Talk:Texas Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Texas Revolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

I really believe that adding more about the Battle of the Alamo would be necessary. Thank you!!

USeaglescout. I didn't know where to type my messages so I just typed it here. Ğ Featured on Template:April 22 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

I question whether or not this is the right place to summarize the debate over causes of the Texas Revolution. Until we break out a causes page, though, this is as good a place as any. FWIW, I'd already edited my additions, including the preface, before I saw the note on slavery/causes.

Incidentally, I'd be very interested in sources or references for the TR=slavery expansion argument. I'm aware that this was the consensus among some New Englanders (Thoreau included) during the Annexation controversy and the Mexican War. I'm also aware that both England and France viewed the TR as orchestrated by the USA purely for expansion purposes. But it still seems to me that, whatever the motive of the Texans themselves, the TR fits very well into the broader stream of Mexican history and the conflict between the centralistas and the federalistas.


--Ben Brumfield

This reads like somebody's school report. -- Zoe

  • Mexico tried to ban immigration of white Americans because of their racist Hispanic nationalistic views.
    • Maybe they just didn't want to get taken over? Fred Bauder 09:31 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • This whole article is racist. It must have been written mostly by a Mexican

This article definitely needs sprucing up. Right now it is actually two articles. Whoever rewrote it left the original at the bottom. Right now, however, it reads more like a biography of Navarro then an article about the revolution as a whole. In the meantime I'm breaking out the timeline into a separate article. -- Decumanus 15:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


This is an awful article, just completely besides the point. It is supposed to be about the Texas Revolution but is actually a biography of Navarro and the role of Tejanos before and after the revolt. The information about the revolt is limited and contains almost nothing about the actual motives of the settlers or equally important the role and reaction of the US during the revolt. Somebody with a good amount of knowledge about Texas history should replace or rewrite this, because the current article is very uninformative and confusing. Daniel Oct. 11

  • I agree. The Navarro stuff is excessive. Most of that could be moved to his bio page.




NOT ENOUGH INFO! This article is like writen is Chinese. This is so confusing. Please rewrite more clearly.

Dec. 2

Contents

[edit] Working on it

I'm kind of an amateur Texas historian so I'm working on sprucing up this article. It's quite a project, so I've put what I have for the preface right now, but will eventually get to the rest of it.Spacekraken 16:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Okay, I've added some more of what I have into the History section since it lines up somewhat with what is already there.--Spacekraken 17:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Well, I've added everything I'd been working on in past 6 months, but now the article is at 42 kilobytes (the recommended size is 32KB), and I haven't even gotten to the Alamo yet. Is it too big? Or is it fitting that the article should be Texas-size? --66.151.75.74 01:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) --Spacekraken 01:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some parts of this are terribly written and need totally reworked, "Texian disillusionment" being an example, you need to read it three times to understand what it is actually saying, and then you still dont know what the actual reasons for disillusionment were. (Unsigned post by User:Benson85 )

  • I did a little cleanup of that section. Feel free to edit the article to make more improvements. Johntex 21:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the clean up. I got burnt out and haven't been back in months and I was feeling guilty leaving it as it is. Anyone feel free to edit. One idea I have is maybe making seperate pages for each of the battles. One problem I faced at the end was that big battles like the Alamo have entire articles unto themselves and I didn't want to repeat. Another advantage to having seperate pages for each battle would be that I and anyone else could feel free to describe the political story more in detail which is rather complicated. And fascinating, at least to me. Spacekraken 15:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


This page would benefit greatly from maps. There are many on the Internet, and it would not be hard to put them up on this page. I would if I knew how. NightFalcon90909 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Rebellions in the US should be removed. Some could argue United States Wars should be removed. Although some could argue the New Orleans Greys, Georgia Battalions, and NY Battalions, and others contributed as a United States force, I don't think it's sufficient to call it a United States war. However, I could be way off base. Retropunk 04:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Texas Revolution page

