Talk:Texas in the American Civil War

message: Hi. Since there's a fight going on over whether the hill country was anti-secession let's look at some of the facts that are pertinent. We can evaluate these counties by their delegates to the secession convention and by their votes in the secession referendum. Here are the counties that had delegates who opposed secession:
Lamar County: 3 out of 3 delegates
Titus County: 1 out of 3 delegates
Williamson County: 1 out of 2 delegates
Wood County: 2 out of 2 delegates
The results of the referendum can be seen at this map: http://www.texasalmanac.com/politics/secession.html
Again, there are a handful of anti-secession counties including a small cluster around Austin in the Hill Country, but the overwhelming majority of counties were for secession, as were 75% of the state's voters. So yes there was unionist support in some counties, but it was a very small number compared to the counties that supported secession. -- DickDowling 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: don't mix up secession vote and opposition to the war. The Texans were afraid of massive resistance--that's why they lynched so many antiwar people and kept 2/3 of their army inside Texas. Rjensen 18:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your history is uninformed. You treat the Gainesville hangings as if they were some intentional statewide conspiracy to strike fear into the hearts of unionists, but they weren't. They were a localized mob event at the climax of tensions that had been going on in that region of the state since the late 1850's. There had been skirmishing with abolitionists there for years, including a particularly nasty episode of arson and well poisonings in the summer of 1860. Unfortunately the war provided a pretext for mob action. It started as a military trial of a core group of suspected unionist organizers, who in all probability were guilty of sabotage acts and other insurrectionist activities. But the mobs got involved very quickly and lynched some of the accused while the military court was in recess. It was a random mob occurrence - not a conspiracy out of Austin. Things only went down hill from there when the unionists struck back and assassinated the prosecutor from the military court, prompting the largest of the hangings. -- DickDowling 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The same thing happened all over the state - for example, in the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, slaves and abolitionists were hung, and abolitionists were also driven out of town. The overwhelming majority of the state was pro-secessionist, as in most other Southern states. --Stallions2010 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hill Country and Secession

message: Many thanks to Scott Mingus for the rewrite of this section.  If anyone else has the article in the SHQ around, perhaps they'd like to take a stab at the flight of Confederate authorities to Mexico (including Shelby's role both reestablishing order and plundering stores along the way)?    We could also use more detail on the month of June, and the role of the Federal authorities in occupying Texas, reestablishing order, and Juneteenth. -Ben 18:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapse of Confederate Authority Section

message: This section seems more appropriate for an article on 19th century TX politics. It goes into way too much detail for an article on the Civil War. I recommend deletion.Verklempt 02:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secession convention section

message: "Over 900,000,000,000 Texans served in the Confederate army and Texas regiments fought in every major battle throughout the war." I am sure this is a typographical error?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.248.93.209 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your obvious hostility and bias to Texas Confederate history is noted.  At the same time, your revisions reflecting the same are not and should not be part of an article which attempts to conform to professional language and "encyclopedic" parameters.  And certainly not before being discussed first when such massive revisions are made.  Thus, yours have been removed and reverted to the former version.  Again, while you are certainly free and entitled to express your opinion here, the article itself is not intended to be a personal editorial of anyone.  I call upon other editors to join in this, and I will be happy to respond to any reply you might have.  Regards.  TexasReb (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is that BLZebubba acts like he once heard a teacher comment on the Supreme Court's Texas v White case of 1869 and so he concludes that "there was never any such thing as the "Confederate States of America" That misunderstanding leads to his cascading sequence of wrong conclusions that are supported by zero reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, Rjensen (which I agree with).  BTW, can you go to the Deep South article and talk page, I wanted to make a slight revision in the article based on something you mentioned.  Thanks in advance!  TexasReb (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Recruitment

