Talk:Texas Revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Needs More Alamo

I really believe that adding more about the Battle of the Alamo would be necessary. Thank you!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by USeaglescout (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2006‎ (UTC)

Needs More Info

NOT ENOUGH INFO! This article is like writen is Chinese. This is so confusing. Please rewrite more clearly. Dec. 2

Yes, there can be more information but I disagree it is not in English, c'mon!Anneaholaward (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs Maps

This page would benefit greatly from maps. There are many on the Internet, and it would not be hard to put them up on this page. I would if I knew how. NightFalcon90909 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend a Map indicating the Mexican state of Cohuila y Tejas rather than the anachronistic map presently showing the Republic of Texas and its boundaries reaching far north of even it's modern borders. The Republic boundaries shown may reinforce the common confusion between the Texas War for Independence and the War between the US and Mexico a decade later. A few of the contributers seem to confuse those as well.--cregil 19:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Needs English Maps

I believe it would be better to have the map of Texas in ENGLISH. 75.26.180.169 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Siddharth Trehan

Needs more context

Removing the context in which the revolution takes place shifts the point of view to a Texas point of view, while leaving out important historically significant information about why the revolution began in the first place. The Texas Revolution did not happen in a vacuum, and the Texas was not the only Mexican State to secede from Mexico. Texans don't like mentioning it since it shifts the focus off of Texas, and the Mexicans hate mentioning it because they do not like talking about how their own states seceded from Mexico. So, instead of accurate information about the context of the revolution, we either get a Texas, U.S. or Mexican point of view, and not a neutral point of view. --WisTex (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one researching this topic right now. I still have Paul Lack's book on the political causes of the revolution to read. If it mentions other secessions, I'll certainly include that in the article; so far, I've seen mention of other battles (like in Zacatecas), but no secessions. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Then this should be very interesting to you:

At the same time Texas declared independence, other Mexican states also decided to secede from Mexico and form their own republics. The state of Yucatán formed the Republic of Yucatán, which was recognized by Great Britain, and the states of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas joined together to form the Republic of the Rio Grande. Several other states also went into open rebellion, including San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Jalisco and Zacatecas. All were upset with Santa Anna abolishing the 1824 Constitution, disbanding Congress, changing the structure of government from a federal structure to a centralized one, and the expulsion of the Spaniards. Texas, however, was the only territory to be successful in detaching itself from Mexico.

Only five (5) of the states formed their own republic, and only two (2) successfully seceded: Texas & Yucatán. The Republic of Texas later joined the U.S., and the Republic of Yucatán later rejoined Mexico. To my knowledge, Mexico never officially recognized either of them, so from the Mexican point of view, they never seceded, but rather were renegade provinces, with Yucatán being brought back into the fold eventually, and Texas being annexed by the U.S. (which caused a war with the U.S. since Mexico considered Texas still part of Mexico even though it declared independence.) Seven (7) additional states mentioned above rebelled against Santa Anna but the rebellion in those states was crushed before they could secede. You will need to read more about the centralist/federalist struggle in Mexico for information about what the other Mexican states were doing at the same time. Texas history tends to downplay or omit anything outside of Texas, even though it was relevant to the causes of the revolution. --WisTex (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, just because one source omits facts, does not mean those facts did not happen. Always, ALWAYS, refer to multiple sources, preferably from very different perspectives. This is a perfect example where Texas/U.S. just talks about their point of view, and Mexico just talks about theirs, and facts that do not highlight their official version of history get swept under the rug. Remember, the winners write history. Just because it is not in one book does not mean it did not happen. Check multiple sources to make sure you are not getting the white washed version of history. --WisTex (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I promise, I don't need a lecture on multiple sources. I've been researching the topic for over a year now. :) Check out Battle of the Alamo. I'm getting pretty close to finishing that one, and many of the sources used there will also be used for rewriting this article. This one will probably be last, however, because I haven't read as much about the Goliad campaign or San Jacinto yet. PS - Just because the text was previously uncited in a wikipedia article doesn't make it suitable for inclusion now - still will need additional sources). If you are interested in helping find and/or read quality scholarly sources for the article, I'd be grateful for any help. Karanacs (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Still Needs More Alamo

Only in Wikipedia can one read about the Texas Revolution and not find a reference to the Alamo in the introduction or in the Table of Contents. I am going to change this. If anyone has any objections, please say so. Haber 16:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs More Davy Crockett

How come theres no info about Davy Crockett in this article? He played a big part in the battle of the Alamo and war... could some one fix that?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.152.41 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2007‎ (UTC)

Needs Less Navarro

This reads like somebody's school report. -- Zoe

This article definitely needs sprucing up. Right now it is actually two articles. Whoever rewrote it left the original at the bottom. Right now, however, it reads more like a biography of Navarro then an article about the revolution as a whole. In the meantime I'm breaking out the timeline into a separate article. -- Decumanus 15:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is an awful article, just completely besides the point.

