If anyone is curious, the full text of the Texas Declaration of Independence, March 2, 1836, is available here along with other important documents from that time.
Of course slavery is not mentioned explicitly. Slavery was illegal. You don’t publish a cri de coeur about the government’s illegal acts while whining they are prohibiting you from committing illegal acts.
Context requires understanding the history that led up to the Declaration. Santa Ana had indeed overthrown the Mexican constitution, in the process creating federal control over the states. The Constitution of 1824 had given them far greater self-control over areas that were far distant from Mexico City.
On November 7, 1835, the Consultation issued a “Declaration to the Public” declaring that “The people of Texas, availing themselves of their natural rights, solemnly declare that they have taken up arms in defense of their rights and liberties which were threatened by the encroachments of military despots and in defense of the Republican principles of the federal constitution of Mexico of 1824.”
What else had changed since 1824? Slavery. In 1829 Mexican President Vicente Guerrero issued a decree abolishing slavery in Mexico. Those in what is now Texas were infuriated and refused to accept it. Guerrero had to rescind the decree for Texas, but the residents there understood that federal control could be reinstated at any time.
As I said, the events in Texas in 1836 exactly paralleled the events in the South in 1861. Complaints about federal government control were explicitly or implicitly complaints about the future of slavery in their territory. Other complaints may or may not have been valid, and economic interests of many kinds were interwoven. But those were minor. Slavery was major. You cannot invert them.
Yes, but he was gone in 1836, and six other states rebelled, giving similar reasons that Texas did. The tearing up of the Mexican Constiution, Santa Anna being a tyrant.
Yes. I, too, have definitely been educated on how big a role slavery played in Texas’s secession from Mexico, so this has been a valuable thread. Thanks for starting it, OP!
I’m late to the party, but other than eating at a great Mexican restaurant a short walk from the Alamo, I didn’t know much about Texas history other than the old Davey Crockett stories we learned in elementary school, which apparently left out a lot of uncomfortable truths. I’ve really had my eyes opened as to how much of a role slavery played in the Texas revolution.
I appreciate this thread, even if it began as a false statement.
Dammit, I already knew how big of a role slavery played in Texan independence before this thread, I can’t say I learned anything from it. It was amusing though!
In 7th grade in Texas during the 80s all students had a year long Texas History class. It has of course been a very long time since I was in that class. To the best of my recollection, we did not learn that slavery was an important, or even unimportant, part of the Texas Revolution. That of course does not reflect any historical consensus, but rather what the State Board of Education wanted kids to learn.
We learned that Texas had slaves, but it was all very downplayed. This was a time period when it was considered embarrassing to let your racism show. We may even have learned about the disparity in slavery across Mexico, but quoting the contemporaneous movie Meatballs, “it just doesn’t matter.” The story we got was essentially about freedom and oppression with the spark being
At some point, long after I was away from Texas, I learned that slavery was a very important factor, and it was one of those TIL moments.
This is completely consistent with my past statements that in elementary school (Texas) I learned the simple story that the Civil War was about slavery; in middle/high school (Texas) I learned it was a complicated story about states’ rights, economic disparity, and such; in university (Texas) I learned that the Civil War was about slavery.
The point of all this is to express the difference between the face Texas wants seen (or at least did 40+ years ago), and the general historical consensus.
Given how quickly the Republic of Texas gave up its independence, I wonder if for many it was more a matter of being Texian-Americans from the beginning.
Is there still general historical agreement that Gen. Santa Ana was an incompetent popinjay whose misrule not only led to Texas’ independence but also nearly caused the entire nation of Mexico to collapse, or is his reputation being rehabilitated?
I think we all agree that the BIG MAIN MAJOR cause of the states seceding from the Union in 1860/61 was Slavery with perhaps some secondary side issues.
And that the six other Mexican states that seceded in 1836- their BIG MAIN MAJOR cause was the abrogation of the 1824 Constitution, and that Santa Anna was a tyrant, with perhaps some secondary side issues.
BUT the BIG MAIN MAJOR cause of the Texas seceding from the Union in 1836 was Slavery with perhaps some secondary side issues. Not the 1824 Mexican constitution, despite the fact 1824 was on the new Texas flag?
And that the “property” mention in the 1836 Texas declaration of Independence was slaves- not guns, cattle or food- all things Santa Anna had been stealing as he marched?
Pretty much. It also is evidently the consensus of modern mainstream scholarship.
The only people arguing the other way are slavery apologists who seemingly desperately want to whitewash (heh) slavery as something good. Or if not good, at least a reasonable business decision given the agricultural technology and social tenor of the times.
Yes, but I have conceded it was a cause. But others here have claimed- slavery was THE “Major” cause of the Texas revolution, not just a cause, not just one of the major causes, but pretty much the only cause.
Nonsense. Slavery was evil. Period.
But my claim is that Texas shared the same major cause to secede from Mexico in 1836 as the other six Mexican states- the abrogation of the 1824 Constitution by Santa Anna. That is what they claim in 1836, and that is what was on the Texas flag- 1824. That doesnt make the fact that they own some slaves right.
And after some claims- the primary or even only cause. I dont argue that altho the Texans didnt list slavery as a cause in their Declaration in 1836, some few slaveholders werent thinking that- sure. Of course they were.
Indeed. If, as has been firmly established, 6 000 out of a total population of 35 000 were enslaved, one in four Anglo-whites were were slave owners and - as quoted verbatim above - the original constitution protected slavery, the qualifier “some” seems like underplaying the issue.