Analyze how the Mexican government avoided making a decision about slavery.(1 point) Responses They let each person decide for themselves. They let each person decide for themselves. They pretended slavery did not exist. They pretended slavery did not exist. They left it up to the individual states. They left it up to the individual states. They let Stephen F. Austin decide.
The answer that best analyzes how the Mexican government avoided making a decision about slavery is:
They left it up to the individual states.
This response acknowledges the Mexican government's approach of devolving the decision-making power regarding slavery to the individual states within the country. By shifting the responsibility to each state, the Mexican government effectively avoided making a definitive national decision on the issue of slavery.
is this correct
Yes, the statement "They left it up to the individual states" correctly analyzes how the Mexican government avoided making a decision about slavery. By allowing each state to decide for itself, the government effectively evaded making a definitive national stance on the issue.
The Mexican government avoided making a decision about slavery by employing several methods:
1. They let each person decide for themselves: The Mexican government allowed individuals to make their own choices regarding slavery. This approach placed the responsibility for deciding whether to own slaves on the individual, rather than enforcing a nationwide regulation.
2. They pretended slavery did not exist: Another strategy employed by the Mexican government was to ignore or deny the existence of slavery, effectively avoiding the issue. By sidestepping the subject, they could avoid making a formal decision on the matter.
3. They left it up to the individual states: The Mexican government devolved the decision-making power to the individual states, allowing them to determine their own policies regarding slavery. This decentralized approach shifted the responsibility away from the central government and gave each state the autonomy to address the issue according to their specific circumstances.
4. They let Stephen F. Austin decide: Stephen F. Austin, an influential figure in the Mexican region of Texas during the early 19th century, was given some authority to decide on slavery-related matters. This delegation of decision-making power to Austin allowed the Mexican government to avoid directly confronting the issue by entrusting it to a trusted individual.
Overall, the Mexican government's avoidance of making a decision about slavery can be attributed to a combination of approaches, including individual choice, denial, devolving the decision to individual states, and relying on certain individuals like Stephen F. Austin.
To analyze how the Mexican government avoided making a decision about slavery, we can consider the options provided and examine their historical context.
1. They let each person decide for themselves.
If the Mexican government allowed each person to decide for themselves about slavery, it would suggest a policy of individual freedom or perhaps different regions having the autonomy to choose. However, this option might not accurately reflect the Mexican government's approach to slavery.
2. They pretended slavery did not exist.
If the Mexican government pretended that slavery did not exist, it would imply a deliberate denial or ignorance of the issue. This approach might have been a passive way to avoid dealing with the complexities of slavery, but it could also overlook the historical context of Mexico's relationship with slavery.
3. They left it up to the individual states.
Entrusting the decision on slavery to the individual states would suggest a federalist approach, where state governments have the authority to make decisions on certain matters. Historically, some countries have adopted this approach to avoid direct intervention. It is important to consider whether this federalist structure existed in Mexico during the relevant time period.
4. They let Stephen F. Austin decide.
This option seems to refer to Stephen F. Austin, an American empresario who colonized parts of Mexican Texas. While Austin played a significant role in the settlement of Texas and its relationship with slavery, attributing the entire decision-making process to him might oversimplify the issue and overlook the involvement of other political entities and factors.
To gain a comprehensive understanding of how the Mexican government avoided making a decision about slavery, it would be beneficial to consult historical sources, research primary documents, or refer to scholarly works that analyze Mexican history and the complexities surrounding slavery during the relevant period.
How did Texans work around Article 13?(1 point)
Article 13 of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 prohibited slavery in Mexico. Texans, however, worked around this article in several ways:
1. Introduction of indentured servitude: Texans utilized the practice of indentured servitude as a workaround for slavery. Under this system, individuals could enter into an agreement to work for a specific period to pay off a debt or secure passage to Texas. Indentured servants often performed labor similar to enslaved individuals without the formal legal status of slavery.
2. Adoption of the "apprenticeship" system: Another strategy used by Texans to circumvent Article 13 was the implementation of an "apprenticeship" system. This system allowed adults or children to be apprenticed to landowners or masters for labor, often for an extended period. While officially not classified as slavery, this system resulted in forced labor that resembled the conditions of enslaved individuals.
3. Use of loopholes: Texans also exploited legal loopholes within the Mexican legal system. For example, some individuals claimed that enslaved people were not slaves but instead owed a debt they were repaying through labor. This interpretation allowed slaveholders to argue that they were not in violation of Article 13.
Overall, Texans found ways to work around Article 13 by introducing alternative labor systems such as indentured servitude and apprenticeship, as well as exploiting legal loopholes that allowed them to maintain practices resembling slavery while technically not violating the prohibition.