In 1836, 200 Texans held out against 2,000 Mexicans for two weeks at the Alamo.Men like Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie gave their life so Sam Houston could organize a force to take on Santa Anna and free Texas from Mexican tyranny.Americans, remember who you are descended from
>>18110302People chimping tf out because they wanted to enslave niggers? What a legacy to uphold...
>>18110302Bullshit. In the Texas Independence, when Southern newspapers began reporting that the Texas War was a conflict between White Anglo-Americans against the "Hispanic-Mongrel inferior race" and their tyrannical government. Stephen Austin, a member of the Knights of the Golden Circle, defined this War as "A war of barbarism and of despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race, against civilization and the Anglo-American race".All this is a big lie, the Mexican Tejanos had formed a rebellion side by side with the American Colonists, having as their main objective to fight against the dictatorship of Antonio López de Santa Anna. After the Revolution ended, the Norteños who had risen against Mexico City were betrayed, Southerners immigrated en masse to this newly independent country to build new slave plantations along the Coast, and the Norteños who lived there lost their possessions and were expelled from their lands. Juan Seguín, who had been elected mayor of San Antonio in Texas, was sent into exile after a mob of Southerners arrivals accused him of being a Mexican spy. He returned to that land years later after proving his innocence only to discover that Texas had become a racially segregated society, where Norteños were forced to live on land located along the Rio Grande and at that time none of them had any hope of obtaining political representation.>"At every hour of the day and night, my countrymen ran to me for protection against the assaults or exactions of those adventurers. Sometimes, by persuasion, I prevailed on them to desist; some times, also, force had to be resorted to. How could I have done other wise? Were, not the victims my own countrymen, friends and associates? Could; I leave them defenceless, exposed to the assaults of foreigners, who, on the pretext that they were Mexicans, treated them worse than brutes." (A Foreigner in My Own Land: Juan Nepomuceno Seguin Flees Texas, 1842)
>>18110308Someone had their copypasta ready to go. Probably a bot.
>>18110308Btw Despite being one of the issues that led to the Civil War, Texas was the only non-totally slaveholding Southern state (because it is a recent state) of the whose to declare session from Union. The other states were all from the Deep South, the place in the United States where Slavery was most ingrained in society.
>>18110329This is a thread about the Texas Revolution not the War of Northern Aggression. Samefag somewhere else.
>>18110335>During the Jim Crow era of the 1950s, the term "War of Northern Aggression" developed under the Lost Cause of the Confederacy movement by Southern historical revisionists or negationists. This label was coined by segregationists in an effort to equate contemporary efforts to end segregation with 19th-century efforts to abolish slavery>The name "War of Northern Aggression" has been used to indicate the Union as the belligerent party in the war. The name arose during the Jim Crow era of the 1950s when it was coined by segregationists who tried to equate contemporary efforts to end segregation with 19th-century efforts to abolish slavery. The name has been criticized by historians such as James M. McPherson, as the Confederacy "took the initiative by seceding in defiance of an election of a president by a constitutional majority" and "started the war by firing on the American flag">Since the free states and most non-Yankee groups (Germans, Dutch-Americans, New York Irish and southern-leaning settlers in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois) showed opposition to waging the Civil War, other Confederate sympathizers have used the name "War of Yankee Aggression" to indicate the Civil War as a Yankee war, not a Northern war per se>Conversely, the "War of Southern Aggression" has been sometimes used to emphasize the Confederacy's status as the belligerent party, in particular the Confederacy starting the war by initiating combat at Fort SumterLmao. That term is literally a 50s Dixoid desegregation butthurt retcon. Show me a 20th-century document with that term or eat shit and die, Cletus.
>>18110350Furthermore, the Texas Revolution and the Civil War are closely intertwined, in fact, the Texas Revolution was a blueprint for what the South planned to do after Secession.The Southern planter aristocracy was the primary driver in the political crisis. Calhoun and the South Carolina planters tried to convince other states to secede whenever a crisis sprung up, since they needed a place to dump their excess slave population, and the ban on the international slave trade would make that impossible if SC was alone. What made John Brown a southern bogeyman was that he embodied the southern nightmare scenario: a Haiti-style slave revolt/race war. Just as SC needed other states to offload their excess slaves, the South as a whole needed new land to spread their growing slave population, especially as the soil back east was being depleted by King Cotton. Slavery, cotton, and territorial expansion were the three pillars of the southern economy. The other driving force behind the proslavery movement was the assumption that free states would always vote against the interests of slave states.The Knights of the Golden Circle was a southern group advocating the annexation of former Spanish colonies (Cuba, Central America) to create more slave states and more plantations. Setting them aside, the Federal government had to dissuade southerners from joining privately funded filibustering expeditions to conquer Latin American countries. Leaving aside the speculation, the rationale for taking Texas and the Mexican Cession was southern settlement. That the land was unsuited for plantation farming, or that the locals didn’t want slavery imposed where it had been abolished, and the white settlers (mostly southerners, including California’s governor and all of its Congressmen) agreed with them, was a nasty shock.
