|
Joe?
Nov 16, 2009 13:57:09 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 16, 2009 13:57:09 GMT -5
Agree with that one!
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 16, 2009 16:28:27 GMT -5
Post by jesswald on Nov 16, 2009 16:28:27 GMT -5
I'm the newbie who first inquired about Joe. I don't know where I read it, but I have the impression that one of the factors leading to the revolution was Texian unease about what would happen to their slave property if Mexico asserted more control over them. That said, I don't suppose you can generalize and say that this was the most important cause. There may be a large number of historians, even today, who would argue that the American Civil War was not fought primarily over slavery. I recall seeing some monuments outside the state capital in Austin celebrating the Confederate cause and never once mentioning slavery. Of course, those are old monuments. And not all northerners were abolitionists, that's for sure. The point is, that wars and motivations and causes are complicated things, defying generalizations, n'est-ce pas?
Anyway, can someone explain how or why Mexico outlawed slavery on the one hand, while allowing it, and even encouraging it, in Texas and elsewhere? And how much do we imagine the slaves themselves were aware of? When Joe hid himself during the battle, was that simply out of cowardice, or did he have a hunch that the Mexicans would not harm him?
I have just purchased One Domingo Morning (and David Crockett in Congress for good measure) from Amazon, and upon receipt will devour them. Meanwhile, all these comments from you exceptionally well-informed Alamoniacs are gratefully welcomed! Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 16, 2009 16:53:37 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Nov 16, 2009 16:53:37 GMT -5
Jesse, first, thanks for ordering "Crockett in Congress." As a sidebar to this discussion about slavery, you'll find that Crockett was an occasional slave owner. He likely never held more than a few slaves at any given time, unlike some of the wealthy Tennessee planter class (Andrew Jackson, for example) who often owned a couple of hundred. There are records of Crockett selling his slaves, usually to raise funds for campaigns or to settle campaign related debt. By the time he left for Texas, I don't think he owned any slaves at all. Since he was a strong advocate for preserving the Union over state's rights (nullification is one of the few issues with which Crockett sided with Jackson), it's interesting to ponder how his views on slavery might have evolved had he lived. Of course, that kind of speculation is always a slippery slope. Jim
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 16, 2009 16:59:55 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 16, 2009 16:59:55 GMT -5
Filibustering, Manifest Destiny, slave empires and the Mexican perspective aside, is there any documentation in the early months of the revolution that slavery was a major issue? I'm with Stuart and Wolfpack, I think not. Oh sure, I believe it was one of many minor factors, but it seems kind of ethereal when compared to the historically recognized causes of the war.
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 16, 2009 17:37:16 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Nov 16, 2009 17:37:16 GMT -5
How was the issue addressed by the provisional government? I'm not where I can access my library, but I'm sure I remember reading something... JIm
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 16, 2009 17:43:00 GMT -5
Post by TRK on Nov 16, 2009 17:43:00 GMT -5
Everybody seems to be forgetting that Mexico had its own form of slavery, peonage: i.e., , a form of involuntary debt slavery. The scam was legal and involved getting peasants into debt to an "employer," often by the employer's selling the peasant commodities at greatly inflated prices from a company store. Nonpayment of taxes was another cause for forcing a peasant into peonage. The peasant got sucked in, could never pay off his rising debts, and was stuck in a form of legal slavery, usually for the rest of his life. It was legally abolished in 1915 but continued on anyway for several more decades.
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 16, 2009 22:12:12 GMT -5
Post by powderkeg on Nov 16, 2009 22:12:12 GMT -5
"One Domingo Morning", though a novel, is probably as historically accurate as most extant accounts. My friend Ned is extremely knowledgable on all things Alamo, and tells a good story too.
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 17, 2009 2:01:00 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Nov 17, 2009 2:01:00 GMT -5
The slavery business isn't as straightforward as some folks try to make out. Mexico outlawed slavery when it became independent from Spain largely because that was in line with the bright new liberal ideas of the time and as far as I'm aware there weren't many black African slaves in Mexico anyway. Most slaves were Native Americans and in practice as Tom points out it was continued to a degree in the form of peonage. Consequently despite the legal ban Mexican officials were fairly relaxed about Norte Americanos bringing their own - especially as they tended to adopt peonage as a legal cover for it.
Just how widespread the practice was may be a different matter. Certainly some of the trouble at Anahuac stemmed from Mexican willingness to harbor escaped slaves - and enlist them in the Mexican Army, and if you check out your Gammell you'll find some pretty draconian legislation anent slaves - including the enslavement of any free blacks straying into Texas - during and after the Revolution.
On the other hand British concerns about slavery in Texas suggest it wasn't much of an issue internally and we were willing to come up with money to compensate Texas slave owners in return for abolition (this was before annexation); however the real point of concern both before and after the revolution wasn't with slavery in Texas itself but with it being used as a conduit for clandestinely importing slaves into the US; which is where the New Orleans Mob came in.
