Jump to content

Talk:Texas Revolution/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Article layout

Everyone, please amend as you see fit. My ideas for what needs to be in the article. Bolded items are not currently there. Karanacs (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Re what you have about 1835 and the army and Austin being in command as of October 11. That was a volunteer army different than what Houston commanded. The command of the volunteer army under Austin was transferred to Edward Burleson on November 26, and completely disbanded on December 20. The Consultation authorized a paid Provisional Army of Texas on December 12 and named Houston as commander in chief. Local militias were also different than either Austin's army or the army Houston commanded, in that they were previously independent in their structures and whether or not they even got paid. When those same militias joined with Houston, they were then brought under the structure of the Provisional Army of Texas, such as it was in its early stages. A lot of those details are in the (Todish) Alamo Sourcebook. I don't have that book right now, but have a look at Pages 14,15,24,44,46 - one of those is a 2-page spread on the various types in Texas. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to grab Hardin's book from the library again this week (I need to give in and just buy it) because it's been a while since I read it and I can't find most of my notes. I think he's probably the expert on this. Lack describes the army as 4 distinct waves - not because of difference in command structure, but because of its composition. He also notes that the Consultation specifically didn't put Houston in charge of the existing volunteers. I have a lot more reading to do. Shouldn't have taken a three-year break from the topic ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have also read (somewhere) that Houston wasn't in charge of the volunteers. He was in charge of raising and training the paid army as their commander in chief. Moore's book is extremely detailed on that, and my impression was that the paid army was made up of the volunteer militias that showed up and actually enlisted in the paid army. Prior to enlisting, the militias operated autonomously with each individual company deciding what battle they wanted to be involved in. I haven't read about Austin's volunteer army, but if any of its components were local militias that would explain a lot of disarray. Houston dealt with that also, in spite of anyone enlisting in the PAT. I find the Texian army at that time extremely complex.— Maile (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Currently, some things in the lead are not actually in the body.

Background

  • Mexican War of Independence results in new country, with Texas combined with Coahuila to be a new state.
    • political structure/geographic dispersion of municipalities in Texas - three departments: Bexar, Brazos, Nacogdoches
  • Constitution of 1824
    • General Colonization Law reconfirmed a recent Spanish law that liberalized Immigration policies for border territories, including Texas. (Weber)
      • 24 empresarios granted contracts to create colonies (Menchaca)
      • weak military presence in Texas
      • settlement thought to help with security against both native tribes and invasion from the US, would also promote economic growth, and bringing new capital and skills into the country to replace those lost when many Spaniards were expelled or chose to leave the country (Weber)
      • almost all empresarios were from the United States/settled families from the US
        • many from Southern US and brought their racial prejudices with them; attitudes toward blacks shifted to also be against Tejanos ; also religious differences = Mexican Catholics vs US Protestants (Davis)
  • Law of April 6, 1830 changes the policies and people get upset...and ignore (Davis, Hardin, ...)
    • Passed because there was more immigration to Texas than originally planned AND US making overtures that they might want Texas (Lack)
    • limited legal immigration (no effect on illegal immigration); US citizens no longer welcome to settle in Texas but could settle elsewhere in Mexico
    • slavery banned (Anglos got around it with "contracts for life") (Manchaca)
    • rescinded tax exemption laws for colonists (Manchaca)
  • settlers had a small armed rebellion in 1832 (Anahuac Disturbances of 1832 and Battle of Velasco) (Henson) and held two conventions (1832 and 33) to discuss their grievances against Mexico (Davis) - Mexican govt thought this was a prelude to declaration of independence (Davis)
  • Santa Anna elected president Mar 1, 1833 (Davis)
    • in 1834, some of the laws were relaxed; immigration was resumed, and concession given to the settlers - basically they got what they asked for (Davis)
  • 1835 Santa Anna became a centralist (Davis); 1824 constitution repudiated. (Hardin)
    • Santa Anna strips the states of their legislatures
    • federalist revolts in Zacatecas and in Coahuila; May 1835 brutal suppression of revolt at Zacatecas- over 2k noncombatants killed in 2 days (Hardin)
  • Anahuac Disturbances of 1835 (ostensibly over customs duties)
    • some in Texas (Mina, Gonzales, Goliad, Columbia) scolded the Texians for their actions (Lack)
    • more troops sent to Texas starting in early Aug (Lack); General Martin Perfecto de Cos arrived Sep 20 with 500 men (Davis)
      • include the quote from Santa Anna to Cos
  • by summer, Texans calling for political convention to see what people actually thought -> Consultation (Texas)
    • some wanted independence, some wanted return of the federalist model, some supported centralism
    • Committees of Safety formed; militias; one per each municipality
  • size of population
    • In 1821 there were only 2,500 people living in Texas (Weber)
    • 4k Tejanos in 1835 (see Lack); Menchaca says 7.5k Tejanos in 1834???
    • in 1836, 5000 slaves (Barr)
    • estimates of 30k Anglos in 1834 in Texas (Menchaca)

Fall of 1835

  • state militias to be disbanded; Department of Bexar chief Ramon Musquiz warns Ugartachea to take back the Gonzales cannon
  • Battle of Gonzales and the formation of the Army of the People
  • Cos to Bexar with lots of troops
  • Battle of Goliad; Tx won
  • Army of the People splits in two - small number in Goliad, larger force in Bexar; Stephen F. Austin (no previous military experience) elected commander on Oct 11
  • Oct 14, Angel Navarro, the political chief of Bexar, gave address to try to convince the ppl to support the centralists - said rebellion was attack on the constitution and on religion; said Cos there to protect them
    • Austin supposedly in charge of everyone, but when he tried to replace Dimmitt the soldiers in Goliad rebelled; actual sphere of influence only Bexar
      • all Tejanos who volunteered in Goliad and Victoria sent to Bexar by Dimmitt, who didn't want them around - this meant the army seen as occupying force of others
      • locals did guerilla warfare, Nov 10 attacked a Tx expedition from Goliad; 20 Tories killed or wounded
      • most Tejanos fled to area ranches - not safe in town; Tx army impresses horses and harvests, did drunken binges and terrorized locals
  • Tories/centralist sympathizers in San Patricio actually fought with Mexican soldiers at Battle of Lipantitlan
  • After Lipantitlan, Cos's only way to communicate with interior was long, slow journey overland. He chose to take a defensive position in Bexar rather than retake the positions on the coast
  • Siege of Bexar
    • Angel Navarro created a militia in Bexar that served with Cos in the siege
    • disorganization in the Tx army
      • disagreement over tactics
      • leadership changed frequently
      • high turnover
    • Tejanos served as scouts - familiar with the area
    • Battle of Concepcion; Tx won
    • Grass Fight; Tx won a pointless battle
  • Consultation (Texas)
    • late start because Army held it up
    • Finally met in Nov and made a provisional govt with Henry Smith (Texas Governor) as head idiot
    • General Counsel formed as legislative body, comprising of one representative per area/municipality
      • Most of the GC supported remaining with Mexico, but restoring the 1824 Mexican constitution
      • Henry Smith as governor supported complete independence for Texas
    • GC approves recruiting a paid army, and names Houston as commander-in-chief of ONLY the new paid army on Dec 12 (command oversight corrected to include all land forces on March 4 by the Convention)
  • Back to the Siege-
    • more Tx disorganization - several times an attack on Bexar ordered and couldn't find enough men willing to go
    • Texians advanced Dec 5
    • 5 days of hand-to-hand combat from building to building
    • Cos surrendered; Texan troops voted on whether to accept the treaty
    • Santa Anna outraged
    • No Mexican Soldiers left in Texas!
  • Consultation puts Houston in charge of a Regular Army that doesn't exist
  • people left the army in droves - war over, morale low, no supplies, etc
    • A little discussion on who fought - widespread representation of Texans (see Lack)
  • Texas provisional govt falls to pieces
    • calls for the Convention of 1836
    • issues with suffrage - who gets to vote and why
    • anti-Tejano bias

Jan - mid-Feb 1836 (Texas)