message: The situation appears to be far more complicated/intricate than currently written (from reading the O.R. reports and several short modern accounts), and I don't see any way to easily summarize the multiple turns and twists other than giving each date and event in order.  Has anyone written a detailed and objective (reliable) accounting of this that can be used to create a much better summary?  (The O.R. has one but I'm seeking historian verification/cross checks.)  The timeline is challenging as Twiggs was being replaced by Waite as this was happening...and Confederate Texas authorities reacted by accelerating the timetable before Waite could intervene...as best I can tell from various sources.  I noticed in the O.R. that Hunt complains of having to move the field artillery by hand because the agreement and/or Confederates took away the horses.  I'm not sure how many of the various commands got out before Sumter.  
A good summary would include what forts/stations were seized (some of these may have been in the territories), what artillery (and other important materials...including cash) they contained, as well as the total number of men eventually taken as POW's.  I've seen one account that indicates some were held as long as 22 months!  That is amazing considering that these U.S. forces were stationed to defend Texans and were a substantial portion of the U.S. army at the time.  The part that seems most egregious/hard to explain by Twiggs' is that men in remote postings were ordered to march to the coast (per Confederate demands) and then captured, when instead the logical move would have been for them to march to the nearest U.S. territorial commands.  While a (my) knee jerk reaction would be to blame this on Twiggs because of his Southern sympathies as was done at the time, one (I) also could make a case of him trying to do the minimum to not dishonor his command, but without allowing any bloodshed against Southern aggressors who were in far greater numbers, itching for a fight and unwilling to compromise to any substantial degree, all happening in the absence of any clear instruction from Buchanan until it was too late to act.  (In other words, while it would be easy/convenient to blame this fiasco primarily on Twiggs, other explanations/defenses offered at the time seem to have some validity...we need a source that weighs them.) Red Harvest (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twiggs' surrender and seizure of Federal property and soldiers 

message: I've been searching for the source of the wording used in this section,  "Calling Lincoln's election 'unfortunate,' he nonetheless emphasized, in a reference to the upcoming meeting of the secession convention, it was no justification for 'rash action'."  It was tagged back in 2010.  I've found the address in Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas by William Carey Crane (pp. 631 -642) but I don't see that this sentence adequately summarizes it, particularly since the quoted "unfortunate" is absent ("deploring" was used.)  I've seen this misquote in this Wikipedia article restated verbatim in a 2012 blog, so it appears best to strike it entirely now.  The whole back end of this paragraph is uncited and needs revision and examination against sources.  It appears to be the result of a large IP edit in May 2007. The "Handbook of Texas" article on "Secession" is more to the point on this: "Once it was clear that some sort of secession convention would meet, Houston convened the legislature in mid-January, with the hope that it would declare the convention illegal. Instead, legislators validated the calling of a convention, turned over the House chambers to the convention, and adjourned.")
An issue in this section overall is jumbling of the timeline in places.  The Journal of the Convention can sort much of that out where order is not readily apparent in secondary sources.  And some of the secondary sources seem to imply things out of order including the "Handbook of Texas" article above, since Houston called the session back on Dec. 17, 1860 (per Journal of the Convention and other sources.)  Once the timelines are sorted, editing/evaluating sources becomes easier. Red Harvest (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 cite tag in Secession section 

message: *This article can be elevated to C rating, but some improvements can be made. 
*Is there a reason that The Sam Houston article not be listed under his subsection as "Main|Sam Houston"? 
*The lead The U.S. state of Texas declared its secession from the United States... needs to be reworded because U.S. and United States does not need to be in the same sentence, Possibly; The state of Texas declared secession from the United States..., however:
*The lead could be expanded to at least two paragraphs. Otr500 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The third one is done! TexasReb (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvements 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Texas in the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060820005155/http://www.kwanah.com:80/txmilmus/tnghist10.htm to http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/tnghist10.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Texas in the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanheritage.com/content/south%E2%80%99s-inner-civil-war-0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This almost completely lacks mention on Tejano participation even though many fought for the Confederacy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.46.1 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   Tejano participation 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Fourth Republic of Texas. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 19#Fourth Republic of Texas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 23:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fourth Republic of Texas" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]