Talk:Texas annexation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / American Old West / Texas / History (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

article vandalism[edit]

It looks like this article has been vandalized repeatedly. Some current excerpts:

"In 1837, the Republic of Texas, having just lost its virginity to Mexico..."

"Despite the fact that Mexican dictator Antonio López de Santa Anna and hitler warned that annexation would be..."

The last several edits also reveal vandalism. I'd like to suggest that this article be locked and the vandal, who appears to come from the same two IP addresses every time, be banned from editing any articles on the site.

Swicsam 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

more article vandalism[edit]

Removed a reference to the Hanseatic League recognizing the Republic of Texas. Some people's children should not have access to a keyboard.

--Bdunbar (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Not being a lawyer, it would be helpful if someone could provide justification for the need for a treaty and hence 2/3s Senate approval of annexation of a territory. The Constitution is mute on territories as far as I can tell and its requirements for states are much looser (Article IV, Section 3) simply saying they can be admitted into the Union but not from parts of other states without permission. Legal types should also remember the state of international law in the 1800s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.101.47 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Santa Anna[edit]

This article reads as if Santa Anna was the leader of Mexico throughout this entire time period, notable is this sentence

This territorial conflict did not matter to the Mexican government since Santa Anna wanted the whole of Texas back as part of Mexico.

However, he only regained power after the Mexican-American War started (thus his feelings about the matter were irrelevant to the war's start). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

England did recognise Texas's independence, and also managed to persuade Mexico to[edit]

http://www.cs.unm.edu/~sergiy/amhistory/ch14.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/texas-revolution.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EcT3dJJ38sYC&pg=PA119-IA14&lpg=PA119-IA14&dq=england+recognised+texas&source=web&ots=1WGVXgAol2&sig=wvImsSushQJL7q5pqbhAWeNJEzE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA119-IA14,M1

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OCSL1OEwV6AC&pg=PA434&lpg=PA434&dq=england+recognised+texas&source=web&ots=lb7h75yX59&sig=uXQAncwPOro1v5ZBT4djqA19NJc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

http://www.texasalmanac.com/history/timeline/revolution/

http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1830_timeline/annexation_of_texas.html

The article header mentions no dates, and while England did not initially recognise Texas, it most certainly did recognise the Republic of Texas as an independent country well before annexation by the USA (and even managed to persade Mexico to do likewise so that Texas would not have to agree to annexation). The page quoted by Richard75, below, does say that England did not recognise Texas, but in context it is clear that it is saying that England did not recognise Texas in October 1837,

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/DD/mgd1.html

The same source goes on to state "both England and France entered into trade agreements with the republic and ultimately recognized Texas independence", so while England did not recognise Texas in October 1837, it did later recognise her.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/fhe14.html

Now, can you please stop reverting changes that are factual, and leave England in place.

James Tusk George (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My bad - thank you for the corrections. Kuru talk 02:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Update[edit]

Greets all. I tried to update the controversy section of the page to give a little more detail (without having to create a whole page on it, as one is already there) but at the same time referencing enough detail to show how things were 'accepted' even though it was awkward (as a legal process) - IE: Not standard. Most of this information was taken from the State of Texas Archives web site http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html and 'trimmed down' to a one paragraph type of statement. Hopefully it will get the job done (?)... NOTE to James Tusk George -- I changed the date on one ref that was off by a year, (from 1837 to 1836) all sites I can find show 'that' date.

Because of the urban ledgend that "Texas can Secede from the union" as a provision for it is in the annexation agreements (and not true) I plan on adding that section with ref's as well (so note its addition). Charon9 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Major Edit Proposed[edit]

I've been mulling over this article and have made some superficial changes, but I think it needs to be reorganized. I think some information from the sections "Origins," "Consent and ratification," and "Original controversy" could be incorporated into a new section entitled "Annexation." This would provide a broad, chronological overview of annexation. I also propose a following section called "Terms of Annexation" with subsections taking information from "Borders and new states" and "Right to secede." I think there also needs to be a bit more about the sectional controversy that arose over annexation. This could either be incorporated into the broad overview of annexation or simply mentioned there and expanded in a new section on the controversy. Also, there really isn't much documentation in the existing section "Origins" -- this is something I intend to remedy. Pzleton (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Pzleton (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Sometimes it's good to make a proposal by comparing current and proposed structures like below. Feel free to copy/move and use:

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. This is a proposed outline of the new structure.