It is supposed to be about the Texas Revolution but is actually a biography of Navarro and the role of Tejanos before and after the revolt. The information about the revolt is limited and contains almost nothing about the actual motives of the settlers or equally important the role and reaction of the US during the revolt.

Somebody with a good amount of knowledge about Texas history should replace or rewrite this, because the current article is very uninformative and confusing. - Daniel Oct. 11

I agree. The Navarro stuff is excessive. Most of that could be moved to his bio page.

Needs Less Racism

• Mexico tried to ban immigration of white Americans because of their racist Hispanic nationalistic views.
  • Maybe they just didn't want to get taken over? Fred Bauder 09:31 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • This whole article is racist. It must have been written mostly by a Mexican — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.249.75.31 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2007‎ (UTC)

Still Needs Less Racism

This article is unreasonably racial and biased towards a Hispanic opinion. When rewriting this section, opinions should be removed and not included, sticking only to actual facts (dates, action and result of action, numbers of soldiers/casualties, etc.) In addition, topics discussed in this article contrast/conflict with internal link articles (ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto).

can you please elaborate, and cite passages that support your "biased" claim.

you know, maybe I'm paranoid, but this just seems to me like a stupid comment made by yet another person who hates Texas. I know that the entire northeast (hey, make that the rest of the country - or better yet, the world) has not the slightest what *really* goes on down here, but try to get beyond your ignorance, please. This article is worse than any textbook I have read; in fact, it's so unbiased it's almost unreadable. Please, just get over it.

"so unbiased..." Um, it's SUPPOSED to be unbiased. That's the whole point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.169 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2010‎ (UTC)

Needs less information

I re wrote some of the article. Less is more, in my opinion, and some of the information went nowhere in the previous article. I moved the information of the battles into their links in which these are discussed in more detail. There was no point in having three paragraphs of information on a battle in this page, when that information could be placed on its own link. The article is now shorter, and more to the point. There's no reason to have an entire paragraph history of the battle of the Medina river in here, when it has nothing to do with the actual reasons why the Texas revolted. Also, there could be less said on the Colonial part of texas (its foundation). I only kept the essential information of Austins colony. This previous article was simply too much for what the subject called for. There wasn't even a good reference to General Urrea's campaign! I also expanded a bit, in which the previous article did not even touch on, on the aftermath of the conflict, and the fact that TEXAS was NEVER recognized as an independent state by Mexico. Facts are facts, and I am sticking to them. I welcome a response to my changes, and edits were deemed important.Skibofilms 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I made some minor grammar fixes and changed the title "Road to Revolution" to "Roots of Texas". The original title didn't seem to fit the info. And following the less is more method which this article definitely needs, I removed things that may be extraneous and can be found in another article like Moses Austin's other business failures besides his lead business and some stuff about Jose Navarro.

Also, it seems that Texas was actually eventually recognized as a nation by Mexico right before Texas was annexed. “The British and French emissaries reached Mexico City in mid-April. Luis G. Cuevas, minister of foreign relations, placed their proposals before the Mexican Congress, and in late April Mexico recognized Texas independence.” http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/RR/mzr2.html

I don’t know the intricacies of this, so I’ll do more research and hear other opinions before I change it in the article.

I also removed some references to slavery and how it had some bearing on the revolution. I may remove them all. When I first wrote a lot my revisions I was trying to appease anyone who may read the article and feel the issue of slavery was being white-washed. But my research finds that it had very, very little bearing on the cause of the revolution. So little that it just confuses the situation to even mention it. To mention it and not mention the jillion other little things the Texians had problems with would be putting undue importance on the issue. Mexico never demanded Texas to free its slaves. Santa Ana did not claim he was going to Texas to emancipate the slaves. The Texians claimed they didn’t want to live under a government that had abolished the Constitution of 1824 and democracy. Santa claimed that he didn’t want American pirates to steal part of his country. To spotlight slavery over other minor issues just seems unnecessary and heavily loaded. Spacekraken 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added some detail of the land grants on the original colonization - a name and date is not quite enough detail for the casual reader to latch onto. Trishm 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Causes of the Revolution

I question whether or not this is the right place to summarize the debate over causes of the Texas Revolution. Until we break out a causes page, though, this is as good a place as any. FWIW, I'd already edited my additions, including the preface, before I saw the note on slavery/causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwbrum (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 February 2002‎ (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd be very interested in sources or references for the TR=slavery expansion argument. I'm aware that this was the consensus among some New Englanders (Thoreau included) during the Annexation controversy and the Mexican War. I'm also aware that both England and France viewed the TR as orchestrated by the USA purely for expansion purposes. But it still seems to me that, whatever the motive of the Texans themselves, the TR fits very well into the broader stream of Mexican history and the conflict between the centralistas and the federalistas.--Ben Brumfield 14:51, 25 February 2002‎ (UTC)

