Talk:Texas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated GA-class, Top-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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Mexico (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Good article Texas has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:


Change the date of the Louisiana Purchase from 1801 to 1803

Texas joined The Confederate States, before, at the beginning or during the Civil War?[edit]

Fourth paragraph down the article says, "A slave state, Texas declared its secession from the United States in early 1861, joining the Confederate States of America 'during' the American Civil War." Shouldn't the end of that sentence have said more accurately and clearly, "...joining the Confederate States of America at the 'start' of the American Civil War." Because didn't Texas join the Confederate States at the very beginning of the war or before? I was confused when I first read the sentence because as far I am aware, and what I've read elsewhere, I thought Texas joined right at the start or earlier and not later during the war? Texas joined the Confederate States in March 2, 1861 and the American Civil War began later, in April 12, 1861. Sam Houston was out of office before the war had even begun so he didn't block Texas' entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.23.227 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. Texas was one of the charter members of the original 7 state Confederacy, and was indeed a member before the War ever began. So far as Sam Houston goes, it is a little more complicated. He accepted secession, but objected to Texas' entry into the CSA (which in fact had already been approved by the other 6 Lower South states already assembled in Montgomery, Alabama), on the grounds that the secession convention had no power to do so and that, unlike actual secession, it was not put up for a state-wide referendum. Thus, he was deposed from office when he failed to respond after his name was called out three times to come up and take an oath of allegiance to the new Confederate Constitution. But anyway, thanks for bringing all this up! I will take a look at it and do the necessary revisions to make it reflect historical accuracy subject, of course, to the approval of other editors. TexasReb (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


This discussion, and the accompanying article as it currently stands, fails to reflect the fact that there was never any such thing as the "Confederate States of America", nor was there any secession from the US to establish such. There was an attempt to do so and an accompanying armed rebellion, however the US Constitution does not provide for the secession of any of the nation's member states, and the rebellion (known as the "American Civil War") failed miserably (as decisively demonstrated by Gen. William T. Sherman in his march through the south and by President Lincoln at Appomattox but with consequences, many believe, lasting to this day). The supposed "Confederate States of America" was never recognized by the world powers of the day and therefore never really existed; it was a wholly imaginary figment of the minds of traitorous southerners alone.
Furthermore, it wasn't Texas itself that was re-admitted to the Union in 1870: since there wasn't (and isn't) any such thing as secession from the U.S., Texas never seceded from the U.S., thus it couldn't be re-admitted to the U.S. Rather, it wasn't until 1870 that the Texas citizenry was deemed by the rest of the nation to be sufficiently reformed of its disgracefully traitorous, rebellious ways that the federal government allowed Texans to resume electing their own federal representatives and sending them to Washington, D.C. to participate in national affairs.
The language of the Civil War section of the article at hand has been corrected to reflect the previous obliviousness to or disregard of these historical facts. BLZebubba (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
As for the remark attached to one of the March 28 edit reversions by Rjensen that "foreign recognition is separate", actually it isn't: recognition by the other nations of the day is the only standard that matters when considering whether a country existed or not; accordingly, since the "Confederate States of America" never attained recognition by Great Britain, France, nor Spain (nor any other country for that matter), there really was (were?) never any "Confederate States of America", the revenues collected by modern nostalgic southern huckster-authors of glorified Civil War pseudo-histories who assert otherwise notwithstanding.
Once again, your obvious hostility and POV's are noted. While there was no foreign recognition, the Confederacy was granted belligerent status and the Union conducted its war policy in line with that which would be used in war with another nation. Also, your tirade as to illegality of secession can be easily countered by that while the Constitution did not specifically allow for secession, neither did it prohibit it, which is actually the more relevant point. The federal government was not authorized by the said document to use force to prevent any member state from withdrawing from the voluntary compact created by sovereign states which were separately recognized as such by the British in the Treaty of Paris. Also the 10 amendment provided that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government was reserved to the states.
Also, if you are using the Texas v. White case to make the point that Texas never left the Union, then this too fails as in that the case did not directly involve secession but rather, bond sales made during the War. To make the ruling they did -- after the War was over -- it was necessary to attempt to prove the state had never seceded. However, this is known as "dicta", meaning that it is an incidental opinion by the court that is not binding on the specific issue at hand, even though it may be very persuasive. Thus, no ruling has ever been issued on secession per se.
Finally, it is interesting that Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote told Sec. of War Edwin Stanton that "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason."
Regardless, it is a waste of time and not the point of this page to get into a lengthy debate over the legalities or not of secession...there are arguments on both sides of the question. We can carry that on somewhere else if you like. The fact is, the people of the State of Texas voted to secede, and the state joined the Confederate States of America and such is today recognized as a fact of Texas history in everything from our history books to Six Flags over Texas displays, and the Great Seal of the Confederacy is imprinted on the floor of the State Capital, and etc. So that is what is important and relevant to an article on Texas as concerns its history. You own editorializing (or mine or anyone elses' for that matter) has no place in the piece. TexasReb (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Saying Texas V. White didn't deal with secession is dead wrong. The case specifically ruled, regardless of the matter that initiated the case, on the question of secession, past and future. I suggest you review our wiki page on the ruling.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You can "suggest" all you want -- in your seemingly arrogant manner -- but I suggest in turn you do a bit of reviewing yourself and brush up on the term "dicta." The Texas v. White case only dealt with a bond issue as the one directly before the court. The "logic" used to get to the ruling really amounts to opinion only. It has no binding on as fare as stare-decisis is concerned. For one thing, it was made 4 years after the fact. For another, the issue of secession itself is one SCOTUS can never really "rule" on. If states secede, by popular vote and/or proper legislative means, then what the court says is irrelevant and totally beside the point; the seceding states are no longer bound by any ruling of the court. Further, the court does not take moot cases thus, the issue would never come up before the fact and never be accepted at all. TexasReb (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014[edit]

Can someone please correct a factual error in the sentence: "Texas is a "tax donor state"; in 2005, for every dollar Texans paid to the federal government in federal income taxes, the state received approximately $0.94 in benefits.".

