Talk:Texas Revolution
Featured on Template:April 22 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)
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.
This reads like somebody's school report. -- Zoe
- 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 article definitely needs sprucing up. Right now it is actually two articles. Whoever rewrote it left the original at the bottom. Right how, 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.
NOT ENOUGH INFO! This article is like writen is Chinese. This is so confusing. Please rewrite more clearly.
Dec. 2
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)
Changes to Texas Revolution page
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)