Working on it

I'm kind of an amateur Texas historian so I'm working on sprucing up this article. It's quite a project, so I've put what I have for the preface right now, but will eventually get to the rest of it.Spacekraken 16:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've added some more of what I have into the History section since it lines up somewhat with what is already there.-Spacekraken 17:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've added everything I'd been working on in past 6 months, but now the article is at 42 kilobytes (the recommended size is 32KB), and I haven't even gotten to the Alamo yet. Is it too big? Or is it fitting that the article should be Texas-size? --66.151.75.74 01:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)--Spacekraken 01:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some parts of this are terribly written and need totally reworked, "Texian disillusionment" being an example, you need to read it three times to understand what it is actually saying, and then you still dont know what the actual reasons for disillusionment were. (Unsigned post by User:Benson85 )

• I did a little cleanup of that section. Feel free to edit the article to make more improvements. Johntex 21:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up. I got burnt out and haven't been back in months and I was feeling guilty leaving it as it is. Anyone feel free to edit. One idea I have is maybe making seperate pages for each of the battles. One problem I faced at the end was that big battles like the Alamo have entire articles unto themselves and I didn't want to repeat. Another advantage to having seperate pages for each battle would be that I and anyone else could feel free to describe the political story more in detail which is rather complicated. And fascinating, at least to me. Spacekraken 15:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Rebellions in the US should be removed. Some could argue United States Wars should be removed. Although some could argue the New Orleans Greys, Georgia Battalions, and NY Battalions, and others contributed as a United States force, I don't think it's sufficient to call it a United States war. However, I could be way off base. Retropunk 04:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Importance of the Alamo?

This article states: "The defense of the Alamo proved to be of no military consequence for the Texan cause, but its martyrs were soon hailed as heroes."

The Battle of The Alamo article states: "The defense of the Alamo and the 13-day holdout allowed Sam Houston to gather troops and supplies for his later successful battle at San Jacinto."

The position that the Battle of The Alamo was of no military consequence for the Texan cause and only served to create martyrs appears to be a biased POV in direct conflict with information in the Battle of The Alamo article. —66.64.24.14 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is a popular myth that the seige at the Alamo gave San Houston time to gather troops. In reality, for most of the seige of the alamo, he was not out gathing troops. I will have to look up the references that show this. Then I will add them to both articles. —Johntex\^talk 23:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• To say that the Battle of the Alamo did anything aid the military cause of the Texan revolt, is unsupported. Houston did nothing to relieve the Alamo. The Texan Government was too busy arguing the future of Texas. The Alamo did nothing for Fannin, or to save all those towns that were destroyed by Santa Anna's army or the the Texan's themselves.

The battle of Jacinto was a brought on despite Houston's plans.The Texans had been fleeing all this time. Houston did not want to fight at San Jacinto. He, in fact, had no control over the course his small band took on that April 21'st battle. He was leading an army that led itself.

The dead at the Alamo did help create a sense of unity among Texans, but little else. Of course Santa Anna's army suffered many casualties, about 400 -500 out of the 6000 he moved into Texas. If anything, the burden of campaign itself proved to be a greater destroyer over the mexican's than what ever the texan's could wield.

In fact, Urrea despised Filesola's withdrawal orders after Santa Anna's capture. The Army itself had not been defeated. So how can it be said that the "Alamo and the 13-day holdout allowed Sam Houston to gather troops and supplies for his later successful battle at San Jacinto?" —Skibofilms 05:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, while Sam Houston was a drunk, addict, and coward (yeah, too POV for article inclusion), that does not mean that the Alamo was unimportant. The Texian army consisted largely of independent volunteer groups outside the formal army and its command structure; likewise, though volunteers took an oath not to desert or go AWOL, discipline was incredibly lax and punishment exceedingly rare. The Alamo did lead to a group of (otherwise disbanding or unorganized) volunteers for its defense: while Houston wasn't involved at all and while they couldn't leave in time to relieve it, they were the majority of the forces under Houston at San Jacinto.

It's the "Popular Myth" that is actually the myth here. Not to mention, Santa Anna's treatment led to improved morale, greater enlistment, American and foreign support, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, plus, Houston did... uh... accomplish... um... something or other during his partying with the Indians during his furlough that he later claimed was Incredibly Important. For some reason. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

More in depth material? First use of Steamship in War

I'm currently in a college Texas History class and there are a number of details that I can add to this article, but I don't want to just stack the article with information that may seem irrelevant. So any suggestions?

I would like to note as one interesting bit of info, the first sucessful use of a steam powered ship in a naval engagement took place during the texas revolution phase. I can give the details though to cite it, it come's from a professor's lecture and personal notes. Sir Milas Boozefox The Third 05:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

One possible ancillary source for the steamboat note is With Santa Anna in Texas by de la Peña, as I remember it occurring in his account along with a footnote mentioning its role. -Ben 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember if it contained details about a small mexican mail ship that had had it's duties expanded to include patroling the Texas coast for smuggling activities? That mailing vesel was manned by English (British) sailors, under a contract with the Mexican Gov't. At the time the Mexican Navy consisted of 3 ships, the only one avalable to patrol the Texas coast was a mail ship that made a route from Veracruse, to Havana (or a port in the carabien). This (sailing) mail ship had only one piece of arment, a small cannon. In order to compensate the crew for the expansion of duties while under contract, the Mexican Gov't told them that any ship they captured that had not paid it's duties, it's cargo was theirs to sell. If that book contains a referance to a river steamboat and/or this mail ship, that may be a good source to use. Although I do recall that the guest lecturer explained that this particular event was not in the history (text)books, though it did occur and various Texas Historians are aware of it. He opined that it should be in the books since it was the first use of a steam powered ship to engage (or suceed? need to check notes). The british had built a few steam-war-ships before the Texas Revolution, but they sank or blew up, due to human error or weather (still recalling from memory).

