small cannon to help fend off the comanche attacks. The commander of all mexican troops in Texas felt it was unwise to leave the cannon with the town during these later times of unrest once the revolts began. Troops were sent to retrieve it.

On sept 10, a Mexican Soldier beat a Gonzalez citizen and the town was outraged. In late september, when the small group of soldiers arrived as ordered to pick up the cannon, they were turned away.

Both sides received reinforcements, after voting to resist, October 2 the Texans forcefully pushed the Mexican army back and kept the cannon.



Besides being the first military engagement, it also marks a shift of the centralist support for Santa Anna in Texas to the support for Texas Independence. Many Texans pushed for supporting Santa Anna and the centralist govt in the early 1830's

Anahuac Disturbance Of 1835 clearly shows the texan settlers were upset of unfair taxing policies.

i am not disputing that

You say Texas independence was about slavery, i am telling you that your key evidence of Austin's adverts doesnt help your cause that Independence was fought for slavery since Austin didnt want to be independent from Mexico

Texas Quote
"The reasons for a partial toleration of this evil have now ceased; and the true prosperity and happiness of Texas require that an everlasting bar should be interposed to the further introduction of slaves I am of the opinion that Texas will never become a slave state or country. I will be candid with you on this point, and say I hope it never may."
Stephen F. Austin

in a letter to potential immigrants to Texas from Alabama, June, 1830

---

---

I have refuted all these claims.