Nick News says the Alamo was all about slavery

[kjm]

from what I have heard it was in part about slavery because of the outside influences of the pro slavery movement that wanted to annex Texas as a slave state.

OK- now I see the problem. You are confusing periods in Texas History. The revolution was not about slavery in the slightest. The Alamo had negligible effects in the strategic sense, however it showed that the Mexicans would not spare families, nor anybody even slightly involved. La Bahia and the Alamo showed that they would not honor any law of war or agreements, and so that coupled with Col. Travis' letter which recieved print space in many Northern and Southern Newspapers so inflamed the US that money poured into the cause- mainly from all places- New York.

Commandancy of the Alamo
Bexar, Feby. 24th, 1836

To the People of Texas & all Americans in the World--
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots--
I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man--The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls--I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all despatch--The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country--Victory or Death.


William Barret Travis Lt. Col. comdt.

The Alamo did buy time, but the whole reason they were there is because they fiddled around too long in destroying the mission and seizing the cannons and powder like they were ordered and got stuck there. Fannin did the same thing at La Bahia and got up to 300 men massacred after an honorable surrender (that incident sickened even the Mexican Officers who heard of it). All the dilly-dallying by the misc units bought time, and Santa Anna rather than going directly for Houston's main force deciding to sweep up each little band of rebels cost him the war.

The Alamo by some is considered an unfortunate act of delaying good orders, and the Goliad Massacre (La Bahia) was the total disregard of wise orders ending up in that mess.

The period of the Republic of Texas changed dramatically what Texas would look like. In my census figures above you can see the vast increase over two years in population. Some Texans wanted to go immediately to the US. Some stuck it out as a Republic. Sam Houston was in the former camp and was a loyal American- even in the War between the States. As Governor in 1860, he was run out of office when he refused to take the oath of allegience to the Confederacy.

Texas later became quite a slaveocracy, and by the latter years of the civil war, they were disgusted by it. Mr. Wolf writes of a headline talking about the war being "A poor man's fight for a rich man's n----r".

You have just been confusing the Texas rebellion with the Texas annexation period.

However- the decision to annex Texas into the United States 10 or so years later had everything to do with slavery. By that time, Texas was well established as a slave state and a young aristocratic Southern culture. Hence you had all the compromises in the Senate about how to do it. There were also problems about the size of Texas and so we were granted the right to do several things and among them we were given the option to split into four states which would have enabled us to gain six more seats in the Senate, but we'd have fought for years over who got the Alamo.

 

[novus collectus]

He formed several partnerships with New York speculators yet Texas did not permit slavery so Morgan got around the law by converting his slaves into 99-year indentured servants

I also found this in a few places on the net. Apparently it was not the Mexicans who made up this 99 years rule, it was the Texan slave owners. Mexico did not want any more problems than it needed and so in order to end slavery in the Texas area without fighting, they said that they would allow indentured service of the slaves and they would be free afterwards. Some Texan slave owners (like Morgan) made the slaves agree to 99 years of indentured servitude in order for him to agree to end their slavery :barf: . After a few incidents like this, Mexico made a law limiting the service to a maximum of 10 years.

I have found nothing yet that said the Mexican law allowed the ownership of Native American slaves and nothing to say that it wasn't an outlaw practice.

 

[novus collectus]

OK- now I see the problem. You are confusing periods in Texas History.

Maybe. Or maybe this quote from medicolegal.tripod.com/goodell... might be what I was talking about. I did not get this through Lexisnexis and it may not (or may) be a vetted source, but I have seen a similar explanation a few other times before.

...restoration and perpetuity of slavery. Our slave consuming States wanted an open field for slave emigration and security from a free border for fugitives. Our slave breeding States could brook no curtailment of their prospective privilege of a growing market. Texas must be made slave territory at all hazards. But the settlers were too weak to resist successfully the Mexican government. Expeditions fitted out from the United States, at the expense of the slaveholders, in 1819 and in 1826, had been found insufficient. What could be done?

restoration and perpetuity of slavery. Our slave consuming States wanted an open field for slave emigration and security from a free border for fugitives. Our slave breeding States could brook no curtailment of their prospective privilege of a growing market. Texas must be made slave territory at all hazards. But the settlers were too weak to resist successfully the Mexican government. Expeditions fitted out from the United States, at the expense of the slaveholders, in 1819 and in 1826, had been found insufficient. What could be done?