>>18110362The 1850 crisis and the resulting compromise happened because the South wanted to impose slavery over a region against the will of the people who lived there. The concept of popular sovereignty had to be invented for them to accept reality, and they had to go one step further by pushing through the Fugitive Slave Act.The Fugitive Slave Act merely radicalized New England, New York, Michigan, and Wisconsin, when very few slaves would get that far. Free states that bordered slave states had people who owned land and slaves on the other side of the border, so naturally they had few problems with compliance. Northern defiance where it mattered least inflamed radicals in the Deep South, where escape was nearly impossible. This radicalization destroyed the Whig Party, which represented people from all parts of the country, and replaced it with the Republican Party, which only represented the values and interests of the free states (despite their first presidential candidate being southern-born John C. Fremont). This drove southern Whigs into the Democratic Party, while the moderate northern Whigs faded away.I should also mention that the southern assumption that the free states would always oppose them was never true until the 1850s, since slave owners living in free states and businessmen who worked with slave owners held considerable influence in the North. California, the epicenter of the 1850 crisis and home state of the 1856 Republican candidate, even voted consistently alongside the South until 1860.The Kansas-Nebraska Act furthered the political/regional divide, as it repealed the Missouri Compromise and turned popular sovereignty into a tool to spread slavery. As radicals flooded Kansas, the violence was not exclusive to the abolitionists and Free Soilers, though John Brown’s exploits are the best known.
>>18110350>>18110362Oh its you, seen you in a few other threads. Bet your flag is Brazilian over on /pol/
>>18110364The whole debacle was so polarizing that it made an incompetent asshole like James Buchanan, who was uninvolved in the debate over the law, into a viable presidential candidate, while creating an opening for Stephen Douglas to potentially lose his Senate seat.Before I get into the 1858 Senate race, I should talk about the Dred Scott Decision. The lower courts all broke established precedent, which would have granted Scott his freedom, because of the political atmosphere. Chief Justice Taney, quoted by some apologists in reference to Lincoln alleged tyranny, read a prepared statement throwing out the suit because the plaintiff is legally property, then overstepped the bounds of the case to declare that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate slavery in the territories. You can’t say that the southern push to expand slavery is a northern conspiracy when the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court outright said it.The 1858 Senate race is less important for its effects on the South as it is for the Republican Party. Douglas as the incumbent, pushed the 1850 Compromise through Congress and was the architect of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Lincoln was merely a prominent state level politician who served one term in the House. His electoral challenge brought him the national attention to grab the 1860 presidential nomination. Meanwhile, Douglas tried to shore up his antislavery credentials with the Freeport Doctrine, declaring that territories were free until they passed a law to legalize slavery, alienating potential southern supporters in his eventual presidential campaign in 1860.Lincoln secured the Republican nomination against Fremont, tainted by his 1856 electoral defeat, and Seward, whose abolitionism and connection to Thurlow Weed’s political machine made him unelectable. Meanwhile the Democrats split over sectional lines and the moderate southern Whigs made one last gasp at relevancy with the Constitutional Union Party.
>>18110350>>18110362>>18110364>>18110366That's very nice. Which discord do you get all this in?
>>18110329>>18110362>>18110364>>18110366The whole 1850 crisis happened because southern politicians didn’t want to accept that their fellow southerners living in the Mexican Cession didn’t want slavery, and that both the desert and the Rocky Mountains are horrible places to build cotton plantations. The South pushed for the annexation of Texas and war with Mexico because they assumed the new territory would become slave states, then threw a bitchfit when faced with reality. Northern radicalization was a reaction to southern provocation.TL;DR: The South wanted to spread slavery based on faulty political assumptions and their own unsustainable economy, the North tried to placate them, and Lincoln might have lost if the anti-Republican vote wasn’t split between three divisive candidates.
>>18110302>Texas Revolution thread>Oh sweet!>enter>some fag spamming his copypastasWhy are yankees so mindbroken?
>>18110302>Mexican tyranny.Those God damn beaners trying to take away my nigger bucks before I have the chance to break them.....
>>18110306History has proven them to be 100% correct in both defending the border and preserving an Ancient and noble African institution, like human slavery, which is still only practiced in Africa today. They fight to preserve it, and they know their own people best, so we should do as they do, not what you say ;>) Besides, """somefolks""" really get off on the slave fetish victim complex thing, can't be very profitable, if you know what you're doing ;>)
>>18110362I want marry gyaru Texans wife
>>18110302Santa Anna was walking around the El Lame-O, when he saw Davy Crockett up in the wall and asked>What the hell is that?The raccoon answered>I don't know, but it began as hemorrhoids.
>>18113587>>18110350>>18110364>>18110366mexico flooding was best thing on 2025
>>18110302REVOLUTION USAtime to burn it all downand start over again
