And Mexico followed suit in either 1829 or 1830, Wikipedia isn’t clear.
Yes, except Texas was allowed to keep their slaves.
That was one of the big reasons, yes.
Thank you.
It wasnt anything that they listed.
Yes, but then you said this- which was false.
Kind of crazy how the Constitution of the Texas Republic was so adamant on the topic of slavery.
SEC. 9. 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, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America 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; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.
SEC. 10. All persons, (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians excepted,) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence, shall be considered citizens of the Republic, and entitled to all the privileges of such.
Women got the right to vote nationally in 1953 in Mexico. Mexico recognized SSM in 2022, maybe you’re thinking that in 2010 they said all states have to recognize a marriage, but don’t have to perform it. The last election was between a woman and another woman for the most part.
Of course you’ll refuse see to see any culpability for Texans owning slaves in the lead to the Texas War of aggression. I said Mexico outlawed slavery decades before the US and that’s an indisputable fact. There doesn’t have to be a “but…”. You’re just making excuses and refuse to admit any guilt on the part of white settlers owning those slaves on Mexico 's land then afterwards refusing to grant “freedom” to anyone else but straight white males. Gross.
Not surprising at all when you look at the economics.
Plantation owners like to tell themselves they were gentlemen farmers but the reality was that agriculture was generally not enough to keep a plantation going. The real business of plantations was breeding and selling slaves. And for that, they needed new markets. Which was the reason why plantation owners kept pushing for territorial expansion. The established plantations in Virginia and the Carolinas sold slaves to the new plantations starting up in Georgia and Tennessee. The established plantations in Georgia and Tennessee sold slaves to the new plantations starting up in Alabama and Florida. The established plantations in Alabama and Florida sold slaves to the new plantations starting up in Mississippi and Texas. Slavery couldn’t sit still; it needed ongoing expansion to survive.
And this is why America saw an end to the international slave trade. The southerners whose livelihood depending on the domestic slave trade were happy to shut down the competition, even if it meant voting with people who opposed slavery on principle.
Yes, that’s one heck of a coincidence I’ll say. It’s also a coincidence that they soon afterwards fought another Civil War to protect their “right” to own other human beings.
Absolutely. By decree in 1828, Texas exempted, and by law in 1837. No doubt, I never questioned that. And of course, Texas did own a few slaves and that was a bad thing.
But you said this
which is not true. And what the fuck is “the Texas War of aggression”? I have never heard it called that. The Texans were most certainly not the aggressors.
If Texas wanted to declare independence from Mexico over slavery- why wait until 1836?
And why did several other Mexican States also declare independence at the same time Texas did? In support of Texas slavery??? 
or, like they said (they being the mexican states and texas)- because Santa Anna tore up the constitution and made himself a dictator?
No one has tried to answer that- why did Yucatan declare independence? How about the other Mexican states? Explain that.
Note that Sam Houston was against Texas secession . And it was 25 years later, when instead of a mere 5000 slaves, there was nearly 200000. I am not saying Texas was right in owning slaves- obviously slavery was wrong. But they didnt rebel against Mexico over Slavery. That was 25 years later, at the start of the Civil War, when they rebelled against the Union.
Is it really that hard to understand that there were multiple reasons Texas declared independence, and slavery was one of them?
Moderating:
Et cetera, et cetera.
Why is this discussion happening in this thread? Take it elsewhere. This thread is for the discussion of the American Civil War and the basis for it, not Mexico and how it handled slavery issues.
@DrDeth, you continue to pursue thread hijacks much more often than most posters. I encourage you to decide if they are worth it, considering your history with this concern.
I can’t not hear this in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn.
Does that mean that after Reconstruction, the Southern states had more power in Congress than they had before the Civil War? Or did immigration to the North even it out?
Well, the bible does instruct the people of Israel in the treatment of slaves (who appear by description to be more like indentured servants in many cases), and they are treated quite a bit better than African or African-American slaves in the US south.
Maybe the fact that they don’t get a day off every week, and the offering of their freedom after 7 years makes them more like hostages or internees than slaves
A previous answer to that very question
No, that’s only your fellow Israelites who can be kept for as long as 50 years unless you trick them into permanent slavery by providing them a wife from the slaves you own. The non-Israelites are permanent inheritable property that can be beaten to death as long as it’s a more than three day lingering death.
The high-level answer has been given, so I’ll stick to the low-level one. Most of the states of the Confederacy indeed gained seats from the 8th to the 9th census. (Virginia would have gained had not West Virginia been split off.) They collectively had 61 seats from the 1860 census and 73 from the 1870 census.
The easy conclusion is not right. At the same time, the House increased from 241 seats to 292 seats. In both Houses, the South had almost exactly 25% of the seats.
That also doesn’t convey strength. For the length of Reconstruction, Republicans gained many seats in the South, reinforcing the hold the North had. Only in 1876, when Democrat Samuel Tilden really won the Presidency, did the Democrats take back the House. After that the Solid South existed for nearly a century. The number of seats remained a minority, but the ability of a large block of conservative Democrats to affect legislation slanted policy consistently over that period,.
Ben Carson says so many crazy and counterfactual things that it is difficult to believe that anyone takes anything he says seriously. It also make him the perfect Fox News commentator except for his tendency to wander off looking for his luggage.
Stranger