  • Army split in two
    • most of them off on Matamoros Expedition (under Frank W. Johnson)-> to get Mexican Federalists to oust Santa Anna and get the 1824 constitution restored
      • Consultation names Fannin in charge of the Matamoros Expedition (but didn't have a quorum)
      • Houston thought he was in charge
        • men were following Johnson
    • rest stay in Bexar (under James C. Neill)
    • doesn't count the ones still at La Bahia
    • Houston dissuaded lots from going to Matamoros
  • Tejanos who were centralist supporters organized a spying ring, the Victorian Guardes (see Scott). Priests encouraged the faithful to spy, to remain with Catholic Mexico instead of the Protestant Anglos.
    • Roman Catholic Church in Mexico gave the govt a loan to help finance the army to invade Texas
  • January 10, Governor Smith dissolved the General Counsel, but probably didn't have the authority to do so
  • January 11, the General Counsel impeached Smith
  • January 17, Houston sent a letter to Smith informing him of James Bowie's orders to evacuate the Alamo and blow it up
    • Bowie instead fortifies the Alamo
  • Houston quit the army and goes to negotiate a treaty with the Cherokee - the Indians did not join the fighting on either side after this treaty (see Scott) (Note that Republic of Texas refused to honor the terms of the treaty after the war ended)
    • rumors Cherokee were going to sign a treaty with the Mexicans to attack the Tex army

Jan-mid-Feb 1836 (Mexico)

  • Santa Anna steps down from his presidency ...
  • makeup of the Mexican army
  • pirates = no quarter
  • march from San Luis Potosi to Bexar

late Feb-mid-March 1836

  • Antonio Gaona sent north, José de Urrea along the coast, Joaquín Ramírez y Sesma central
  • Santa Anna 12-day occupation of Bexar and Battle of the Alamo
    • (borrowed from [Battle of the Alamo]) In a letter to Governor Henry Smith, Bowie argued that "the salvation of Texas depends in great measure on keeping Béxar out of the hands of the enemy. It serves as the frontier picquet guard, and if it were in the possession of Santa Anna, there is no stronghold from which to repel him in his march towards the Sabine."[31][Note 5] The letter to Smith ended, "Colonel Neill and myself have come to the solemn resolution that we will rather die in these ditches than give it up to the enemy." (Hopewell)
    • Bowie pleads with the provisional govt for reinforcements; in Feb about 30 show up, including Davy Crockett
    • Houston sends William Barrett Travis with a few men; Travis is brought around to Bowie's way of thinking and then men share command
    • Santa Anna moved to Bexar instead of along the coast because it was political center of Texas and where Cos had lost (hardin)
    • Feb 23, 1500 Mexican soldiers in Bexar; Texan troops retreated to Alamo Mission (Todish)
    • Bowie fell ill on the 24th, so Travis solely in charge. On that day he sent To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World
    • by end of day on the 24th, Sesma's troops arrived, so now more than 2k Mexican soldiers in Bexar
    • sporadic skirmishes during the siege; Texans burned some homes nearby so Mexican soldiers had no cover
    • Fannin, 90 miles away, supposed to send reinforcements; aborted his rescue attempt after travelling less than 1 mile
    • others gathering in Gonzales to join Fannin and go to the Alamo
    • <100 Texan reinforcements made it
    • March 3rd, another 1k Mexican troops arrived
    • March 4, likely Juana Navarro Alsbury left the Alamo to ask Santa Anna for terms of surrender.
    • March 5, council of war; some Mexican officers proposed waiting for the Texans to surrender as supplies ran out. Santa Anna and others said no, we will attack - no glory in bloodless victory (see Todish for quote)
    • Battle on March 6
      • Santa Anna excused troops from Bexar from the front lines so they didn't have to fight their families
      • surprise attack in early hours of the morning. Texas sentinels were sleeping
      • Mexican troops killed by friendly fire too
      • Travis one of first Texans to die
      • Once Mexican soldiers started pouring over the walls, the Texans still alive tried to flee. Many were cut down by Mexican cavalry in the fields around the Alamo
      • Battle essentially over by 6:30 am
    • those who surrendered killed, with a few exceptions - Brigido Guerrero, who had deserted from Mexican army in 1835, convinced them he was a Texan prisoner; the slaves also spared
    • Mexican casualties at 400–600 Mexicans. This would represent about one-third of the Mexican soldiers involved in the final assault, which Todish remarks is "a tremendous casualty rate by any standards".[2] Most eyewitnesses counted between 182–257 Texians killed. (copied from Battle of the Alamo)
    • some survivors; Susanna Dickinson sent to tell people what happened
    • Santa Anna assumed the people would be terrified, the Texan resistors would flee, and the resistance would be about over (Todish, hardin)
      • BIG miscalculation - people flocked to the Texan army. Also, from Battle of the Alamo article: The New York Post editorialized that "had [Santa Anna] treated the vanquished with moderation and generosity, it would have been difficult if not impossible to awaken that general sympathy for the people of Texas which now impels so many adventurous and ardent spirits to throng to the aid of their brethren"
  • Urrea's advance = Goliad Campaign
    • Urrea getting good information from local Tejanos about where the Tex army was and what they were doing (see Lack for specifics)
    • Urrea surprises Johnson and Grant and the men who had planned to go to Matamoros at Battle of San Patricio Feb 27; Texans lost
    • Grant escapes. Battle of Agua Dulce; Texans lost
    • Urrea continues north and wins the Battle of Refugio
      • started by the Victoriana Guardes, local guerillas
    • March 11, Houston ordered Fannin to evacuate and blow up the La Bahia fortress at Goliad
    • Texas Army still can't agree on anything, aka James Fannin also an idiot
    • Fannin in part waiting to evacuate the locals
      • then abandoned them when the garrison fled
      • Santa Anna showed mercy - locals not harmed
    • Battle of Coleto
    • Goliad massacre

How do we organize this?

  • Convention of 1836
    • March 2nd, Convention declares Texas Independence (seriously, HOW is this not in the article?????)
    • Took less than 24 hours; George C. Childress already had the declaration written
    • makeup of the convention was different from the Consultation - more representative
    • issues with voting? soldiers set up their own elections (include this or not???)
    • army reps and families of active-duty volunteers made up almost a majority of the delegates
    • Constitution based on the US Const, with a few differences.
    • new president (David G. Burnet) (not a delegate), new council
    • March 4th, Convention passes a resolution to expand Houston's authority beyond the paid army to be "the land forces of the Texian army both Regular, Volunteer, and Militia"

Runaway Scrape and San Jacinto Campaign

  • Houston goes to Gonzales to take over these troops
      • Word comes that Alamo fell
  • Houston and his army retreat
    • Runaway Scrape. See Lack for details
    • Mar 13, Gonzales burned by Houston as the army and residents fled ahead of Mexican troops
    • Mar 17, after the Texian army crossed the Colorado at Burnam's, Houston ordered the ferry, trading post and Burnam home burned to keep it out of the hands of Mexican troops
    • Mar 21, govt moved to Harrisburg - fled again on Apr 13
    • San Felipe de Austin burned to the ground on March 30 by Texan side; all of those residents fleeing
    • Texans camp at Groce's Landing for two weeks when the Brazos swelled. Troops actually got to train!!
    • Texans impressed the Yellowstone (steamboat) to cross the Brazos and retreat a little more
    • Santa Anna arrived in Harrisburg Apr 15 to find govt had fled; pretty much just the printers for the Telegraph and Texas Register; presses tossed into Buffalo Bayou; he burned the town Apr 18
    • Santa Anna sent Almonte after the govt. He could have taken out Burnet, but he saw mrs Burnet and the children and the skiff and refused to order the men to fire
      • Burnet was going to Galveston Island, where the govt had just established a refugee camp
    • people in Nac also fleeing - pretty much all women and kids gone from Nacogdoches by Apr 15
    • New Washington burned by Mexican troops, either Apr 19 or 20 depending on source
    • Houston stopped retreating Apr 17 - citizens continued east to Nac, he turned SE towards Harrisburg
  • army makeup drastically changes during this time
  • Battle of San Jacinto
    • Terrain is very much advantage to Texan strength; Santa Anna's officers disagree with his decision to make camp in a vulnerable location (Hardin)
    • minor skirmishes the night before, with both cannon and on horseback; Mirabeau B. Lamar (future pres) becomes a hero and promoted from private way on up (Hardin)
    • Tejanos under Seguin insist on fighting
    • Houston delayed all day; Santa Anna got reinforcements under Cos and then let down his guard and called the pickets in - the mistake Houston was waiting for (Hardin)
      • differing accounts on whether or not Houston wanted to fight or retreat
    • "Remember the Alamo"/"Remember Goliad" and "Me no Alamo"/"Me no Goliad" (Hardin)
    • Leaders on both sides completely lost control of their men (Hardin)
      • open skirmish instead of lines with volleys of gunfire - this significantly aided the Texans (Hardin)
      • Mexican soldiers ran rather than fight (Hardin)
      • Texan atrocities pretty much as bad as what the Mexican soldiers had done (Hardin)
        • Castrillon's death as an example of both?? - His men fled, he said he wouldn't; Rusk yelled at the Texans not to shoot him; they did anyway
    • capture of Santa Anna and secret treaty
    • Texans did not defeat the Mexican army, just a small part of it (Hardin)
  • Navy???