Pzleton (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"parts of present-day Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming" -- kind of, but not exactly[edit]

The opening of the article reaffirms the often-stated fact that the Rep. of Texas included "parts of present-day Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming." While it's true that the Texan government claimed all that territory, the area that was actually under Texas' effective control was much smaller. The map at the top of the page is actually a pretty good one for showing this -- the area under de facto Texan control is in yellow, while the area claimed (but controlled in practice by Mexico) is in green.

This isn't just academic, but pertains to the article. The Texas Santa Fe Expedition was an attempt to make Texas's claims effective; its failure helped make the argument for annexation to the U.S. The disposition of this land after it had all been wrested from Mexico in the Mexican-American war wasn't settled until the Compromise of 1850, when only a portion of it was assigned to Texas.

Anway, I'm wondering if anyone would object to me adding at least some of this material in the opening paragraph. --Jfruh (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Very true. No objections here. This would need to be supported with a reliable source. Pzleton (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The argument that the Republic of Texas had no right to claim the aforesaid lands because it did not have "effective control" over those parts of its territory is somewhat specious for the simple reason that, with the exception of the Rio Grande Valley up to northern New Mexico, the Mexican government did not have "effective control" over them either. The Mexican government did not have troops in western Texas, eastern New Mexico, the Oklahoma panhandle, or those parts of present-day Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. The claim made by Texas on these lands, however remote and uninhabited they were at that time, was not based on Texas' description of its own boundaries, but it was based on Mexico's description of the State of Texas and its northern and eastern boundaries with the United States. These had been settled by Treaty before the Texas Revolution. The Republic of Texas simply claimed all the land that had been a part of the Mexican state of Texas prior to the Texas Revolution. Since Texas won that War, it claimed what it had won. There was disagreement as to whether its southwestern border was the Rio Grande or the Nueces, but that was partly based on the fact that some early maps confuse the two. In any case, all these disputes were settled in Texas' favor by the Mexican War and/or by the Compromise of 1850. Whether you believe that Texas owned these lands or not, the historic fact is that Texas got paid for them in cold, hard U.S. dollars, and, to my knowledge, no one has ever disputed the sale of the land or asked for repayment. PGNormand (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a short statement to this effect (before finding this talk section).

Regarding sources: Handbook of Texas Online -Texan Santa Fe Expedition and Handbook of Texas Online - Compromise of 1850 (already cited in the corresponding Wikipedia articles) describe how the Republic of Texas never controlled New Mexico or El Paso.

Handbook of Texas Online - Comanche Indians says: "When Texans won their independence from Mexico in 1836 the Comanches and their allies were still in absolute control of the Texas plains." and "In 1844 Comanches finally agreed to attend a peace council at Tehuacana Creek. The treaty resulting from the Tehuacana Creek councils, signed by Buffalo Hump and other chiefs, called for peace and trade between Texans and Comanches, but once again no agreement was reached on a boundary to separate the two nations. "

Regarding "The argument that the Republic of Texas had no right to claim the aforesaid lands" - nobody had raised that issue, but as for the assertions you made: Mexico never recognized Texas independence or boundaries, and in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded land to the US, not to Texas. The Compromise of 1850 had Texas drop some of the land claims that it had still failed to enforce, and receive federal debt relief, not legitimize these claims. The New Mexicans themselves allied with the U.S. government in rejecting Texan claims and were never under Texan control.

Texas was part of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas from the 1824 Constitution of Mexico until the 1835 Constitution of Mexico which abolished states in favor of departments. In any case, the Texans' nonrecognition of the 1835 Constitution was a major reason for their revolt. Previous to that, the article on the Spanish province of Santa Fe de Nuevo México says "In theory it had variably-defined borders extending into the present-day states of Texas,". Mexican Texas has a map published in Texas showing the 1833 boundary of New Mexico as the divide between the upper Rio Grande watershed and the Pecos, Red River, and Arkansas River watersheds; I don't know yet whether there were differing opinions in Mexico. --JWB (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Mexico_states_evolution.gif shows West Texas as parts of New Mexico and Chihuahua from Mexican independence up to Texas independence. --JWB (talk)

Also interesting, from page 263 of Fehrenbach's "Lone Star": "The Texas Congress had claimed not only the Rio Grande but passed a resolution claiming the Californias as Texas soil. This was not so ridiculous as it sounded, since the western boundaries of Texas were as yet undefined by international or any other kind of law. The Republic, on fighting free of Mexico, was in a position to claim anything outside of U.S. territory in the West it could take or hold. Houston vetoed the Californias bill, but it was passed over his veto." --JWB (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for the Texas Revolution[edit]

