Talk:Texas Revolution/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Flag Not Authentic

The come and take it flag SVG file cannot be authentic. Helvetica was not yet invented during the Texas revolution. I speculate that these flags were made by hand and had variance in the typography, but a modern sans serif typeface such as this looks very out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.28.219 (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable replica exists at the Texas State Capital, and period documents indicate that the words were painted on the fabric by hand. On the replica, the letters are block-style capital letters. This image may be preferable.--cregil (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2012 (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)

I agree-- the Centralists verses Federalists is THE conflict from which the TR sprang.

However, the perspective of the US expansionist politics is a bit anachronistic. The average settler was American born of European descent who came to Mexico for an opportunity deemed superior to that which they faced in the United States-- NOT to "Americanize" the territory. While some of the political leaders did have such intent, the perspective is quite narrow.

To put that another way-- The Texas Revolution as taught by modern US history has a "Look what we did!" when it had little to do with the United States. For the most part it was poor, corn farming, hog-raising, men picking up their guns and mounted up to defend their families against threats-- not on behalf of some political ideology.

What is still referred to in Texas as "Indian Depredations" had been the primary threat to security of the average Texian and many had lived that very threat on the US frontier during and after the War of 1812-- finding the US government more interested in its efforts to first appease with, and then renege on, treaties with various Indians-- leaving the frontier settlers to pay the cost. Yet, in Texas, those of Europeans descent found their families and communities under constant threat, not of revenge for the government's actions, but in the midst of mostly itinerant people who saw all not of their own tribe to be enemy.

The Gonzales cannon incident spoke loudly to the unexpected repeat of government policies which left the settlers to fend for themselves-- the very reason that Texas had still not been settled in any European sort of way-- and the Mexican Government very much had a European view of government, economy and civilization.

In an environment in which roving tribes represented a constant threat to each other-- not just those of European descent-- and when Santa Anna, likewise, considered English speaking people worthy of extinction-- the "race card" can be, and was played by all: English speaking people of European descent, Spanish speaking people of European descent, Spanish speaking indigenous people, and Native American's living in nomadic tribes or in small villages.

In that regard, it is not the victors who write the history, but the victims who write it. Neither is free from POV violations. --cregil (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2012 (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)

Deliberately is EXACTLY what has been done here in terms of the primary motivation of Texas succession being slavery, I know this because I had to fight an edit war to even get the watered down "compromise of consensus" that currently appears in the article. It is consummate "reverse political correctness", historical revisionism, and convivial civility at the expense of accuracy,lest we offend those who "love the same America" their 3x grandparents tried to succeed from and who to this day form militias to overthrow in the event their cultural sensibilities are someday offended to an intolerable level. As someone once said, the good thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and the BAD thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it". This is why Wikipedia is scoffed at in intellectual venues and excluded as legitimate citation in academia. It is perpetually diluted to the lowest intellectual common denominator, and this is a CLASSIC example Cosand (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2012 (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)

Meanwhile, can we simply come to a consensus? There is a minor edit war taking place over that issue. Shoot, John Wayne sometimes called them, "Texicans!" I think Texian will be continually edited by passing contributors assuming it to be a typo unless we simply stay with the more familiar "Texan."--cregil (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Or to put that another way...

If I sat in on an academic lecture on any subject dealing with the Texas Revolution and the lecture used "Texian" throughout-- by the third time, I would not be the only one snickering.

Maybe if I were at a lecture from a battle reenactment club I could hear "Texian" and yet manage to keep a straight face; but in an academic setting-- serious students will laugh at "Texian." No one, I mean, NO PERSON, in the year 2012, uses that term UNLESS it is in reference to a period document.

This is an encyclopedic article, and the year is 2012. "Quaint" needs to be left at home-- and drawn out only when putting on he buckskins and setting up for a black-powder demonstration. We are serving a much broader readership than those who are trying to resurrect an archaic term for sentimentality. I do not like having my contributions re-edited so as to be laughed at by the very scholars I respect-- so knock it off with the folksy "Texian" stuff.

Ya'll reckon we can just fess up to the fact that supportin' the universal use of "Texian" is suckin' hind teat? (You get it? All of us Texans can talk that way-- but we don't do it in our writing-- or in any formal communication).--cregil (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

In at least seven separate articles within the scope of Texas History, some contributions using the word “Texan” or “Texans” have been changed by editors to “Texian” or “Texians.”

The result of this has been that “Texian” appears to be the preferred term to the exclusion (for consistency's sake) of the word “Texan” in some (but not all) related articles. Is the exclusive use of either term merited or desirable?

--cregil (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the RfC? Because if consistency requires one term in lieu of the the other, then a consensus is needed. Without that consensus, the practice of excluding the word "Texan" by subsequent edits to the contributions made by others may result in unintended policy and edit wars.

Articles Affected? Texas Revolution, Battle of San Jacinto, Battle of the Alamo, List of Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo, Texas, Runaway Scrape, Battle of Coleto, Texian Army, Battle of Gonzales, Battle of Goliad, Tejano, List of Alamo defenders, Susanna Dickinson, Battle of Lipantitlán, Siege of Béxar, Matamoros Expedition, Battle of Agua Dulce, Goliad Massacre, and many others.

Consistency verses preferred? Some statistics help...

* Search of Wikipedia pages using only one or the other: Texan= 10,200; Texian= 349.

* Search of Google Books using only one or the other: All Time: Texan= 75,500; Texian= 10,300.

* Search of Google Books using only one or the other: Up to 1846: Texan=10,300; Texian= 6,240.

* Search of Google Books using only one or the other: Up to 1837: Texan=833; Texian= 822.

Beyond the numbers: In documents contemporary to the Texas Revolution and Republic of Texas, the two variants are interchangeable in context-- equivocal. The published translation of Juan Seguin's memoirs, indicates the he used both terms; whereas Noah Smithwick and John Holland Jenkins seem to use Texan exclusively. That is not to say it was not an publishing editor's choice, but it is not to say that it was not the usage of the original manuscripts.

