Talk:Texas annexation

message: It looks like this article has been vandalized repeatedly. Some current excerpts:
"In 1837, the Republic of Texas, having just lost its virginity to Mexico..."
"Despite the fact that Mexican dictator Antonio López de Santa Anna and hitler warned that annexation would be..."
The last several edits also reveal vandalism. I'd like to suggest that this article be locked and the vandal, who appears to come from the same two IP addresses every time, be banned from editing any articles on the site.
Swicsam 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article vandalism 

message: Removed a reference to the Hanseatic League recognizing the Republic of Texas.  Some people's children should not have access to a keyboard.
--Bdunbar (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more article vandalism 

message: This article reads as if Santa Anna was the leader of Mexico throughout this entire time period, notable is this sentence
This territorial conflict did not matter to the Mexican government since Santa Anna wanted the whole of Texas back as part of Mexico.
However, he only regained power after the Mexican-American War started (thus his feelings about the matter were irrelevant to the war's start).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa Anna 

message: http://www.cs.unm.edu/~sergiy/amhistory/ch14.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/texas-revolution.htm
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EcT3dJJ38sYC&pg=PA119-IA14&lpg=PA119-IA14&dq=england+recognised+texas&source=web&ots=1WGVXgAol2&sig=wvImsSushQJL7q5pqbhAWeNJEzE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA119-IA14,M1
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OCSL1OEwV6AC&pg=PA434&lpg=PA434&dq=england+recognised+texas&source=web&ots=lb7h75yX59&sig=uXQAncwPOro1v5ZBT4djqA19NJc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result
http://www.texasalmanac.com/history/timeline/revolution/
http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1830_timeline/annexation_of_texas.html
The article header mentions no dates, and while England did not initially recognise Texas, it most certainly did recognise the Republic of Texas as an independent country well before annexation by the USA (and even managed to persade Mexico to do likewise so that Texas would not have to agree to annexation). The page quoted by Richard75, below, does say that England did not recognise Texas, but in context it is clear that it is saying that England did not recognise Texas in October 1837, 
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/DD/mgd1.html
The same source goes on to state "both England and France entered into trade agreements with the republic and ultimately recognized Texas independence", so while England did not recognise Texas in October 1837, it did later recognise her.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/fhe14.html
Now, can you please stop reverting changes that are factual, and leave England in place.
James Tusk George (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad - thank you for the corrections. Kuru talk 02:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: England did recognise Texas's independence, and also managed to persuade Mexico to

message: Greets all.  I tried to update the controversy section of the page to give a little more detail (without having to create a whole page on it, as one is already there) but at the same time referencing enough detail to show how things were 'accepted' even though it was awkward (as a legal process) - IE: Not standard.
Most of this information was taken from the State of Texas Archives web site http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html and 'trimmed down' to a one paragraph type of statement.  Hopefully it will get the job done (?)...
NOTE to James Tusk George -- I changed the date on one ref that was off by a year, (from 1837 to 1836) all sites I can find show 'that' date.
Because of the urban ledgend that "Texas can Secede from the union" as a provision for it is in the annexation agreements (and not true) I plan on adding that section with ref's as well (so note its addition).  Charon9 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Update

message: I've been mulling over this article and have made some superficial changes, but I think it needs to be reorganized.  I think some information from the sections "Origins," "Consent and ratification," and "Original controversy" could be incorporated into a new section entitled "Annexation." This would provide a broad, chronological overview of annexation. I also propose a following section called "Terms of Annexation" with subsections taking information from "Borders and new states" and "Right to secede." I think there also needs to be a bit more about the sectional controversy that arose over annexation. This could either be incorporated into the broad overview of annexation or simply mentioned there and expanded in a new section on the controversy. Also, there really isn't much documentation in the existing section "Origins" -- this is something I intend to remedy. Pzleton (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Edit Proposed