This same year, Thomas H. Benton, Judge Upshur, Mr. Gholson, and other prominent Southern statesmen as well as editors, openly urged the necessity of acquiring Texas as a means of extending slavery and improving the slave market.

 

[Vilkata]

In every history book in the world, even if they dont try to revise history, they leave out huge chunks just so that they can meld peoples minds to what they want.

Everyone always hears about concentration camps... Concentration camps are synonomous with "nazi evil". The people who popularized the concentration camps and mass starvation of prisoners, were the British during the Boer War. Several independent succesful northern-european republics in southern africa were established, only to be mercilessly destroyed by the Brits. Why? The republics had found diamond mines, and enjoyed their independence. Hundreds of thousands of men women & children were penned up in death camps and starved to death. With Winston Churchill partaking in the madness. There has long been a sort of racial anger in Britain for other northern europeans...

My point is, is that every history textbook in every school and colledge in the USA is probably full of bits of revisionist history, or at least huge blank spots that fail to give you a clear picture of what was going on.

Its appalling to say the least. And because 10% of Mexicos population is now living in the USA, they have started to try and revise history to make them look better, and make the 'evil corrupt white man' as barbaric and horrible as possible.

-Ben.

 

[cuate]

The Alamo

All of the above and the Nicklodeon are a good reason to skip a lot of the drivel on TV . What is now called San Antonio was composed mostly of Mexicans, missions, and a few outlying ranches that were very hard put to even exist with the Apaches running rampant, The Comanches
visited occasionally and they never knew if the Comanches were there peacefully, to raid or usually both. All these White farmers and their Negro Slaves are a figment of some racist's imagination, that came later in far East Texas on big plantations, a good deal later.

 

[novus collectus]

Its appalling to say the least. And because 10% of Mexicos population is now living in the USA, they have started to try and revise history to make them look better, and make the 'evil corrupt white man' as barbaric and horrible as possible.

Like I said before...it goes both ways. Although I have pointed out an interest by outside parties to annex Texas for the purpose of the continuation of slavery and Travis may have even been part of it, the Alamo was not fought for slavery for the majority IMHO. The Civil War was fought over slavery and the pieces of history that have been conveniently left blank, the pieces that have been reinterpreted and the pieces that, where there has been an attempt to revise, will never change this. In order for humanity to grow, we have to know even the bad things that make our own ancestors look like monsters.

Btw, I agree with the "evil white man" point you brought up. There are hispanic supremesist groups just like there are black and white supremisist groups and they all try to revise history for their cause.

 

[drinks]

Alamo;

Novus;
Santaanna was a murdering despot, it is only because Houston was also a Mason [apparently Mason membership is more important than taking care of a piece of s***], that he was not strung up on the spot.
The constitution of 1824 was a pretty decent document, the Napoleon of the West, aka Santaanna, threw it in the trash and set himself up as dictator, he was facing 3 groups who were in armed action to restore the 1824 document, the other 2 were deep in Mexico, if Houston had not whimped out and hung the little varmit Mexico MIGHT be a lot different place today, might not of course, they seem to have a real problem abiding by any laws.
Slavery was at the most , a very marginal issue, personal freedom and rule of law were the real issues.
As an aside, one great-great grandpa from Arkansas went to fight for the Confederacy, he did not have slaves, another , also from Arkansas, went to fight for the Union, he took 3 horses and a slave with him when he joined up.
Both died in a military hospital at Clarksville, Arkansas.
The slave died too and after the war, his widow petitioned the government for the cost of the 3 horses and the slave and she was paid for all of them.
Nick suks.
Don

 

[novus collectus]

As an aside, one great-great grandpa from Arkansas went to fight for the Confederacy, he did not have slaves, another , also from Arkansas, went to fight for the Union, he took 3 horses and a slave with him when he joined up.

Yes we can find examples but they are most often the exception. There is just too much documented evidence to prove that the whole purpose of the Southern leadership was to protect slavery and the majority of Southerners also had a stake in the issue.

Slavery was at the most , a very marginal issue, personal freedom and rule of law were the real issues [in 1836 Texas].

I wasn't arguing with this. I was just pointing out that there was, no matter how inconsequential, something to do with slavery and I too think (IMHO) it was only a marginal or minimal influence on the big picture for Texas in 1836. I also wanted to point out that, no matter which side you are on, no one is a complete saint (even Ghandi) no matter how much of history is conveniently left out. A good example is that if Lincoln was living today, he would be considered a racist bigot (no exaggeration).