In modern histories, Randy Roberts' and James Olson's, A Line in the Sand uses "Texan" exclusively unless quoting. Similarly, Carlos E. Castaneda and Gregg J. Dimmick use "Texan" consistently in their translations and narratives.

Not one of the dozens of texts in my possession use "Texian" exclusively-- and I cannot recall encountering that practice in any publication I have encountered. To the contrary, "Texan" seems to be the preferred in all instances.

--cregil (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I found my way here after looking at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard out of curiosity and figured I'd weigh in. Without seeing the other side's research or doing any of my own, the question (based on my understanding of how Wikipedia operates) is not what's "correct" but what's prevalent in the current historiography on the subject. Do any of your sources explicitly address the question of which to use in modern discourse? Zinfam (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• (comment moved from pre-RfC discussion) I ain't from Texas and I ain't got no dog in this fight. I did make a few "Texan to Texian" edits in related articles for consistency sake, i.e. I saw that the articles had both Texan and Texian randomly interspersed so I arbitrarily chose Texian as the more correct term. Right now, I am leaning the other way based on the description in Texian of the term as "archaic" and the fact that two scholarly sites ([1][2]) state that the term Texan replaced Texian. Replaced. Meaning new term for the same folk. I am not going to make the change but I support using Texan uniformly to describe, er, Texans, prior to annexation. --Lyncs (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• After looking at the presented evidence, it looks like Texian was phased out, and Texan is the term used by modern sources.Gsonnenf (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Texan (except specific articles) - [From uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] The most important rule is that within any given article, only a single term should be used. Next, the word "Texan" is heavily used, and most reader-friendly, so it should be preferred over Texian. Finally, there may be a few articles for which Texian is more appropriate, but that would only be if the sources for that article use that term much more strongly than they use Texan (and, the burden is on the "Texian" proposer to demonstrate the prevalence of that term in the sources). --Noleander (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Texan (except specific articles) - [From uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] agree with Noleander. Have never heard the term Texian before and suspect that the reaction of casual users of wikipedi will be "what the hell is that?" when they come across it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Texan (except specific articles) - I found my way here from the RFC too. I have never heard Texian used before, and I live in Texas (and have thus had to take Texas History). Mpgviolist (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support using "Texan" in all instances to be consistent among WP articles and modern secondary source usages. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• A month into the RfC-- I'm not sure how long these usually stay open. Beyond the specific articles, I would think that all are agreed that a direct quote which uses "Texian" ought to be left in the original. A footnote would be recommended in such instances-- primarily to prevent an editor with good intentions from changing the word from its original.--cregil (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Background

The present statement, "The Mexican-born settlers in Tejas were soon vastly outnumbered by people born in the United States. To address this situation, President Anastasio Bustamante implemented several measures on April 6, 1830. " seems to beg the discussion that Mexico was ruled, not by indigenous Mexican people, but by persons of European descent; and thus it was a European bias brought to the hemisphere playing out, with the indigenous people choosing sides, but not leading.

• First: The non-European population was mostly transient American Indian tribes. The Comanche, in particular, not hospitable to finding any other tribes in their path as they migrated back and forth across Texas, fiercely attacked other tribes... and apparently it has been that way for centuries-- tribe against tribe.
• Second: The Mexican Government was every bit as racist as the Anglos and as the Indians-- and every bit as accepting. No broad brush fits any group of people-- and the people of the time knew it to be that way-- that some Indians, some Anglos and some Mexicans were racist in their culture, society and practices and that some were not.
• Third: The Mexican government advertised and asked Anglos to come and settle Texas. The Mexican government had not the resources to do so, and so sought Anglo settlers to do it for them in hopes of seeing an economic gain occur from the otherwise un-exploited resources.
• Fourth: The vast majority of legal Anglo immigration was by non-slave-holding poor pioneer farmers and small time merchants-- many of whom had been indentured servants in the Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky and the Carolinas and so empathized with the blacks although out-right support seems to be lacking.
• Fifth: I can find no primary and contemporary source indicating that the Texans sought independence due to a desire to have legal slave holding and trading. I have found primary and contemporary sources stating that the slavery issue could not be allowed to be an issue for Independence because it would divide the Anglos who were already divided on the issue. Again, a broad brush from an assumed perspective is not appropriate and thus a violation of POV.
• Sixth: One of the few contemporary accounts which seems interested in the slavery issue of the time comes from William Fairfax Gray's diary and gives detail about Mexican law regarding slavery in 1836. In it, one reads that any person found in debt, would be indentured to a landholder (Spanish European) until the debt was paid, but room and board added to the debt more than wages given, so that the indenture was perpetual. Slavery by any other name...
• Seventh: I am aware of no accounts of the black slaves who were taken as free men by the retreating Mexican Army under General Filisola having any influence on the decades of slavery in Texas which followed, nor do I see any evidence that blacks in Mexico enjoyed any freedom or prosperity once in Mexico. I would hope that this is merely my lacking in scholarship, but am suspicious that it evidences that the Mexican government, culture and society has no righteous claim for moral superiority regarding blacks and slavery in the era of the Texas Revolution or subsequent Republic. I note that there are references to escaped black slaves heading for the US, but not for Mexico, and find that inconsistent with expectations if Mexico represented freedom to the slaves.

These things need to be discussed and considered as regards mention of the slavery of blacks as regards the Revolution. --cregil 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Concerning removing economic section in lieu of slavery section

Slavery Issue edits:

ITEM 1:

The heading was changed from “Economic Origin of Conflict” to “Slavery the primary issue”

The original heading and wording of the “Economic Origin of Conflict” has been restored— no discussion took place concerning that section or its title. As for the additions regarding the slavery issue; those have been moved to a new section by the title chosen by the contributor making the most recent changes. The entire new section is flagged with editorializing, and request for a 3rd party has been made.

• The given citation (Austin Community College) explicitly contradicts the claim of slavery being the primary issue which it is supposed to support.” None of the sources (blogs, which do not count as sources) provided make the claim that slavery was the primary issue. This appears to be point of view violation.

