Isn't the Alamo a Monument to Slavery?

Nice piece of propoganda. You've posted this same "out of context" message in three places around IMDB. Let's make some sense of it.

"When American settlers came to Texas, they owned slaves."

That's an inaccurate statement. While it's true that SOME of the settlers that came from the regions to the north (not all were from already formed states), owned slaves, they didn't ALL own slaves. Also, not ALL of them were American, by definition, or by citizenship. Some were Creole, Acadian, French, Spanish, British, Irish, German, and various other nationalities.

The Mexicans did not believe in owning human beings, so this was one of the causes of the war

This is ALSO false. While slavery was "offically" outlawed, the Mexican army thought nothing of riding into the Arizona territory and making off with numerous captives of all descriptions from the various tribes from the region. These people were used for everything imaginable, from sex slaves to currency, yet the official stance was...you guessed it, no slavery.

Even though Santa Ana claimed this as one of his reasons for dealing so harshly with the "rebels," he seemed so shocked that they refused to join the Catholic church, and to take Spanish surnames. Both of these conditions were requirements of land ownership in Mexico, and you could NOT stay in Mexico without owning land, or working on the land. Oh, and if you WORKED on the land, the same rules applied as if you OWNED the land.....

In short, the Alamo is not a monument to slavery, but to a battle that NEVER should have been fought, by gallant, brave men who were doing what they thought was right.


Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway. John Wayne

It is a story of a few rag tag men who joined together to fight the tyranny of a greater, more powerful foe who wanted to oppress them. Who cares nor remembers the slavery, it was legal anyway at the time. Most of these men and the majority of the soldiers in the Confederacy didn’t own slaves anyway.

In the end these men won the war, those these brave souls gave their lives in return. And in the Mexican War of 1846-48 we rightfully acquired land that was won in a fair and just war. All those liberals that say otherwise are ignorant of history and clouded by their stupid ideology. The US Army in that war never numbered more than 11,000, yet they whipped a Mexican Army much larger and on their home turf. I would say that was a fair fight, huh?

This is a great story, of men of all different and divergent races and ethnicities joining together for one common cause. It is a cause and notion we would be well advised to learn from today.

If we throw out opinion, and only consider fact, there are interesting comparisons of historical implications and social relevance.

1. FACT: AMERICAN SLAVES WERE OWNED BY BLACK TRIBAL LEADERS IN AFRICA – WHERE SLAVERY WAS A FACT OF LIFE, FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. [The notion that American blacks were free and proud black African men, who were enslaved by white men in America, is pure fantasy. They were not. They had been enslaved by African tribal leaders for CENTURIES. (When someone speaks of being descended from slaves, and only speaks of the "cotton fields" in this country, they fail to address CENTURIES of black enslavement in Africa. Sadly, agenda causes folks to be less than honest, if telling half the truth is more self-serving. Clearly, it is much more dramatic, and self-satisfying, to pretend that their ancestors were "strong and noble" than those who had been conquered. (How do they explain that their "strong and noble and intelligent" leaders were over-powered, for that length of time, and in those numbers, and never figured out how to outrun, or out power, or outwit the slave traders. We can assume slave traders weren't very fit, or very bright. How were they so darn successful, for so long?)

For centuries, powerful African black tribal leaders (who had guns and armies), captured weaker blacks, and enslaved them (to do the work that the tribal leaders didn’t want to do, and did not expect their friends and family to do either). They were keeping slaves thousands of years before any white man set foot on this continent. They were keeping slaves before we knew how to build boats and cross oceans.

The black tribal leaders were approached by traders who wanted money for their goods, but the tribal leaders had more slaves than money, so they arranged to trade people, and became part of the triangle of trade, exchanging spare slaves for weapons, ammunition, watches, boots, horses, tack, carriages, cannons, tents, linens, chairs, tables, dishes, silverware, pots and pans, specialty food items, fabric, and finished clothing (including uniforms for their armies). The blacks who were brought to America as slaves WERE ALREADY SLAVES (or captives, same thing) in Africa, so they were not “sold into slavery” because they already were slaves. Their life in America was no worse than the slavery they faced in Africa, and sometimes even better. Some circumstances are nuanced, and would not be logical without foundation, so I will not include those. However, American masters did not automatically hold the position that slaves were “disposable” or “expendable.”

After being moved to the new world, the slaves (or their children) were freed by 1863 (and often times before that). THAT MAGIC DATE DID NOT BRING FREEDOM TO AFRICAN SLAVES; ONLY AMERICAN SLAVES. This is a monumental truth that is worth a great deal of consideration. Not only were the slaves freed, but THEIR FAMILIES WERE ALLOWED TO PROSPER AS FULL CITIZENS. ONLY THOSE WHO ARE NAIVE OF THE WAYS OF THE WORLD TAKE THIS FOR GRANTED, OR AS A GRAIN OF SALT. This is another monumental truth. Anyone who disregards this circumstance are truly exhibiting their lack of foundational understanding

QUESTION: During what years were slaves brought to North America? How many slaves were brought to North America? When were those slaves freed? When were their “African” cousins freed? What is the condition of African slaves today?

