Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Believe me they are not very bright here when it comes to knowing anything about Texas. When I first moved here someone told me that Texas still uses the electric chair. Someone else said they heard that Texas was a dry state for liquor
You are totally ignorant about Texas and its history. It had nothing to do with slavery since slavery was very common around the globe and this went on for thousands of years. The Alamo was fought to gain complete independence from Mexico. Don't confuse the Texas Revolution with the American Civil War.
Where you guys get your ignorant hatred and boogey man stories for the state of TX is quite amusing.
What is sad is that slavery exists today all over the world including the US. Human trafficking is one of the worst forms of slavery today.
Now you got me wondering, TVC ... so I read through the Wikipedia link you provided ... and there I found this paragraph on the: Economic origin of conflict
Cotton was in high demand throughout Europe and so a lucrative export throughout the southern United States. Much of the land being opened up to Anglos in Mexican Texas was well suited for cotton, but raising cotton was a labor intensive endeavor at the time, profitable only by use of slave labor. Many of the American immigrants from the southern American states had an investment in slaves and ignored the Mexican laws against slavery. The Mexican government had invited immigrants to Mexican Texas with the understanding that they would produce food crops, insisting upon production of corn, grain and beef.[12]Former American settlers found such micromanagement of the land use to be opposed to their economic interests in slavery. They tended to ignore their contracts. If these were enforced, Texas slave-owners stood to lose a large investment in slave labor. While the vast majority of Anglo settlers did not own slaves, the few who did held considerable economic, political and social influence. Consequently, Mexico's prohibition of slavery was essentially unenforced.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,446,309 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
Now you got me wondering, TVC ... so I read through the Wikipedia link you provided ... and there I found this paragraph on the: Economic origin of conflict
Cotton was in high demand throughout Europe and so a lucrative export throughout the southern United States. Much of the land being opened up to Anglos in Mexican Texas was well suited for cotton, but raising cotton was a labor intensive endeavor at the time, profitable only by use of slave labor. Many of the American immigrants from the southern American states had an investment in slaves and ignored the Mexican laws against slavery. The Mexican government had invited immigrants to Mexican Texas with the understanding that they would produce food crops, insisting upon production of corn, grain and beef.[12]Former American settlers found such micromanagement of the land use to be opposed to their economic interests in slavery. They tended to ignore their contracts. If these were enforced, Texas slave-owners stood to lose a large investment in slave labor. While the vast majority of Anglo settlers did not own slaves, the few who did held considerable economic, political and social influence. Consequently, Mexico's prohibition of slavery was essentially unenforced.
Let me just say this...I also read it and believe me that war was not about slavery. There were many factors that contributed to that war and slavery was not at the top of the list. Complete Independence from Mexico was the reason. Read the rest of the article and not just that little paragraph. I know Texas history better than any CA thinks they do.
Did you miss this part?
The new country emerged essentially bankrupt from the war against Spain. With little money for the military, Mexico encouraged settlers to create their own militias for protection against hostile Indian tribes. Texas was very sparsely populated and in the hope that an influx of settlers could control the Indian raids, the government liberalized immigration policies for the region.The first group of colonists, known as the Old Three Hundred, had arrived in 1822 to settle an empresarial grant that had been given to Stephen F. Austin. Of the 24 empresarios, only one settled citizens from within the Mexican interior; most of the remaining settlers came from the United States.
As well as this?
Texians were becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Mexican government. Many of the Mexican soldiers garrisoned in Tejas were convicted criminals who were given the choice of prison or serving in the army in Tejas. Many Texians were also unhappy with the location of their state capital, which moved periodically between Saltillo and Monclova, both of which were in southern Coahuila, some 500 miles (800 km) away; they wanted Tejas to be a separate state from Coahuila (but not independent from Mexico) and to have its own capital. Some American immigrants and Mexican citizens were accustomed to the rights they had in the U.S. that they did not have in Mexico. For example, Mexico did not protect Freedom of Religion, instead requiring colonists to pledge their acceptance of Roman Catholicism; Mexican Law also required a tithe paid to the Catholic Church. Since nearly all the American immigrants were Protestant and many reviled Catholicism, they found such demands to be highly offensive. In the Mexican interior, violence began to erupt between those who supported federalism and those who wanted a centralized government.
Slavery was common back in those days.
The American Civil War was fought by the South to preserve slavery not the Battle of the Alamo.
All I can say is that we are now in the 21st century so what does the Battle of the Alamo have anything to do with today? At least the Great State of Texas won its Independence from Mexico. I think that was good thing in history.
Let me just say this...I also read it and believe me that war was not about slavery. There were many factors that contributed to that war and slavery was not at the top of the list. Complete Independence from Mexico was the reason. Read the rest of the article and not just that little paragraph. I know Texas history better than any CA thinks they do.
Did you miss this part?
...
No. I didn't miss any part. I read the whole link because you had written:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVC15
You are totally ignorant about Texas and its history. It had nothing to do with slavery since slavery was very common around the globe and this went on for thousands of years. The Alamo was fought to gain complete independence from Mexico. Don't confuse the Texas Revolution with the American Civil War.
Where you guys get your ignorant hatred and boogey man stories for the state of TX is quite amusing.
So now if any American voices their opinion on something they are labeled crackpots...
obama sure is changing America from:
Land of the free and home of the brave
to:
Land of the muzzled and home of the wimps
I don't think Obama has commented on this story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone else said they heard that Texas was a dry state for liquor 
'tis the season of the crack pots..........