Sir Milas Boozefox The Third 22:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds very notable. Once a source is decided upon, it should be included. Johntex\^talk 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go: José Enrique de la Peña. With Santa Anna in Texas: A personal Narrative of the Revolution Translated and edited by Carmen Perry. pp. 105-106:

On the 15th at seven o'clock in the morning, while concluding my notes on the events of the previous day, I heard voices of alarm and left my tent hurriedly. Its cause was the passing of an enemy steamboat, which had not been even remotely anticipated.³³ The soldiers forming the advance posts on the river, who belonged to the Guadalajara Battalion, were dumbfounded by the sight of a machine so totally unfamilar and unexpected. The other soldiers who saw it were likewise surprised. Few in the camp were acquainted with steamboats, so all was in confusion. Immediately a detachment was dispatched to that bank of the river away from the woods, which was like running after a bird; General Filisola thus showed his ignorance of the speed with which steam engines can travel, the more so as the steamboat was moving with the current.

A shot from the eight-pounder was fired, which served only to let them know that we had artillery to fire at a target. Because we arrived at San Felipe de Austin at nightfall, I could observe nothing then.

³³ The steamboat was the Yellow Stone, heading downstream after it had been impressed by Houston to ferry his troops across the Brazos. —Ed

Also worth noting is this passage from Stephen L. Hardin, Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution, pp. 189-190:

In mid-April divisiveness escalated when Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar, a thirty-eight-year-old newcomer from Georgia joined the army. He had landed in Texas on April 6 with $6,000 to invest for a Georgia syndicate. In Harrisburg he met with officials of the interim government, apparently adopting the anti-Houston bias of Burnet and other politicians. Although he was only a private, many of th emen recognised Lamar as a natural leader, and from his first day in camp he advocated a hare-brained scheme to use the Yellowstone, a Brazos River steamboat that had docked at Groce's Landing, to raid Mexican positions downstream. Houston learned of the plan and posted notices that anyone who attempted to raise an unauthorized force would be shot as a mutineer. Lamar backed down, but the volunteers cited this as another example of their general's high-handedness.³³

On April 12 Houston broke camp at Groce's. The men could stomach no more drill; the general could only hope that on the day of battle it would prove sufficient. Employing the Yellowstone and an old yawl, the Texians appreciated a dry crossing of the Brazos, but it still required two days to transport all the men and supplies to the opposite bank.

Endnote 33 (page 283)

Tolbert, Day of San Jacinto, 85; Labadie, "San Jacinto Campaign," in Battles of Texas, 62.

That's all I have on hand relating to the steamboat. Nothing specifically states that the troop transport use of Yellowstone was the first military use of a steamboat -- for that you'll need to find a different source. -Ben 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, a little article exists on the Yellowstone and its role in the Texas Revolution is mentioned there. As for the first use of a steamboat in war, the story of that would belong in an article on whatever boat that was. --cregil 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Bexar or San Antonio?

I noticed in some places it's called San Antonio, and in others Bexar. For example, in the revolution section it says "Next, the Texans captured Bexar" when earlier it was said "Colonel Domingo Ugartechea, who was stationed in San Antonio". I think we should call it San Antonio de Bexar in all references for clarity. Thoughts? Awiseman 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It probably would be better to use the name it was called at the time to keep it historically accurate, but indicate that the name was changed and it is called something else today. --WisTex 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This. The name of the city is San Antonio de Bexar (or Bejar.) At the time, it was more common to refer to it in the Spanish style as Bexar (since there are so many other San Antonios in Spain and Latin America;) while after independence, there's no need: it's the only San Antonio in Texas and calling the settlement San Antonio helped avoid confusion with Bexar County.

The treatment should be, e.g., "The Battle of the Alamo occurred outside the town of Bexar (now called San Antonio.)" -LlywelynII (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

good job!

I'll be the dissenting voice here. I think this article is really quite good, actually! It is as good as any short summary of the Texas Rev (you mean there is someone who has never heard that term before?) as I have ever read. And it really does stick to a chronology well, with few digressions. The areas we all need to work on now are the biographies, and especially the "Texian" entry to help flesh this out and humanize it. I have been steeped in (obsessed with?) early Texas social history since I was a kid, reading all the memoirs and anecdotes, and even though I am not an academic I would like to contribute to that one. Anyrate, to the all collaborators, kudos for a nice job, IMO. The only thing I might suggest adding is the contention that Texas became a republic due to the fact that it was an awkward, or probably impossible, time to add another slave state to the union. Maybe that goes in an article on the "Republic of Texas?" Amity150 06:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Texas' or Texas's? or Texan?