According to the Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_spending_and_taxation_across_states Texas is not a "donor" state, they receive more money back in Federal spending than they contribute in Federal taxes. - the current sentence in the Texas page is based on data from 2005, the data in the referenced Wiki page is from 2012, thus we should be using the latest data

The correct version should be: "Texas is a "tax recipient state"; in 2012, for every dollar Texans paid to the Federal Government in federal income taxes, the state received approximately $1.26 in benefits."

Thanks & Best Regards, Jeff Lott0004 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There appears to be some difference between the article you mentioned and its sources. That's one of the reasons we don't consider WP to be a reliable source. I'll try to sort out the problem at that article, but please find a reliable source for this if you want to re-open your request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, the esteemed Economist magazine published a 20-year survey (1990-2009) confirming that Texas sends more to D.C. than it receives back, http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union which should be creditable support for donor state status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.72.31 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of the Federal money that goes to Texas is for of military spending. Some statistics count this as federal money as going to Texas even though it provides military protection to all US states. Just something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Riggerson (talkcontribs) 23:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Spelling errors, tenses[edit]

Under ' 20th century to present ', disenfranchised is not spelled correctly.

Under ' Politics ', " Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio consistently leans Democratic " should be changed to ' lean '.

Under ' Energy ', commercialisation is not spelled the way Texans would spell it.

Under ' Higher Education ', Texas A&M System should be denoted ' Texas A&M University System ', as is the hyper-link it connects to.

Under ' Arts ', additional Fort Worth museums should include the Museum of Science and History, the Aviation Museum, and Sid Richardson Museum.

Under ' Commerce ', sections are needed for ' Airports ' and ' Ports ', please; thank you :)

I fixed the energy and politics issues. 'Airports' and 'ports' already appear under Transportation. I too use disenfranchised instead, but disfranchised is okay as well, I think. AlexiusHoratius 18:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about airports and ports; just hadn't read far enough down - oops :)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014[edit]

Under greenhouse gasses section, please change to "Texas emits the most greenhouse gases in the U.S.[35][36][37] The state emits nearly 1.5 trillion pounds (680 billion kg) of carbon dioxide annually. As an independent nation, Texas would rank as the world's seventh-largest producer of greenhouse gases.[36] Causes of the state's vast greenhouse gas emissions include the state's large number of coal power plants and the state's refining and manufacturing industries.[36] Although people often consider the vast amount of greenhouse gasses Texas produces, its relatively large population of residents is sometimes failed to be taken into account. Texas has a per capita emissions value of 25.59 metric tons, finishing lower than 13 other states, nevertheless still above the national average." Also add these citations please. [1] [2] [3] Tom Riggerson (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The cowboy and Spain.[edit]

This video clip shows the famous Feria de Abril in Seville, Spain or Fair of April, with people from Southern Spain in traditional costumes, with traditional music. too. The similarities with the cowboys from Texas are amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish name[edit]

Should the Spanish name of the state be included in the infobox of the article? The state does not have Spanish as an official language.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that was added. The template is for use when the native name differs from our anglicization; I can assure you the natives here refer to it as Texas. @Neddy1234: added it a few weeks ago without an edit summary, maybe he can comment on intent. Kuru (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The natives I am guessing are Tejanos? Than why not the Comanche name, or any other language of Native Americans that live/lived in Texas?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Natives in this context simply being "the people who currently live there." For example, we call a certain tract of land Germany, but the natives insist on still calling it Deutschland. The template makes sense there. Here, not so much. It appears Neddy1234 has removed the text in question, by the way. Kuru (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish influence[edit]

The Spanish influence is obvious in Texas and the US. Even the cowboy, made by Hollywood a symbol of the US, is of full Spanish influence, particularly of Southern Spain.

This video clip shows the famous Feria de Abril in Seville, Spain or Fair of April, with people from Southern Spain in traditional costumes, with traditional music. too. The similarities with the cowboys from the US are amazing.

More information on the Cowboy, a symbol of Texas, and its full Spanish origins could be in the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dallas/Forth Worth[edit]

Dallas Fort Worth is the 4th largest Metropolitan area in the Nation Houston is the 5th largest. Someone has edited the page to say Dallas/Forth Worth and Houston are the 8th and 10th largest respectively.

The current MSA shows DFW and Houston as 4th and 5th largest

H

  1. ^ http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/resources/state_energyco2inv.html. US Environmental Protection Agency.  Missing or empty |title= (help);
  2. ^ http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/state_emissions.cfm. US Energy Information Administration.  Missing or empty |title= (help);
  3. ^ http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2010s/vintage_2011/index.html. US Census Bureau.  Missing or empty |title= (help);