ITEM 2:

Same contributor added to opening of the renamed section, “The primary grievance,especially among wealth and affluent Texans was that Mexico had prohibited slavery. While most American immigrants did not own slaves, they were decidedly a majority pro slavocracy.”

• “Primary” is oped violation.

• The statement , “while most American immigrants did not own slaves, they were decidedly a majority pro-slavocracy” is of doubtful accuracy and the wording is provocative. “Slavocracy” is a Neologism and thus, a violation.

ITEM 3:

RE: “This issue was clearly embedded in virtully all "economic" and "property" grievances. “

• placing the words, “economic:” and “property” in quotes is an impact allegation, and, together with the word "clearly," weasel-fies the statement.

ITEM 4:

RE: "Mexico took repeated steps to abolish slavery in Texas. Each step prompted a vociferous reaction from Anglos. "

• Need a citation supporting which steps and which specific “vociferous reaction” to provide reader with context.

ITEM 5:

The Current citations provided:

I note that the blog, (after destiny) mentions Gerald Horne's claim that slavery was “A primary issue” but no support for Horne’s statement is provided, so we have an opinion on hearsay which, even so, still does not claim slavery to be THE primary issue as the contributor has stated.

The reference "librarything" is a library page for Horne’s book, but the book itself has not been cited, no quotations or pages have been mentioned. I do note that Gerald Horne is not a scholar of Texas History, but is a scholar of Black History. It would be expected that the book mentioned, if read apart from the greater subject of the Texas Revolution, could easily be misinterpreted as the single proper perspective. That I can see how the error would be easy to make is not the same as claiming that there is no misconception being made. It is a very understandable Point of View Violation.

The next citation (tcu personal pages) is a collection of private book-report reviews of a book in which one reviewer (the very first one) states that the book’s author (Campbell) does NOT claim slavery as "a primary issue," but does claim it to be an underlying one. That then, the contributor’s own source, provided a mark by which the primacy of the slavery issue might be expected to take within an encyclopedic article: That it needs mention, but in proper context, allowing other perspectives and as an underlying rather than primary issue-- and certainly not one which usurps the meaning of “economic:” and “property” unto itself.

ITEM 6:

RE: “Given the amount of capital many Anglos had invested in black slaves,”

• Given what amount? and How many is many?

RE: “Mexico's actions with respect to slavery became the prime issue. “

• Unsupportable statement (see prior comments regarding the variants of the term "primary").

RE: “There were those…”

• Who?

RE: “…by 1836 who felt an independent Republic of Texas in which slavery was firmly and for all time recognized and respected was preferable to Mexico with an uncertain future for slavery.”

• Source?

RE: “Two and one half decades later Texans still felt…”

• “Still felt” or “came to feel?” Who felt that way? The statment in that form implies all Anglos felt that way, and that sentiment comes of as a bigoted accusation which I am sure was not intended.

RE: “… so strongly about black slavery and attached to it for both economic and social reasons that they would secede from the United States and wage a civil war rather than see the institution imperiled.

• Noah Smithwick, for one example (and he writes about how crowded the exodus before the war had been), left Texas for California because, after fighting for Independence, refused to fight for succession; and yet many in Texas and throughout the South saw slavery as the Federal government’s disingenuous excuse for taking away state rights. Two examples: 1) Slavery existed in the North at the Start of the Civil War and 2)The Emancipation Proclamation followed the start of the Civil War. Both are examples of bias, as neither can be proven as intent, but they do argue well of what the intent was not-- or at least not primarily.

To assign motives to persons without evidence of what instigated action on the part of the persons involved in the events is somewhere between hearsay and out-right fiction. If it is correct, it an over-simplified form of hearsay (as motives tend to be quite complex), and if it is incorrect it is a bias fiction. Either way, it has no place in history.

--cregil (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Research: Percentages and Populations:

So far unable to validate, but several references found stating just under 25% of the Anglo settlers owned slaves. 1829 to 1836 range: Anglo Population 30-36,000; Native Mexicam pop ~ 3-5,000; Slave pop ~ 5,000.

Research: Known Public Calls for Revolution based upon Slavery:

(1) In a Fourth of July address intended to stir the colonists to resistance R. M. Williamson, a prominent radical, declared that the Mexicans were coming to Texas to compel the Texans, among other things, to give up their slaves (a broadside in the Bexar archives; "Publications" of So. Hist. Assn. VIII, 7-18). (2) In a letter of August 21,1835, Stephen F. Austin said "Texas must be a slave country. It is no longer a matter of doubt" (Quarterly of Tex.State Hist. Assn, XIII, 271). (3) On August 28 the radicals issued a circular in which they quoted H. A. Alsberry, who had recently returned from Mexico, as saying that the Mexicans boasted that they would free the slaves of the Texans and set them against their masters (Broadside in the Austin Papers)."

Research: Mexican Government Legal

• Of Austin Colony, Total 1825 Population of 1800, 443 slaves. Original Mexican land grants offered 80 additional acres for each bondsman brought.
• Vague reference that appears to suggest that Austin and DeWitt Colonies were exempt from the anti-slavery law-- new law was no slaves within 80 miles of coast. ????
• Original law forbid slave trade in Texas but could be imported from US, but not from Africa (was that part of the original Mexican law or confused with Texas Constitution?)
• Breaking law, some Slave traders, however, did operate out of Galveston and ????-- including some brought in from Africa.

Research: various notes:

• Horne, Gerald, Black and Brown: African Americans and the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920 NYU Press (2005)
• JENKINS PAPERS: OCT 10, 1835—FIRST ENTRY
• Cotton Plantation generally had huge numbers, each.
• Urban slave owners had one, or few
• Record high ownership was more than 300 owned by Mills brothers.
• Groce patriarch arrived in Texas with about 200
• Most slave plantations were in East Texas (cotton) and along coast (sugar cane)
• Ranger Captain Tumlinson was accompanied by his personal slave, seems to have been armed (similar to Joe)
• "The Constitution of the Republic of Texas (1836) provided that slaves would remain the property of their owners, that the Texas Congress could not prohibit the immigration of slaveholders bringing their property, and that slaves could be imported from the United States (although not from Africa)."