I just wanted to get in my two cents about the possessive of Texas. The rule in English for possessives of singular nouns ending in an "s" sound is based on pronunciation.

• If the possessive noun is pronounced with an extra syllable (as in James's homework), 's is added.
• If the possessive noun is not pronounced with an extra syllable (as in Hodgkins' family) only an apostrophe is added.

There is variation among people in when an extra syllable is added. Texas seems borderline to me, and there may be a lot of variation, but I would ordinarily pronounce the possessive Texas's. Ideally, when speakers vary the spelling should indicate the pronounciation of the writer. Rbraunwa 13:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this answer, but growing up in the region, I believe the correct answer is the distinctive Texan. I'm looking on a Texas city Chamber of Commerce Website, and I haven't see a posessive that ends in 's . Just my two cents. BusterD 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the University of Texas San Antonio editorial style guide (qv) proper nouns ending with an s should be followed by an apostrophe (as in Texas' ). That sounds authoritative to me. I still prefer Texan. BusterD 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong. It's always and only Texan, Texian, or Texas's. You aren't talking about something belonging to a Texa and another Texa.

If it sounds weird, stick with Texan. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be better

This article is okay but there a some grammar mistakes and consistency problems that still need to be fixed. I might have a go at it next weekend but I think it would be better for someone more experienced than me to make corrections.

Also, I think there should be some mention of the quote "Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by L CuRtiS (talk • contribs) 07:37, 15 July 2007‎ (UTC)

The Untold Truth

This article comes as close to any of containing what we know about Texas history. Becoming a member of the 67th Texas Legislature gave me access to the archives below the capitol building. There is where the real history of Texas can be found. In 2001 the new Bob Bullock Museum in Austin was allowed to display many of the original documents I once found in the archives. One that stuck out above all others was a collection of minutes from meetings organized by settlers planning for war with Santa Anna. It was in these meetings where Col. Travis and Sam Houston were selected to form and train the volunteers. In these minutes is where you will learn the untold truth of the main reason for revolution. Cotton was in high demand all over the world. Santa Anna was forcing the settlers to raise less profitable crops and sell to Mexico first. It was a "property rights" issue all the way. They simply didn't want to be told what to do with their land (originally granted to them by Mexico). It had nothing to do with slavery and little mention was made of Santa Anna's abolishment of the Constitutional government. I expect it will be a matter of time before historians begin correcting what we teach in public schools. [http:// www.fanstory.com/displaystory.jsp?id=172363] - Essay by Mike Martin, Former Texas Legislator

To add to this, I specifically noted that the Constitution of 1824 protected property rights (Paragraph 112), confirming that this was most likely a serious issue. Article 27 of the current Mexican constitution specifically denies private property in Mexico. Just an observation. Jcchat66 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 00:23, 12 December 2008 72.181.162.157 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was after Mexico decreed all Texans free from slavery that Texas succeeded from Mexico -- first draft of suggested text

Texas seceded from two federal systems when doing so would allow its slave owners to hold their property in slavery. It was only after 1830, when slaves in Mexico were declared to be freed, that Texas seceded from Mexico. Then within a score of years, the impetus for Texas and other slave states to secede from the United States was the election of the abolitionist Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln.

The history of freedom's development is complex. By succeeding from Mexico, Texans became free to adopt the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus and other treasures of the common law of England, and the Republic of Texas promptly did so in its first legislative sessions. And the Republic of Texas immediately adapted and adopted a new constitution modeled on the constitution of the United States, another treasure of freedom under law.

But the freedom won by the secession of Texas from Mexico was freedom for whites only -- similar to the "whites only" freedom won in the secession of the original British American colonies from England. And unfortunately, a key freedom craved so urgently as to justify the risks of Texas' repeated armed insurrection was the freedom of whites to keep owning black slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.102 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very simplified version of the issues. Slavery was definitely one of the major issues, but by no means was it the only issue. I've done extensive reading on the period (see the list of reference books cited), and they all make it clear that Texian dissatisfaction was complicated. At the beginning of the revolution, there was not even agreement on whether the settlers were fighting for independence or separate statehood. This proposed paragraph also goes into detail that is not relevant to this article (1860s and much of the Republic of Texas information). Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Texas War

Hey people the Texas war was a war over Independence from the mexicans and the right to become a state in the union!! If you want more info check other articles under TEXAS WAR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.170.141 (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Concern: Animosity over the Siete Leyes

I believe that the statement in lead saying that the animosity between the Mexican government and the settlers began with the Siete Leyes in 1835 is not really NPOV. The situation and backstory were extremely complex and go back long before that. If you look at events like the Long Expedition (1819), the Fredonian Rebellion (1826–1827), and the Anahuac Disturbances (1832 and 1835) it is clear that the tensions which precipitated the revolution had much earlier origins. The Siete Leyes were really what united the settlers behind the idea of independence but IMHO saying the animosity "began" with this is pretty misleading.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This article as a whole needs serious work. I've pulled some info over from other articles, but there's a lot more research and writing to do (and I don't believe I ever modified the lead after adding to the body). Go ahead and make any improvements that you think are necessary - I'll be happy for the help! Karanacs (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs Better Grammar

Texas, you know I love you. But c'mon.

