Why do historians still debate if texans were justified in declaring independence

Traditionally, the process of independence of Texas has been described as a completely noble struggle to defend and uphold the ideals of democracy, freedom, etc. However, little has been said as of the far more innoble motivations behind many individuals who settled down in Texas with the permission of the Mexican government. As became Mexico in 1821, its democratic government had agreed to allow immigrant from the U.S. to claim large plots of lands where they and their families could make a dignified living as ranchers or farmers, but many of these immigrants had no intention to roll up their shirt sleeves, get their hands dirty and earn their everyday bread with the sweat on their foreheads: they speculated on real state from the very beginning, breaking the law in the process by claiming more lands than allowed.

It is true that the government in Mexico took a bad turn for dictatorship in 1835, which prompted a number of states such as Zacatecas, Yucatan, Texas, etc. to secede from the country. However, a great number of Texans at the time speculated about the potential advantages of joining the U.S. Against the deal that every immigrant accepted into Texas had made with Mexico, as of not joining the U.S., Texans sent a delegation to the U.S. requesting for assistance. Later on, after the battles at El Alamo and San Jacinto in 1836, the Texan revolutionaries, who had captured president of Mexico and chief commander of the Mexican Army, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the Treaties of Velasco signed by Sam Houston, Texans' leader and Santa Anna, recognized the independence of Mexico, even though the Mexican congress never ratified it.

wedwedwedwedwdweedwd

the answer to number 5 is fort sumter