Was slavery really a "Major" cause of the Texas revolution?

Great Debates
1

Mexico had officially abolished slavery in Texas in 1829, and the desire of Texians to maintain the institution of chattel slavery in Texas was also a major cause of secession,[2][3][4][5][6] although slavery is never mentioned implicitly or explicitly in the Declaration of Independence of Texas.

There are several recent books and articles (by recent I mean less than 40 years old), which claim that Slavery was a MAJOR cause of secession. But was it really?

Note - I am not claiming that slavery might not have been a minor cause, it well could have been.

But lets look at the facts- in the Declaration of Independence of Texas- as wiki says*- slavery is never mentioned implicitly .* When the Southern states seceded 25 years later, they (Texas too) listed slavery as their main reason for leaving the Union.

However here- in the 20 + grievances, Slavery is not mentioned or implied.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/republic/declaration.html

And Texas- when it declared independence had only a few slaves- but as “King Cotton” became such a route to being wealthy the number increased. Also Texas, under the old Mexico Constitution and set of laws had an exemption for slavery.

We also have to note that when Texas left Mexico, another half dozen of so Mexican states also declared independence- and certainly not for the reason of slavery.

In fact Yucatán stayed independent for a while.

And they all revolted for the same reason- Santa Anna was a tyrant and had torn up the Mexican Constitution. Can we not give Texas the same reason?

2

Yes, slavery was the major cause of the secession of Texas from Mexico even though the slave-owning Texians were canny enough to not actually put it in writing. Anglo-American settlers from the South had been moving (or, perhaps more appropriately, illegally immigrating) to Texas for decades in order to more freely practice chattel slavery, prevent slaves from escaping into Northern ‘free’ states which increasingly refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts and return escaping enslaved people back to their ‘owners’, and because of perceived coming restrictions on slave ownership by the US federal government.

I don’t know why you are so hung up on trying to ‘prove’ that slavery wasn’t an issue for the succession of Texas but there is no credible reading of the history of that era that indicates that the Texas Revolution was about any significant issue other than the continuance of chattel slavery.

Stranger

3

The Constitution of the Republic of Texas written by the winners includes these provisions:

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.

4

Mexico had an open border policy. They wanted people to move there and could not get enough of their own citizens to go. The Americans moving into Texas were doing so legally.

5

Not if they were bringing their slaves with them. That’s why Anglo immigrants falsely declared their slaves to be indentured servants.

6

Yes there are. Are they all wrong? No. Why? Because slavery was a MAJOR cause of secession.

Revisionist history as a term began in the 1950s, when historians were finally free of having to pay fealty to the Southern domination of writing about the Civil War. They revised all the old cant about state rights, and the brave boys in gray, and the damned Yankee carpetbaggers to reveal that the 19th century had been one continual and escalating battle over the South wanting to maintain slavery and protect it everywhere in America.

I’m not sure who today is teaching that slavery wasn’t the cause of secession in any state - PragerU maybe? No reason exists to pay them more attention than figuratively or literally just turning the page. Texas was settled for the sake of slavery and drew a rabid population of those who wanted to steal land from Mexicans and violently lord over them and/or use the good cotton land for plantations needing slaves to do the work. Not everyone in Texas had this disease, of course, as was true everywhere in the South. Those who did prospered and became leaders, not necessarily in that order, and their wishes always held emotional sway over the public.

One of the many recent books that demythologizes the Texas Revolution is Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth by Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford. Thorough, wonderfully researched, and fun to read, I highly recommend it to anybody who has been brainwashed into believing John Wayne but is willing to take another more realistic look at history. And those who love history for its own sake.

ETA: this book was recommended by many in the thread given in Stranger’s first link. Read it and weep, slavery deniers.

7

I wish to reiterate this, as some apparently missed it.

And if it was THE MAJOR cause- why did the other 6 states of Mexico also rebel? They didnt have slavery. Why did Yucatán gain independence? Why were Texas’s reasons so different than every other state? I think that if there had been no slaves at all, they still would have rebelled, along with the other six.

Note that it wasnt until 1829, that then Presidente Guerrero issued his “Guerrero Decree,” which abolished slavery in most of Mexico. However, note Texas was granted an exemption. So, why wouldnt it be legal to emigrate to the texas area of Mexico with slaves, before 1829?

Slavery wasnt totally illegal in all Mexico until 1837, a year after Texas left, by decree of Santa Anna. So if Mexico wasnt making slavery illegal in 1836- why leave?