It isn't the America Revolution. It isn't the Glory Revolution. It isn't the France Revolution. And it isn't the Texas Revolution.

We can have an argument about whether it should be the "Texian Revolution" or the "Texan Revolution" (although, in all honesty, it's the second one, even if the people who fought in it were mostly Texians.) But it's simple English grammar that this page is in the wrong place. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

LlywelynII, your change is a violation of WP:Point. What other historical events are commonly called is not the issue. WP:Name states that "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." (Even Encyclopedia Britannica calls it "Texas Revolution".) Whether or not you think this sounds strange is not relevant.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We don't name articles based on our own personal understanding of grammar, but on the consensus name used by reliable sources (see WP:COMMONNAME. Historians call this the Texas Revolution, so that is what Wikipedia calls it. A quick Google scholar search shows 1990 hits for "Texas Revolution" and only 253 for "Texan Revolution". Most of the usage of "Texan" occurs in 1940 or before (more recent dates are often referencing a 1928 book). A Google Books search shows 2x as many instances of "Texas" than "Texan", and, again, many of the "Texan" usages are very old books. The most respected scholarly works use "Texas Revolution". (For examples, see Stephen Hardin Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution‎, Eugene C. Barker's works, William C. Davis), etc). The Handbook of Texas, published by the Texas State Historical Society, labels their entry on the subject "Texas Revolution". There is very obviously a scholarly consensus as to what this should be called, and I will be undoing all of the recent changes. Please achieve consensus here before making any further adjustments to the naming. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed throughout

Given the potentially partisan and regionalistic brouhaha that this article could encompass (one need only look at some of the more unfortunate comments in this talkl article...) I think this is shaping up really well.

One recommendation I had, on reading throughout is that there are a lot of references needed. I know it's a work in progress. But there are whole sections without references. This is not a condemnation, just a request. I placed a few "citation needed' markers throughout as a guide.

Some sections, however, are very well written and researched. High quality work. Now let's get the rest up to that same standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.169 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2010‎ (UTC)

"Meeting of Two Armies" section

English Wikipedia, no? Can we get the map/image, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Mexico_1835-1846_administrative_map-es.svg/350px-Mexico_1835-1846_administrative_map-es.svg.png, in English please, not all English speakers speak Spanish. Other than that, very informative. Collision-Shift (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Let us add a bit in this section:

• Three columns for Mexicans, Gaona to the north; Santa Anna and Sesma Y Ramirez at center; and Urrea to south.
• Houston keeping Texans one river crossing ahead until Brazos River.
• Orders for Gaona originally intended for him to sweep around Texians to Nacogdoches and then press from rear, but changed in late March to make for San Felipe de Austin and join central column.
• the twelve days of training along the Brazos
• famous "fork in the road" where Houston turned army south toward Harrisburg.

I'll dig for a primary source (Santa Anna-- just read it last week) concerning his splitting into three columns currently noted as needing a source.

--cregil 14:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Added: Three columns -- the Mexican strategy after the Alamo has now been noted and sourced as final paragraph in Alamo section, leading to "Runaway Scrape" (which, by the way, is not the "Meeting of Two Armies" those words in the Section only fit San Jacinto unless the small skirmishes at various river crossings is intended-- but those are not mentioned in what presently exists in this section).

Needs to be added: (discussion?)

One: The Runaway Scrape is about two things, and used to refer to both and either depending upon context. Preceding the Texas Army's eastward movement away from the Mexican Army, was the civilian retreat toward the safety of Louisiana. At Bastrop, for example, the Texas Ranger unit was divided so that half would protect the civilian evacuation and the remainder would serve as the rear guard and scouts ("spies" they were called) during the military retreat.

Two: During the period of the Runaway Scrape, Gaona's army was re-directed from its original orders (to proceed to Nacogdoches via the San Antonio Road in a flanking maneuver) to, instead, turn southeast and join the main forces at San Felipe. Of interest in that is that Santa Anna was not aware that Houston and his army were camped along the Brazos directly between San Felipe and Gaona's march-- yet the Texians remained undiscovered for nearly two weeks, allowing the volunteers to be trained in military discipline and also to facilitate their safe and orderly crossing of the Brazos River. This is contrary to the concept of a Santa Anna's "relentless pursuit" as is currently stated in the article. According to primary Mexican sources including military diaries and dispatches, the Mexican Army had no knowledge as to where the main body of Texans were during early April while the Texans knew the location of the three Mexican forces.

Three: After crossing the Brazos, the Army marched due east as Houston received reports from his scouts to the rear-- this adds perspective to the existing text regarding the possibility that Houston intended to flee into US territory. In other words, it was an option, but not Houston's preferred option-- he was looking for and found a weakness by Santa Anna's impatient acts. At which time, Houston turned toward Harrisburg to the southeast at the famed "fork in the road."

