- In 1827, the legislature of Coahuila y Tejas outlawed the introduction of additional enslaved people and granted freedom at birth to all children born to an enslaved person.[11]* History of slavery in Texas - Wikipedia
Go back and read your own thread. You said the Anglos came to Texas legally. I said “not the ones with slaves”. You disputed that with no evidence which kind of shows that you have a limited knowledge of the history of the Anglo settlements in Texas. Unable to legally import slaves and granting freedom to the offspring of slaves meant slavery was a dead end in Texas under Mexican rule. Saying slavery wasn’t a major reason for Texans wanting to secede from Mexico willfully ignores everything that happened in the decades before the rebellion.
I agree that slavery was definitely on the minds of many of the leaders of the Anglo settlers in Texas, to the point that when they did get their independence they made damn sure it was written into the constitution. However, even though Mexico had basically outlawed slavery since 1821, they really weren’t doing much to free the slaves in Coahuila y Tejas. Most of the time it was only acted upon when a slave ended up in court for some reason.
There had been a few disturbances due to Anglos being upset when their members were occasionally arrested due to not abiding by the anti-slavery laws, but no widespread enforcement of those laws. That was partly due to the misconception by the Anglo settlers that they were self governing and didn’t have to obey them. Really, the central government didn’t do much about the Anglo settlers at all until they refused to give up a cannon when the militias were disbanded by Santa Anna. At that point, the war had begun. Without that happening, you wouldn’t have had a widespread rebellion that included people like Juan Seguin who had been Mexican citizens since birth. Once you had that, the number of people who were willing to take up arms against the central government was enough to actually make a viable rebellion.
One thing the Mexican army can be commended for is that they refused to return any slaves that had begun following their army when they returned across the Rio Grande. I do believe they would have freed all of the slaves in Coahuila y Tejas if they had been successful. But the war from their side wasn’t about freeing the slaves, it was about Santa Anna defending his and (by extension) Mexico’s honor. The Texians weren’t rebelling over slavery because they thought incorrectly that Mexican law didn’t really apply to them. If they had understood correctly, they might have rebelled 7-9 years earlier. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for their slaves, they waited until Santa Anna overplayed his hand and went complete dictator and was also stupid enough to: lead the army himself, get himself captured, and then was compelled to sign a treaty freeing Texas from Mexico.
Really, it seems that you’d have no modern Texas without Santa Anna.
Wrongly.
Each province had its own reasons for rebelling; Texas’s reason was slavery. They all rebelled at the same time because they were taking advantage of the weakness of the central government, not because they all shared some common cause.
You’re confusing correlation with causation.
Not one person in the thread, and not one cited historian except the ones you have mentioned who clearly have other political axes to grind, accepts this. You should ponder that.
Yes. This should not be hard to understand. Separate groups of people can have different motives but agree that the best time to take action is when all the other groups are taking the same action (Hitler and Stalin coordinated invasion of Poland, but had surprisingly few other areas of agreement)
I just happen to read What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America 1815-1848, by Daniel Walker Howe* (Link to Amazon). I’m going to do a brief summary about what he says about the issue.
After Santa Anna’s coup and resulting dictatorship many outlying Mexican states leaning Federalista opposed the central power, seeking to restore the constitution of 1824. The Texans were of course on the side of Federalistas, especially as the Anglos outnumbered the Mexicans 10-1 at that point..
For all the tensions over religion, culture and slavery in Texas, none of these actually provoked the fighting. […] the Texan Revolution broke out over economic and constitutional issues.
This would seem to vindicate DrD. But, not so fast. There’s more.
This might be the formal casus belli. But it soon turned into - you guessed it - slavery. New Orleans papers reported the revolution with tha slant that the Texan ware defending slavery, seeking to keep Texas “safe” for slavery. The Northern press took the bait and also reported it as being about slavery, but of course with the opposing view. This lead to many young men - called filibusters - going to Texas to fight for what they perceived as the right and just side.
In short, what started as protests as Santa Anna’s policies, did indeed end up being about slavery.
As to the question of the OP. It seems that it cannot be answered as a yes or no. Slavery was not the issue lighting the fuse, but was the focus of the actual fighting.
*Pulitzer winner 2008.
Walker Howe is a Rhodes Professor of American History Emeritus, Oxford University and Professor of History Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
Because you didnt come up with a cite until that post, for which I thanked you. However, this has little to do with the main point of the debate here.
Okay, so as I agreed- one of the causes, but not the only or Major cause. So, yes, slavery was an issue, but far from the only issue.
But the part you failed to quote does…
“Unable to legally import slaves and granting freedom to the offspring of slaves meant slavery was a dead end in Texas under Mexican rule. Saying slavery wasn’t a major reason for Texans wanting to secede from Mexico willfully ignores everything that happened in the decades before the rebellion.”
You cherry pick parts of posts the same way you do parts of History.
All three arguments in the OP have been refuted:
- Slavery was mentioned in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of Texas (property of the people)
- Slavery was restricted in Texas such that new slaves could not be legally added with the eventual result of eliminating slavery.
- Why other parts of Mexico declared independence isn’t germane to Texas’ motivations.
Nope. Read my wiki cite in the first post- “although slavery is never mentioned implicitly or explicitly in the Declaration of Independence of Texas.”.
And so? I dont dispute that.
It very much is. If during the American Civil was the CSA states never mentioned slavery in their reasons for leaving, and Maine + New Hampshire had also left the Union claiming that Lincoln was a tyrant and abrogating the Constitution, the conclusion would be different- especially if indeed Lincoln did rip up the Constitution- just like Santa Anna.
Texas just didnt have many slaves in 1836- like 4000+, compared to 3 million+ in the Old South, where entire economies were based upon King Cotton and Slavery. Texas didnt have rich Plantations.
Since “property” here necessarily includes slaves, then it very much is implicitly mentioned. Wiki would be wrong about that, or the Wiki editor doesn’t know what implicitly means..
And we all know that Wiki is meticulously researched, right about everything, and never edited by people with an agenda. Everything in Wiki is the truth, and an absolute authoritative cite that surpasses any other that contradicts it.
Well, I’m convinced. Turns out you were right all along.
It is explicitly mentioned in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of Texas – “property of the people”. What do you think property meant in 1836? Clothes and dishes? I don’t see any debate here and I don’t need Wikipedia to interpret one paragraph for me.
This isn’t an argument for your point about Texas’ motivations. You are making a hypothetical about the Civil War to support a hypothetical about the Independence movement in Mexico. You need to support your hypothetical with facts or proof.
You are challenging the statue quo that slavery was not the major motivation for Texas independence. You provided three arguments: the first is incorrect, the second you conceded, and the third is a hypothetical and not an argument.
I came into this thread as a blank slate, not knowing much about Texas independence but wanting to learn. IMO your arguments are not convincing.
Again with comparing things that are not related. To get an idea about the impact slavery had in Texas prior to 1835, it’s not very interesting to know how many enslaved people there were as compared to other states, where it had been going on for much longer. Instead, let’s look at the percentage of the population. Then we find in 1830 that about 5000 (cite) of a total population of 35 000 (cite) were enslaved; this about on par with Arkansas at the same time (5000 out of 30 000 cite).
Andf to top it off, there’s this:
The motivation for bringing slaves to Texas was primarily economic – using their labor to grow cotton, which was by 1820 the most valuable commodity in the Atlantic world. To Anglo-American slave owners slavery was a practical necessity in Texas – the only way to grow cotton profitably on its vast areas of fertile land. Stephen F. Austin made this clear in 1824: “The principal product that will elevate us from poverty is cotton,” he wrote, “and we cannot do this without the help of slaves.”
[Slavery] was an underlying cause of the struggle in 1835‑1836. Moreover, once the revolution came, slavery was very much on the minds of those involved. Texans worried constantly that the Mexicans were going to free their slaves or at least cause servile insurrection.
Which reflects in their declaration of independence and subsequent constitution (section 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… 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 the power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave without the consent of congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the republic.
From the Wiki article you cite.
“By the end of 1835, almost 5,000 enslaved Africans and African Americans lived in Texas, making up 13 percent of the non-Indian population.[29] “
That really IS a hell of a lot of slaves, by percentage of the population.
Guns, cattle, food- all things Santa Anna Confiscated. In fact the one time Santa Anna had a chance to free a slave, he send him back to the texans instead.
Recent arguments, much debated.
I never argued the 2nd.
Likewise. I had no idea about the role of slavery in Texan independence. This thread has taught me it was a major factor.
I agree. This thread has been very educational about just what a major factor slavery was in Texas’s early independence.