Now so far as the revolution itself goes there are two quite separate aspects. Slavery wasn't a cause of the revolution insofar as because the Mexican government took such a relaxed attitude to it the "peculiar institution" wasn't in danger. None of the colonists took up arms to keep their slaves or to preserve a way of life necessarily founded on slavery. On the other hand the New Orleans Mob were keen on promoting an independent Texas, as that conduit for importing the slaves needed for the plantations in the southern US. To what extent the potential for a state or states of Texas tipping the balance in Congress in favor of slaveholding was also a factor at this point in time I don't know although it certainly became one when annexation was being discussed - but once again all of this came from the New Orleans end rather than from within Texas itself.
I think the best way to sum this up is that Texians were indifferent to slavery insofar as those who could afford to used them, but it wasn't a cause of the revolution, while on the other hand the New Orleans Mob (aka the Friends of Texas) were keen to stir things and arm and reinforce the rebels for their own ends - which had nothing to do with the troubles in Texas and indeed Mexico itself which actually triggered it all.
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 19, 2009 18:47:35 GMT -5
Post by pawbear on Nov 19, 2009 18:47:35 GMT -5
Hi:
This has become a very good thread. For the British, the issue was cotton and having Texas become part of its orbit even by attempting to help reconcilliation with Mexico. For the Texans it was what was the better deal - US or what England came up with. I think the British would have done what it could to end slavery in Texas but I think that would be the upfront issue as cotton which would keep its mills operating back at home.
Slavery was an issue, but so was home rule. These Americans were not part of a culture as yet that believed in a central authority, "Age of Jackson" myth not withstanding.
On the side, I have read the threads, have been a member for a year or more but not really participating do to concerns at home. Hope everyone is well.
Charlie W.
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 22, 2009 11:14:56 GMT -5
Post by jesswald on Nov 22, 2009 11:14:56 GMT -5
Where does the supposition originate that the Texas Revolution was fought to extend slavery into the area. I don't believe I've ever come across this disturbing causation in contemporary documents or first-hand accounts. Some early Texans had slaves, but I believe most did not. Did poor non-slave owners actually provoke a war so they could buy slaves? Where's the evidence for this bold theory?
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 22, 2009 11:21:30 GMT -5
Post by jesswald on Nov 22, 2009 11:21:30 GMT -5
Not meaning to press the point, since it is obvious that the Revolution had a variety of causes, I see where abolitionist Benjamin Lundy wrote an entire treatise (or two) in the 1830s arguing that the war was caused by slaveholders and land speculators whose sole purpose was to perpetuate slavery, and have Texas enter the Union as a slave state. He spoke against the entire movement on this basis. While he may have been an extremist, I don't think we should just disregard his point of view. Getting back to Joe, can anyone tell me the basis for the story that Joe wound up back in Alabama, where he told the Travis family about the battle? Perhaps Mr. Durham? Is this an oral tradition? Does anyone question it?
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 23, 2009 9:03:01 GMT -5
Post by bobdurham on Nov 23, 2009 9:03:01 GMT -5
Hi Jess,
Joe's ending up back in Alabama is an oral tradition that I question myself. Often slaves (especially personal servants) had an unbelievable (to me) devotion to their masters. However, usually those cases were where the servants grew up with their masters and may even have been related to them. I don't think Joe and Travis had enough of a personal history to form such an attachment.
There was also a report that he was in Texas in the 1870s. I don't think there's any way of knowing what became of Joe after he ran away -- personally, I think he purposely faded into obscurity. I can't wait for the book to come out -- hope they've found some documented information as to what became of him.
Bob
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 23, 2009 9:06:18 GMT -5
Post by bobdurham on Nov 23, 2009 9:06:18 GMT -5
Did you see this article by Ron Jackson? www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/adp/archives/archives.htmlIt was originally published in True West. If the link doesn't work, in the Alamo de Parras site, select "Feature Articles" -- you'll find the article down at the bottom of that link "In the Alamo's Shadow." Bob
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 23, 2009 13:24:44 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Nov 23, 2009 13:24:44 GMT -5
Interesting couple of articles, but if I remember rightly Joe ( ) wasn't Travis' property at all but had been hired from someone else, which makes me doubt the notion of his faithfully turning up at the ancestral plantation to tell how he died.
|
|
|
Joe?
Nov 23, 2009 15:29:36 GMT -5
Post by jesswald on Nov 23, 2009 15:29:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, Bob. I have downloaded the article. Glad to read your take on the oral tradition regarding Joe. It did sound a bit romantic to me, to imagine Joe undergoing such hardship to return to his people in Alabama. Sort of like drawing a line in the sand . . . Some years ago I visited one of those tourist-trap plantations in South Carolina, I forget which one. They told touching stories about the loyalty of the slaves who had lived there, to the point of defying death in the defense of the Massa. They did display the slave quarters, but prominently posted a picture of the humble birthplace of one of the nineteenth century Presidents to demonstrate that the slaves lived no worse than poor whites. Being a good ol' boy from New York City, I was shocked that they were still fighting that war. Now I marvel at the irony of Joe involuntarily putting his life at risk on behalf of his master, the valiant Travis, and then, while the widows were eventually granted pensions or land or whatever in honor of the sacrifice made by the heroes, is ignominiously returned to slavery and rented out to help pay Travis' debts. If there indeed was a line in the sand, imagine how Travis would have reacted if Joe had had the gumption to raise his hand and say "How's about I go with Mo?"
Jesse Waldinger
|
|