Talk:Texas Revolution

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Needs More Alamo

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

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)

Flag Not Authentic

The come and take it flag SVG file cannot be authentic. Helvetica was not yet invented during the Texas revolution. I speculate that these flags were made by hand and had variance in the typography, but a modern sans serif typeface such as this looks very out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.28.219 (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable replica exists at the Texas State Capital, and period documents indicate that the words were painted on the fabric by hand. On the replica, the letters are block-style capital letters. This image may be preferable.--cregil (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2012 (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?

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

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.

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.

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

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)

Historical Context Section

I love the historical context section. However, there are two different contexts that the revolution are set in: the Mexican centralist/federalist conflict, and the United States expansionist/filibustering context. While it is probably important to mention the former, since the latter was the conventional wisdom among European diplomatic circles, we should try to cover both. -Ben 18:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you liked it. The Mexican centralist/federalist conflict context usually gets ignored in many U.S. history or Texas history textbooks. I would say Texas left Mexico mostly because of the Mexican centralist/federalist conflict but joined the U.S. because of the United States expansionist/filibustering context. Without the United States expansionist/filibustering context, Texas might have rejoined Mexico like the Yucatán did or possibly remained independent. --WisTex 03:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the inconvenient facts about the context of the revolution get deleted once again. The Texans don't like mentioning the other seceding Mexican states since they want to focus on themselves, and the Mexicans don't like talking about how their own states seceded from Mexico in protest of Santa Anna trying to centralize the government. Of course, why let facts get in the way? Without the full disclosure of the context of the revolution, this article losses its neutral point of view. --WisTex (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree-- the Centralists verses Federalists is THE conflict from which the TR sprang.

However, the perspective of the US expansionist politics is a bit anachronistic. The average settler was American born of European descent who came to Mexico for an opportunity deemed superior to that which they faced in the United States-- NOT to "Americanize" the territory. While some of the political leaders did have such intent, the perspective is quite narrow.

To put that another way-- The Texas Revolution as taught by modern US history has a "Look what we did!" when it had little to do with the United States. For the most part it was poor, corn farming, hog-raising, men picking up their guns and mounted up to defend their families against threats-- not on behalf of some political ideology.

What is still referred to in Texas as "Indian Depredations" had been the primary threat to security of the average Texian and many had lived that very threat on the US frontier during and after the War of 1812-- finding the US government more interested in its efforts to first appease with, and then renege on, treaties with various Indians-- leaving the frontier settlers to pay the cost. Yet, in Texas, those of Europeans descent found their families and communities under constant threat, not of revenge for the government's actions, but in the midst of mostly itinerant people who saw all not of their own tribe to be enemy.

The Gonzales cannon incident spoke loudly to the unexpected repeat of government policies which left the settlers to fend for themselves-- the very reason that Texas had still not been settled in any European sort of way-- and the Mexican Government very much had a European view of government, economy and civilization.

In an environment in which roving tribes represented a constant threat to each other-- not just those of European descent-- and when Santa Anna, likewise, considered English speaking people worthy of extinction-- the "race card" can be, and was played by all: English speaking people of European descent, Spanish speaking people of European descent, Spanish speaking indigenous people, and Native American's living in nomadic tribes or in small villages.

In that regard, it is not the victors who write the history, but the victims who write it. Neither is free from POV violations. --cregil (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Slavery and Other Things

This article deliberately fails to mention that the issue of slavery was an underlying cause for the Texas Rebellion. While there were indeed other factors that influenced the Texas settlers to rebel against Mexico-such as mandatory conversion to Catholicism-the abolishment of slavery within Mexico, and the attempt by the Mexican government to enforce the "Mexicanization" of the colonist, were all contributing factors in the rebellion. The colonists were far removed from the influence and power of the Mexican government. Therefore, it is highly unreasonable to assume that they raised arms against Mexico because they wanted democracy. For the most part, the colonist ignored the regulations and restrictions imposed upon them by the Mexican government, with the exception of marrying Mexicans in order to gain more land. I would also like to note that the colonist were fully aware that they would have to “Mexicanize” in order to settle in Texas. The colonist they were opportunist looking to make monetary gain from Mexico's political and economic fragmentation and instability. While I'm not advocating the victimization of Santa Anna or the Mexican government, I am advocating that this article contain all the factors that led to the Texas rebellion. Moreover, I've never heard this specific even in history called a "revolution", so I don't think the title is appropriate.

