Talk:Texas Revolution

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

[[