And btw, I seriously doubt that a Catholic, that I think Santa Anna was, would ever be allowed to join the Masons.

 

[Fred Hansen]

But, look above and see what the result was from the time of governance by the Republic of Texas and then the U.S.A.

As soon as correlation equals causation I'll be sure to let you know. Until then the numbers you have submitted - while historically interesting - don't mean jack.

 

[univtxattorney]

Slave populations of Texas:
1836 - 5,000
1840 - 11,000
1850 - 58,161 (US Census)
1860 - 182,000

But, look above and see what the result was from the time of governance by the Republic of Texas and then the U.S.A.

I'd be interested to see the correlation in population growth. It could be that the absolute number of slaves grew, but that the number did not grow in proportion to the free citizens. It never does much good just to quote absolute numbers.

 

[novus collectus]

The colonization period of 1821-35 brought many settlers; the population was estimated at 20,000 in 1831. In 1834 Juan N. Almonte, after a visit to Texas, placed the population at 24,700, including slaves. In 1836 there were probably 5,000 blacks, 30,000 Anglo*Americans, 3,470 Hispanics, and 14,200 Indians in Texas. A population of about 50,000 is indicated by the vote for the first president of the republic in 1836, and the vote of 1845, the last year of the republic, indicated a population of 125,000. In 1847 a partial enumeration was made showing a population of 135,000, of whom 39,000 were slaves. In a census of the state for 1848 the total population was given as 158,356, of whom 42,455 were slaves.

From http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/government/CENSUS AND CENSUS RECORDS.cfm

If these numbers are accurate, then it went from 1/10 of the population to about 1/4 of the population in ten years. Seems like a growth in the per capita slaves to me. (this may not be an accurate source)

 

[kjm]

UnivTX: See my previous post where I provide the absolute numbers. The general population free and slave grew 3500% while the slave population grew 100% in two years between 1836 and 1838. A good hypothesis for this is that those who were already wealthy and in possession of land in the South didn't need to migrate. Those who went to Texas probably wanted to become landed and wealthy. I would think that the slave numbers probably grew much more rapidly sometime around 1845 and later after the immigrants began to grow more wealthy and needed more lands.

As far as being a Mason and a Catholic, the Masons are not anti-Catholic at all. They aren't anti-Jewish from what I know, and they aren't anti-Muslim. They are anti-athiest and require a belief in a supreme being but that's about it. Masonic lodges are still very vibrant in Mexico today. The mason's aren't to be confused with the Ku Klux Klan who are anti-Catholic and anti-everything but protestant. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE!

Santa Anna was a Mason and nobody disputes this- at least no real historian or anybody with any time studying the issue. Santa Anna gave the Mason in Distress sign and Sam Houston was obliged to help- but he got what he wanted out of the deal.

Just another interesting tid bit. The story gets more complex the more layers you peel away.

 

[univtxattorney]

Yes we can find examples but they are most often the exception. There is just too much documented evidence to prove that the whole purpose of the Southern leadership was to protect slavery and the majority of Southerners also had a stake in the issue.

Robert E. Lee said:

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages.

and

While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.

He was not in favor of slavery. He did own slaves pre-war, but freed them before the Civil War. Why did he fight? He was opposed to secession. He was actually offered a position in the Union Army by Lincoln. Lee, as many other Southerners, fought because he felt that the federal government was encroaching on State's rights. One of the state's rights issues happened to be slavery, but even the North wasn't against slavery at the outset, nor did they believe that slavery is what they were fighting to end.

U.S. Grant that said:

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side.

And Lincoln who said:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.

Lincoln also said the following in his inagural address:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Finally, history champions Lincoln as the compassionate freer of the slaves. Of course, history is written by the victors. However, Lincoln did write this:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

It's easy to maintain a view of history that says that those in the North were opposed to slavery, those in the South in favor of it; the North was compassionate toward all, the South evil and bigoted; Lincoln acted with compassion, Davis with contempt. It is a simplistic view of the war to say that it was fought over slavery. History shows us that slavery was but a cause of the war and not THE cause.

It is stated in books and papers that Southern children read and study that all the blood shedding and destruction of property of that conflict was because the South rebelled without cause against the best government the world ever saw; that although Southern soldiers were heroes in the field, skillfully massed and led, they and their leaders were rebels and traitors who fought to overthrow the Union, and to preserve human slavery, and that their defeat was necessary for free government and the welfare of the human family.