This article deliberately fails to mention that the issue of slavery was an underlying cause for the Texas Rebellion.

"Deliberately" is a very strong word, and I'd be very hesitant to use it to describe the Wikipedia editing process. Your larger point is mostly valid, however. As I've mentioned above, the slavery connection should be added to the "historical context" section. That the Revolution was a ploy by land-hungry US slaveholders was the conventional interpretation among European diplomatic circles, and deserves mention, as does the history of American filibustering in the region. That said, however, some quibbles:

—This is part of a comment by Benwbrum , which got interrupted by the following:

"Deliberately" is a very strong word, and I'd be very hesitant to use it to describe the Wikipedia editing process

I dunno, but: I also removed some references to slavery and how it had some bearing on the revolution. I may remove them all. - Spacekraken, Feb. 2006 59.167.208.232 06:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The colonists were far removed from the influence and power of the Mexican government. Therefore, it is highly unreasonable to assume that they raised arms against Mexico because they wanted democracy.

The colonists were a far more heterogenous group than the revolutionaries of 1776. Many of them -- generally residents of older settlements that had been colonized earlier -- had made bona fide efforts to Mexicanize and were quite sincere in their protestations about the 1824 constitution. Arguments about federalism were exchanged under flag of truce at Gonzales, for example. Ethnic Mexican residents also raised arms in the Revolution for similar reasons.

On the other hand, other colonists who had immigrated more recently (and often illegally) had no intention of following Mexican law when it conflicted with their interests or opinions. These generally pushed for either outright independence or union with the USA. More revolutionaries arrived during the course of the war to aid the Texians, plainly with no intention to see Texas remain in Mexico. It is only "highly unreasonable" to make any sort of generalization about why "the colonists" took any action.

The colonist they were opportunist looking to make monetary gain from Mexico's political and economic fragmentation and instability.

Please be careful to differentiate between "colonists" and "revolutionaries"/"rebels". Your sentence makes no sense if read literally.

I am advocating that this article contain all the factors that led to the Texas rebellion.

You are absolutely correct.

Moreover, I've never heard this specific even in history called a "revolution", so I don't think the title is appropriate.

"Texas Revolution" is the common English-language name for the event in United States usage. It is how it is referred to in Texas schoolbooks. -Ben 14:50, 16 May 2006 (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!".

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. [1] - 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)

Texan or Texian?

Why is "Texian" used in some places, but not others? Articles should strive for consistency. This article is just plain confusing. Fuzzform 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's another (outdated) term for Texan. Still, I agree, it ought to fixed.

It's a different term, meaning Texans prior to American annexation. -LlywelynII (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always heard they referred to themselves as, "Texacans"

Nope. -LlywelynII (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to correct about 20 instances of "Texan" to "Texian".  Randall Bart   Talk  00:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it better be changed in "Texian victories"?

I did so in my (unfinished) Italian translation.

--Filippof (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Texian"? Where did that come from?
— Ω (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I more or less answered my own question here. Texan is the modern demonym, while Texian (it is actually a word. What do you know!) is an archaic form used by residents in the area of Texas before and during independence, but prior to admittance to the US (basically). now, according to my reading of WP:NAME using "Texan" is indicated, since the current common usage is preferred where archaic spellings are not required. The main issue here though is consistency and understandability. If the consensus is to use "Texian", then the word itself should be linked to the page about it, and some short explanation should be given in this article. I don't think that using an archaic term aids in understanding this article in any manner, personally, so my "vote" is to use the modern terminology.
— Ω (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME is for naming of articles, not word choices within articles. I think it is most accurate to use "Texian", as "Texan" was never used during this time period. Most scholarly works on the topic use "Texian". Karanacs (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies; I reverted before seeing the discussion here. The usage of the term texian is used almost exclusively in most historical texts and is also used in most articles here that relate to the period. I see no compelling reason to change the current practice. Kuru ^talk 02:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy throughout is to use names and phrases that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" though, which is where citing WP:COMMONNAMES comes in. Texian, as an archaic term, clearly is not something that most people will recognize. It appears to be a misspelling, and looking at the article history a few people have already "corrected" it. Also, there are articles on Victorian and Elizabethan England, for example, that are not written using period language.