Four: From that fork in the road, the Runaway Scrape had ended in military terms, while the civilians continued to flee. From that moment, Houston was no longer in retreat, but rather leading the Army to find a place to confront Santa Anna on Texas soil.

All of the above in this post seems to me to be the needed content in this sections.

--cregil 17:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Above completed, please feel free to edit my prose. --cregil talk 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits are ok, the map I still cannot read. en.Wikipedia.org pages should have English labels on the maps, or translations please. Collision-Shift (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The current map shows nothing of value for the military movements but, instead, represents Mexico's political claims beyond the scope of this article. The English version exists and I have made live.--cregil (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Much Better, thanks :) Collision-Shift (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been on my mind all day. I am not a map maker, but work with them quite a bit.

What we need for this section is something like this little image I set up and I screen captured for this discussion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Runaway_Scrape.png

Anyone feel inspired and artistic? If so, I can supply much more data, and would be happy to collaborate.--cregil (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Article and talk page over complicated and over analyzed

The Texas revolution, and the reason Texas sought independence from Texas, was because Mexico prohibited slavery. All the “reverse political correctness” (a tendency by some to never discuss or minimize any misdeeds by white Americans) is just so much historical revisionism and pretentions conciliatory pandering. The Texans and the mercinaries from Tennessee (and they were mercenaries, not “volunteers”) being the “good guys” is a little like discussing German SS martyrs at Auschwitz Cosand (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To this: the reason Texas sought independence from [Mexico], was because Mexico prohibited slavery. That is, indeed, a popular opinion.

It is not appropriate for the article because of the lack of primary sources contemporary to the Revolution to support the opinion, making it (in academic terms) subjective. I would say that it is perilously so, in that virtually all primary sources contemporary to the Revolution support that slavery was not an issue and could not be allowed to become one.

One may wish to consider that the evidence remains that the blacks who fled slavery in Texas, before, during and after the Revolution, primarily fled to New Orleans, not to Mexico. One then may ask, "Why?" A likely answer may be perpetual indenture which a poor man (of any color) might face in Mexico. Keep in mind, please, that five Mexican States rebelled against Santa Anna's government, and only one was primarily Anglo, and of the Anglos, the vast majority did not own slaves. Mexican historical revisionism is to deny that perpetual indenture is equivocal to slavery, and to deny that both the European ruling class in Mexico and the indigenous Indian population in Mexico were both racist -- and remain so to this day. At Zacatecus, for example, Santa Anna's order were to kill any Anglos found there. It is 2011, and mankind is still in search of a culture which does not resent other cultures.

The rest of your presentation of your opinion smacks of racism and this is no place for it (German SS martyrs at Auschwitz, really?). There is no place for it, at all, of which I am aware.

--cregil (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not "racism". Nor is it the definition and implications of perpetual indenture, nor is it if the majority of Texans owned slaves. The issue is that Texas independence was rooted in the desire to participate in the North Amercan slave trade, the first and ONLY for profit systematic multi generational slavery in human history.If one reads the "Texas decleration of Indepenence", it is impossible come to any other conclusion. It is much like the American civil war, i that the North dd not go tom war to END slavery, but without a doubt, the South went to war to PRESERVE it. You can downplay the undeniable parallels between the holocaust and the North American slave trade if you wish, but they are in fact undeniable, and to accuse me of “racism” for pointing that out, is spurious. Cosand (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

* Please cite sources, not opinion, for advancing your point of view.

--cregil (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to consult a 6th grade history book. Pardon the sarcasm, but your "produce a source" used as a tool to attempt to deny accepted historical fact, frankly deserves nothing more. This is one fundimental problem with Wkipedia, and why it is not accepted as a reliable source in academic venues. The "hard core" editors are so steeped in "citation overkill" as tool to bolster their personal bias,the very accuracy they claim to strive for, is lost. Could I produce “sources” for my virtually universally accepted statements? Of course. That however, would be engaging in sophistry, and I respectfully decline. My points stand on their own merit. For the record, you did not cite a SINGLE source in your thinly veiled biased historical revisionist attempt at rebuttal.Cosand (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed un-sourced and biased content, added sourced content and cleaned up the page