Aftermath (pretty much all new)

  • Runaway Scrape ends, people start to go home (see Lack)
    • As early as April 28, asking Houston if they can go home to try to plant before the season ended
    • shortage of food and supplies everywhere; less than half of people in Brazos area managed to plant their crops in time
    • no homes for many to go to; some people left Texas, others moved to other towns
  • Mex army retreats out of Texas in May
    • Urrea did not want to go, said should not follow orders made under duress (plus he'd won all his battles) (Hardin)
    • Filisola insisted on retreat; Mexican supply lines broken down, men ill (Hardin)
    • in Mexico, expectation was that they would reclaim Texas later, but lack of money and political will (Hardin)
    • many centralist families went with them
    • San Patricio-Refugio area "noticeable depopulation"
    • Goliad/Victoria area - Tejano families forced by Rusk to leave; lands taken over by Anglos eventually
      • Pretty much the area of De León's Colony. The once-wealthy De Leon family lost everything and fled to New Orleans
    • Bexar under TX military rule until end of 1836
  • fears of Mexican attack for the next 12 years (Hardin)
    • Texas soldiers go home, US volunteers swell the ranks
  • army HATES the idea of letting Santa Anna go
    • army kidnaps Santa Anna and does a small coup against the president
    • elections called
  • Treaty of Velasco
  • Córdova Rebellion - Nacogdoches tejanos feel disenfranchised and refuse to recognize the Republic (Lack, chapter Cordova Rebellion in Poyo book)
  • Mexican-American War and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was really the official end of this because Mexico never recognized Texas independence (Hardin)
Texas annexation#Texas-Mexico-Great_Britain_negotiations (Sam Houston & Tx negotiations looking for self-governance)
  • Republic of Texas actually a thing until annexation in 1845
    • Recognized by the US (when?) and France (when?)
  • slavery codified in the Constitution (Lack)
    • free blacks forbidden from living in Texas
  • Women lost many of the rights they had held under Spanish/Mexican law (community property, ability to enter into contracts, etc). Some of these returned to them when Texas joined the US (see Scheer)
  • Texas Rangers changed their tactics due to lessons learned from losses to the Mexican army (Juan Seguin and Placido Benavides helped them train; after the war, Rangers could "shoot like a Tennessean, ride like a Mexican, and fight like the Devil" (Hardin)
  • Tex Revolution "left a legacy of valor that has inspired Texan soldiers on battlefields all over the world" (Hardin)
  • At the 1845 Texas Constitutional Convention, it was proposed that voting rights be limited to the "free white population" denying voting rights to Tejanos (Poyo pp=78-79)

Legacy/in pop culture

PG 12 etc. Richard M. Hurst book on Republic Studios [1] calls it a "highly fictionalized" version of Houston's life
PG 66 etc. Tom Weaver book Earth Vs. the Sci-fi Filmmakers [2] interview with Richard Dix's (Sam Houston) son describes the Runaway Scrape depicted in the movie
  • 1948 - first full-length book about the Alamo, by John Myers Myers
  • first film version, 1911 The Immortal Alamo (Nofi)
  • Disney's Davy Crockett sparks widespread interest in the Alamo and Texas
  • John Wayne's The Alamo (1960 film) -> nothing like what actually happened (Todish); Lon Tinkle and J. Frank Dobie demanded their names be removed from the project

Background section needs work

Don't know if anyone has noticed that some things in the lead are not actually in the body.

The Background section is too simplistic and doesn't really explain why the revolution happened. It comes across in that section like the reason for the revolution was that Anglos took over Texas and tried to boot out the Tejanos. This section does not mention that Santa Anna tossed out the 1824 Constitution of Mexico, stripped the states of their individual legislatures, in effect created a dictatorship for himself with Texas under martial law, and had his puppet acting president Miguel Barragán appoint him as head of the Mexican military. The Consultation (Texas) is mentioned way down the page, almost as a brief after thought, way after its timeline. This article is heavy on bang-bang-shoot 'em up, and no mention I see that not everybody in Texas wanted the same end result. A lot of them just wanted to remain part of Mexico, but get their constitution back. And a lot wanted Independence. That issue split the provisional government (based on the 1824 constitution) elected during the Consultation. Needs work. — Maile (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you make any suggestions on this or any other sections in the Article Layout section up above? I think we need to drop in all of our major ideas there before we start the writing. The article is missing a lot of important stuff (nowhere does it mention that Texas declared independence!) Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Tejanos in the revolution

The Juan Seguin article is still a stub. The Texas Revolution article seems to be sorely lacking in the Tejano involvement. A search for the name Seguin in this Texas Revolution article comes up with the only mention being the name of a book in the references section. A search for "tejano" brings up only two mentions in the same paragraph, and then only to say they were outnumbered as a population. It's embarrassing. Perhaps this could be corrected before this is finished. Here's some references:

  • Pgs 260-263 Tejanos at San Jacinto from MacDonald, L. Lloyd (2012). Tejanos in the 1835 Texas Revolution. Pelican Publishing. ISBN 9781455615087.
  • From Lone Star Tarnished, Jillson, Cal (2014). Lone Star Tarnished: A Critical Look at Texas Politics and Public Policy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317666936.
  • Chapter 5, Tejano Revolutionaries, Petite, Mary Deborah (1999). 1836 Facts About The Alamo And The Texas War For Independence. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-1882810352.
  • Chapter 2, Tejanos at War, Mendoza, Alexander; Grear, Charles David (2012). Texans and War New Interpretations of the State's Military History. Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 978-1-60344-583-2.; notes here

Just some thoughts. — Maile (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this topic last night - most of the books I have don't give much space to the Tejano perspective. Lack has an entire chapter on Tejanos, which I hope to get to this week. In the notes I'll transcribe tonight, Lack does mention the anti-Tejano prejudice displayed by the pro-independence movement, which is something this article MUST cover. Karanacs (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)%
I added some notes from Mendoza here. Overall, not that useful; it was primarily focused on the role of Tejanos after the Texas Revolution
I found this review of the book Tejanos in the 1835 Texas Revolution. The review author (Crisp) is a well-known historian. What do you think about his analysis - should I still look for the book? Karanacs (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you should look for the book or not. I've reserved "Las Tejanas" from my own library. We'll see what that one says when I get it.— Maile (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have created List of Tejanos in the Texas Revolution as a start on this. It's open to editing. Some of those names are redirects to the List of Alamo defenders. Some of the red links might not be significant enough to do a complete article. And there are probably many I don't know about that could be added. As I say, it's a start to recognizing the contributions of Tejanos in the revolution.
  • Juan Seguín - I have not gone through his article except to note that it's still a stub. If I could pick one Tejano to elevate to FA, it would be Seguin. His contributions were significant, and I realize possibly controversial. I do think outside of Texas, Seguin is probably unknown except for those who remember John Wayne's Alamo movie that fictionalized Seguin as a barely-above-peasant-dressed towns person dismissed as a rumor spreader by Travis. — Maile (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I have very mixed feelings about the creation of the List of Tejanos in the Texas Revolution. One, with this name it needs to cover BOTH sides - those who supported independence and those who were centralists and supported the Mexican army. Two, I think it's original research. List of Alamo defenders makes sense because there are a lot of sources that specifically cover the group of men who were Alamo defenders, and those sources list out the names. There are sources that speak to the Tejano involvement on the Texas side of the revolution, but I haven't seen explicit lists. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong sources? The problem with this, then, is the loose definition of Tejano. People born in Texas? People who fought for Texas? For example, Antonio Canales Rosillo is not Tejano. Lorenzo de Zavala wasn't born in Texas. Karanacs (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I've had some of the same feelings as you regarding who the Tejanos are, etc. Especially the part about including those fighting on the side of Mexico. The Handbook of Texas lists Tejanos, which even if one accepts the term limited to those on this side of the Rio Grande only fighting for independence their list is not complete. However, HofT also has de Zavala on that list, and I know he was born in Yucatan. Rosillo is also on their list of Tejanos. And I don't know a definitive answer, if one exists. I believe you are mistaken about it being original research. The majority of the names came from the Handbook of Texas Online, which is an accepted source at WP. Plus those three books listed. There was no original research involved. I think what is really needed is a stand-alone article about the Tejano involvement in the revolution, and I'm not the one to write it. It's not something that should be left out of the story, because to only include the Anglo figures is only part of the story, and really does come across as that one-issue "white men fighting to keep their slaves". I was somewhat taken aback when I was rewriting the Runaway Scrape about soldiers/officers in the provisional army who had their "servants" along. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Todish p 13 says that 1 in 3 of the adult Tejano males listed on the 1830 census served in the Texian Army. I think that's just way too broad for a list. What if we rename the list Tejanos in the Texas Revolution and use this it as a base for that article? That way the information is out there, we can throw some more facts in it as we go through the sources, and we won't have to try to capture every single Tejano who did anything on either side. Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. — Maile (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Maile66, I added some notes to Talk:Texas Revolution/Lack from the chapter on the Tejanos. Some of that may be useful to you in improving Tejanos in the Texas Revolution. Karanacs (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven't decided yet what to do, since in reality it's a big project. DLS Texas has done some such articles; however, not in coordination with anybody except that I think he wanted to do that. In the years you've been gone, I created the articles on the extended De Leon family (De Leon, Benevides, Carbajal) - the poster people on Tejanos of the time. Never planned on doing that - but once you look at one layer, many other layers are underneath. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Lorenzo de Zavala needs a copyedit