With respect to historical texts, this is intended to be a general use encyclopedia, not a text book. That doesn't mean that we need to dumb down the prose at all, but it does mean that we should, as much as possible, avoid technical or subject specific language. If you look at the Good article and/or the Manual of Style (See: WP:JARGON and especially WP:MODLANG), the use of archaic terms throughout is not encouraged.

Regardless, both of you are correct that there is no ironclad rule which definitively states "you will use this" on this topic. As I said above, consensus is what should determine what is used here. I don't object at all to mentioning the archaic form, but perhaps we could use it in support instead of forcing it down readers throats? The use in the 2nd sentence of the lead is a perfect example of good usage, and is perfectly adequate to introduce the word, in my opinion. All of the others shoudl read "Texan".
— Ω (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Texian is an affectation used by some (though not all, as the bibliography shows) recent writers on Texas in the revolutionary and republic phase. Contrary to what Karanacs said above, Texan was used just as often if not more during the period. It appears, for example, with the "Texan" spelling in the New Orleans Gray flag that was captured at the Alamo by the Mexican Army, and a search on Google Books finds 635 uses of Texan or Texans in books written between 1750 and 1845, but only 547 uses of the Texian equivalents. Prominent examples include Chester Newell's History of the Revolution in Texas (1836), the first book on the revolution, which used Texan exclusively; Joseph Field's Three Years in Texas, including a View of the Texan Revolution (1836); Henry Stuart Foote's Texas and the Texans (1841), a major early Texas history; and George Kendall's Narrative of the Texan Santa Fe Expedition (1844), an important account of that fiasco. There is no historical basis for preferring Texian to Texan, and I can only guess that those writers who do admire the quaintness of it --- it is probably no coincidence that some of the same people have the affectation of calling the Mexican soldiers soldados, as though the word meant something different than "soldier". 69.229.239.9 (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've based the usage on how most of the modern historians referred to the people in question; overwhelmingly, the books I've read (all written in the last 20 years), have used Texian (a few used Texican, and a few used Texan). Karanacs (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where even that much is true. I did another Google Book Search on texts published between 1989 and 2009 using the relevant search terms with 1835, 1836 or revolution thrown in to try to sort out irrelevancies. Whatever variation you use, it still shows a preference for Texan over Texian. Texans 1836 revolution for example digs up 735 uses, while the Texians equivalent has only 511. On Google Scholar search the ratio's even uglier: 2,490 uses in 1989-2009 for Texan in a context that used the year 1836 and the word revolution, only 289 if you use Texian.

You've read “a few” books that used Texican, you say, and “a few” that used Texan. I suppose you have, but I hope you’re not implying that each is about as common as the other --- marginally --- because that’s impossible. (Who uses Texican?) Texan is used by many. Many. Without trying to be exhaustive, it is preferred usage in all these books on the period published within the last 20 years:

Dimmick, Sea of Mud

Brands, Lone Star Nation

Lack, The Texas Revolutionary Experience

Barr, Texans in Revolt

Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin

Henson, Lorenzo de Zavala

Jackson, Indian Agent: Peter Ellis Bean in Mexican Texas

Haley, Sam Houston

Long, Duel of Eagles

Fowler, Santa Anna of Mexico

Crisp, Sleuthing the Alamo

DePalo, The Mexican National Army 1822-1852

Hansen, The Alamo Reader

Roberts & Olson, A Line in the Sand

Winders, Sacrificed at the Alamo

Spellman, Forgotten Texas Leader, Hugh McLeod

Matovina, The Alamo Remembered

Tijerina, Tejanos and Texas under the Mexican Flag 1821-1835

Costeloe, The Central Republic in Mexico 1835-1846

Haynes, Soldiers of Misfortune

There are, indeed, several writers who could also be cited using Texian, but two observations. Where I can recall seeing any of them choose to defend their word choice, they base it on demonstrably erroneous grounds. William Davis, for example, in Three Roads to the Alamo pg. 658, says: "It should be noted that the adjective 'Texan' did not appear in common or official use until statehood came. Prior to that time the inhabitants of Texas universally referred to themselves as Texians." Both sentences are simply false; I showed that earlier. Secondly, it's a faction of writers on Texas in the revolutionary and republic era who prefer Texian, and they appear to have marginal, if not nil, influence on the wider scholarly world. Books on Manifest Destiny that refer to Texas during this time, such as Robert May's Manifest Destiny's Underworld, Anders Stephanson's Manifest Destiny, and Thomas Hietala's Manifest Design, use "Texan". Books tackling Andrew Jackson's foreign policy, such as Sean Wilentz's Andrew Jackson and Jon Meacham's American Lion, use Texan. Books on the Mexican War, such as Timothy Henderson's A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States, John S. D. Eisenhower's So Far from God, Brian DeLay's War of a Thousand Deserts, and David and Jeanne Heidler's The Mexican War use Texan. A recent book on Changing National Identities at the Frontier: Texas and New Mexico, 1800-1850 by Andres Resendez, which should be right up our alley on this point, uses Texan, not Texian. Some of the reason for this may be that the “Texian”-preferrers appear to be disproportionately amateur historians, though I believe Stephen Hardin and Davis are both professors at state universities. That may be why “Texian” has such a tenuous existence in scholarly journals. The point is there is no overwhelming preference for Texian, and looking at everything I don’t even see a preference for it. It is a common term in recent years for discussing the revolutionary/republic era of Texas but has so far failed to supplant the far more standard Texan, especially in academic and scholarly usage. 69.229.239.9 (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, you didn't establish anything of the kind. You apparently spent a lot of time, but did it poorly, giving you many results for current discussions which will often use Texan as the current demonym. What you need to establish is a review of primary Texian sources. From what I can understand from your textwall above, your primary sources show that from the very beginning American authors, historians, and volunteers tended to use Texan, while the Austin colonists and other locals themselves preferred Texian prior and well into independence.

Besides which, it's a useful distinction to make, so it's unclear why you have such animosity to the idea. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have "animosity" to the idea of calling people Texans or Texians. That's a silly trivializing of the issue. I do object, though, to false claims, which is why your post is very strange. It doesn't sound like you read the thread very closely. The evidence I gathered seems quite effective to me in refuting the erroneous assertions in front of me. Karanacs claimed Texian is "overwhelmingly" the preferred choice of contemporary historians, at least of the ones she's read, which may be true; but as a general statement that is not true, it is not even sort of true, since Texan is still the most often used demonym. You appear to think such works are irrelevant, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that's the end of discussion, since what matters is what the current scholarly standard is, not what you or I might think individually.

Now as for a comprehensive review of primary "Texian" sources, that's a great idea! Problem is, it's never been done. By anybody. That's why you have Davis saying, without citation, foolish things like "the inhabitants of Texas universally referred to themselves as Texians." Which social/cultural groups preferred each demonym? To what degree? What respective percentages of newspapers, letters, legal documents, used which demonym? Were there significant differences in usage between people emigrating from Europe versus America? How about from among different regions within America? Or among those who settled in different regions within Texas? Age groups? These are all questions I'd ask if I was doing the research, but they're also questions that nobody who insists on using Texian can answer with any actual facts. And now that we come to it, year of immigration? You assert that the Austin colonists (what years?) and "other locals" (whatever that means) preferred Texian, even if incoming American volunteers like the New Orleans Grays did not, but you have no real idea. I know that nothing I cited shows it. Even if it were true, I do not see why it would be significant, because the people who use Texian, then or now, use it to refer to all people of American/European origin in Texas, and the vast majority of the people you want to call "Texians" were Americans and Europeans who arrived in Texas in 1835 or after.

Since if I did it it'd be OR anyway, you're throwing out a red herring. What matters is what the modern scholarly standard is, and as best I can see the last sentence in my October 13 post remains an accurate summation. Cynwulf (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, can we simply come to a consensus? There is a minor edit war taking place over that issue. Shoot, John Wayne sometimes called them, "Texicans!" I think Texian will be continually edited by passing contributors assuming it to be a typo unless we simply stay with the more familiar "Texan."--cregil (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Or to put that another way...

If I sat in on an academic lecture on any subject dealing with the Texas Revolution and the lecture used "Texian" throughout-- by the third time, I would not be the only one snickering.

Maybe if I were at a lecture from a battle reenactment club I could hear "Texian" and yet manage to keep a straight face; but in an academic setting-- serious students will laugh at "Texian." No one, I mean, NO PERSON, in the year 2012, uses that term UNLESS it is in reference to a period document.

