-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Great AAR so far Tribulation.
I guess I'm not following your point about Austin, though. While Austin was supposed to have been personally against slavery, his public views on the subject weren't exactly consistent. Mostly, like your Houston, he was interested in expanding and civilizing Texas and figured that to do that, he would need educated, wealthy immigrants from the southern States. In other words, people who would want to bring slaves with them.
So whatever he may have felt personally, he was enough in favour of slavery to ask the Mexican government (pre-independence, obviously) to make Tejas an exception to that provision in the constitution of '24.
I guess I'm not following your point about Austin, though. While Austin was supposed to have been personally against slavery, his public views on the subject weren't exactly consistent. Mostly, like your Houston, he was interested in expanding and civilizing Texas and figured that to do that, he would need educated, wealthy immigrants from the southern States. In other words, people who would want to bring slaves with them.
So whatever he may have felt personally, he was enough in favour of slavery to ask the Mexican government (pre-independence, obviously) to make Tejas an exception to that provision in the constitution of '24.
Yes, but this provided a dilemma in my AAR. Does he abandon his dreams of western expansion for slavery, or does he go for abolitionism for his visions of a Republic that stretches from sea to shining sea?
I was a bit surprised you didn't toss Lamar into the mix, since more than any other Texas politician, that was his dream.
Austin's survival and the ahistorical establishment of the Texan Republic far before its historical date (as well as Houston's decision to reinforce the Alamo) pretty much knocked Lamar out of the political picture.
- Status