As a Confederate soldier and as a citizen of Virginia, I deny the charge, and denounce it as a calumny. We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes. --Richard Henry Lee, Confederate Colonel

The South saw it as their right to secede from the Union. As Thomas Jefferson said in hist first inagural:

If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union... let them stand undisturbed.

It was not only those in the South who felt that this was a right. The following is from the New York Tribune's Editor:

The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is that 'governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed' so if the Southern states want to secede they have a clear right to do so. If a tyrannical government justified the Revolution of 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.

Finally, Charles Dickens had a poignant quote on the war in 1862:

The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.

The Nick News is just another example of over-generalization of history for those either too lazy to do the research or who seek to promote their agenda by re-writing history to fit to their current point of view. The worst part is, they are trying to indoctrinate children who are too young to do the research for themselves. When I was young, childrens' TV consisted of a coyote trying to kill a roadrunner and a cross-dressing rabbit trying to fool a hunter. Man, those were the good ol' days.

 

[univtxattorney]

See my previous post where I provide the absolute numbers. The general population free and slave grew 3500% while the slave population grew 100% in two years between 1836 and 1838. A good hypothesis for this is that those who were already wealthy and in possession of land in the South didn't need to migrate. Those who went to Texas probably wanted to become landed and wealthy. I would think that the slave numbers probably grew much more rapidly sometime around 1845 and later after the immigrants began to grow more wealthy and needed more lands.

That sounds like a good explanation. I was just wondering about the numbers in proportion to free citizens. Thanks for the info!

 

[novus collectus]

The general population free and slave grew 3500%

So that would mean a 35 fold increase in the population in two years? That would mean that if there were the same amount of people in 1831 as there were in 1836, then the 1838 population would be 700,000. Where did they all come from and where did they all go when the U.S. census says that there were only 200,000 people in Texas in 1850?

As far as being a Mason and a Catholic, the Masons are not anti-Catholic at all. They aren't anti-Jewish from what I know, and they aren't anti-Muslim. They are anti-athiest and require a belief in a supreme being but that's about it. Masonic lodges are still very vibrant in Mexico today. The mason's aren't to be confused with the Ku Klux Klan who are anti-Catholic and anti-everything but protestant. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE!

You are obviously not a mason. I am not a mason but my father was, I have family who are and my neighbour is. I never ever said that they have one thing against Catholics, Jews and anyone other religion you can name. I said that they would unlikely accept a Catholic to the Freemasonry. You see, a Roman Catholic is only an official Roman Catholic recognised by the church if they recognise the Pope as being the only one after God (and Jesus) and that they are not supposed to place anything above him (or something like that. I am obviously not Catholic either). Apparrently this is why they do not accept Catholics (the placement of the Pope and not Jesus that is). Now, it is possible that Santa Anno was not a Catholic, but He may also may not have been a Mason.

 

[novus collectus]

First of all Univxattorney let me say that I did not read one of your quotes. I already know them and if you will read earlier in this thread you will see that I already pointed out that Lincoln was a bigot and that it was not everyone in the South that fought for the right to keep slaves, but it was most . You will also see that I never said that the reason the North fought the war was because the wanted to end slavery (mostly) and that I said that it was the South who was fighting to keep salvery and they just used states rights as an excuse. Lee was in conflict with the leadership of the South like Davis who said "The proper condition of the negro is slavery, or a complete subjugation to the white man" in an address to the people.

The Nick News is just another example of over-generalization of history for those either too lazy to do the research or who seek to promote their agenda by re-writing history to fit to their current point of view

Apparently it is not just Nickolodeon who generalises and doesn't questions what they hear.

As commissioner Hale of Alabama explained to the Governor of Kentucky before the war when he was trying to garner support for secession "If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern states. The slave-holder and non-slave holder must ultimately share the same fate; all be degraded to a position of equality with the free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternise in all social relations of life, or else there will be an enternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying the resources of the country. Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters in the not distant future associated with free Negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped by the heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?" (charlettesville, Va: University Press of Virginia, 98-99)

This sounds to me like they did not care about states rights nearly as much as they were white supremascists who wanted to keep the black race subjugated (preferably as slaves). This is definetly not the only example since there is plenty of newspapers at the time that said the same thing that convinced the Southerners to fight with the slave owners so that they did not have to be equal to a free black man.