This is an encyclopedic article, and the year is 2012. "Quaint" needs to be left at home-- and drawn out only when putting on he buckskins and setting up for a black-powder demonstration. We are serving a much broader readership than those who are trying to resurrect an archaic term for sentimentality. I do not like having my contributions re-edited so as to be laughed at by the very scholars I respect-- so knock it off with the folksy "Texian" stuff.

Ya'll reckon we can just fess up to the fact that supportin' the universal use of "Texian" is suckin' hind teat? (You get it? All of us Texans can talk that way-- but we don't do it in our writing-- or in any formal communication).--cregil (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

In at least seven separate articles within the scope of Texas History, some contributions using the word “Texan” or “Texans” have been changed by editors to “Texian” or “Texians.”

The result of this has been that “Texian” appears to be the preferred term to the exclusion (for consistency's sake) of the word “Texan” in some (but not all) related articles. Is the exclusive use of either term merited or desirable?

--cregil (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the RfC? Because if consistency requires one term in lieu of the the other, then a consensus is needed. Without that consensus, the practice of excluding the word "Texan" by subsequent edits to the contributions made by others may result in unintended policy and edit wars.

Articles Affected? Texas Revolution, Battle of San Jacinto, Battle of the Alamo, List of Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo, Texas, Runaway Scrape, Battle of Coleto, Texian Army, Battle of Gonzales, Battle of Goliad, Tejano, List of Alamo defenders, Susanna Dickinson, Battle of Lipantitlán, Siege of Béxar, Matamoros Expedition, Battle of Agua Dulce, Goliad Massacre, and many others.

Consistency verses preferred? Some statistics help...

* Search of Wikipedia pages using only one or the other: Texan= 10,200; Texian= 349.

* Search of Google Books using only one or the other: All Time: Texan= 75,500; Texian= 10,300.

* Search of Google Books using only one or the other: Up to 1846: Texan=10,300; Texian= 6,240.

* Search of Google Books using only one or the other: Up to 1837: Texan=833; Texian= 822.

Beyond the numbers: In documents contemporary to the Texas Revolution and Republic of Texas, the two variants are interchangeable in context-- equivocal. The published translation of Juan Seguin's memoirs, indicates the he used both terms; whereas Noah Smithwick and John Holland Jenkins seem to use Texan exclusively. That is not to say it was not an publishing editor's choice, but it is not to say that it was not the usage of the original manuscripts.

In modern histories, Randy Roberts' and James Olson's, A Line in the Sand uses "Texan" exclusively unless quoting. Similarly, Carlos E. Castaneda and Gregg J. Dimmick use "Texan" consistently in their translations and narratives.

Not one of the dozens of texts in my possession use "Texian" exclusively-- and I cannot recall encountering that practice in any publication I have encountered. To the contrary, "Texan" seems to be the preferred in all instances.

--cregil (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I found my way here after looking at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard out of curiosity and figured I'd weigh in. Without seeing the other side's research or doing any of my own, the question (based on my understanding of how Wikipedia operates) is not what's "correct" but what's prevalent in the current historiography on the subject. Do any of your sources explicitly address the question of which to use in modern discourse? Zinfam (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• (comment moved from pre-RfC discussion) I ain't from Texas and I ain't got no dog in this fight. I did make a few "Texan to Texian" edits in related articles for consistency sake, i.e. I saw that the articles had both Texan and Texian randomly interspersed so I arbitrarily chose Texian as the more correct term. Right now, I am leaning the other way based on the description in Texian of the term as "archaic" and the fact that two scholarly sites ([2][3]) state that the term Texan replaced Texian. Replaced. Meaning new term for the same folk. I am not going to make the change but I support using Texan uniformly to describe, er, Texans, prior to annexation. --Lyncs (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2012 (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.

[[

"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)

Background

The present statement, "The Mexican-born settlers in Tejas were soon vastly outnumbered by people born in the United States. To address this situation, President Anastasio Bustamante implemented several measures on April 6, 1830. " seems to beg the discussion that Mexico was ruled, not by indigenous Mexican people, but by persons of European descent; and thus it was a European bias brought to the hemisphere playing out, with the indigenous people choosing sides, but not leading.