First Republic vice president Lorenzo de Zavala needs a complete copyedit by someone who can access sources on him. There is a copyvio tag on the talk page going back to 2007, and it's somewhat vague. However, I ran the Earwig copyvio tool on this article, and The Results show a 94.4% possibility of copyvio from a variety of sourcing. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Runaway Scrape

Karanacs has voiced a legitimate concern on Talk:Runaway Scrape about the article's balance between the military and the civilian aspects, and has referred to her notes on Talk:Texas Revolution/Lack. Because of that concern, I have withdrawn the article's nomination from A-class review at this time. However, I do not have access to the Lack book, and cannot work from someone else's notes alone. Hopefully, someone else who volunteered to help with this project can finish up the balance needed to complete the article. — Maile (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Terminology

  • Texan vs Texian?
  • Texas Army vs Texian Army vs Army of the People?

Help. Karanacs (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

- The army
Also, I think the Texas army changed names after San Jacinto, or at least by the time the ad interim government was replaced by a duly elected government. After that, I think it could be called the Army of the Republic of Texas. — Maile (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Texan vs Texian
  • Hardin (military expert) uses Texian, and uses it to mean "people who fought for Texas", not just Anglos. Lack (political) uses Texan. Todish explains that Texian for Anglo, Tejano for Hispanic but then uses Texian whenever he's talking about the army (which had both Anglos and Tejanos). Davis alternately seems to use Texian for "people who live in Texas" or "Anglo Texan". Robert Scott uses "Texan". Winders (the curator at the Alamo) in 'Sacrified at the Alamo' is very careful to use "Texian" for Anglos and Texan otherwise. Which reminds me, I've gotten flack before for using the noun "Anglo", but that is widespread in the scholarship on this time period; it's the only term there is a consensus on! Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Alcalde and ayuntamiento are used by authors, both WP and otherwise, when referring to officials during Mexican or Spanish Texas. I encounterd a different point of view last June with an editor I believe was not American: Edit #1, My revert of that and revert of my revert. It wasn't my article and didn't seem worth an edit war. But if we are dealing with people in the Texas revolution, it's important. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we should use the terminology of the time and place. If I'm correct, please give me WP references to use if this comes up again. — Maile (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree; I've used alcalde and ayuntamiento throughout the articles I've written (although I am really bad at spelling them). Should we use the parenthetical explanation the first time they are referenced, for those who don't speak Spanish? Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Vaquero
  • Ranchero
  • The more I read, the more convinced I become that to pay respect to what the Tejano culture brought to the mix, I think we need to use their terminology, even if it's followed by the English translation in parenthesis. At least, in the Tejano article itself. With Carlos de la Garza and his Victoriana Guardes, they were rancheros, if that you translate that literally as either a Tejano ranch owner or a ranch worker. Stephen F. Hardin makes the case that Tejanos were superior in horsemanship and had very distinct related combat skills developed/acquired in their skirmishes with Indians. Hardin very distinctly called the Tejano volunteers south of Bexar, who arrived with Benavides, rancheros. I think we just need to stick to our guns on this one. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't really see a need to use either vaquero or ranchero in the article. (Maybe I'll see it differently when we're in the writing phase.) In this larger article (as opposed to the Tejano article), it ought to be enough to talk about the local Tejanos without further specifying rancheros. 16:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Right, I was unclear. I was actually thinking of the subarticle(s). Vaquero would probably be never used, but you never know. I was just feeling my way through this stuff. — Maile (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts

(This is all with the proviso that I know little about the topic, other than the John Wayne version every American child used to get in school. In no particular order, and will come back and add more as I think of them)

  • At the moment the article makes no mention of international attitudes, other than a single quote about the impact of the Goliad Massacre on Santa Anna's reputation. Was the United States government pleased to see their key rival for control of the west being weakened, or horrified at having a major war taking place a day's march from New Orleans? What were the European powers' attitudes towards the RoT (which was, after all, an area still formally claimed by Spain)? Did any of the non-combatant powers around the Gulf at the time (the US, France, Spain and Britain) ever consider intervening militarily or economically either in support of the RoT or to help Santa Anna crush the revolt in return for concessions? (I know Wikipedia doesn't normally do "what if", but this is such a key point it must have been covered at length somewhere; given that the Santa Anna killing US-born prisoners gave the US a pretext, why did the Mexican-American War not happen a decade sooner than it did? Was it purely down to reluctance to admit a new slave state without carving out a new free state in the north to counterbalance it?) Did Britain and France recognize the Treaties of Velasco and Texian independence? (I assume yes, as the Texas Embassy in London still stands, but did Britain and France demand any concessions before they'd trade with the new country?)
  • Is "Mexican invasion of Texas" the correct NPOV term to use for the Battle of Salado Creek (currently linked as such in the infobox)? To me, "invasion" carries strong connotations of "one country trying to seize control of another's territory by force", and while the dictionary definition of the term does include "re-establishing control" that's not the common usage, and every single example on Wikipedia of a historically significant invasion uses it in the conquer/annexation/pillage sense. In this period, Mexico hadn't recognized the RoT and considered it as a province temporarily under the control of a bandit gang. To take a modern analogy, we wouldn't use Wikipedia's voice to refer to Ukrainian forces in the Donetsk People's Republic as the "Ukrainian invasion of Eastern Ukraine".
  • What was the significance of the Alamo? Neither the parent article nor Siege of the Alamo makes it clear either why Santa Anna was so determined to capture it he'd sacrifice hundreds of troops in the attempt, or why Bowie & co would choose death over withdrawal. I assume the pop-culture version, in which Bowie couldn't move the cannons he's been sent to collect so decided to use them against the Mexicans rather than see them fall into Santa Anna's hands, is broadly correct as regards the Texian view, but it doesn't explain why Santa Anna was so determined to capture the fort, rather than just posting some pickets around it to stop the defenders breaking out and leaving them to starve themselves into surrender. Since this is probably the one paragraph in which readers are most likely to be interested, I think the Alamo needs to be covered in more detail than it currently is, even if it means giving a slight degree of undue weight.
  • What happened to the $100,000 borrowed from the US by the provisional government? Did it ever get repaid, and did the US ever use the debt to gain any kind of leverage?
  • Malleus would choke on his cornflakes to hear this, but this article probably needs an "in popular culture" section, either as a final paragraph or as a separate article. The history of the Texas Revolution (particularly the Alamo) is so mythologized, I think it would be sensible to have a short list of the best-known books and films, with brief explanations of how the stories deviate from reality. See Gunpowder Plot in popular culture for the kind of thing I have in mind; separate "Foo in popular culture" sections and pages help both by rebutting the movie versions of events, and by creating a heat-sink where people can write about comic-book and TV versions of events without contaminating the parent article. (See also Controversy and criticism of The X Factor and Michael Jackson's health and appearance for good examples of this flypaper principle at work.) – iridescent 12:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Iridescent re "in popular culture", that seems to me an entire separate article waiting to be born. In particular, a point-by-point section on John Wayne's movie of the Alamo (fact vs. made up stuff for the movie). Or any movie of Texas. — Maile (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Iridescent, we need the perspectives of people unfamiliar with the topic, and you brought up some terrific points.
  • I'll add to the proposed outline above some notes on the US attitudes (officially neutral, unofficially encouraging troops to enlist; individuals sending money) and about Santa Anna's reasoning behind besieging the Alamo, because that really was, in the long run, a stupid decision that impacted the way the rest of the conflict unfolded. The decision was critically important, even if that battle wasn't.
  • I've found nothing on what other countries (apart from the US) thought about the conflict. I don't think that Texas approached any other countries at this point in time. Maile, do you think the aftermath/legacy section should include a brief recap of the Republic of Texas years - who eventually recognized the country and some major players that didn't? Have you seen any info about other countries' reactions in your research?
  • Pop culture/Legacy. Hmmm. In my broader books on Texas Revolution, there isn't much if any recap of pop culture, with the notable exception of coverage/representations of the Alamo (see the start at Legacy of the Battle of the Alamo). I'll see what else I can find - Maile, let me know if you find anything too. Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Karanacs, Iridescent, I'll keep an eye out in my research about the reaction of other countries. I really do think we need to include something about the Republic of Texas in the aftermath. It did not have the financial and military resources to exist on its own. I left you a message on the Sam Houston talk page, since you indicated you want to work on that article. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Alamo

In the section on the Battle of the Alamo, do we mention Davy Crockett and Travis's line in the sand? There's no agreement from historians on whether the line in the sand actually happened, but it's very well known. For Crockett, we have to mention him in the legacy/pop culture section, thanks to Disney. In terms of the battle itself, we could mention in passing that he was one of the reinforcements that arrived just before the Mexican soldiers beseiged Bexar. We could also bring up the controversy over whether he surrendered. I don't want to give him too prominent a place in this article, but I'm not sure where the balance is. Karanacs (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle after battle before Sab Jacinto, soldiers on both sides fled and escaped with their lives. Fannin is the poster boy on surrender. Houston dealt with desertions in droves before they ever got to San Jacinto. And there's Santa Anna disguised as a private and crawling through the grass at San Jacinto trying to escape. If we mention at all the possibility of Crockett surrendering, I think we should put it in context of the whole. Perhaps the reason we even care is more the legacies of Walt Disney-Fess Parker and John Wayne — Maile (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Some sources say a majority of the Texan casualties at the Alamo were people fleeing who were cut down by the Mexican cavalry. I'm personally inclined to leave out the whole question of Crockett's surrender (especially since historians disagree on what happened), and about the John Wayne movie just say that prominent historians repudiated its factual accuracy (I have sources on that). I haven't found a source yet to directly connect the dots between these overarching themes in the two armies. I would LOVE to find someone specifically stating that Santa Anna's choices at San Jacinto are pretty much the same ones made by Fannin (make camp in a vulnerable location) and by Travis at the Alamo (whose sentries were asleep and didn't see the Mexicans advancing until the first shots were fired). (Does Moore make this direct connection? If not, is it okay if we do, or is that OR?) And what about the line in the sand? Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't know if Moore makes the connection between Santa Anna at San Jacinto and Fannin at Goliad. I certainly did. Santa Anna had his moments of idiocy. They knew darned good and well Houston was on the other side of the bayou. Why would it be OR if we made that point? If unsure, we could run it past someone at WProjMH. I'm somewhat neutral about the line in the sand, except for the term itself. It's a common term these days. Did it originate in Alamo lore, or did it become Alamo lore because some who'd heard the term used it and it sounded so cool people just repeated it? Somewhere in all that research I did on the Runaway Scrape, I came across the act of someone drawing a line in the sand a prior place and time. Seems to me it might have been in Louisiana, which points to either Bowie or Mirabeau Lamar. Perhaps the act itself goes back to dueling. Ah well. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
"Line in the sand" in the sense in which Travis used it—"those who want to go home to the right, those who want to stay and fight to the left"—dates to Pizarro's conquest of the Incas (in particular this incident). As Pizarro was one of the two most important figures in the history of New Spain, I imagine that in the context of colonial and post-colonial Latin America the phrase would have been as familiar as "We will never surrender" and "Give me liberty or give me death" are in the Anglosphere. While I've no idea if there's a reliable source, I'd feel confident in saying that Travis was intentionally trying to remind his followers that a small band of fanatics could defeat the forces of an entire empire.
If there's a pop-culture section, Man of Conquest ought to be included along with the assorted Alamo-cruft. (Have there ever been any significant Mexican books or films on the topic, and if so how do they differ in their treatment of events?) A legacy section also ought to mention the parallel Anglo revolts that were taking place in California between 1836–48, as the success of Texas must surely have been one of the factors that made the California Republic folks think they could pull it off successfully. – iridescent 08:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I haven't seen mention of Man of Conquest in the books I've read. I don't have a lot of information from my books on the Republic of Texas years; they seem to always stop by September 1836, when elections were held. Maile or anyone else who wants to help, would you be willing to search through the archives of the Southwestern Historical Quarterly and see if there is useful information for any of the legacy/pop culture stuff? Karanacs (talk)

Karanacs, I started the popular culture section above, because I think Iridescent has a point. However, I think it should be a separate article because of the length required. Maybe it could lead to a Featured List, but I think it would be too large to include in the Texas Revolution article. Some semi-related cases in point which I already created: List of works on Sam Houston has 86 items in it; Bibliography of works on Davy Crockett of similar length. Also, the article on Davy Crockett has a section on popular culture, and he's just one figure in the revolution. Has anyone ever counted how many books, movies and TV shows have been done on the Alamo alone?— Maile (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Another thought

What were the motivations of the rebels? As the article currently reads, it gives the impression that the drivers behind Texan independence were a desire to preserve racism from Mexican efforts to combat discrimination and slavery, and an unwillingness to pay bills. This may well be the case (these were effectively the drivers of the American Revolution, fancy talk notwithstanding), but it it is certainly not the Disney version, and paints a somewhat depressing picture of the founding fathers. Was there any Texan equivalent to Jefferson or Madison who was hoping to use the new republic as a tabula rasa for a utopian society? What were the ordinary rebels, as opposed to the big landholders, hoping to gain from their sacrifice? – iridescent 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Karanacs is possibly an expert in the historical aspect of it overall. However, as I am putting together the tejano article, it is similar to the Civil War in that it sometimes divided families. Everybody seemed to hate Santa Anna, but not everyone wanted the same end result. And it differed among tejanos depending on where they lived. Those in the Bexar area had ties to Stephen F. Austin and were influenced by that relationship. Down in Victoria, the tejanos seem to have supported the revolution to get rid of Santa Anna, but were not all that keen on the anglo agenda. Sometimes they also switched sides, as events happened. — Maile (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Iridescent, one thing that is completely missing from the article is that Texas was not the only, or even the first, region to rebel against Santa Anna's new centralist policies, it was just the only one that was successful (and that was due primarily to distance). Racial/cultural prejudices were HUGE - Texas (excluding the native populations) went from 99% Tejano to about 20% Tejano in less than 10 years, and most of the Anglos who arrived were from the southern US, where slavery was common and prejudice against people "of color" - which included brown-skinned Tejanos - was virulent. Plus the whole Catholic vs Protestant dynamic. Maile, I think we definitely need to include exactly what you said - there were racial, geographical, religious, and economic reasons behind the choices that individuals made, and those choices sometimes changed over time. Lack's book has some excellent analysis of the attitudes of the different groups. I've been debating whether the shifting attitudes need to be discussed chronologically or given an overview at the beginning and then expanded in its own section near the end. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Karanacs, I've started to do that as I update the article Tejanos in the Texas Revolution. I'm hoping by the time I get to the end, the existing table will not be necessary, except perhaps in a more abbreviated version of a list of Seguin's soldiers. Because of the changing attitudes phenomenon, it seems less confusing to me to section it by area and include the personalities therein. It makes them more realistic as you can see how events and anti-Tejano attitudes change the perspective and loyalties of the Tejanos.— Maile (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

One more thought

On looking at Independencia de Texas (a Featured Article on es-wiki, so presumably reasonably well reflecting Spanish-language sources), the balance of the article appears radically different in parts. The entire story of the Battle of the Alamo is "The Alamo was defended by about 250 men commanded by William B. Travis and James Bowie. The Battle of the Alamo ended after thirteen days of siege, on March 6. On that day, the defenders of the fort were massacred.", the largest section in the background section is titled La esclavitud como la verdadera causa de la independencia "Slavery, the true cause of independence", and the description of the military campaign seems to be a story about cowardly and inept rebels running away from brave and well-trained Mexicans, and only winning due to Santa Anna's ineptitude.

