Talk:Texas Revolution

Slavery as a cause of the Texas Revolution

Many academic sources identify the desire of Anglo Texans to preserve slavery in Texas after Mexico abolished it in 1829-30 as an important cause of secession. With Juneteenth being made a federal holiday such issues are perhaps particularly pertinent. Some examples of academic commentary on the importance of maintaining slavery to the Revolution:

"Ironically, a Revolution fought to secure slavery from Mexican interference provided far more opportunities for slave resistance than had ever existed under Mexican rule."

"In 1835-1836, the simmering tensions between Anglo settlers and the Mexican government boiled over. A number of issues, not the least of which was slavery, lay behind the rift."

"Texas slaveholders thus found the institution troublesome and unsettling, but, at the same time, it benefited them to the extent that they would attempt a revolution to keep it."

A recent book has a thoughtful discussion of the historiography of the Texas Revolution and takes this multi-causal explanation: Adopting a wider perspective, indeed, reveals how a complex tangle of cotton, slavery, and Mexican federalism—rather than any single factor—produced the fights that eventually led to the Texas Revolution.

From an entire article written on the subject: From the Anglo Texan perspective the constitutional changes of [1830] once again threatened liberty and interrupted economic progress, their version of which included a system of slave labor. Texans took up arms in 1835 against a regime that apparently intended to undermine their political ideals, their emerging prosperity, and their understanding of social and racial peace. Clearly the challenge to slavery contributed to the Texas decision to resist the new order in Mexico.

There are many more relevant but this is just what I've had time to research so far. With this in mind, I've added the following sentence to the header:

Mexico had officially abolished slavery in Texas in 1830, and the desire of Anglo settlers to maintain the institution of chattel slavery in Texas was also a major cause of secession.

Frankly, I think the role of slavery in the Revolution should have much greater prominence on this page, but obviously careful research is needed. Thoughts and comments welcome! Noteduck (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate you trying to make slavery an important issue of the Texas Revolution, it is just not true. The problems with Texians fighting the Mexican government had lasted for many years and had more to do with corruption and taxes than anything else. There were very few slaves in Texas at the time - most Texians were poor farmers. I am a member of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas and have done extensive history on the state. You cannot make the claim that slavery was an important issue just by citing a few quotes out of some book. You must look at the bigger picture and true history. Slavery in Texas was just not that big of an issue in 1836. At all. Tammywarren (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources that slavery was not a major issue? Because there's scientific research to back up the position that the Texas Revolution was about slavery - but what about your point? Where is your evidence? You need to cite scientific literature. Sreyes88 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Revisionist history at best. 209.169.75.90 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Title

So this un/quasigrammatical construction really is the most common way for people to talk about the Tex(an|ian) Rebellion/Revolution/War of Independence? Fair enough I guess, but any ideas on how that got started? No one calls it the America Civil War or the United States War of Independence. Was there some book or source that got this started? Confusion over whether to use Texian or Texan? or just poor local education into the Reconstruction Era? — LlywelynII 04:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Llywelyn, the big difference is that the United States were colonies of England, but were not given the same rights as citizens in the mother country. A lot of it was the economic policies imposed by England. They got fed up with policies from England and rebelled. The American Civil War was an internal disagreement, our slave holding states rebelling against the federal government's policies regarding slavery. Also, the term was originally "Texian", but eventally became known as "Texan". How and where it's used in the article might depend on sourcing, time period, or any number of factors. Both are correct. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"rights of its citizens had become increasingly curtailed, particularly regarding immigration"

Currently makes the unsourced claim that "rights of its citizens had become increasingly curtailed, particularly regarding immigration"

This makes no sense, as the immigrants were not citizens. Especially the ones who arrived after the immigration ban of 1830.

Besides the immigrants, who were not citizens at all, exactly what rights was the government of Mexico taking away? Prominently the "right" to deprive black people of their rights.

The vast majority of the people "revolting" were in fact "foreign invaders" who had no rights to be in the nation at all.

It's really ironic for Texans to be so upset with Santa Anna for trying to close his borders. Apparently, trying to close the borders and liberate the slaves are moves of a tyrannical dictator. GalantFan (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Please see General Colonization Law, Robertson's Colony and Mexican Colonization Laws. Those are just some links for starters. Mexico initiated the colonizations, in order to populate large parts of its domain. The revolution had a lot to do with slavery, which was illegal under Mexico's constitution, but Mexico's policies were otherwise created to encourage colonization. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Santa Anna became a dictator and the main reason the Texans rebelled against him was that he tore up the 1824 constitution. Mexico had invited Americans into Texas to populate it and defend it against Commanche raids, promising them certain rights. In exchange, the Americans pledged their loyalty to Mexico. This is why that Alamo Flag that they flew is basically just the Mexican flag with 1824 in the middle, in reference to the 1824 constitution that they were fighting over. Texas also wasnt the only area to rebel against Santa Anna as other states declared their independence too.Friedbyrd (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

Should we have add that Texas was supported by the United States? They provided lots of support to Texas and annexed them after 10 years. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If by this, you mean an addition to the infobox, use of "supported by" in the infobox is deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Disputed territory

To be precise, none of the Texas Republic was recognized by Mexico. The "disputed territory" should be understood to include all territory claimed by Texas, up to the U. S. border. The Nueces may have been the border of the Mexican state, but at this time it was not a de facto institution. The map shows only Mexican settlement in the Texan claim, without showing population densities or military forces, which would be useful to know how firm a grip Mexico had to this territory.. 104.219.46.242 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Change “Texian” tó Texan. It is the correct demonyn. 136.33.60.55 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh that’s me, was logged out randomly if you want tó leave a message on my talk page. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The correct demonym for that period was Texian. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I undertsand Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)