• First: The non-European population was mostly transient American Indian tribes. The Comanche, in particular, not hospitable to finding any other tribes in their path as they migrated back and forth across Texas, fiercely attacked other tribes... and apparently it has been that way for centuries-- tribe against tribe.
• Second: The Mexican Government was every bit as racist as the Anglos and as the Indians-- and every bit as accepting. No broad brush fits any group of people-- and the people of the time knew it to be that way-- that some Indians, some Anglos and some Mexicans were racist in their culture, society and practices and that some were not.
• Third: The Mexican government advertised and asked Anglos to come and settle Texas. The Mexican government had not the resources to do so, and so sought Anglo settlers to do it for them in hopes of seeing an economic gain occur from the otherwise un-exploited resources.
• Fourth: The vast majority of legal Anglo immigration was by non-slave-holding poor pioneer farmers and small time merchants-- many of whom had been indentured servants in the Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky and the Carolinas and so empathized with the blacks although out-right support seems to be lacking.
• Fifth: I can find no primary and contemporary source indicating that the Texans sought independence due to a desire to have legal slave holding and trading. I have found primary and contemporary sources stating that the slavery issue could not be allowed to be an issue for Independence because it would divide the Anglos who were already divided on the issue. Again, a broad brush from an assumed perspective is not appropriate and thus a violation of POV.
• Sixth: One of the few contemporary accounts which seems interested in the slavery issue of the time comes from William Fairfax Gray's diary and gives detail about Mexican law regarding slavery in 1836. In it, one reads that any person found in debt, would be indentured to a landholder (Spanish European) until the debt was paid, but room and board added to the debt more than wages given, so that the indenture was perpetual. Slavery by any other name...
• Seventh: I am aware of no accounts of the black slaves who were taken as free men by the retreating Mexican Army under General Filisola having any influence on the decades of slavery in Texas which followed, nor do I see any evidence that blacks in Mexico enjoyed any freedom or prosperity once in Mexico. I would hope that this is merely my lacking in scholarship, but am suspicious that it evidences that the Mexican government, culture and society has no righteous claim for moral superiority regarding blacks and slavery in the era of the Texas Revolution or subsequent Republic. I note that there are references to escaped black slaves heading for the US, but not for Mexico, and find that inconsistent with expectations if Mexico represented freedom to the slaves.

These things need to be discussed and considered as regards mention of the slavery of blacks as regards the Revolution. --cregil 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Concerning removing economic section in lieu of slavery section

Slavery Issue edits:

ITEM 1:

The heading was changed from “Economic Origin of Conflict” to “Slavery the primary issue”

The original heading and wording of the “Economic Origin of Conflict” has been restored— no discussion took place concerning that section or its title. As for the additions regarding the slavery issue; those have been moved to a new section by the title chosen by the contributor making the most recent changes. The entire new section is flagged with editorializing, and request for a 3rd party has been made.

• The given citation (Austin Community College) explicitly contradicts the claim of slavery being the primary issue which it is supposed to support.” None of the sources (blogs, which do not count as sources) provided make the claim that slavery was the primary issue. This appears to be point of view violation.

ITEM 2:

Same contributor added to opening of the renamed section, “The primary grievance,especially among wealth and affluent Texans was that Mexico had prohibited slavery. While most American immigrants did not own slaves, they were decidedly a majority pro slavocracy.”

• “Primary” is oped violation.

• The statement , “while most American immigrants did not own slaves, they were decidedly a majority pro-slavocracy” is of doubtful accuracy and the wording is provocative. “Slavocracy” is a Neologism and thus, a violation.

ITEM 3:

RE: “This issue was clearly embedded in virtully all "economic" and "property" grievances. “

• placing the words, “economic:” and “property” in quotes is an impact allegation, and, together with the word "clearly," weasel-fies the statement.

ITEM 4:

RE: "Mexico took repeated steps to abolish slavery in Texas. Each step prompted a vociferous reaction from Anglos. "

• Need a citation supporting which steps and which specific “vociferous reaction” to provide reader with context.

ITEM 5:

The Current citations provided:

I note that the blog, (after destiny) mentions Gerald Horne's claim that slavery was “A primary issue” but no support for Horne’s statement is provided, so we have an opinion on hearsay which, even so, still does not claim slavery to be THE primary issue as the contributor has stated.

The reference "librarything" is a library page for Horne’s book, but the book itself has not been cited, no quotations or pages have been mentioned. I do note that Gerald Horne is not a scholar of Texas History, but is a scholar of Black History. It would be expected that the book mentioned, if read apart from the greater subject of the Texas Revolution, could easily be misinterpreted as the single proper perspective. That I can see how the error would be easy to make is not the same as claiming that there is no misconception being made. It is a very understandable Point of View Violation.