message: The opening of the article reaffirms the often-stated fact that the Rep. of Texas included "parts of present-day Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming."  While it's true that the Texan government claimed all that territory, the area that was actually under Texas' effective control was much smaller.  The map at the top of the page is actually a pretty good one for showing this -- the area under de facto Texan control is in yellow, while the area claimed (but controlled in practice by Mexico) is in green.
This isn't just academic, but pertains to the article. The Texas Santa Fe Expedition was an attempt to make Texas's claims effective; its failure helped make the argument for annexation to the U.S.  The disposition of this land after it had all been wrested from Mexico in the Mexican-American war wasn't settled until the Compromise of 1850, when only a portion of it was assigned to Texas.
Anway, I'm wondering if anyone would object to me adding at least some of this material in the opening paragraph. --Jfruh (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. No objections here. This would need to be supported with a reliable source. Pzleton (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that the Republic of Texas had no right to claim the aforesaid lands because it did not have "effective control" over those parts of its territory is somewhat specious for the simple reason that, with the exception of the Rio Grande Valley up to northern New Mexico, the Mexican government did not have "effective control" over them either. The Mexican government did not have troops in western Texas, eastern New Mexico, the Oklahoma panhandle, or those parts of present-day Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. The claim made by Texas on these lands, however remote and uninhabited they were at that time, was not based on Texas' description of its own boundaries, but it was based on Mexico's description of the State of Texas and its northern and eastern boundaries with the United States. These had been settled by Treaty before the Texas Revolution. The Republic of Texas simply claimed all the land that had been a part of the Mexican state of Texas prior to the Texas Revolution. Since Texas won that War, it claimed what it had won. There was disagreement as to whether its southwestern border was the Rio Grande or the Nueces, but that was partly based on the fact that some early maps confuse the two. In any case, all these disputes were settled in Texas' favor by the Mexican War and/or by the Compromise of 1850. Whether you believe that Texas owned these lands or not, the historic fact is that Texas got paid for them in cold, hard U.S. dollars, and, to my knowledge, no one has ever disputed the sale of the land or asked for repayment. PGNormand (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: File:Mexico_states_evolution.gif shows West Texas as parts of New Mexico and Chihuahua from Mexican independence up to Texas independence. --JWB (talk)
Also interesting, from page 263 of Fehrenbach's "Lone Star": "The Texas Congress had claimed not only the Rio Grande but passed a resolution claiming the Californias as Texas soil. This was not so ridiculous as it sounded, since the western boundaries of Texas were as yet undefined by international or any other kind of law. The Republic, on fighting free of Mexico, was in a position to claim anything outside of U.S. territory in the West it could take or hold. Houston vetoed the Californias bill, but it was passed over his veto." --JWB (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "parts of present-day Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming" -- kind of, but not exactly 

message: I was a little perplexed by the part of the article titled "Background" that states that the Texas Revolution was caused by the fact that anglo-American settlers had become "disillusioned" with Mexican rule, as if they had a fickle change of heart. The only concrete reason offered for their disillusionment is that slave-holders were upset about the Mexican government's talk of emancipation. All the other reasons, such as Santa Anna's taking control of the government and setting himself up as a dictator, the abandonment of the constitutional government under the Constitution of 1824, and the subsequent attempts by Mexican troops to confiscate weapons held by the local militias, all are waved away with the two words "other reasons." Do the authors of this article expect us to believe that the many hispanic Tejano patriots fought on the Texas side because they wanted to defend the practice of slavery??? I've written this before on other Talk pages: "This is what is wrong with Wikipedia."PGNormand (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for the Texas Revolution

message: I removed the merge request as it was a mistake to include it. This is a valid article as long as the movement doesn't take up too much space. Otr500 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed merge request 

message: We don't say that over here... Jersey John (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We did in the 19th century, actually. --Jfruh (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm sure we didn't unless you can prove to me otherwise. Jersey John (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Minister" 

message: I think that it should have some stuff about the U.S. because I don't know what happen to the U.S. during the 1800s  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.218.64 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the united states 

message: A major edit, for the purpose of representing mainstream sources that specifically address the topic. The role of the United States, and President John Tyler in particular, are emphasized by all the histories I've looked at. 36hourblock (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Rewrite  

message: Some people think that the article should mention the Mexican-American War in its introduction. In fact, it used to, back in 2013, but it doesn't anymore. I have no knowledge about this topic, but I think that it might be interesting to mention this war, so anyone who feels inclined is welcomed to do so. Mateussf (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the Mexican-American War be mentioned 

message: * Gentlemen, who is Dangerfield, 1952 in the Notes? --Muhranoff (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "The Era of Good Feelings" by George Dangerfield. I spot checked a few of the quotes and they line up exactly. I added it to the ref list. Kuru (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great. You can add also Smith, Justin H. The Annexation of Texas. — Lancaster, PA.: New Era Printing Company, 1919. — 520 p. Its absence is inexplicable. --Muhranoff (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerfield? 

message: On the wikipedia page for annexation, it states that annexation is forcible, yet in this case the decision was wanted by the "annexed" state. It seems that one of two articles must be wrong. Finnigami (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on your point of view. From a Mexican perspective, Americans came in, forcibly removed Texas from Mexico and attached it to the United States, even if it took a decade. In any case, numerous reliable sources call it annexation. Station1 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes this annexation?