StarDestroyer.Net BBS

When I was visiting Texas with my family two winters ago, we went to see the Alamo in San Antonio. There, all the museum signs and displays made the people who fought in the Alamo against the Mexicans out to be freedom-fighting heroes. However, I've heard claims (some here) that the Alamo was actually fought in the name of preserving the Texan elite's right to own slaves. None of these claims were even mentioned by the signs and displays at the Alamo site. Was the Alamo indeed fought over slavery, or is this just historical revisionism?

The Anglo settlers in Texas, who by that time significantly outnumbered the Mexican-descended Tejanos, did illegally keep slaves and that was certainly a cause of their dissatisfaction with the Mexican government. The spark of the rebellion though was with the 1835 military coup d'etat by Santa Anna that replaced the original, decentralized Mexican constitution with a new unitary state under his personal rule. That promised enforcement of anti-slavery requirements, the requirement that settlers convert to Catholicism, and an end to more or less free Anglo immigration. On the other hand the reason the Texans were so successful was because Santa Anna had to put down a number of other rebellions across Central Mexico, the strongest being that of Zacatecas but including ten other provinces. The Tejano support of the Texas revolution is explicable in terms of a broader reaction against the centralizing and authoritarian tendencies of Santa Anna, which failed outside of Texas though led to another revolution in 1840 that created the Republic of Yucatan. Slavery was certainly an issue for the Texas settlers but as the other rebellions demonstrated by no means necessary to rouse significant opposition to Santa Anna and his abrogation of the constitution of 1824.

Vastatosaurus Rex wrote:When I was visiting Texas with my family two winters ago, we went to see the Alamo in San Antonio. There, all the museum signs and displays made the people who fought in the Alamo against the Mexicans out to be freedom-fighting heroes. However, I've heard claims (some here) that the Alamo was actually fought in the name of preserving the Texan elite's right to own slaves. None of these claims were even mentioned by the signs and displays at the Alamo site. Was the Alamo indeed fought over slavery, or is this just historical revisionism?

Pretty much. It was also completely pointless. Sam Houston had ordered Traviss to abandon the "fort" and meet up with other forces, but Traviss refused, getting everyone but his slave killed. Granted it ended up being a PR victory.

Flagg wrote:Pretty much. It was also completely pointless. Sam Houston had ordered Traviss to abandon the "fort" and meet up with other forces, but Traviss refused, getting everyone but his slave killed. Granted it ended up being a PR victory.

It was more than just a PR victory. The almost 2 week delay it caused Santa Anna bought the Texians time that ended up being key in allowing them to organize so that they were a coherent fighting force at the Battle of San Jacinto, where Santa Anna was captured. Though even then it was luck that bought them the victory more so than superior force of arms.

And it wasn't only about slavery, they also didn't want to convert to Catholicism nor give up English in favor of Spanish. Of course, they had agreed to do those things when they moved into Tejas... particularly slavery. The final straw that led to revolution was a prohibition laid in place on additional colonization from Americans.

Indeed, as I remember from my US history class, when Mexico granted white southerners access to 'Texas' they did so with 3 expectations. 1) pay Mexican taxes which they didn't do so much or regularly. 2) Turn to Catholicism, which they didn't. And 3) don't use slavery, which they did.

For all of Andrew Jackson's faults and bad deeds, he was at least smart enough to say NO when Texas applied to be a US State the first time.

IIRC he didn't say no so much as anti-annexationists in Congress, including John Quincy Adams, raised and maintained such a ruckus over the issue that Texas withdrew it.

The Spanish and later Mexican governments gave the Texians a 99-year dispensation, allowing them to keep slaves they already had. However, they were not allowed to import any more slaves.

Did they? I remember it being more like they had to free their slaves with no new importation and that the Texians did just that... and made them all indentured servants, perpetuating the slavery in effect, if not in name.

Flagg wrote:

Vastatosaurus Rex wrote:When I was visiting Texas with my family two winters ago, we went to see the Alamo in San Antonio. There, all the museum signs and displays made the people who fought in the Alamo against the Mexicans out to be freedom-fighting heroes. However, I've heard claims (some here) that the Alamo was actually fought in the name of preserving the Texan elite's right to own slaves. None of these claims were even mentioned by the signs and displays at the Alamo site. Was the Alamo indeed fought over slavery, or is this just historical revisionism?

Pretty much. It was also completely pointless. Sam Houston had ordered Traviss to abandon the "fort" and meet up with other forces, but Traviss refused, getting everyone but his slave killed. Granted it ended up being a PR victory.

Travis and Bowie were both worried about being caught in the open by Santa Anna's lancers. Looking at what happened to Fannin and his men at Goliad, they may have been on to something. Fannin had more men than Travis, and his were better-equipped. The Mexican light horse ripped them a new one and the survivors were massacred.