The next citation (tcu personal pages) is a collection of private book-report reviews of a book in which one reviewer (the very first one) states that the book’s author (Campbell) does NOT claim slavery as "a primary issue," but does claim it to be an underlying one. That then, the contributor’s own source, provided a mark by which the primacy of the slavery issue might be expected to take within an encyclopedic article: That it needs mention, but in proper context, allowing other perspectives and as an underlying rather than primary issue-- and certainly not one which usurps the meaning of “economic:” and “property” unto itself.

ITEM 6:

RE: “Given the amount of capital many Anglos had invested in black slaves,”

• Given what amount? and How many is many?

RE: “Mexico's actions with respect to slavery became the prime issue. “

• Unsupportable statement (see prior comments regarding the variants of the term "primary").

RE: “There were those…”

• Who?

RE: “…by 1836 who felt an independent Republic of Texas in which slavery was firmly and for all time recognized and respected was preferable to Mexico with an uncertain future for slavery.”

• Source?

RE: “Two and one half decades later Texans still felt…”

• “Still felt” or “came to feel?” Who felt that way? The statment in that form implies all Anglos felt that way, and that sentiment comes of as a bigoted accusation which I am sure was not intended.

RE: “… so strongly about black slavery and attached to it for both economic and social reasons that they would secede from the United States and wage a civil war rather than see the institution imperiled.

• Noah Smithwick, for one example (and he writes about how crowded the exodus before the war had been), left Texas for California because, after fighting for Independence, refused to fight for succession; and yet many in Texas and throughout the South saw slavery as the Federal government’s disingenuous excuse for taking away state rights. Two examples: 1) Slavery existed in the North at the Start of the Civil War and 2)The Emancipation Proclamation followed the start of the Civil War. Both are examples of bias, as neither can be proven as intent, but they do argue well of what the intent was not-- or at least not primarily.

To assign motives to persons without evidence of what instigated action on the part of the persons involved in the events is somewhere between hearsay and out-right fiction. If it is correct, it an over-simplified form of hearsay (as motives tend to be quite complex), and if it is incorrect it is a bias fiction. Either way, it has no place in history.

--cregil (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Research: Percentages and Populations:

So far unable to validate, but several references found stating just under 25% of the Anglo settlers owned slaves. 1829 to 1836 range: Anglo Population 30-36,000; Native Mexicam pop ~ 3-5,000; Slave pop ~ 5,000.

Research: Known Public Calls for Revolution based upon Slavery:

(1) In a Fourth of July address intended to stir the colonists to resistance R. M. Williamson, a prominent radical, declared that the Mexicans were coming to Texas to compel the Texans, among other things, to give up their slaves (a broadside in the Bexar archives; "Publications" of So. Hist. Assn. VIII, 7-18). (2) In a letter of August 21,1835, Stephen F. Austin said "Texas must be a slave country. It is no longer a matter of doubt" (Quarterly of Tex.State Hist. Assn, XIII, 271). (3) On August 28 the radicals issued a circular in which they quoted H. A. Alsberry, who had recently returned from Mexico, as saying that the Mexicans boasted that they would free the slaves of the Texans and set them against their masters (Broadside in the Austin Papers)."

Research: Mexican Government Legal

• Of Austin Colony, Total 1825 Population of 1800, 443 slaves. Original Mexican land grants offered 80 additional acres for each bondsman brought.
• Vague reference that appears to suggest that Austin and DeWitt Colonies were exempt from the anti-slavery law-- new law was no slaves within 80 miles of coast. ????
• Original law forbid slave trade in Texas but could be imported from US, but not from Africa (was that part of the original Mexican law or confused with Texas Constitution?)
• Breaking law, some Slave traders, however, did operate out of Galveston and ????-- including some brought in from Africa.

Research: various notes:

• Horne, Gerald, Black and Brown: African Americans and the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920 NYU Press (2005)
• JENKINS PAPERS: OCT 10, 1835—FIRST ENTRY
• Cotton Plantation generally had huge numbers, each.
• Urban slave owners had one, or few
• Record high ownership was more than 300 owned by Mills brothers.
• Groce patriarch arrived in Texas with about 200
• Most slave plantations were in East Texas (cotton) and along coast (sugar cane)
• Ranger Captain Tumlinson was accompanied by his personal slave, seems to have been armed (similar to Joe)
• "The Constitution of the Republic of Texas (1836) provided that slaves would remain the property of their owners, that the Texas Congress could not prohibit the immigration of slaveholders bringing their property, and that slaves could be imported from the United States (although not from Africa)."

