Why You Should Take Texas Secession Seriously

Professor of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston, to discuss his recent book The Counter-Revolution of 1836: Texas Slavery & Jim Crow and the Roots of U.S. Fascism, Gerald Horne, joins the program to discuss how the Texas Revolution was actually a pro-slavery counter-revolution.

Watch the Majority Report live MondayFriday at 12 p.m. EST on YouTube OR listen via daily podcast at

#SamSeder #EmmaVigeland #MajorityReport #politics #news #progressive #leftist #democrats #liberal

SUPPORT the show by becoming a member

Download TMR's FREE app

CHECK OUT MORE from the MR crew:

Matt Binder DOOMED

Brandon Sutton DISCOURSE

Emma Vigeland ESVN

Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING

OTHER LINKS:

Check out more from the MR crew:

Matt Binder DOOMED

Brandon Sutton THE DISCOURSE

Emma Vigeland ESVN

Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING

Image Credit, Texas State Library and Archives Commission

Image has been cropped and color has been altered.

And I think one of the things that your work frankly has helped me understand is you know history is like looking at the almost like the trails they're not Chemtrails of or of an error of a jet going across the sky. Like you could take one segment you're not gonna get an idea of where that plane has been or where it's going. But the knowledge of where it's been and where it's going, the direction it takes after any given sort of like segment of that trail gives you a much better understanding of who might be on the plane. Where the plane's going. Where it's been. et cetera Etc. So talk about some of the key elements that were there in the lead-up to the Texas Revolution. And then we'll talk about some of those key moments following it that make this case that it was a counter Revolution and that it was the struggle the impulse for independence from Mexico was at least in the Leadership of Texas about getting slaves and expanding slaves and presumably territory and making money. Well, another applicable event that's taking place congruent with the unrest amongst settlers in Texas is the fact that the U.S. president at that moment Andrew Jackson was expelling the indigenous population from the southeast quadrant of North America speaking mostly of Georgia. I'm speaking of the Cherokees. I'm speaking of the Trail of Tears. I'm also speaking of the Choctaw the Chickasaw Etc. and what happens there is that they're told that what is now Oklahoma would be Indian Territory. A sort of Bantustan. That is to say, the land of the Indians forevermore as long as the River Self flows and the grass shall grow. but what happens if you look more carefully at the history is that Washington at that point was quite concerned with the growth of Texas. Texas saw itself as a challenger to Washington. and I think that's one of the reasons why you need to take this. We've talked about another Texas secession of the 21st century quite seriously. I think that one of the reasons why Texas seceded and its session from Mexico was not leased was because it received assistance from France. which designs all of its own on North America. and ripped nicely and made a bad deal when it sold what was called the Louisiana territory to the Jefferson Administration earlier in the century fundamentally for a song. fundamentally for pennies on the dollar. and so when Jackson places a Native American entity on the northern border of Texas he's seeking to occupy the settlers in Texas. he's seeking to prevent their further expansion. but alas that does not work. because what happens subsequently is that Texas is forced to join the union because it can't stand up to the pressure from the Native Americans from rebellious Africans from Mexico which is welcoming rebellious Africans as they walk across the border into Mexico leading to Major Capital loss. not to mention taking pressure from abolitionist London.