--Bookstore didn't have Horne's book and state archives closed today. I'll see if I can get there this week and find origination and verification of the above. But I must say, it really chaps my hide that someone who does not do this kind of work feels free to editorialize on the article-- and then be nasty about it. God spare us from temper tantrums of adults! --cregil (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Seldom if ever have I or anyone else seen such a frantic and desperate attempt to nit-pic and babbles ones way to try to refute something which in no educated venue is even disputed. You have issues. The Texas revolution was rooted in a desire to maintain a slavocracy,embrace that which is real Cosand (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary sources do not support your claim, Cosand.

The ONLY text sourced in your work which was supporting slavery as a "primary issue" never makes the claim; and moreover, was about the Mexican Revolution-- not the Texas Revolution.

As itemized above-- even your blog sources contradicted your claim.

I did not write this article. The only thing I had to do with the section about "economic causes" (which another wrote and you deleted without discussion) was an attempt to work your perspective into the original after someone else restored the original. Essentially, I WAS the only one trying to find support for your position. So why you characterize my work as "frantic and desperate nit-picking and babble" is very difficult to understand.

I have tried to support your position-- but I cannot locate sources to suggest it has a place in an article on the Texas Revolution. You may choose to look at the research I provided, above, and beginning with that provide an article about Slavery in pre-United States Texas; but none of the sources I have found even hint at (much less substantiate) the claim that slavery was a primary cause of the Texas Revolution. That claim mis-characterizes both the Mexican Government and the Texas Revolutionaries.--cregil (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You anti intellect, desire to revise history, and pathetic euro centric oppression complex is duly noted, by anyone with an education, thanks Cosand (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to Archive Discussion? January 2012

Let us preserve consensus which uses the "FAQ template" on the talk page.

Suggested for that FAQ:

• "Texan Revolution" or "Texas Revolution?" The Texas Revolution is the proper contemporary usage, also known as "The Texas War for Independence."

• Texian or Texan? Texan. While the other has a specific historical context and usage, it is not the preferred term.

• Anglo or European-American? European-American. "Anglo" is a poor (and racially motivated) term for those whose first language is not Spanish or is not of Native American tongue.

• San Antonio or Bexar? The full name of the town, at the time, was, "San Antonio de Bexar." That form is always acceptable. "San Antonio," by itself is usually sufficient, but "Bexar," by itself, may confuse a non-historian-- although it was the most common casual reference to the town at the time.

• Causes and Slavery? Slavery was not a primary factor for any of the participants (be they Mexican or European-American). Santa Anna did not march his army into Texas due to the issue of slavery and the citizens of Texas did not revolt due to issues of slavery.

• Causes and US Expansionism? US Expansionism is often discussed from a US perspective, but the Revolution was fought due to pressing issues important to the Mexican citizens of Texas-- most of whom were American born, but no longer US citizens.

We will want to link to the archive discussing these matters.

I see no other matters with ongoing relevance to the development of the article.

NOTE: The issues discussed on the Talk Page have bled into the article in a subtle way-- that is, that the article has too much to do with "dancing around" issues and too little on the actual revolution which was first and foremost a war -- and should be treated as such.

--cregil (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Mexican Retreat and Withdrawal

Immediately following the current "Santa Anna Defeated" section, I intend to add a section "Mexican Retreat and Withdrawal." With thousands of Mexican Troops in-country, the war was not necessarily over from the perspective of either side.

Dimmick's Sea of Mud and Castaneda's translation of primary documents found in The Mexican Side of the Revolution will be my primary sources, a touch of Smithwick's A Revolution Remembered and (if I recall) some help from Roberts and Olson's A Line in the Sand.

I would appreciate other sources if anyone has suggestions.

Some highlights intended:

• The decision to withdrawal at Madam Powell's.
• The Texan's 300 mounted men.
• The intriguingly mysterious skirmish between the San Bernard and the Atascosita crossing (neither side elaborates).
• The routes and conditions during the withdrawal.
• The draw-down of Texan forces.

What else? --cregil (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders

At present, the Info-Box has about two dozen names in the Commanders and Leader section, and might be getting a bit unwieldy. Some thoughts:

There is a lot of political lead-up the Texas Revolution, but, conceptually, the Revolution itself is reasonably contained to the 1835 opposition of Santa Anna's Centralist forces gathered to march northward to put down Federalist rebellions.

A new article section, "Battles" with dates, leaders, forces, and one sentence summary with link to the main article. Hostilities (including a non-Anglo-centric perspective) are as follows:

• Battle of Zacatecas
• Anahuac Disturbances (1835)
• Battle of Gonzales
• Battle of Goliad
• Battle of Lipantitlán
• Battle of Tampico
• Battle of Concepción
• Siege of Bexar
• Grass Fight
• Battle of San Patricio
• Battle of Agua Dulce
• Battle of the Alamo
• Battle of Rufugio
• Battle of Coleto Creek
• Skirmish t Beason's Crossing
• Skirmish at San Felipe Crossing
• Skirmish at Thompson's Crossing
• Skirmish at Morgan's Point
• Battle of San Jacinto

Going over my files on troop movements, I believe that is the complete list of ground engagements, (Naval engagements will need to be added) although there appears to have been minor skirmishes between opposing scouting/ranging units (Prisoner's taken by both sides-- Jenkins Papers of the Texas Revolution) off and on during the Runaway Scrape and also following the Battle of San Jacinto (a ranger/scout killed on April 27-- Audited Claims of the Republic of Texas).

If we use that list, we can then name the commanders, there, and leave the Info Box list to a much more manageable list of political leaders and military leaders as follows:

• Texas: Henry Smith; Houston; Fannin; Travis (perhaps adding Bowie, Sherman, and Baker).
• Mexico: Santa Anna; Cos; Sesma; Urrea (perhaps adding Filisola and Gaona).

If we limit by President and Generals, The Texas list is incomplete. If we limit to Colonels, the list becomes very large. The list above seems a fitting compromise as it mentions the leaders of the most important strategic operations from each side. I think that is in keeping with other Info Box listings and the general interest expected from an encyclopedia reader.