 

[kjm]

OK- Each lodge is organized under a Grand Lodge. I.e: The Brazos County lodge falls under the Grand Lodge of Texas which IIRC is the supreme authority of Masonry in Texas, and is equal to all other Grand Lodges. In each county lodge, you may find a majority of a particular religious sect. There WERE jews in my grandfather's lodge and I remember him calling a prominent jew in the town "Brother Schwartz".

The Masons generally do not hold that Jesus is God. Some specific lodges may, but each lodge differs slightly and some differ greatly. Santa Anna was a freemason, as is the case with Sam Houston. At least he has portraits wearing the apron and he was using the secret signs in use at that time. No mason or historian here in Texas is likely to post a definitive arguement to this. Since I am not personally a freemason, I would welcome the input of the many who are here lurking to give opinions about the diety issue if you feel comfortable doing that.

Short of that, I recommend that you pick any catholic country like Mexico and look up the grand lodge there on google or perhaps the Grand Lodge of Costa Rica where Catholicism is the official and only recognized religion.
I did find this on the net:

GUILLERMO DE LOS REYES
University of the Americas-Puebla, Mexico, and the University of Pennsylvania

Freemasonry in its myriad varieties has been a strong force in Mexico since the time of the wars for independence from Spain of the 1820s. Given its highly secretive and cabalistic nature, scholarship and research on its effects on Mexican society have been severely limited One overlooked possibility is that in a society where educational opportunities were restricted by economics and by social caste, local lodges afforded same young Mexicans with political aspirations the chance to sharpen their rhetorical and organizational abilities. The close connection between a number of Mexican presidents and the Masonic movement may illustrate that.

I could post some stuff in Spanish but since only a few here read the language, it might not be that useful.

As for the disposition of all the folks who came in 1838 I'll venture a guess that many were drawn by free land but came and realized that the worse threat than the Mexicans were the Commanches and Apaches who freely raided throughout the whole period of Independence. Many believed they would just get land for nothing and many realized that Texas sucked compared to the comforts of home and left in a few years.

My family was already established here by 1831 and so they had a heads up on everybody else. They'd already built their homes, the farm and had plenty of wealth.

THe next major wave of immigrants to Texas was the German migration after the War between the states when many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of immigrants flooded ashore in Galveston and Indianola- but my knowlege of this period of Texas is somewhat weak.

 

[novus collectus]

www.grandlodgeoftexas.org/san-...
I stand corrected on two counts. Santa Anna was a member of a lodge in Mexico and he was Catholic. But if you hit the link (if I did it right) you will see the story of the Masonic sign of distress argued against by Sam Houston's great-grandson. Apparently it is jus the local lodges here that do not accept Catholics. (or maybe it is just the Scotsrite Masons or something??).

As for the disposition of all the folks who came in 1838 I'll venture a guess that many were drawn by free land but came and realized that the worse threat than the Mexicans were the Commanches and Apaches who freely raided throughout the whole period of Independence. Many believed they would just get land for nothing and many realized that Texas sucked compared to the comforts of home and left in a few years.

You missed my question. 3,500% is a increas of 35 times and that would mean that the population was less than 6,000 people in 1836 or 500,000 people dissapeared from the state in 12 years for the 1850 census.

The U.S. census says that there were just over 200,000 people in 1850 (the first census of Texas) and it has been estimated that there were 20,000 people in 1831. So how do you get 35 x 20,000 = 200,000?? Apparently there were more slaves per capita than your earlier claims suggests.

 

[kjm]

I get that number not from the 1850 census but from the estimates of Texas in 1838, two years after the official end of hostilities between Mexico. I believe it is 12 years from the 1850 census and quite a bit happened.

Slavery in the South has historically been understood to be practiced by only 1% or around that of the population. I don't see that Texas was vastly different, though there were some areas where slaves were common, Texas is a big place.

 

[novus collectus]

So am I to assume that you estimated the 100% increase of slaves compared to the 3,500% of whites in those two years as well?

In 1860 25% (a whole lot more than 1%) of the South's population were slaveowners (including black slave owners) and the majority of Southerners were directly related to slavery through work or family. Many Southerners would also hire out a slave instead of purchasing one for their crop picking, or they rented one out of need for a skilled laborer (like a carpenter). Many Southerners also worked as slavedrivers or foremen. Others were connected because they had buissinesses that had to supply or were supplied by the plantations. The plantation owners and their families were the vast majority of government and were the entire aristocracy (and they are the ones who fomented war).

In 1836 Texas was a major illegal smuggling center for blacks that were still being shipped from Africa and there were an estimated (by a govenment employee) 15,000 smuggled Africans a year being brought in.