Okay, it's been awhile, I know. Here is a link to primary source materials about Texas history on the internet:
http://home.austin.rr.com/rgriffin/texhisdocs.html
This site presents a thorough, but relatively concise timeline:
http://www.lsjunction.com/events/events.htm
Yes, there's a link in there to an abolitionist tract making many of the same accusations about the Texas revolution being about slavery, but it is one of many, and the only one I found that mentions slavery used as a justification for war. I looked for, but could not find my old textbook that contained slave population statistics in Texas at the time. I just remember being taught and reading that Texas had far fewer slaves per capita than other states in the Confederacy, and so I seriously doubt that it had to do with the reasons for the revolution, though the existence of slaves did hinder and delay annexation by the U.S.
The reasons for the revolution were similar to those of the American Revolution. There were significant cultural differences between the Mexicans and the Anglo settlers in Texas, and Mexico, and in particular Santa Anna were becoming more and more oppressive as they tried to rein in control over the large colony far removed from the capitol, and the people developing their seperate economy there. All new Texas immigrants were made to swear that they were Catholic, were given large tracts of land but had almost zero say in their government. Stephen F. Austin, one of the first and most influential "empresarios" in Texas was jailed in Mexico City when he tried to speak out against the Mexican government "reforms." When Santa Anna changed the boundaries of the Mexican states and made all of Texas part of Coauhiba, with a state capitol south of the Rio Grande, it was like the stamp act in Boston.
Why is there Texas pride about this history? I know of no other single state that has defeated another nation in war, much less become a nation itself. Though there were early talks between Houston and his friend, Andrew Jackson, then the president about annexation from the beginning, when it became clear that the time was not right, Texas governed itself. I've seen the plaque in London on the site of the Republic of Texas embassy to Great Britain. There were also embassies in France and Belgium, I think. Sam Houston, who had lived for years with Indians in the East, had very good relations with the Texas Indians. Mirabeau B. Lamar, the 2nd president, while he brought war with the Indians, established a public school system more advanced than that of the U.S. during that time. Yeah, Texans think their star is bigger than those of other states, but there are good reasons for it.
P.S. Because I brought it up, here is a brief history of Wisconsin:
Quote:
Wisconsin was first inhabited by varied Indian tribes in the 17th century. They included the Algonquian-speaking Menominee, Kickapoo, Miami, the Siouan-speaking Winnebago, Dakota (or Sioux) and Iowa. In the mid-1600's other groups entered Wisconsin, including the Fox, Sac, Potawatomi and Ojibewa (Chippewa).
The Wisconsin region was first explored for France by Jean Nicolet, who landed at Green Bay in 1634. Jean Nicolet, a native of France, was the first explorer to reach the area while searching for the Northwest Passage to China in 1634. The French lost possession of Wisconsin and all of it's territories east of the Mississippi to Great Britain during the French and Indian War.
In 1660 a French trading post and Roman Catholic mission were established near present-day Ashland.
Great Britain obtained the region in settlement of the French and Indian Wars in 1763; British possession of Wisconsin ended in 1783, when Britain signed the treaty ending the American Revolution. Because the U.S. government had no effective control over Wisconsin, it remained under unofficial British control. Fur trade continued as the foundation of Wisconsin's economy.
The first wave of American settlers in Wisconsin came in the 1820's as a result of a lead mining boom in northwest Illinois and southwest Wisconsin. The movement of white settlers into the Midwest caused intense conflict when the federal government and settlers attempted to move Native Americans from their lands. Federal policies included uprooting entire tribes and forcing them to resettle west of the Mississippi. When the Sac people tried to return in 1832, the Black Hawk war started ending in the Bad Axe Massacre with less than 1000 Native Americans surviving. Other Wisconsin tribes either left the area, or negotiated reservation lands.
The region was successively governed as part of the territories of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan between 1800 and 1836, when it became a separate territory.
No longer having opposition from the Native Americans, a second wave of settlers came to Wisconsin and in 1836 the Wisconsin Territory was organized. Around the 1840's a third wave of settlers came to Wisconsin, attracted by good farmland. At that time the state became the nation's leading wheat producer. On May 29, 1848, Wisconsin was admitted to the Union as the 30th state.
|
fascinating stuff.