What I think we wish to avoid, with discipline, are the listings which are virtually limited to interests of genealogists, but not to a general reader. Moore's excellent work in that regard in his Eighteen Minutes ought to be found in one place on the Internet-- but it isn't; however, Wikipedia will never be that place.

Editor and contributors-- Have I got this close?--cregil (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Texas Insurgence

This is by all definitions an Insurgence not a "revolution" yet the title does not reflect this.

But the sidebar shows a link to the "Mexican Invasions of Texas" when all Mexico was doing was trying to reestablish control of its lands that were taken illegally by the Insurgent Texas forces.

If what Texas did to Mexico back then happened today, not only would the USA be over there in a split-second playing "World Police" and killing the Insurgents (Texans), but they would be the "heroes" for doing so. Yet, a USA-centric view of past events portrays the Insurgents (Texans) as the heroes/victims and the wronged/invaded Nation (Mexico) as the aggressor. Preposterous.

InsurgenceIsAsInsurgenceDoes (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The term "invasion" which you used is preposterous; however, I think "insurgency" is descriptive of how the Revolution began but the term of "revolution" is accurate and the historically usage because Texas succeeded in securing its own autonomy-- not the initial goal of the insurgency. The initial goal of the insurgency was the return to the Constitution of 1824. Once independence was declared, the matter was going to be historically known, depending on the outcome, as a Rebellion or a Revolution.

Keep in mind that the weak support for armed conflict from other regions of Mexico to secure the pre- independence goals of the various rebellious states (Yucatan); and Santa Anna's anti-Anglo actions in Zacatecas, forced a separatists point of view in Texas that could not be shared by others.

A microcosm of that dynamic was experienced by Juan Sequin in Bexar-- the fight for governance was not a part of the indigenous Spanish speaking culture's defining experience as it was for most (all?) of European descent. Legal citizens of Mexico, the "Anglos" were, none the less, to be exterminated by the tactics of the Napoleon of the West. So it ceased to be about Mexican politics and began to be about Independence.

Armed extinction of a people based upon their heritage ("Anglos" to Santa Anna, meant any European not Spanish speaking) is something one would hope the UN would not support. The USA was in Bosnia and Iraq for similar moral reasons. Frankly, I do not like a lot of things the US has done, and wish Texas had been able to maintain its own Republic without joining the States-- but stopping Santa Anna's tyranny was a good thing-- both times. Such is a model that has been repeated by the US, and one which is laudable.

The continued presence (ten years) of Mexican forces in Texas until finally repulsed by US troops (after Texas had joined the Union of the United States) would also be considered an insurgency, I suppose and therefore the Mexican-American War a "counter-insurgency."

Zacatecas was also an insurgency, but not a Revolution-- because it failed(they were slaughtered).

--cregil (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The term "invasion" is not my term, it is on the main page sidebar on the right (3rd bullet under "Result"), why don't you take a look.

Also, note that you agreed with my only point, which was that "insurgency" accurately describes the initial actions of the aggressive party (Texans). InsurgenceIsAsInsurgenceDoes (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this is a serious proposal to change the name of this article from the Texas Revolution to the Texas Insurgency? If so, there are three problems here: 1) Some historical events have become known by a certain name and that name is inseparable from the event. For example, no one can seriously propose that the Hundred Years War which lasted from 1337 to 1453 should be renamed as the Hundred and Sixteen Year War because it lasted more than 100 years. 2) There seems to be some POV here. Your user name might indicate that you have a certain perspective here. Additionally, these types of semantic arguments, when occurring around issues that still engender strong feeling, only support POV pushing. I am certain that this type of debate has raged regarding the nomenclature of the American Civil War. Ultimately, changing the name of that conflict on the wikipedia article will only lead to confusion and misunderstanding which is the opposite of the purpose of wikipedia. 3) With well-sourced material, an editor could fairly state in the body of the article that the Texans were insurgents to the Mexican government. Changing the name of the article is not a credible move. Arguing about whether it was an insurgency or not based on a recitation of examples smacks of original research. Just find a reliable source who calls the Texas Revolution an insurgency and you have made your point. Unless this is a trolling expedition... Argos'Dad 01:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, this is not a proposal to change the name of the article but rather just pointing out the inaccuracy of the article's title.

But to your points: 1) The "Texas Revolution" is not what this historical event is globally known as. This event is known as the "War with Texas" by Mexican historians and many historians from countries other than the USA. 2) The use of the term "Revolution" is evidence of a Texas POV. As is the sidebar link that I have already pointed out that refers to the "Battle of Salado Creek" as "Mexican Invasions of Texas" (which, by the way, is the only link under the "Results" subhead in that sidebar that isn't named for the article that it redirects to).

As I said earlier, I'm not proposing that the name of the article be changed (although it should be if a truly unbiased, world, and "encyclopedic" account is the objective of the website), but at the very least that biased POV sidebar link should be changed. If you guardians of all things sacred and all things Wiki are so concerned with POV, then why don't you fix the biased POV language that is actually in the article and that is reflecting a Texas POV?

Lastly, I'm not arguing whether this event was an insurgency or not because the facts clearly show that, by definition, it was. Any use of red herrings or attempts to shift the burden of proof won't change that. Point made.

InsurgenceIsAsInsurgenceDoes (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The SIDE BAR refers to Mexico's invasion of the Republic of Texas in 1842 as a RESULT OF the Texas Revolution.

Your quote stating that Texas invaded Mexico is in this, "Yet, a USA-centric view of past events portrays the Insurgents (Texans) as the heroes/victims and the wronged/invaded Nation (Mexico) as the aggressor."

Personally, I don't care a rat's tail about the American point-of-view-- it is often wrong about the Texas Revolution and I have seen that weeded out of this article. My non-hispanic family was Mexican until the Revolution. We are still here.

Are we done?