I re wrote some of the article. Less is more, in my opinion, and some of the information went nowhere in the previous article. I moved the information of the battles into their links in which these are discussed in more detail. There was no point in having three paragraphs of information on a battle in this page, when that information could be placed on its own link. The article is now shorter, and more to the point. There's no reason to have an entire paragraph history of the battle of the Medina river in here, when it has nothing to do with the actual reasons why the Texas revolted. Also, there could be less said on the Colonial part of texas (its foundation). I only kept the essential information of Austins colony. This previous article was simply too much for what the subject called for. There wasn't even a good reference to General Urrea's campaign! I also expanded a bit, in which the previous article did not even touch on, on the aftermath of the conflict, and the fact that TEXAS was NEVER recognized as an independent state by Mexico.

Facts are facts, and I am sticking to them. I welcome a response to my changes, and edits were deemed important.Skibofilms 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I made some minor grammar fixes and changed the title "Road to Revolution" to "Roots of Texas". The original title didn't seem to fit the info. And following the less is more method which this article definitely needs, I removed things that may be extraneous and can be found in another article like Moses Austin's other business failures besides his lead business and some stuff about Jose Navarro.

Also, it seems that Texas was actually eventually recognized as a nation by Mexico right before Texas was annexed. “The British and French emissaries reached Mexico City in mid-April. Luis G. Cuevas, minister of foreign relations, placed their proposals before the Mexican Congress, and in late April Mexico recognized Texas independence.” http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/RR/mzr2.html

I don’t know the intricacies of this, so I’ll do more research and hear other opinions before I change it in the article.

I also removed some references to slavery and how it had some bearing on the revolution. I may remove them all. When I first wrote a lot my revisions I was trying to appease anyone who may read the article and feel the issue of slavery was being white-washed. But my research finds that it had very, very little bearing on the cause of the revolution. So little that it just confuses the situation to even mention it. To mention it and not mention the jillion other little things the Texians had problems with would be putting undue importance on the issue. Mexico never demanded Texas to free its slaves. Santa Ana did not claim he was going to Texas to emancipate the slaves. The Texians claimed they didn’t want to live under a government that had abolished the Constitution of 1824 and democracy. Santa claimed that he didn’t want American pirates to steal part of his country. To spotlight slavery over other minor issues just seems unnecessary and heavily loaded. Spacekraken 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added some detail of the land grants on the original colonization - a name and date is not quite enough detail for the casual reader to latch onto. Trishm 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Racially Biased article

This article is unreasonably racial and biased towards a Hispanic opinion.

When rewriting this section, opinions should be removed and not included, sticking only to actual facts (dates, action and result of action, numbers of soldiers/casualties, etc.)

In addition, topics discussed in this article contrast/conflict with internal link articles (ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto).


can you please elaborate, and cite passages that support your "biased" claim.

-you know, maybe I'm paranoid, but this just seems to me like a stupid comment made by yet another person who hates Texas. I know that the entire northeast (hey, make that the rest of the country - or better yet, the world) has not the slightest what *really* goes on down here, but try to get beyond your ignorance, please. This article is worse than any textbook I have read; in fact, it's so unbiased it's almost unreadable. Please, just get over it.

[edit] Conflict with the Battle of The Alamo article

This article states: "The defense of the Alamo proved to be of no military consequence for the Texan cause, but its martyrs were soon hailed as heroes."

The Battle of The Alamo article states: "The defense of the Alamo and the 13-day holdout allowed Sam Houston to gather troops and supplies for his later successful battle at San Jacinto."

The position that the Battle of The Alamo was of no military consequence for the Texan cause and only served to create martyrs appears to be a biased POV in direct conflict with information in the Battle of The Alamo article.

66.64.24.14 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a popular myth that the seige at the Alamo gave San Houston time to gather troops. In reality, for most of the seige of the alamo, he was not out gathing troops. I will have to look up the references that show this. Then I will add them to both articles. Johntex\talk 23:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


To say that the Battle of the Alamo did anything aid the military cause of the Texan revolt, is unsupported. Houston did nothing to relieve the Alamo. The Texan Government was too busy arguing the future of Texas. The Alamo did nothing for Fannin, or to save all those towns that were destroyed by Santa Anna's army or the the Texan's themselves.