"Be bold"? Done. The entire "Econimic origins of the conflict" was un-sourced with no citations, so I eliminated it and created an "other issues" section with the portion that was viable. I added the "slavery the primary issue" section with multiple citations suppoting it. Cosand (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This is sadly incomplete, although you may think otherwise. The Texas Revolution does occur in the context of Manifest Destiny and the expansion of slavery when you locate it within a US-specific narrative. However, it occurs equally within the Mexican narrative of the post-Independence struggles over centralism/federalism and the very boundaries of Mexico. As other people have pointed out, similar forces were at work in Central America/Yucatan, and those had nothing at all to do with the US or slavery. I suspect that Texian Illiad is a good source on this. Ben (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The centralism/federalism issue and the slavery issue in terms of Texas are one and the same. The fact that centralism/federalism was also in play in other parts of Mexico, in no way diminishes the fact that slavery was the central issue in Texas. Cosand (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ack. The section was not in good shape, but this is worse. The most recent scholarly works (last 20 years) place the revolution squarely in terms of the political shenanigans going on in Mexico AND the inherent racism of the Anglos AND economic issues (slavery being but one part of those - customs duties is actually given more weight, because that was enforced and the anti-slavery edicts were not). The citations given for the "slavery the primary issue" section are NOT reliable sources. I'm going to remove the entire section for now. Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I put back the FACTUAL and CITED information that slavery was indeed the primary issue that led to the Texas revolution. The idea that unnamed revisionist "reverse political correctness" under the guise of "scholarly works of last 20 years"are more reliable than two college web sites (Texas based no less)is abserd. The notion that slavery was a "secondary" issue in both the civil are and the Texas revolution are a product of anti intellectual bias from talk radio, right leaning cable news,right wing fringe media, home schooling manuals, and pseudo academics with regional and political axes to grind, and is rejected in any legitimate venue. Cosand (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we just go through this?--cregil (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this cleanup is that important facts were deleted so that the popular, but not always factually correct version of events be preserved. What everyone agrees about history, often repeated and cited, does not make it true. So any inconvenient and cited facts that are not consistent with the popular notion of what happened gets deleted. Also, I see that this article was re-written with a very biased northern point of view, omitting any Texas, Mexican or southern point of view. I consider this article very biased and misleading as re-written. There were many factors that led to the revolution, not just the northern refrain that it only was about slavery. Look a little deeper. That was one of many factors. And saying it was only about slavery is actually just repeating the propaganda that the north kept saying about the south. Look at the facts. Look at the documents. A lot more was going on that just slavery. Do a little research and you would see. Unfortunately you won't see it on Wikipedia since inconvenient facts get deleted, even when cited. Saying this article was edited to be more unbiased, by deleted facts that serve as a counterpoint to your bias, is hypocritical. I'd rather see an article that cites ALL the causes of the revolution, rather than deleted everything except slavery. That would be more unbiased that this very biased rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wistex (talk • contribs) 15:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the incomplete, inaccurate and NON CITED “economic causes” section and replaced it with a cited and documented “Rooted in the desire to maintain slavery section. Fixed the page to eliminate the revisionist minimization of the slavery issue and the exaggerated importance of the religions and political issues. Could those with regional bias and political agenda please refrain from vandalizing the page from here on in. Thank You Cosand (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Change of Class from "American" to "US"?

" (Bot: Working for WP:USA; Getting class from project being untagged)"

Was:

WikiProject American Old West|class=c|importance=top

Now is: WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=|USOldwest=Yes|USOldwest-importance=Top

The Texas Revolution was in 1836. That is Mexico and the Republic of Texas-- and therefore NOT the US. America = Yes; US = No. --cregil (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath: Houston's opposition to Secession and a source.

The following was added by Tim!

"Later during the American Civil War, many Texans considered Houston the "Traitor to the Republic" for his efforts to keep Texas from seceding from the Union and his refusal to take an oath of allegiance to the Confederate States."

It was removed by 99.38.208.30 who explained, "you shant make a nasty comment like that without a source".

Well, "Tim!" was right-- every word is true. James, Marquis, The Raven, 1929 (which I may, or may not, sleep with under my pillow!) from about page 409 through the end is much about that blessed man's unpopular fight to avoid seceding from the Union. He was much hated by many during those years. So... that statement is not "nasty," it is the honor due one of the too few. The dignity in which he carried his opposition before and during the Civil War eventually restored him to his proper place. That man had huge heart and an even bigger soul.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 August 2011‎ (UTC)

"Economic Origin of Conflict" section

this line: Cotton was in high demand throughout Europe and so a lucrative export throughout the southern United States. Much of the land being opened up to Anglos in Mexican Texas was well suited for cotton,.........

Can we find another word to use other than "Anglos". even the wiki article on the word, points to it offending at least a segment of Americans.

"In addition, some non-Hispanics whites in the United States who speak English but are not of English ancestry do not identify with the term Anglo and in some cases find the term offensive. For instance, some Cajuns in south Louisiana use the term to refer to area whites who do not have Francophone backgrounds. Irish Americans, the second largest ethnic group in the United States following German-Americans, also sometimes take umbrage at being called 'Anglo'."

The use of the term shows strong bias, as well, by using a blanket term to cover those who would not normally fall under the label. Maybe a better term can be recommended by members here. Maybe European-American can be used for now.

I am also content to believe, that the migrant "Citizens of the United States of America" entering what was soon to become the State of Texas, were not ALL decendants of 'Angles' (English).

I hope this is treated as a suggestion and not a direct assault, I am trying to be non-biased in this request as well. Thanks Collision-Shift (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Good points. No reasonable person would object to what you propose. Easiest perhaps, and disarming the charged wording altogether is, "Much of the land in Mexican Texas was well suited for cotton..." --cregil (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)