--cregil (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"Texas Revolution" is the most common name in English usage, and a quick check shows its analog in French and Dutch wikipedias, while German, Italian and Spanish wikipedias use a variant of "Texas Independence". The Mexican invasions of Texas occurred after recognition of the Republic of Texas by the US and France, so I'd think this is a silly quibble. More relevantly, analogs for "Mexican Invasion of Texas" are used in the French article, while the Italian uses "expedition" and "occupation" for the same event. In the decade since I created this article, the only rename attempt has been from "Texas Revolution" to "Texan Revolution". This is not controversial -- we're done. Ben (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"Mexican-American wars"

I reverted the addition to the info box of the "Mexican-American wars / 1826-1920" placed there by user $1LENCE D00600D, as the United States was not a participant in the conflict.

• I gave notification of this on that user's Talk Page.
• The link actually goes to an article entitled Mexico–United States relations not to an article entitled Mexican American wars (such article does not exist).
• I received a reply as follows:

Big Problem

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this. The US was not in the war but Americans were (The US gov did support the rebels though), which is why I named the template "Mexican-American wars" instead of "Wars between the US and Mexico," or something like that. I created the template to link together all of the armed conflicts (wars, rebellions, so on) between Americans and Mexicans, not just the US and Mexico. Besides, the Texas Republic was little more than a US puppet state. I will be adding the template again for said reasons. $1LENCE D00600D

• The renaming of the link SO THAT a semantic argument can be made is problematic.
• The Mexico-United States Relations article does not claim that the Texas Revolution was an American conflict.
• The statement in the reply, "The US was not in the war but Americans were" becomes a racial identifier, rather than the accepted political identifier; thus, a POV violation.
• The terms, "puppet government" and "rebels" strike me as unnecessarily provocative.

The stated intention of that user to reinstate the template will therefore bring the discussion here. --cregil (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So what is there to discuss?

I only added the "Mexico-United States Relations" link because I thought that it would be the best substitute (as you said above, there is no Mexican-American wars article, yet). If there is a problem than please just remove the link.

"The Mexico-United States Relations article does not claim that the Texas Revolution was an American conflict."

As I stated before, the US was not involved in the Texas Revolution officially (and I did not try and imply that by using the "US-Mexico relations" article link). However, the US gov. supported the revolution and most of the rebels were Americans or Texans of American descent. The "Mexico-United States Relations" article doesn't say that the revolution was an American conflict (obviously because nobody has added that information yet) but it was (nobody can rationally deny it).

Whether or not the words "puppet gov" and "rebels" are "unnecessarily provocative" is irrelevant to the discussion. (I can understand the "puppet gov" part as being provacative, but the rebels were in fact rebels. I fail to see what the use of those specific words has to do with why or why not this template should be added.) I was in a hurry doing something else when you sent me the first message so "puppet gov" was the first thing that came to mind (Ive never been good at explaining things). Pretty much everybody who knows anything about the story of the Texas Revolution knows that it begins in the US (not the actual fighting of course, but the political events) and the revolution has often been viewed as a proxy war between the US and Mexico for contol of Texas. Also, Sam Houston, one of the leaders of the Texas (as I'm sure you know), is said to have been sent to Texas by the US gov with specific orders to start a revolution, which would (and did) lead to annexation.

"The US was not in the war but Americans were" becomes a racial identifier, rather than the accepted political identifier; thus, a POV violation."

The word "Mexican" is used in exactly the same way as "American" so whats the difference? Technically, according to the above statement, "Mexican" cannot be considered an accepted political identifier either because the county is official called the United Mexican States. Are we going to rename the Mexican-American War article, the Spanish-American War article, the Philippines-American War article simply because the word "American" is in there instead of "United States?" Nope, so why the double standard? "Mexican-American wars" is not something I just made up, it is a pretty common name/phrase (whatever). You should google it to see what I mean. Also, you say that using "American" is a POV violation. I'm guessing "POV" stands for "Point of View" (maybe I'm wrong), but if thats the case, the fact that Americans fought in the Texas Revolution is not my point of view, its fact.

Thank you--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"The US was not in the war but Americans were" becomes a racial identifier, rather than the accepted political identifier; thus, a POV violation."

If it was a template for wars between the US gov (a political entity) and the Mexican gov (a political entity) than I can understand your point. But this is a template for all wars/armed conflicts in general between American (people) and Mexican (people). NOT just wars between the US gov and the Mexican gov, because there was only one of those.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perennial matters which come to this article, detracting from the purpose of the article (which is about an armed conflict) are the attempts to assign motivations which begin and end with speculation, and therefore fail on POV, as there is no "reliable source" for speculation unless an article is about speculation-- and this one is not.

You have created a templates for "Mexican-American wars" (plural) which then redirects to the article, "Mexican-United States Relations" and in that article, the Texas Revolution is not claimed to involve the United States.

You declare it is your intend to make that claim in that article at another time. I assume you also intend to make that claim in this article.

Until such time as you provide substantial new evidence, just coming to light, which demonstrates US policy in 1836 was NOT to stay out of the conflict, that the US forces were NOT forbidden to cross the Sabine to participate, and that Jackson had NOT told the Texas revolutionaries that he would not use US influences to assist, and so on-- then I do not see how this is going to come to anything other than it always has: Removed because the bias claims cannot be substantiated.

That is what there is to discuss, so let us use this Talk Page and involve the other scholars, and see what we can do together, rather than set this up to be an edit war.--cregil (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted the specious and non cited "freedom of religion" references, and restored the correct heading of slavery as the primary factor

Not only did the paragraph contain no citation, to claim that the US was a haven for religious freedom at a time when a virtual open season had been declared on Mormons and Catholics were regarded at pagans, is preposterous. I removed the entire paragraph. In the interest of accuracy vs reverse political correctness, I again changed a heading to reflect slavery as the primary factor in the conflict. Cosand (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I Reverted your edits. We have had this discussion, Cosand, and no need to do it again. The consensus, scholarship and sources all work against you. Your own sources provided were blogs and student papers; and even those contradicted your claim. Your only reply to scholarship has consistently been insult.