The reasons for using English-language sources is obvious, but somebody really needs to go through (or at least skim) the significant Mexican and Spanish books on the matter to see how their version of events differs from that given in American books. Even if the article ultimately ends up sticking to the established version of events, to be comprehensive it at least needs to mention that this radically different narrative appears to exist.

On a more general note, and reflecting something I said to Ealdgyth when she was writing Norman conquest of England, consider dumbing-down this article below the usual "aimed at a bright 14 year old". I suspect a fairly significant majority of this page's readers will be relatively young children doing school projects and many of the remainder will be tourists trying to understand the significance of the Alamo, and concepts which one would normally take for granted may need to be spelled out. (Don't underestimate how little people outside Texas know about this, or even know that Texas and California were ever Spanish possessions. I would lay money that if I walked around New York or Chicago asking people what happened at the Alamo, at least 50% would say either "Custer's last stand" or "the first battle of the Civil War", while if I repeated the experiment in London or Sydney, over 90% would say the battle was fought between the Cowboys and the Indians.) – iridescent 17:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the .es version of Wikipedia, or its sources, that believes the Texas revolution was only about slavery. Americans of African ancestry also believe that, especially if they have any family in Texas. Raul Ramos in "Beyond the Alamo" makes a case that San Antonio's socially/economically elite were the Seguin family and their inlaws, and that their collaboration with Anglos in the revolution was for mutual economic benefit - i.e. same goals, land and money and how to keep it. I do believe there is an argument to be made that Santa Anna lost Texas as much as Houston won it. — Maile (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, many of the sources I've consulted pretty much say that Santa Anna lost Texas. The article will definitely reflect that when we're done. Unfortunately, I can't read Spanish well enough to consult sources in that language. I've been frustrated that so few of the English-language sources cover the Mexican perspective (just as it is only recently that sources have begun to cover the Tejano perspective). Anyway, I just rewrote the Background section (with the caveat that the prose is a rough draft at this point). iridescent and Maile66, could you please take a look at this draft and see if it does a better job explaining what was going on and the attitudes on both sides? I'm not sure if I struck the right balance between comprehensive and concise. Anything that seems left out or needs further explaining? Anything that was included and maybe shouldn't have been, or was covered in too much detail? Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Background section - minor things:
  • 3rd paragraph wouldn't hurt to have an explainer footnote naming the 24 empresarios
  • 5th paragraph maybe a footnote explaining the federal prohibition against slavery
  • Laws of April 6, 1830 is in the 5th paragraph as "several measures", but is mentioned by name in the 6th paragraph. Would the reader be wondering what Laws of April 6, 1830 is at that point?
That's really all. Pretty well done, so far. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to take a chance here and see if ComputerJA could help us out here on the Spanish language perspective.— Maile (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm in no way an expert in this subject, but I'll give my ignorant two cents. The slavery issue is one of the main perspectives. There is also the isolationism of Texas from the rest of Mexico; the lack of communication; U.S. influence in Texas and its "imperialist" tendencies; pro-federalist ideas against Santa Anna's centrist policies (specifically through the Siete Leyes); among others. Mexico was politically unstable during that time, and many believe that Santa Anna made the mistake of sending his forces to Texas. I think the stark difference between Mexico's and U.S.'s perspective of the war comes after Santa Anna's defeat. For Mexico, the lost of Texas and the rest of the territories was a national embarrassment. By some accounts, some even argue that the U.S. "robbed" the territories from them. Sorry for the terrible summary. I'm not well versed in this subject at all. But if you guys want me to read something specific I'll be more than glad to. Cheers. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 23:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That makes me feel better - that's in line with what the English-language sources say. I added another paragraph to the Background section to lay out the boundaries of Texas and mention the competing Spanish and French claims. I hope this now ties all the pieces together. Maile, I also changed it up to link to the Laws of April 6, 1830 when it's first mentioned (rather than having an Easter egg), and it now explicitly notes that slavery was abolished in Mexico. I'm not inclined to have a footnote listing out the empresarios. I don't think that's incredibly relevant to this article....and they aren't even all listed at empresario. Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It's looking good, as you do your editing. — Maile (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Goliad Declaration of Independence

I dropped the text of the Goliad Declaration of Independence as a subpage here: Talk:Texas Revolution/Goliad Declaration of Independence, for lack of any better place to put it at the moment. It probably should end up at Wikisource, but I've never figured out how to upload over there. Other than this, I've never seen the entire document anywhere. — Maile (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, but neither have I. I'm hoping to at least stub out the article this week.
On another note, I'm really excited about how everything seems to be coming together. It's not just this article that is being improved, but many others too :) Karanacs (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I put some links wherever I could find out anything about the signers (not many). Red links means there's a Handbook of Texas article on them. Re the main article, I've been greatly impressed by what you are doing with it. It's really shaping up into NPOV - possibly the only place I've been able to see this through Santa Anna's eyes. Good going so far.— Maile (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm going to have to take a break from writing in the main article for now, until I've done some more research. I'm going to cart another armful home from the library this weekend. I know there are several books devoted strictly to the Goliad campaign, and I'd like to read at least one before writing up that section. We also need to figure out more of the aftermath and legacy sections. I've started playing with those in this sandbox, but it's just showing me how many gaps there are. I really don't have research about what happens after the elections in Sep 1836, but we need to cover that at least a teeny bit. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Calling for proof readers

Mike Christie, Johnbod, Dank, The ed17 and anyone else willing to participate, this project needs proof readers on existing supporting articles. I can see that many articles out there have been tagged, have been the object of hanky-panky, and sometimes erroneously edited by good editors. Don't worry if you don't know Texas history. You may not be able to catch This type, but you could spot POV and other things. Supporting articles have tags and errors that are years old. Please help if you have time, and Category:Texas Revolution is a good place to start.— Maile (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Created new Sam Houston category

I just created Category:Sam Houston, but didn't know if it was appropriate for the Texas Revolution article or not. There are enough related articles on Houston to warrant a category. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Good, we needed that category, but this article doesn't belong in it, IMO. The more I read, the more intimidated I get at the idea of rewriting the Houston article. That is going to be an NPOV and balance nightmare! Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Today's rewritten lead

I like this a lot better, much more descriptive than what existed before. Your comment about Santa Anna underestimating the strength of the Texian army made me wonder once again about Santa Anna's information sources. Inbetween fleeing Gonzales and showing up at San Jacinto, the Texian army tripled in size. That's one heck of a crowd increase. Almost 1,000 very angry Texians were sitting on the other side of the bayou, and they were hauling two brand new cannons. And, yet, Santa Anna and his information sources arrived at the conclusion that they were running away. Even with erroneous spy analysis, Santa Anna should have questioined that. Maybe it was ego.— Maile (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I've read, after the Texians left Groce's Creek, the Mexican spies had no idea where they went. It makes some sense - by this point the Texians were in primarily Anglo territory, far from the Tejano and Irish settlements where the bulk of the centralist sympathizers lived. Also, Houston had told people that he was going to Nacogdoches, and he showed zero signs of wanting to stand and fight. Plus the Texians caught several Mexican spies and couriers who didn't get to make it back to the Mexican leaders....and, as you say, Santa Anna was an arrogant idiot. He believed that the display at the Alamo, and again at Goliad, would have scared off all of the American volunteers.
Unfortunately, I think the lead is too long. I think the whole article is going to be too long, I'm just not sure yet what to trim. Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Dr. James Grant, Matamoros, Brits

This weekend I read the incredibly intriguing A Secret War for Texas by Stuart Reid. The book was reviewed by some of the big names in Texas Revolution research. Reid is a historian in Scotland who decided to find out what happened to his g-g-g-grandfather, who disappeared about 1823. Turned out his grandfather was James Grant. Reid's research in London archives, which he says haven't previously been consulted by most historians of the Texas Revolution, led him to conclude that Grant was a British secret agent in Mexico. Reid believes that the REAL reason that Grant was such an advocate of the Matamoros Expedition was not for personal gain (getting back his confiscated lands in Coahuila), but that he was unofficially acting to advance British policy. The Brits wanted Texas to remain part of Mexico, so that it would remain a buffer to stop the US from expanding. The Matamoros expedition was essentially a Texian commitment to work with the federalists in Mexico, not work towards independence.