--Bookstore didn't have Horne's book and state archives closed today. I'll see if I can get there this week and find origination and verification of the above. But I must say, it really chaps my hide that someone who does not do this kind of work feels free to editorialize on the article-- and then be nasty about it. God spare us from temper tantrums of adults! --cregil (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Seldom if ever have I or anyone else seen such a frantic and desperate attempt to nit-pic and babbles ones way to try to refute something which in no educated venue is even disputed. You have issues. The Texas revolution was rooted in a desire to maintain a slavocracy,embrace that which is real Cosand (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary sources do not support your claim, Cosand.

The ONLY text sourced in your work which was supporting slavery as a "primary issue" never makes the claim; and moreover, was about the Mexican Revolution-- not the Texas Revolution.

As itemized above-- even your blog sources contradicted your claim.

I did not write this article. The only thing I had to do with the section about "economic causes" (which another wrote and you deleted without discussion) was an attempt to work your perspective into the original after someone else restored the original. Essentially, I WAS the only one trying to find support for your position. So why you characterize my work as "frantic and desperate nit-picking and babble" is very difficult to understand.

I have tried to support your position-- but I cannot locate sources to suggest it has a place in an article on the Texas Revolution. You may choose to look at the research I provided, above, and beginning with that provide an article about Slavery in pre-United States Texas; but none of the sources I have found even hint at (much less substantiate) the claim that slavery was a primary cause of the Texas Revolution. That claim mis-characterizes both the Mexican Government and the Texas Revolutionaries.--cregil (talk) 17:14, 15 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.^{[citation needed]}"

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.

"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)

Time to Archive Discussion? January 2012

Let us preserve consensus which uses the "FAQ template" on the talk page.

Suggested for that FAQ:

• "Texan Revolution" or "Texas Revolution?" The Texas Revolution is the proper contemporary usage, also known as "The Texas War for Independence."

• Texian or Texan? Texan. While the other has a specific historical context and usage, it is not the preferred term.

• Anglo or European-American? European-American. "Anglo" is a poor (and racially motivated) term for those whose first language is not Spanish or is not of Native American tongue.

• San Antonio or Bexar? The full name of the town, at the time, was, "San Antonio de Bexar." That form is always acceptable. "San Antonio," by itself is usually sufficient, but "Bexar," by itself, may confuse a non-historian-- although it was the most common casual reference to the town at the time.

• Causes and Slavery? Slavery was not a primary factor for any of the participants (be they Mexican or European-American). Santa Anna did not march his army into Texas due to the issue of slavery and the citizens of Texas did not revolt due to issues of slavery.

• Causes and US Expansionism? US Expansionism is often discussed from a US perspective, but the Revolution was fought due to pressing issues important to the Mexican citizens of Texas-- most of whom were American born, but no longer US citizens.

We will want to link to the archive discussing these matters.

I see no other matters with ongoing relevance to the development of the article.

NOTE: The issues discussed on the Talk Page have bled into the article in a subtle way-- that is, that the article has too much to do with "dancing around" issues and too little on the actual revolution which was first and foremost a war -- and should be treated as such.

--cregil (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Mexican Retreat and Withdrawal

Immediately following the current "Santa Anna Defeated" section, I intend to add a section "Mexican Retreat and Withdrawal." With thousands of Mexican Troops in-country, the war was not necessarily over from the perspective of either side.

Dimmick's Sea of Mud and Castaneda's translation of primary documents found in The Mexican Side of the Revolution will be my primary sources, a touch of Smithwick's A Revolution Remembered and (if I recall) some help from Roberts and Olson's A Line in the Sand.

I would appreciate other sources if anyone has suggestions.

Some highlights intended:

• The decision to withdrawal at Madam Powell's.
• The Texan's 300 mounted men.
• The intriguingly mysterious skirmish between the San Bernard and the Atascosita crossing (neither side elaborates).
• The routes and conditions during the withdrawal.
• The draw-down of Texan forces.

What else? --cregil (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)