My summary of last November's discussion was as follows:

• The primary sources do not support your claim, Cosand.
• The ONLY text sourced in your work which was supporting slavery as a "primary issue" never makes the claim; and moreover, was about the Mexican Revolution-- not the Texas Revolution.
• As itemized above-- even your blog sources contradicted your claim.
• I did not write this article. The only thing I had to do with the section about "economic causes" (which another wrote and you deleted without discussion) was an attempt to work your perspective into the original after someone else restored the original. Essentially, I WAS the only one trying to find support for your position. So why you characterize my work as "frantic and desperate nit-picking and babble" is very difficult to understand.
• I have tried to support your position-- but I cannot locate sources to suggest it has a place in an article on the Texas Revolution. You may choose to look at the research I provided, above, and beginning with that provide an article about Slavery in pre-United States Texas; but none of the sources I have found even hint at (much less substantiate) the claim that slavery was a primary cause of the Texas Revolution. That claim mis-characterizes both the Mexican Government and the Texas Revolutionaries.

Concerning the the recent contribution of another editor which you deleted, you have provided emotional reasons for doing so, but not scholarly ones. Religion is frequently mentioned by scholars as an issue underlying the attitudes of immigrants who had previously been citizens of the States, but was never considered, by either side, as a cause for war.

The myopic focus on slavery, however has been rejected by both a consensus of editors and (moreover) by scholarship-- and that cannot change as the primary sources, contemporary to both sides, refute your claim. --cregil (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

> none of the sources I have found even hint at (much less substantiate) the claim that slavery was a primary cause of the Texas Revolution.

That seems strange. Almost every book I've read about the Texas Revolution in the past few years says that slavery was one of the important causes of the conflict, primarily because slavery was necessary to the development and exploitation of the state's natural resources and its importance for cotton growing. Austin, Travis, et al left documentary evidence that slavery was one of their concerns, and Bowie and Fannin made their fortunes as slave traders. Guerrero's 1829 emancipation of slaves was widely seen by Texians as a threat to their economic well-being, even though they were given a 10-year reprieve from the law. See Randolf Campbell's An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas (1989) Louisiana UP, Patrick Carroll's Blacks in Colonial Veracruz (2001) UT Press, and Paul Horgan's Great River: The Rio Grande in North American History (1984) Wesleyan UP.

I must say I was surprised at the state of this article and others concerning Texas history, given that there are so many Texan amateur historians of very high quality. If I had time I'd spend it editing in this area, but I'm more engaged with other topics at the moment. I suggest that this entire talk page be archived and that a project to rewrite the article be started. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I agree that much of the Talk Page needs to be archived-- and suggested that some time ago. But before it is, the many discussion on slavery need to remain present as an RfC seems imminent.

As for the quote from me... please see below--cregil (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC (threaded discussion) proposal regarding slavery

Priorities: This is an article about a series of political and armed conflicts which took place in 1835 and 1836 in a Mexican state by Mexican citizens against the Centralist government of Santa Anna.

Method: We need to be careful with Original Research by means of Wikipedia:SYN as "novel interpretations of primary sources" which might produce a POV violation.

Background

• A contributing editor renamed a section on the "Economic Origin of Conflict" and entitled it "Slavery the Primary Issue." and then deleted most of the original content to replace it with original research. The edit was reverted by another editor with much ensuing discussion on this talk page.

• The same contributor persisted and reinstated some of the former content, including retitling the section, "Slavery the root of the conflict" and deleting another contributor's work on religious issues. I personally reverted that edit, but the matter is likely to continue to push us all toward an edit war.

My original, point-by-point, objection is above.

The problem is most easily addressed by the problem of sources:

• A reliable source (Horne's book) concerning blacks and Hispanics during the Mexican Revolution of 1910 in which it is stated that slavery had been an issue, but not a primary one, in that conflict but was silent about the Texas Revolution of 1836 cannot be used as a source claiming the primary cause of the Texas Revolution was slavery.
• Several others sources used by that editor specifically stated the "slavery was NOT a primary cause."
• Even though none supported the claim of the revision made by that contributor, several of the sources provided were blogs and even student papers found on a college site.
• No source, other than the contributor, was found to support the claim.
• Combining the above into a lengthy section on slavery is synthesis, and so also a NOR and POV violation.

For those reasons, the edits in question had been reverted-- twice.

• Hypothetically, if we find a reliable source on slavery which claims that the primary cause of Texas Revolution was slavery, that source can be used; but it will be against a mountain of reliable sources on the Texas Revolution which claim:

- the Federalist (1824 Constitution) vs. Centralist (Siete Leyes) as Primary (seige of Alamo until independence declared);

- Secondary and tertiary are access to courts and other government offices, lack of military protection and implicit loss of right to self-protection (Gonzales);

- changes in immigration laws, cancelling of immigration (Anahuac); and then came

- cultural issues like slavery, religion, language, self-governance, etc.;

• Therefore its placement, length and content will reflect its position in light of the primary (participants) and secondary (prevalent scholarship) sources. Right now, we do not have any sources claiming slavery was the primary issue.
• Unless that changes, slavery should be mentioned as a secondary or tertiary issue which was important to a minority of the English speaking citizens-- as is easily supportable by both primary and secondary sources.--cregil (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your take on this. I don't think slavery could be considered a primary cause of the revolution, but as a contributing, underlying issue, both culturally and economically. (Although Santa Anna certainly tried to use it as an issue.) The primary cause of the revolution was the fact that Americans colonized a Mexican province with a very different culture and style of government that they felt didn't represent their interests, which was exacerbated by the turn to centralism and loss of local control.