This is the only book in which I've seen this theory, but it's a relatively new volume (2007). I plan to include this in the article on Matamoros Expedition (attributed to Reid), but I'm not sure whether to include a sentence or two here. It would help explain British attitudes toward the revolution, but Reid makes no claim that Grant's expedition was authorized by the British government, so it may be a little bit of undue weight. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The UK's diplomatic correspondence relating to the Republic of Texas has all been released into the public domain, and is filed here. (This looks promising, and the Mexico correspondence for the relevant period would also be worth reading). The majority of it hasn't been digitised, so you'd need to find someone near Kew amenable to wading through musty papers looking for needles in haystacks (does Carcharoth owe you any favors?). RexxS/Nev1, are you aware if WMUK has any contacts at the National Archives who might be persuaded to have a look? – iridescent 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The main contact at the National Archives has moved on, but I can get in touch with them and see if they have suggestions on who to contact and whether it's worth a punt. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary for us to delve into the archives ourselves; the article needs to reflect what historians have written about the events. They are, hopefully, in better position to put the documents in proper historical context. My big question is whether the information Reid discusses belongs in this particular article or not. Karanacs (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You may have better luck accessing this book than me—for legal reasons Google previews tend to be more limited in Europe than in the US, and a book published by the University of Texas is presumably more likely to be available in Texas than in Hertfordshire. From the snippets Google deigns to show me, pp150–151 appear to me to be saying that British capital supported the RoT because they thought they were more likely than Santa Anna to pay New Spain's debts, and the British Foreign Office supported the RoT because they planned to make the stop-and-search of shipping conditional on recognition, and hoped it would set a precedent the US would be forced to follow. It's an old book, but both comments seem highly plausible to me. – iridescent 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
My local library has that book, but it is low on my list as it is so old (and because it primarily deals with the events after the Texas Revolution). Reid's book does mention the latter consideration, because the stop-and-search of shipping was intended to hinder the international slave trade. How much of this conceivably needs to be in this article? I think it needs to be discussed in detail in Republic of Texas, but I'm unsure what the appropriate weight is in this article for the events after September 1836 (the first elections for the government of the Republic of Texas). Karanacs (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You know the topic a lot better than me, but my gut feeling is that the attitudes of the USA and UK, and probably France and Spain as well, need at least a mention. If one of the European powers had decided to intervene, Texas could have become another French Guiana or British Honduras. Looking at other articles where a province has seceded from another country with a powerful neighbor egging the secessionists on (Bangladesh Liberation War, Haitian Revolution, War in Donbass, Belgian Revolution) they all include at least a couple of lines on the attitudes of neighboring states. Bear in mind that this is Wikipedia; a not-insignificant number of readers, particularly in Europe, will have picked up their view of the Texas revolution from The Difference Engine, which makes Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier look like a documentary, and which depicts the Texians as a gaggle of drunkards propped up by the British and French to act as a western barrier to the expansion of the USA. – iridescent 00:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs, I think you should use your own judgement on this. This article is a work in progress, anyway, so you could drop it in and later decide if it's relevant to the overall picture being presented on this article. As to the above suggestion that people will get their idea of Texas history from a tome of fiction that re-imagines several areas of history, is irrelevant here. Go with your gut, Karanacs. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

I guess now is as good a time as any to start talking about images. (This is my least favorite part of prepping for FAC.) What images do we want to include that meet the FA criteria?

I assume we need to have the following:

  • picture of Sam Houston
  • picture of Santa Anna
  • William Huddle picture of San Jacinto that is currently in the infobox
  • MAPS (and I am awful at creating them)
    • There is one I added recently that shows which areas of Mexico were revolting and outlines the boundaries of Texas. Unfortunately, some of the text of this image is incorrect (but you can't read it unless you open the image)
    • I added a second one that I created in the Goliad campaign section (see, I told you my map-making skills were awful)

I'd love to see a map of the Runaway Scrape that shows the path the Texian army took.

For anyone making the map. Karanacs..again, I took these books back to the library. But I think this was in the Davis book Lone Star Rising (a partial in Moore's book Eighteen Minutes), there are multiple images that show the geography of the area, perhaps even denoting where Houston etal camped.— Maile (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of images on Commons and on the English wikipedia. Could someone please volunteer to lead this part of the project? Karanacs (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I could try and take this (as long as I don't have to create any maps). I'll try to take a serious look at what's going to be needed tomorrow. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am back in the United States. If there are images requested not available online, I can check libraries in Houston to see if they have any reserve images that I may scan. There is also a history library in Liberty, Texas but I don't know how easily I may access it. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Research

This week I will try to gather up all of my past research and create some pages here so that everyone collaborating can see my notes. (Much of this is summarized in the battle articles that have already reached FA status: Gonzales, Goliad, Lipantitlán, Concepción, Grass Fight, and Alamo).

I have notes from the following sources (and maybe a few others). Most of my notes stop at the Battle of the Alamo.

I have not done as much research into the 2nd half of the revolution. These are the sources I think that we need to use heavily:

  • Davis - Lone Star Rising: The Revolutionary Birth of the Texas Republic (2004)
  • Hardin - Texian Iliad - a Military History of the Texas Revolution (1994)
  • Lack - The Texas Revolutionary Experience: a Political and Social History (1992)

Probably consult:

  • Calore, Paul (2014), The Texas Revolution and the U.S.-Mexican War: A Concise History, McFarland, ISBN 0-78647-940-X
  • Moore, Stephen L. (2004), Eighteen minutes: the battle of San Jacinto and the Texas independence campaign, Republic of Texas Press, ISBN 1-58907-009-7
  • Winders, Richard Bruce (2002), Crisis in the Southwest: The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle over Texas, Issue 6 of American crisis series, Rowan & Littlefield, ISBN 0742575640 - this book focused more on The Republic of Texas Karanacs (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Henderson, Timothy J. (2008), A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States, Macmillan, ISBN 1429922796
  • Pohl, James W. (2013), The Battle of San Jacinto, Fred Rider Cotten Popular History Series, Texas A&M University Press, ISBN 087611267X

Any others? Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I own Lack, so I'll get started reading the second half of it this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone's interested one may write Wikipedia articles on the books themselves.

  • Step 1: Get a listing of book reviews, from the University of Houston Libraries (See link) and/or the University of Southern California Libraries (See link)
  • Step 2: Post the book review list to WP:RX and wait patiently
  • Step 3: The reviews themselves may be e-mailed to you or you may be provided with a link
  • Step 4: Use the book reviews as secondary sources and write the book articles

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Progress update

I now have a rough draft for everything except the section on Urrea's Goliad campaign. I hope to finish Stout's book about the campaign this weekend, and then I'll be prepared to write that section too. The Legacy section is ROUGH. I have one more source to consult this week (Don Graham in SWHQ 89 (Jul 1985), pp 35-67; Rembering the Alamo: The Story of the Texas Revolution in Popular Culture), and I am going to look for a few more nuggets in my existing sources to make this section sound better. I also need to find the SWHQ article on French recognition of Texas - that's not in any of my sources. Maile, I saw you added some references to Poyo's book in the outline above. They don't have that book at my library - can you add in anything from it that you think is relevant?

I'm not comfortable with the Analysis section, but I'm not sure where else to put that information.

I expect to have the full first draft ready next week. Once we've thrown everything in there that we think is "important", then we can start the process of making it more concise (I want to make a copy of the article in my userspace before we do that; some of the information will be handy in other articles). I want to go to Peer Review (and get our copyeditor volunteers involved) by the 2nd week in Feb.