2. FACT: MANY AFRICAN COUNTRIES HAVE NOT FOUND A WAY TO END SLAVERY EVEN TODAY, AFTER 10,000 years of slavery. WHY ARE THOSE WHO CONSTANTLY SPEAK OUT ABOUT THE "LONG PAST" HISTORY OF SLAVERY IN THE USA, NOT FIGHTING THE CURRENT SLAVERY IN AFRICA????????????? [A few conservatives have gone to Africa to fight slavery, they can't do it alone.]

3. FACT: OUR FOUNDING FATHERS ADDRESSED SLAVERY AND THE GREATEST DOCUMENT TO FREEDOM IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION dealt with the issue of slavery, and included language that would ban the importation of slaves after a mere 21 years. Then, in another 14 years, slaves were returned to Africa if they wanted to return. Then, in another 41 years, SLAVERY WAS ABOLISHED IN THE USA. That’s right. It only took the USA a total of 76 years (including a war for good measure) to RIGHT THE WRONGS OF RECORDED AND EVEN PRE-RECORDED HISTORY, GOING BACK 10,000 YEARS OR MORE.

NO COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD CAN MATCH OUR RECORD OF DEALING WITH A “PROBLEM” AS QUICKLY AS WE DID. We resolved a terrible TEN THOUSAND YEAR OLD PROBLEM IN 76 YEARS. THAT IS A PHENOMENAL RECORD AND AN AMAZING RESULT. Yet, after LEADING THE WORLD in ending slavery, the USA still gets kicked in the teeth (by those who have zero understanding of actual history).

Why do some "self-appointed" "black" leaders continue to get rich on the false stories of their injured background??? Why do they not tell the truth, and PRAISE this country for the GOOD THAT WE HAVE DONE in lessening slavery all over the world???

4. FACT: In the case of TEXAS, the abolition of importation of slaves from foreign lands was accomplished before Texas became a state, and LIMITED slavery continued for only another 20 years after Texas joined the union. SHOW ME ONE COUNTRY IN AFRICA WHERE SLAVERY WAS ELIMINATED AFTER 20 YEARS. INDEED, SHOW ME ONE COUNTRY ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD WHERE SLAVERY WAS ABOLISHED AFTER A MERE 20 YEARS.


<<<<<<“When American settlers came to Texas, they owned slaves. The Mexicans did not believe in owning human beings, so this was one of the causes of the war. When Texas became a State it was a slave State.”>>>>>>


Rather than indicting entire populations, and making false assumptions, one can certainly deny that American settlers who came to Texas did not own slaves. If the maker of this statement knew anything whatsoever about “owning slaves,” he/she would know why that statement is nonsense.

Likewise, the next statement about “the Mexicans” is incorrect. They cannot be excluded by some emotional sweep of human kindness by the writer. The records of their "owning" humans is too numerous to be ignored. Again, a sweeping generalization that is absolutely not true.

Finally, if the maker of this statement were better versed as to WHY the states chose to join as “slave states” he/she would know that those valid reasons had NOTHING to do with “slavery” per se.

Flying by “the seat of your pants” at the corner bar, after a couple of beers, on a Friday evening, is one thing, but to go to a credible site, like IMDb, and to then indict entire populations, is just plain wrong. To avoid apocryphal historical blunders, it is wise to use peer reviewed writings of topics. Any local community college history department can provide a reading list to provide factual information to balance opinion.

Obviously Harrytrue is either a left wing extremist who has an obsession with slavery, which was abolished over 140 years ago. Or he's one of the mexican thieves who is using this forum to spread pro mexican, anti American propaganda. In any case, those stinking mexicans that he claims didn't believe in owning human beings are certainly coming north of the border nowadays in droves to steal what we Americans own. Maybe it's time for another war between the U.S. and Mexico.

[deleted]

Just by reading the comments in this thread you realize how history is skewered shamelessly. People have been saying, "Only a few owned slaves" or "There weren't that many slaves". And they are basically downplaying the role slavery played on Texas society. Whether it was 100 slaves or 1 million slaves in Texas (and the South) the key issue here is that there were people enslaved against their will.

The key issue here is that slavery existed. Even if a minority owned slaves, the vast majority condoned slavery. Texas whined about Mexico and later the U.S. government trampling on their rights while ignoring the rights of slaves. Hypocrisy at its finest. You guys can say these "brave men who died at the Alamo were fighting for freedom". But the fact is they did not care for the freedom of enslaves blacks. And when Texas became part of the United States, they segregated the Mexicans who had been living on that land for years to a marginalized existence. Then after the U.S. Civil War was over these Texans instituted segregation to the fullest extent.

These Texans were only fighting for freedom if you have a twisted view of freedom and history.

My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread?

[deleted]

The assertion on this thread that the Texas fight for independence was to support slavery is unfounded. Remember that of the 180 plus men who gave up their lives in that battle, only two are known to actually have owned any slaves...Bowie and Travis. Now when you think about it, why would the other 180 be so willing to die so that someone else could own slaves? And the small percentage of southerners who actually owned slaves is fact because it was almost all rich, wealthy land owners who had enough money to own slaves. I have researched my ancestors, all southerners, and not one owned a slave. They were farmers but could not afford slaves.

The Texas fight was to revolt against a dictator, Santa Ana, and to make Texas independent from Mexico. It was a fight not unlike America's own fight for independence some 60 years before the Alamo which also had nothing to do with slavery.