Talk:Mexican Texas

message: Whether Tejas was truly part of Mexico is a matter of conjecture.  Mexico claimed Tejas as a territory in the early 19th century, but a protracted battle of claim prevented amalgamation.  Mexico itself recognized this continued independence by separating Tejas from Coahuila in its records until it could be conquered.  This never happened, and in less than two decades Mexico released its claims on the territory.
Tejas had been settled in the Houston area in the late-1400s, and Black Plague victims unearthed recently show their origins to be English.  Additionally, the Texas drawl has been attributed by modern linguists to be a direct descendant of Old English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limolnar (talk • contribs) 
:Tejas and Coahuila were separate provinces under Spain and were simply joined together because their populations were too small to support making each their own state.  I'd be interested in seeing a source for the information about black plague victims in the Houston area in the late 1400s.  I'm from the Houston area and have never heard that story before. Karanacs (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflictive Subject 

message: In the past, editors have bemoaned the lack of Mexican academic sources and viewpoints with regards to this subject.  I invite editors to add sources in order to evaluate and integrate them into the article for NPOV. 
*Zoraida Vásquez, J. (2010). Colonización de Texas y el mito del Álamo (Colonization of Texas and the Myth of the Alamo). Relatos e historias en México (Accounts and history of Mexico), 23(2), 16-21. (This is an article from a Mexican monthly magazine that deals with Mexican history. Zoraida Vásquez is a professor emeritus and researcher of the College of Mexico. She has been a visiting professor at Austin in Texas, Berkeley in California, and Florencia and Goether University in Frankfurt.)  
p.18 - Ignorance attributes the independence of Texas to centralism.  The loss of Texas was anticipated with the arrival of colonists from the neighboring country in the process of expansion, and the offer to buy Texas by U.S. minister Joel Poinsett in 1825.
- Disgracefully, the huge border, the distance, and the lack of resources, permitted the violation of Mexican laws by Anglo-American immigrants who were, in their majority, protestant and slave owners.
- The real sources of friction were slavery and the reopening of the ports-customs houses, once the period of tax exemption was over.
p.19 - When Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, colonists found a way to violate Mexican law by changing the contracts in which slaves were held in penury, allowing them a salary to pay for their freedom. But since they were paid very little, and they were charged for their food and clothing, it was impossible to ever pay off.
p.20 - Speculators and annexationists that had arrived in the end of the 1920s riled up the colonists and manipulated their fears about Mexican anti-slavery to incline them towards declaring their independence. To strengthen their movement and obtain the support of fellow Americans, they made a call to their compatriots to join them in their fight for liberty, offering them land.  Thus, throughout the United States, especially in border states, thousands of recruiting offices were formed that signed up volunteers and gathered weapons and supplies. President Andrew Jackson declared U.S. "neutrality" in a Mexican internal problem, but he did not follow this position to the letter, as various governors interfered and volunteers were not held back at the border, and allowed to enter the dispute. As a result, this dispute became an international war for Mexico.
p.21 - The campaign of General President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, despite the penury of the treasury and the poor organization of troops and supplies, was a success. Many of the "Texan" dead were American filibusters recently arrived, who were classified as a result of the decree of the Mexican Congress of 30 December 1835, as pirates, since they were foreigners resisting the government with arms.  This action convinced the Texans to declare their independence on 6 March 1836, a decision they had avoided taking in order to not lose the support of the Mexican Federalists.
- In the end, the Texan "fight for liberty" was just a ruse to further slavery, as stipulated in the Texas Constitution. This was not mentioned previously so as to not lose the support of northerners in the United States who were abolitionists. In this manner, the Texans' declaration of independence inspired by the U.S. was a simple slogan to gain support and achieve annexation.MiztuhX (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of that information is already in the article. One of her essays was translated into English and that is used as a source.  Plus, a lot of the English-language sources cover these events as well.  English-language sources (including those written by US, German, and Scottish scholars, as well as Zoraida Vasquez's work) mention slavery, taxation/customs, the fact that most Americans didn't like the Adams-Onis treaty and thought they were cheated out of Texas, and centralism as a combination of reasons as to why Texans were willing to take up arms.  Each of those themes should be reflected in this article.  I think the section on the Texas Revolution needs to be completely rewritten, but all of the pieces leading up to it should be in place (with the noted exceptions above of information about the native peoples and slave revolts not being present yet).  Do you see anything missing? Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican Sources 

message: My edits on 21 January 2016 were to correct a position that Zoraida Vásquez does not take in her essay. "The [Spanish colonization] law allowed colonists of any religion to settle in Texas" is not supported by Zoraida Vásquez. On p. 48, according to her, the law did not state that Texas settlers were required to be Catholic simply because the Spanish Constitution of 1812 had already established Roman Catholicism to be the one-and-only true religion of the kingdom, implicit in all the other laws, and binding on all subjects, including señor Austin's Anglo-American immigrants to Tejas. MiztuhX (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Colonization Law 

message: The article, as far as I was able to find, starts talking about "Travis" with no introduction or supply of full name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.209.187 (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travis 

message: Died 🙃  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.8.72.11 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamilton  

message: Line 114: "He realized that Santa Anna was a monarch and that the Texans had no rights or freedoms under his rule, chief among them - the freedom to practice chattel slavery."
Given the context already provided by the prior quotes and sources, does the source support this proposition? It may well be there is good source material for the specific call out, but absent that, saying something is "chief" among rights and freedoms or that he "realized" something surely requires a higher degree of verification. 
Xx Locke (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas Revolution Motivations