So, if anyone out there can think of anything that is not in the article and needs to be included, now is the time to bring that up! Karanacs (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've put in a reservation for the Poyo book with my local library, so it will be a few days before I get it. It's a thin book, but I'll have a look at it.
The Yellowstone - Don't know if it's important in this article, but I recall reading in the footnote back section of some book (probably Davis or Moore), Handbook of Texas article, the Republic and the State did not honor Houston's pledge of payment to captain and crew.
Re Peer Review, have you ever taken anything through A-class review at WP MIL HIST? Because this article has the WPMH banner on the talk page, it will be listed at that project for either type of review. I took an article through both there. Peer review seemed more basic level to me, while the A-class review is probably more focused on the military aspect. The plus with Peer Review is that you'll probably get it quicker, but A-class is likely to be more thorough.
I am so pleased with how you have handled the Tejano involvement in this article. I came to realize how correct you were in that "Tejanos in the Texas Revolution" was too vast to put in one article.
But, hey, job well done, so far. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs, the Poyo book is 132 pages, and it's a compilation of chapters by various authors. Nothing you haven't already covered. As a "hmmmm..." of priests in that era. Franciscan priest Juan Agustín Morfi referred to Bexar's residents as "indolent and given to vice" and unworthy of that which Spain had given them. Apparently, there was a bootleg booze problem, some of it tainted, and the habit of residents just walking off with cattle on mission lands. In actor Leo Carrillo's The California I Love , Franciscan priests of the same era in Los Angeles made similar accusations.— Maile (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'd just like to drop by and say I am available to help out with anything that's left. Various off-wiki things kept me from carrying out my pledge to help previously, but if either of you need assistance with anything remaining, I'm ready to help out. Thanks, and sorry for not helping out previously. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 14:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, A Texas Historian, welcome back! Right now I could really use another set of eyes to help figure out where we are missing important concepts. Also, I need another opinion on whether this does an adequate job with NPOV - am I missing anything major from the Mexican perspective?
Maile, you're right about the Yellow Stone, and I think lack of payment was actually a much more widespread problem. We probably need to add one or two sentences somewhere near the end about that, and about the decades it took for all the Texian veterans (especially Tejanos) to get their land grants. I've seen snippets about it but I need to track down a good source.
I've never done an A-class review before, and I haven't done peer review in a long time. Time is going to be a factor - we need to bank on at least 6-8 weeks at FAC, I think, which means the nomination needs to be in by mid-March. Since we already have a lot of volunteers willing to look at the text, PR may be easier. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. :) Karanacs (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs, I'm pinging Ian Rose from WPMH here for an opinion on this. Let's see what we can expect by way of meeting any kind of timeline with the reviews. It depends on what you're looking for by way of a review. My experience is that a Peer Review needs just one reviewer, and it serves as a second set of eyes to see where the loopholes are in the article. This is the WPMH Assessment/A-Class. The criteria is based on FAC, and it takes three individual reviews/Support to pass it. But I would like Ian Rose to have input here, and to give some kind of ballpark figure on your timeline above. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maile, Karen. Some of us at MilHist think of A-Class Review as "like FAC, but more forgiving" (not on content so much as prose/style). Ostensibly we have a time limit of about a month for an ACR to reach consensus to promote (or not) but this can be extended at the project coordinators' discretion. As reviewing is somewhat down at MilHist the same as elsewhere in WP, such discretion is becoming more common (see Ulysses S. Grant for a very slow consensus, No. 450 Squadron RAAF for a relatively quick one, and Siege of Kehl (1796–97) for in between). I don't particularly want to influence you either way re. ACR vs. PR. As the article is part of MilHist, it will be listed at the MilHist open reviews page so may attract attention there. OTOH, if you list at ACR you can invite anyone lined up for PR to comment -- they don't have to be paid-up MilHist members. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
All right, well, Karanacs, it's completely your call. But just so we get the word out on this, and some who might help with a review, let's ping those who volunteered to help: TomStar81, WhisperToMe, Kuru, Mike Christie, Johnbod, Dank, Eric Corbett and The ed17. We already have A Texas Historian posting below to help with the images, but we could also use help with Maps. And awaayyyy we go! — Maile (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
And, oh yes, Karanacs, have you ever seen this unbelievably huge, hefty tome: Bevill, James P. (2010). The Paper Republic: The Struggle for Money, Credit and Independence in the Republic of Texas. Bright Sky Press. ISBN 978-1933979250. I checked this out of the library years ago for something or other. It's impressive.— Maile (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I just looked that one up....I think it might make my head explode. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want I can write a Wikipedia article on the book. I'll ask for book reviews at WP:RX and then use them to write about the book. Having articles on the books themselves can help people who wish to research the topics. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I would love to see an article on this book. I encourage you on this. It's takes a certain numbers-loving mind set to fixate on what it took to write that book. Would be interesting to see the reviews if you do an article. — Maile (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Capital of Texas

Capital of Texas was originally created as a redirect to Austin, Texas. Someone changed it to a dab. Just FYI. — Maile (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Slavery and Tejanos

Karanacs, some of what you have written and sourced to Hardin, i.e. the Tejano cardboard in the hats, leads me to believe you may have already read this in a different book. However, in the Poyo book, there is a chapter written by Hardin "Effective in the Cause". But one thing I've read before, that it might be good to note in this article, is that Anglos were not the only ones in Texas who participated in slavery. pp. 69-70 of Hardin's chapter touches on the Tejano social structure of the working class and the ruling class, the rich and the poor (not unlike our own society today). He states that the Seguins and their relatives, and the DeLeon extended families in Victoria, were the upper crust. And to that end, practitioners in the slave trade:

Wealthy land owners like Jose Antonio Navarro, Erasmo Seguin and Placidio Benevides had been early proponents of American emigration. They were even willing to abet slavery to promote the cotton trade and economic growth for the province. Erasmo Seguin himself owned a mulatto slave woman. In May 1836, Juan Seguin shadowed the retreat of Mexican general Pedro de Ampudia to reclaim slaves attempting to escape under the protection of the centralist army. The Seguin family clearly harbored very few moral reservations regarding the "peculiar institution".

If you could figure a way to insert that in the article, it might be a good thing. Slavery was ugly, but the white southerners weren't the only ones in Texas who were involved in it. Hardin says Seguin never spoke any English. What you have as Seguin and Menchaca protesting Houston's orders of the Tejanos staying behind, Hardin says Menchaca translated for Seguin. It kind of surprised me, since Juan was so sociable with "Don Esteban" Austin. Guess Austin learned Spanish.

FYI - another thought that might not be important enough for you to put in. But I think I read it in the Moore book when I had it. Santa Anna spoke no English, and Houston spoke no Spanish. And apparently, Houston had never seen an image of Santa Anna and wasn't sure if this was an imposter surrendering to him. I believe Moore says he had it verified by 4 different people on the scene at the time. — Maile (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I do remember reading that Moses Austin Bryan (Stephen F Austin's nephew) and Juan Almonte did translations for Santa Anna (and that Stephen F. Austin spoke and wrote Spanish fluently). While the Tejanos did have some involvement in slavery, it was nowhere near on the same level as the white southerners. When Mexico banned slavery, it was the white immigrants that caused the uproar. While some of the Tejano families might have also agreed with them, the Anglos were the ones that made the fuss. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Well...had I bothered to first read History of slavery in Texas, maybe there would have not been a need for this thread.— Maile (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Last call

I've finished writing the article, and I've done the bulk of the copyediting. Since I hadn't seen any work on the images, I went ahead and changed out a few myself.

I believe the article is still too long (about 10,300 words), but at this point I'm not objective enough to cut much more. I am ready to go to peer review, but I wanted to give our Texan volunteers one last chance to make comments before I open that up (hopefully tomorrow). so, Maile66, WhisperToMe, A Texas Historian, what do you think? Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, first of all, if I were a teacher who wanted students to learn why and how the Texas Revolution happened, this is the definitive source I'd recommend to them. And I like the way the major sections have dates. Really good information on the Mexican Army of Operations. You've done well. I've just gone through the entire article, trying to look at it in a way a non-Texas, perhaps non-American, reviewer might. Only a few points in the Background section that a reviewer might (or might not) ask about:
  • 3rd paragraph - the bankrupt government (first mention, but last paragraph in the section says "The federal treasury was nearly empty")
  • 4th paragraph - slavery is abolished; did I miss something about why this was a factor in the revolt?
  • 5th paragraph - By mid-August, all troops had been expelled from east Texas (assumption is the troops were Mexican, that colonists taking up arms had no troops as such)
  • 6th paragraph - Juan Seguin raised a militia, but nothing indicates to the readers who he was. Or does that even matter?
Yes, it's very long. But it's very informative and engrossing. Amazing achievement in a somewhat short time span. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I made a few minor tweaks that I think address these points. Karanacs (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that did it.— Maile (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Texas_Revolution/Archive_3&oldid=1089881332"