Yes, from the Union, in the early 1860’s. Here we are talking about why Seven Mexico states seceded in 1836, only one of them - Texas- owning any slaves at all. The reason was Santa Anna becoming a tyrant and tearing up the Constiution.

Yes, of course it was- in 1860. But did any Northern non-slave holding states secede in 1860? No. But SIX non slave holding Mexican states seceded in 1836. Why?

Sam Houston, the Governor of Texas in 1861, opposed leaving the Union. Mind you, his family did own a few slaves, but not for field work.

There is a vast difference between talking about the Mexican revolt- where seven states seceded- only one of them having any slaves at all (Texas at that time, had few slaves- around 4-5000, whereas the “Old South” had over Three Million slaves). Vs the American Civil war, where every state that seceded was not only a slave state, but listed slavery as it’s main cause of leaving.

And, like I said- I am not claiming that slavery might not have been a minor cause for Texas leaving Mexico, it well could have been. But they didnt list it then (they proudly did so 25 years or so later) and six other non-slaveholding Mexican states also seceded. Explain them, if Texas leaving Mexico was mostly over Slavery.

8

If the US wasn’t making slavery illegal in 1860, why leave?

9

Because an anti-slavery President had just been elected. And one of his platforms was to limit (to nothing) slavery from spreading and limit slave trading.

But this is about MEXICO and it’s revolt in 1836, not the Civil War in the USA.

10

So what is your thesis––based in historical fact––for why the Texians sought to secede from Mexico?

Stranger

11

Is the argument that slavery wasn’t a A major issue for Texas to declare independence or THE major issue? The OP is switching between them and confusing the debate.

12

Because there was a law against it? Even the US outlawed the importation of slaves. Just because there was a carve out for Texans to continue owning slaves, that doesn’t mean they could also import them. If no prohibition existed, why did American immigrants to Texas have to lie about the status of their slaves by calling them indentured servants?

13

This debate is topical because it does show how popular the position of the OP is becoming.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/alamo-trust-kate-rogers-ouster/

I suppose they see this all as “woke” besmirching Texas history.

14

Brian Burroughs has a new book out called The Gunfighters, a look at names made famous in history from John Wesley Hardin to Billy the Kid to Wyatt Earp. Although the demythologizing history is equally present, the book is a dull read because it’s the same story repeated over and over with new names inserted.

The Texas secession from Mexico is similarly the same story as the Texas secession from the United States just with different names inserted. Slavery was the MAJOR issue in both, with the same minor issues, which all boiled down to another way of wanting the government to keep its hands out of their pockets.

Mexican history in this era especially is complicated and tangled, with revolts against external enemies like Spain, more revolts against internal enemies, with various parties and strongmen holding power for short times, and economic opportunities sought by schemers both insiders and outsiders. Texas (and the other northern states), in the eyes of Mexico City, was as distant and incidental as it (and the other southwestern territories) was to the eyes of Washingtonians.

I’m not expert enough in that history to try to untangle it here. My understanding from reading books about Texas is that the border states in Mexico had a multitude of local reasons to resent most of the varied governments’ treatment of them, consisting mostly of neglect mixed with exploitation. Slavery had been banned in 1829 but wealthy landowners - who else? - balked at complying. Even so, it was far more of a local issue in Texas. Therefore Texicans/Anglos above the Rio Grande had a completely different set of local issues, prominent among them the enticing fortunes to be made by importing slavery from the U.S. South, but there were no lack of reasons for the other five, IIRC, states not to also rebel.

15

I said not the major issue, and possibly not one of the biggest issues. The big issues were Santa Anna tearing up the constitution and becoming a tyrant. They are outlined in the Texans declaration of Independence.

There was an exemption for Texas and slavery. Yes, the other states had good reasons to rebel and those reasons applied to Texas just as much. So sure, slavery was an issue for Texas in 1836, but not THE issue, as it was in 1861.

16

You should really ask the mods to fix your post title then.

17

Please read your own posts, the ones we are responding to.

18

But. Not. Importation. Why are you ignoring that?

19

American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Texas Declaration of Independence: “When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted; and so far from being a guarantee for their inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.”

Can’t be happy without our property, now can we?

20

I am saying it might have been a cause, but not a major cause and certainly not THE BIG REASON.

Other Mexican states rebelled, none of which were concerned over slavery. The Texas declaration did not mention or imply slavery, yet 25 years later- after a massive influx and a dependence upon King Cotton- Texas proudly made slavery their cause for leaving the Union.

Okay, thank you- and so? What does that have to do with the reasons why Texas- and six other Mexican states- declared independent and rose in revolt against Santa Anna?