I was a little perplexed by the part of the article titled "Background" that states that the Texas Revolution was caused by the fact that anglo-American settlers had become "disillusioned" with Mexican rule, as if they had a fickle change of heart. The only concrete reason offered for their disillusionment is that slave-holders were upset about the Mexican government's talk of emancipation. All the other reasons, such as Santa Anna's taking control of the government and setting himself up as a dictator, the abandonment of the constitutional government under the Constitution of 1824, and the subsequent attempts by Mexican troops to confiscate weapons held by the local militias, all are waved away with the two words "other reasons." Do the authors of this article expect us to believe that the many hispanic Tejano patriots fought on the Texas side because they wanted to defend the practice of slavery??? I've written this before on other Talk pages: "This is what is wrong with Wikipedia."PGNormand (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're addressing this primarily at one person, but I'll assume that you talking (at least partially) to me since I restructured this article a few months ago. I did not mean to insinuate that Mexicans living in Texas joined up with Anglo-Texan forces during the Revolution. I didn't even refer to "hispanic Tejano patriots." Do you have any suggestions for improving this section of the article? If you want, you could provide an internal link to the article on the Texas Revolution. This is a collaborative project so don't hesitate to improve this section if you think you can make it more accurate than the current version. Pzleton (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

DeLima v. Bidwell?[edit]

Quoth the article:

In addition, the United States Supreme Court decided in the case of DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901), that annexation by a joint resolution of Congress is legal.[23]

An admittedly quick look over the Wikipedia article on this case would not seem to support this sentence's description of it. As near as I can tell, DeLima v. Bidwell stated that Puerto Rico, which had been annexed via a treaty the U.S. signed with Spain (and which therefore was approved by the standard 2/3 Senate majority), could not be treated as a foreign country for purposes of tarriff law. Is there some other aspect of this decision more germane to the subject at hand here? --Jfruh (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is significant (incorrect) belief among Texas secessionists that some combination of elements, real or imagined, leaves Texas with the "right" to secede from the union, or that the way in which it was brought into the Union before or after the Civil War was not legal, and therefore Texas is not "really" a state, etc etc etc. All of which is nonsense. DeLima V. Bidwell, if nothing else, puts to rest at least one of the conspiracy theories (i.e. that Texas' annexation was "improper".)Jbower47 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
But did the case specifically reference the Texas Annexation in some way, or are you just going by analogy? And isn't the method of annexation used for Puerto Rico (via treaty) different from that used for Texas (joint resoultion)?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I believe that Texas was properly annexed and cant' secceed, mind you. I'm just trying to figure out how exactly this court case is relevant. Has it been cited in court in regards to Texas? --Jfruh (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. My understanding was that this case confirms that the method of annexation is valid in principle, even though it isn't specifically talking about Texas. (i.e. the precedent confirms the question in general, not just in the specifics of this case) The same principle is at work in Texas v/ White (which is the most germane to Texas' status). While the case specifically deals with Texas, the general precedent it sets relates to the status of all states in their right to secede, etc. Jbower47 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed merge request[edit]

I removed the merge request as it was a mistake to include it. This is a valid article as long as the movement doesn't take up too much space. Otr500 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to Texas annexation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Texas annexation Mike Cline (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)



Texas AnnexationTexas annexation – over redirect, per WP:CAPS. Can anyone provide a reliable source to show that Texas Annexation is a proper name of an event, rather than a descriptive name? If no such source can be provided, I propose speedy deleting Texas annexation and moving this article there, leaving a redirect from here to there. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 09:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • No objection, but I think "annexation of Texas" (or sometimes "Texas's annexation") is a more common term.[1][2][3][4][5] It also is slightly more clear that Texas is the annexee, not the annexer. Station1 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Minister"[edit]

We don't say that over here... Jersey John (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We did in the 19th century, actually. --Jfruh (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure we didn't unless you can prove to me otherwise. Jersey John (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

about the united states[edit]

I think that it should have some stuff about the U.S. because I don't know what happen to the U.S. during the 1800s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.218.64 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Major Rewrite[edit]

A major edit, for the purpose of representing mainstream sources that specifically address the topic. The role of the United States, and President John Tyler in particular, are emphasized by all the histories I've looked at. 36hourblock (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas annexation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 19:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Beginning to review this article for GAN... Okay! After extensive copyediting, here are my thoughts, keeping in mind that I'm not an experienced Good Article reviewer.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I extensively edited the article for typos, spelling, and grammar, and I think it's now up to snuff. I've also worked on layout and organization to try to improve MoS compliance.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I don't have access to the texts cited, so someone else who could confirm that they support the substance of the text would be very helpful.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All images claim to be public domain through age except one map, which was released by the author under a CC license.
  7. Overall: The article seems to me to meet all the criteria.
    Pass/Fail: