[Pateeffelty]

Why are you posting the percentage of the population that was enslaved? Were slaves more likely to be slave owners than non-slaves?

Because its crappy revisionist wordplay talking about the number of 'slaveholders' as a proportion of the population. The only figures that matters a damn is the number of actual slaves, and the effect they had on the economy of the state. Texas was a nasty slave state that as Tupac already pointed out seceded not one but twice over slavery. What makes me angry is that this is history, it doesn't make todays Texans guilty of anything, yet time and again they can't resist trying to rewrite the past because of pride. That is not acceptable.

[Abofedrorobox]

Human history is one long chain of greed, lies and cruelty. Every nation has some extremely dirty linen in its closet. Some of them come out and admit it, while others, like the Turks, don't. Either way the dead people stay just as dead, so I don't care.

No apologies given. I'm not going to argue with every new kid that comes here. I will say this, posting random numbers doesn't prove your point.

Apologist doesn't mean someone who apologizes, but to a person engaged in apologetics, ie justifying or legitimizing an idea to its detractors.

[Caursedus]

Ken, I don't owe anyone an apology for something that happened 150 years ago. Nobody should sit around with their hand out because their great great great grandfather worked in a white man's field. And that's said with no rebuttal about numbers of slaves or owners. You can think what you want. I don't care. I've had no slaves. I don't know any Black people that have been slaves. Get over it.

[furillo]

Ken, I don't owe anyone an apology for something that happened 150 years ago. Nobody should sit around with their hand out because their great great great grandfather worked in a white man's field. And that's said with no rebuttal about numbers of slaves or owners. You can think what you want. I don't care. I've had no slaves. I don't know any Black people that have been slaves. Get over it.

Which is exactly what I already posted above, you have no reason to feel any guilt about it because it was a different time. What you do have a responsibility to do however is not try and cover up other peoples crimes by pretending things weren't so bad back then.

[bF8CCmmr]

It wasn't a crime at the time.
The fact remains that more Native Americans were slaves in Texas, but I still don't see any outrage out of your hypocritical self.

Please quote a single example of me referring to African slavery rather than just slavery? You might want to go look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary as you don't seem to understand what it means.

Oh and I love the way you can't resist that little 'it wasn't a crime at the time'. **** is wrong with you? All the major powers were emancipating around that time, Texas and the southern states can't use the 'everyone was doing it' argument and get away with it.

[Psymoussy]

Georgia had about 43% by the time the civil war started. Crazy stuff.

[Texdolley]

Apologist doesn't mean someone who apologizes, but to a person engaged in apologetics, ie justifying or legitimizing an idea to its detractors.

I like how Sloww still doesn't know what an apologist is.

[clorkergo]

It's an innie.

[Z3s9vQZj]

Interesting. It seems that some believe that if you don't believe that slavery was THE issue of the Texas revolution then:
1.) You defend the practice of slavery
2.) You are an apologist for slave owners
3.) You should be ashamed of yourself

That's the revisionist view right there!

Problem is that folks who WANT to be able to say slavery was THE issue can't accept that Texans certainly did take advantage of the opportunity to promote the slave philosophy through the independence movement, but that it was not THE factor of the independence movement.

Let's take a look at Tupac's quote for example:

Hmmm, why would a slave state that was taking advantage of Mexico's weak central government to openly flout its prohibition on slavery suddenly decide to revolt in 1835 when "in early 1835 .. the Mexican government transitioned from a federalist model to centralism"? Let me think. Wow, this sure is a tough one to figure out...

What did this move to centralism mean?

Here are quotes from the article itself:

Texians were becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Mexican government. Many of the Mexican soldiers garrisoned in Tejas were convicted criminals who were given the choice of prison or serving in the army in Tejas.

Mexico did not protect Freedom of Religion, instead requiring colonists to pledge their acceptance of Roman Catholicism; Mexican Law also required a tithe paid to the Catholic Church

the property tax law, intended to exempt immigrants from paying taxes for ten years, was rescinded, and tariffs were increased on goods shipped from the United States

The new constitution certainly had an impact, as it was unpopular throughout Mexico...again from the quoted article:

The new laws were unpopular throughout Mexico, leading to secession movements and violence in several Mexican states.

Finally, the "economic origin of the conflict" that has been referred to above is certainly an indicator that slavery was AN issue with the revolution.

Taken as a whole picture though, it should be clear to any accept those that insist on WANTING slavery to be THE issue, that the revolution took place for a wide variety of reasons that can be boiled down to the people trying to obtain the freedom to control their own destiny. In fact, given the evidence it should be nearly impossible to say that the revolution would not have occured had slavery not been an issue.

So, while Texas stand on slavery was horrible, it was not the reason for the revolution.

If stating such a simple fact makes me a revisionist in your eyes, then so be it.

[Abedgebeefs]

So, while Texas stand on slavery was horrible, it was not the reason for the revolution.

John Quincy Adams speaking in Congress in 1836..

If stating such a simple fact makes me a revisionist in your eyes, then so be it.

Yes, it does.

[WumibBesowe]

I take it that's a link to pictures of Sloww, Plato, Imran, etc...

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

hillbillies.jpg

[rozneesitcn]

There's nothing "alternative" about the history in Albie's OP. It's the mainstream historical consensus that the Texas Revolution was fought over slavery and the Mexican-American War was a transparent imperial landgrab.

[RogHammon]

30%... never knew it was so high in parts of the US, it is about par with Roman empire... if someone could provide a credible source for the general % of population estimated to be in slavery during the roman empire, it would be very nice. didn't most greek city-states have like >50% slavery rating?

I really don't think support for imperialism (in general) as a concept can be explained as a reason for gaining Texas' independence from Mexico. Mexican government at the time was as "imperialist" as US government at the time.

Mexican (Spanish) areas at the time were very sparsely populated and the central government of Mexico didn't have much control over what happened in northern, remote areas such as California and Texas at the time. It didn't "need" the land in the sense that it could afford to send enough colonists there, so immigrants from U.S. slowly overtook it.

I hadn't thought about slavery as a reason for independence from Mexico, but now that Al mentioned it, slavery was indeed illegal in Mexico (AFAIK, the years were 1825 de jure and 1830s de facto; Texas secession was in 1845). and legal in southern US at the time. I think Al raises a very good point about the hidden agenda of the Texan "freedom fighters" of the time.

[mussmicky]

There's nothing "alternative" about the history in Albie's OP. It's the mainstream historical consensus that the Texas Revolution was fought over slavery and the Mexican-American War was a transparent imperial landgrab.

Well, good to hear. It certainly makes more sense than the "hurr them monarchist spaniards, they hated american freedoms so noble rebels revolted and joined in the american democracy" version I heard in school.

I still don't think slavery was THE reason for secession and independence (and eventual US statehood), though. Texan' immigrants of the time were separate from Mexican central government culturally, racially and linguistically. Why wouldn't they seek independence or US statehood instead of being stuck as a province of a country that has nothing in common with them?

[Snweyuag]

You and the rest of the blame-America-first crowd make me sick.

Texas wasn't a part of America when it revolted from Mexico to preserve slavery. I also don't have much of a problem with transparent imperial landgrabs like the Mexican-American War, so I'm not really blaming America for anything there. Polk