>Learning history as kid in Massachusetts, the fact that slavery was any part of the Texas Revolution was never mentioned.

That leads me to wonder what were you taught. It seems strange to me that my Texas education taught more about slavery than a New England state. How could slavery be left out like that. History classes for me were a long time ago, and there are definitely things I have to ask myself if they were not really taught, or I just didn't learn/retain/care when they were taught. For example, my recollection of WWII history classes was heavily focused on the European campaign while the Pacific campaign was much more limited. Is that bias on what I paid attention to, or was that how it was actually taught?