I'll also say that the treatment of slavery in this article is far from being the main problem with it. The article should be at least twice as long as it is now to treat the subject in an encyclopedic manner. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom Reedy,of all things "unencyclopedic", hair splitting on the semantics of sources and appeasing those with personal bias may be two of the most unencyclopedic of all. Claims that the US was a haven of religious freedom in the 1830s is categorically absurd, and the idea that this, along with even more preposterous claims that Anglo settlers in Texas were concerned about the details and nuances of Mexican politics is frankly, laughable. What is going on here is what I like to call "reverse political correctness", in that there are those who will do cartwheels in order to minimize any unfortunate conduct by Caucasians in American history, including revise history, hobble context and make giant leaps of logic and intellect. The prohibition of slavery was not a secondary issue, it was THE issue, as seen in my citations. I see no need to edit or revise history to spare the feelings of those who have romantic and naive notions, at the expense of intellectual continuity and historical academic accuracy. That serves no valid purpose. I agree the page also painfully incomplete, but I fancy my function as a "casual" editor as one who corrects glaring errors. I have neither the time nor inclination to re-write entire pages. The truth is I loth Wikipedia. Reference and Media dissemination of information by the consensus of layman non academics is a blueprint for mass ignorance. However, since Wikipedia is the top of page link for virtually any search, I in my own tiny way try to make a ding in the sea of misinformation found on Wikipedia. That is what I have done here. Cosand (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed UNCITED religious freedom claims and correct the root cause section

I have yet again removed the NON CITED absurd claim that the US was a haven for religious freedom in the 1930s(It was quite to the contrary) and thus was a motivation for the Texas revolution. The claim in unsupported by fact, citation, or historical context.I also put back the universally accepted and historically accurate content that the primary motivation of the revolution was Mexico's prohibition of slavery, complete with legitimate citations. I also move some of the text from "backgound" to "other issues" so the page could be in line with accepted editorial structured standards. Cregil, please stop vandalizing and attempting to dumb down the page with your personal bias and uncited revisionist history. The information I entered is both cited and universally accepted throughout academia and is a global historical consensus. Regional bias,rose colored hindsight and clinging to romantic legend depicted in 1960s Walt Disney movies and 1950s Fess Parker and Scott Forbes TV shows has no place in an intelligent discussion of history. Davey Crockett was not the "king of the wild frontier", what he WAS was a slave owning genocidal murderer who once burned a group of native Americans alive because they refused to surrender, and then ate food that was cooked in their melted body fat. Not a romantic tale of a longing for freedom, just reality. For everyone's sake, please separate emotion and romantic notions from fact in your future edits Cosand (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cosand,

1) I did not write anything, at all, about religious freedom in Texas or in the US. You are confused... again. Whatever edit you reversed-- it was not mine.

2) I source EVERYTHING. You are unable to provide an example to the contrary-- which suggests your "reality" is purely one of "feeling." Please separate emotion from fact in the future.

3) Last I saw, your "universally accepted and historically accurate" sources were:

a) blogs, unsourced themselves,

b) Junior college student papers, which contradicted your claims, and

c) a book on the WRONG war. That last one still makes me laugh-- you thought the Mexican Revolution was the same as this one! That confirmed for me that you not only do not know the subject matter, but that you do not read books-- you only search the Internet; and, perhaps worse, BELIEVE what you read on the Internet without questioning.

That one book that you did source? If you had read it, you would have known it was about a different war. You gave a false page number to make it look good-- because you had only read a synopsis from the Amazon site. You are not fooling me, so pretending to know what you are talking about is not working. You counted on other editors not checking your sources and resent the Hell out my taking the trouble to look at them and call you out on your false claims. I know what that makes you and will state it if you like... it rhymes with "liar" (and a lazy one at that).

4) I never watched any of those films or tv shows and so have no idea what you are talking about. I have yet to see a movie on the Texas Revolution which got it right. If you you use a movie as a source, I will add it to my list of examples of your "eight-grader" research methods.

5) Separate emotion? See item #2 above.

6) If you are so free from bias, why do I not see any of the "causes" mention Santa Anna's declaration to execute all English speakers in Zacatecas? You haven't mentioned it, and neither has anyone else. That is politically correct enough without your creating a fictional history, don't you think?

--cregil (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Empresarial Grant

This article states that the empresarial grant was issued to Stephen F. Austin:

"The first group of colonists, known as the Old Three Hundred, had arrived in 1822 to settle an empresarial grant that had been given to Stephen F. Austin."

However the article on Stephen F. Austin correctly states that the grant was given to his father, Moses Austin:

"During Austin's time in Arkansas, his father traveled to Spanish Texas and received an empresarial grant that would allow him to bring 300 American families to Texas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanlav (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

FA Collaboration: Call for volunteers

Per this discussion at the MilHist Wikiproject, we're trying to get interest in bringing this article to FA status and main page prominence by May 25, 2015 (Memorial Day). This will coincide with the airing of History Channel documentary on the events of the Texas Revolution after the Battle of the Alamo. Even if we can't get the article to FA status and on the main page, any improvements we can make to it will assist those who come looking for more information on the topic.

This is a call for volunteers! I think we need 1-2 to do research, 1 to write up the research that has already been done (first half of the war), and 1 one to write up the new stuff. Plus a copyeditor and someone to track down images. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Note - Because of persistent vandalism, this article has been page protected until March 9, 2015 to give us some headway on developing things. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do a copyedit/peer review pass at whatever stage(s) y'all think would be helpful. Karanacs, great to see you back editing again! Please stay unretired! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike! Your skills will be very helpful :) Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to look over anything at a later stage, though User:Eric Corbett is perhaps the ideal, especially when standing defiantly against hopeless odds is involved. Johnbod/Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Your and Mike's expertise will be great appreciated (and I will see what I can do to drag Eric in later too). Karanacs (talk)

Obviously I'll help when you're ready for me to tear into your prose. :-) It's a worthy goal, and we did OK on the Donner Party. Eric Corbett 21:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I was directed to the original discussion and I'd be willing to help out. I do have a little bit of knowledge on the subject and I consider myself a decent writer ;) - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Another writer is good. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you would classify this, but I volunteer to be a TexasWikiGnome, looking for the itsy bitsy stuff that might otherwise be missed. — Maile (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help however I can, especially if it means Karanacs will be around again. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Researchers

• Karanacs

Writers

• A Texas Historian

Copyeditors and Peer reviewers

• Mike Christie
• Johnbod
• Dank
• The ed17

Gnome work

• Maile

Texas Rising - the History Channel

Apparently, there is already a Wikipedia page on this. Texas Rising. — Maile (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)