The battle of Jacinto was a brought on despite Houston's plans.The Texans had been fleeing all this time. Houston did not want to fight at San Jacinto. He, in fact, had no control over the course his small band took on that April 21'st battle. He was leading an army that led itself.

The dead at the Alamo did help create a sense of unity among Texans, but little else. Of course Santa Anna's army suffered many casualties, about 400 -500 out of the 6000 he moved into Texas. If anything, the burden of campaign itself proved to be a greater destroyer over the mexican's than what ever the texan's could wield. In fact, Urrea despised Filesola's withdrawal orders after Santa Anna's capture. The Army itself had not been defeated. So how can it be said that the "Alamo and the 13-day holdout allowed Sam Houston to gather troops and supplies for his later successful battle at San Jacinto?" Skibofilms 05:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More in depth material? First use of Steamship in War

I'm currently in a college Texas History class and there are a number of details that I can add to this article, but I don't want to just stack the article with information that may seem irrelevant. So any suggestions?

I would like to note as one interesting bit of info, the first sucessful use of a steam powered ship in a naval engagement took place during the texas revolution phase. I can give the details though to cite it, it come's from a professor's lecture and personal notes. Sir Milas Boozefox The Third 05:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

One possible ancillary source for the steamboat note is With Santa Anna in Texas by de la Peña, as I remember it occurring in his account along with a footnote mentioning its role. -Ben 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you remember if it contained details about a small mexican mail ship that had had it's duties expanded to include patroling the Texas coast for smuggling activities? That mailing vesel was manned by English (British) sailors, under a contract with the Mexican Gov't. At the time the Mexican Navy consisted of 3 ships, the only one avalable to patrol the Texas coast was a mail ship that made a route from Veracruse, to Havana (or a port in the carabien). This (sailing) mail ship had only one piece of arment, a small cannon. In order to compensate the crew for the expansion of duties while under contract, the Mexican Gov't told them that any ship they captured that had not paid it's duties, it's cargo was theirs to sell. If that book contains a referance to a river steamboat and/or this mail ship, that may be a good source to use. Although I do recall that the guest lecturer explained that this particular event was not in the history (text)books, though it did occur and various Texas Historians are aware of it. He opined that it should be in the books since it was the first use of a steam powered ship to engage (or suceed? need to check notes). The british had built a few steam-war-ships before the Texas Revolution, but they sank or blew up, due to human error or weather (still recalling from memory).
Sir Milas Boozefox The Third 22:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This sounds very notable. Once a source is decided upon, it should be included. Johntex\talk 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go: José Enrique de la Peña. With Santa Anna in Texas: A personal Narrative of the Revolution Translated and edited by Carmen Perry. pp. 105-106:

On the 15th at seven o'clock in the morning, while concluding my notes on the events of the previous day, I heard voices of alarm and left my tent hurriedly. Its cause was the passing of an enemy steamboat, which had not been even remotely anticipated.33 The soldiers forming the advance posts on the river, who belonged to the Guadalajara Battalion, were dumbfounded by the sight of a machine so totally unfamilar and unexpected. The other soldiers who saw it were likewise surprised. Few in the camp were acquainted with steamboats, so all was in confusion. Immediately a detachment was dispatched to that bank of the river away from the woods, which was like running after a bird; General Filisola thus showed his ignorance of the speed with which steam engines can travel, the more so as the steamboat was moving with the current.
A shot from the eight-pounder was fired, which served only to let them know that we had artillery to fire at a target. Because we arrived at San Felipe de Austin at nightfall, I could observe nothing then.
33 The steamboat was the Yellow Stone, heading downstream after it had been impressed by Houston to ferry his troops across the Brazos. —Ed

Also worth noting is this passage from Stephen L. Hardin, Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution, pp. 189-190:

In mid-April divisiveness escalated when Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar, a thirty-eight-year-old newcomer from Georgia joined the army. He had landed in Texas on April 6 with $6,000 to invest for a Georgia syndicate. In Harrisburg he met with officials of the interim government, apparently adopting the anti-Houston bias of Burnet and other politicians. Although he was only a private, many of th emen recognised Lamar as a natural leader, and from his first day in camp he advocated a hare-brained scheme to use the Yellowstone, a Brazos River steamboat that had docked at Groce's Landing, to raid Mexican positions downstream. Houston learned of the plan and posted notices that anyone who attempted to raise an unauthorized force would be shot as a mutineer. Lamar backed down, but the volunteers cited this as another example of their general's high-handedness.33
On April 12 Houston broke camp at Groce's. The men could stomach no more drill; the general could only hope that on the day of battle it would prove sufficient. Employing the Yellowstone and an old yawl, the Texians appreciated a dry crossing of the Brazos, but it still required two days to transport all the men and supplies to the opposite bank.

Endnote 33 (page 283)

Tolbert, Day of San Jacinto, 85; Labadie, "San Jacinto Campaign," in Battles of Texas, 62.

That's all I have on hand relating to the steamboat. Nothing specifically states that the troop transport use of Yellowstone was the first military use of a steamboat -- for that you'll need to find a different source. -Ben 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Bexar?

I noticed in some places it's called San Antonio, and in others Bexar. For example, in the revolution section it says "Next, the Texans captured Bexar" when earlier it was said "Colonel Domingo Ugartechea, who was stationed in San Antonio". I think we should call it San Antonio de Bexar in all references for clarity. Thoughts? Awiseman 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It probably would be better to use the name it was called at the time to keep it historically accurate, but indicate that the name was changed and it is called something else today. --WisTex 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] good job!

I'll be the dissenting voice here. I think this article is really quite good, actually! It is as good as any short summary of the Texas Rev (you mean there is someone who has never heard that term before?) as I have ever read. And it really does stick to a chronology well, with few digressions. The areas we all need to work on now are the biographies, and especially the "Texian" entry to help flesh this out and humanize it. I have been steeped in (obsessed with?) early Texas social history since I was a kid, reading all the memoirs and anecdotes, and even though I am not an academic I would like to contribute to that one. Anyrate, to the all collaborators, kudos for a nice job, IMO. The only thing I might suggest adding is the contention that Texas became a republic due to the fact that it was an awkward, or probably impossible, time to add another slave state to the union. Maybe that goes in an article on the "Republic of Texas?" Amity150 06:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possessive

I just wanted to get in my two cents about the possessive of Texas. The rule in English for possessives of singular nouns ending in an "s" sound is based on pronunciation.

  • If the possessive noun is pronounced with an extra syllable (as in James's homework), 's is added.
  • If the possessive noun is not pronounced with an extra syllable (as in Hodgkins' family) only an apostrophe is added.

There is variation among people in when an extra syllable is added. Texas seems borderline to me, and there may be a lot of variation, but I would ordinarily pronounce the possessive Texas's. Ideally, when speakers vary the spelling should indicate the pronounciation of the writer. Rbraunwa 13:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this answer, but growing up in the region, I believe the correct answer is the distinctive Texan. I'm looking on a Texas city Chamber of Commerce Website, and I haven't see a posessive that ends in 's . Just my two cents. BusterD 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the University of Texas San Antonio editorial style guide (qv) proper nouns ending with an s should be followed by an apostrophe (as in Texas' ). That sounds authoritative to me. I still prefer Texan. BusterD 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alamo

Only in Wikipedia can one read about the Texas Revolution and not find a reference to the Alamo in the introduction or in the Table of Contents. I am going to change this. If anyone has any objections, please say so. Haber 16:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THE TEXAS REVOLUTION

                  Mexico belonged to spain for 300 years.In 1821 mexico became an  inde
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/x/Talk%7ETexas_Revolution_f83a.html"