Talk:Samuel Maverick

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

General Comment

Much of this article sounds like it's copied straight from one or more existing texts. 216.207.71.1 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Colonist

I added a "See also" to Samuel Maverick (colonist) (1602–1670), an English colonist in Massachusetts. Is there a better way to handle this (two guys with the same name, one more famous than the other)? DavidBrahm 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best way. The other option if they're equally famous (or obscure) would be a disambig page. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick

I think that it is pretty slack that this page doesn't make any reference to what he is most famous for. [1] [2]. The word "Maverick", meaning reckless or outlaw, comes from this person, Samuel Maverick (not the 1602-1670 colonist, but this one). Please can someone add it? Dyinghappy (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in article

The lede to the article claims via (poss. inaccurate) source that Maverick simply couldn't be arsed to brand his cattle. Further down the page, there is discussion about the problems this caused his fellow ranchers, his stated objections to it (opposition to animal cruelty,) and a possible ulterior motive (ability to claim anyone else's unbranded cattle.) Any Texan historians know which one is right? The latter sounds far more plausible and accurate, but it's the unsourced one. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research on S.A. Maverick a few years ago, and I certainly got the impression that he just didn't care enough to have them branded. If I remember right, he got them as a wedding gift from his father-in-law.

Regardless, the lead to the article makes it sound like the term Maverick got started because he was a rebel for not wanting to brand his cattle. This is patently false. In Texas, an unbranded calf is still known as a maverick (see the definition of maverick in the OED). The term comes from the fact that mavericks stick out from the herd. Other sources have claimed the term came from his senate record, but my research showed very little support for that theory.74.192.38.212 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my additions of Jan. 2009. From his wife's account, supported to some degree by correspondence, Mr. Maverick was hardly a colorful character or in any way a "maverick." Rather, the record shows him as an active participant in the development of the Republic and a vigorous professional and businessman. It's quite an easy jump from an unbranded young animal to a suggestion of being "outside the herd." In those days of open range and the common habit of attending to cattle maybe only once a year at about weaning time, any animal missing in that operation might well be fully grown without ever seeing a human and might be wilder even than was usual for Texas cattle of the day, which were "domesticated" only in comparison to plainly feral beasts, and the males would naturally be young bulls and even more of an adventure to deal with and were "rebels" indeed. As to any objection to "cruelty," it approaches being past believe that anyone would expect to maintain a herd they cared anything about without branding, even if they held what would have been taken to be a bizarre position that branding was cruel. And it would have represented no hardship on the neighbors. A man might courteously run his neighbor's brand on something he missed, but more often he would just brand it as his own, which indeed it would lawfully become. Once a calf was weaned and still unbranded, it was up for grabs. Actual crooks drove off the calf or split its tongue to force weaning and therefore justify running their brand on it. A ridiculous speculation with regard to Mr. Maverick who likely never worked cattle in his life. 204.64.42.246 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Also, it's more of a style issue, but all of the current listed sources in the article are... well, a single source. Is there really a reason to have a page or two of notes about which particular page each statement comes from? -LlywelynII (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you concern, but yes, that is necessary. At some point, someone (maybe me) will come in and finish the article with information from other sources. We will need to be able to differentiate between where information came from. Unless it starts now, later it would be almost impossible to tell. Karanacs (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going back through Mary Maverick's memoirs and will make some additions from that source. I don't recall her version of the maverick origin, but I think it was simply that he was given some cattle on Matagorda Island in lieu of a debt, and the family he sent to care for them just neglected the job. But he wasn't much interested in cattle. It needs clearing up. It wasn't what was important about him, but it's what he's mostly remembered for. I guess the lesson is be careful. You never know how you'll be remembered. Jeltz the Poet (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Activity

The comment that Samuel Maverick was not active in politics during the civil war, is not entirely accurate. From May 26, 1862, to January 1, 1863, he was again mayor of San Antonio. This information comes from the San Antonio Public Library, Texana/Genealogy - City of San Antonio Officers.

Maverick's Cattle

I have added the accounts of George Maverick and the distillation of Mr. Mavericks correspondence from Mary Maverick's memoirs. I have left the other cited accounts intact as demonstrating the popularity of speculating on the word and its origins. A more full discussion of the term "maverick" is, I think, more properly its own topic, as it the meaning has evolved over the years and should include various adaptations of meaning, including the recent examples. As I have time, I will go back and see what Mrs. Maverick has to say about his political activities in the Civil War years. Jeltz the Poet (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC) The way it reads sounds strongly biased, and citations are not listed. Should be rewritten or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.190.4 (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signatory to Texas Declaration of Independence

In response to a user expressing belief that Maverick did not sign the Declaration, I added a brief explanation that his signature appears on the original, but not on the print published version. See page 11 of the hand-written original. (Jeltz the Poet (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A long distant relative of mine samuel maverick 2A00:23EE:19D0:AF15:F179:E365:E06C:49B1 (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]