Talk:Texas Declaration of Independence

Order of names

Is there some hidden logic to the ordering of the signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence in this article? Why not alphabetical? Any opinions? — Bellhalla 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I could not figure out any reason to the current order, so I just threw it into the apparent signatory sequence. Alpha would be fine as well, if anyone wants to hit it. Kuru ^talk 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that when Texas was taken from Mexico, Mexico as a republic was only 14 years old?

Aside from the nonsense of "Texas was tken from Mexico", why was this comment made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcchat66 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexico abolition of slavery a prime motivation

This section is horse shit and needs to be removed!!!Who ever put this in here has no idea what they are talking about and only put it here to cause controversy and perpetuate stereotypical myths.

I added this information to the Article, and used Wikipedia’s own page on History of slavery in Texas as a citation Cosand (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I added back and expanded this factual and cited information. If you feel it was improperly sources say so, but, please stop deleting it. Cosand (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ONE footnote for that fat paragraph is not a "cited" anything. I'ma gonna sleep on it and probably delete it tomorrow. WoodyinNYC (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (Sorry i meant to sign before posting the first time. Got a little heated I guess. LOL.)

A Texas A&M faculty member disputes this and lists sources at http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/mckshorts.htm#slavery and http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/pubbarker.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzee2000 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I undid the revision that deleted this entire section, but would be happy with a less drastic solution. Could it be shortened and incorporated into a broader section about the causes of the Declaration and revolution? Moreover, there isn't any specific mention of slavery in the Declaration, though there are comments about property that might well refer to it. If so (and there actually are citations to that effect) that would be more appropriate. Bennetto (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the document in question, which is the subject of this article, does not mention slavery at all. The information would be more appropriate in the article on the Texas war of independence.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

One would have to ask how many Texans owned slaves? And which states did these folks immigated from to correct put this into context vrs rewriting of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.24.151 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-American slave owners

The piece makes multiple references to Anglo-American slave owners. Whether or not the issue pushed Texas towards revolution or not -- suggesting that it was an "Anglo-American" issue suggests the contributor who wrote it either has a shallow knowledge of Texas history, or does not grasp the meaning of the term "Anglo-American." In 1830 a significant number of settlers in Texas were Welsh-American, Irish-American, and Scottish-American and many of them would have owned slaves. None of those three groups is "Anglo-American."

Austin and the count

I've made a couple of changes to this article.

1. As near as I can tell, Stephen F. Austin wasn't a signatory to the declaration. His name doesn't show up on wikisource:Texas Declaration of Independence, and from what I can tell, he was in New Orleans at the time of the signing ("He arrived in New Orleans in January 1836 and returned again to Texas in June.").
2. I've looked at several different online sources of the constitution (here, here, and Wikisource) and it keeps coming back 60. The list on this page had 61, but as near as I can tell, Austin is the main discrepancy, hence my removal. Is there some historical reason why different numbers are cited everywhere? (I've seen everything from 54-59).

-- RobLa (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Texas Government Sec. 151

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 14 January 2025 and 7 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angeles361, JGMorales, Jwilly1101 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kbg17, DiscoDonna75, Srlyn1.

— Assignment last updated by Dr. Misty (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Texas Government Sec. 711

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 14 January 2025 and 7 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ethanmhoang (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CaitlynnC.

— Assignment last updated by WikiLos0nTheLow (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Texas Government Sec. 701

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 14 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Genko1231 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gabrielllacantu.

— Assignment last updated by Vic2025! (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Texas Government Sec. A00

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 26 August 2025 and 10 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MatthewsRice (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jl2226, ChloeGonzalezz.

— Assignment last updated by RolliePollie8 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Texas Government Sec. A01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 14 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlbertoIbanez2028 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Emmarister.

— Assignment last updated by Lauryn Garcia (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Texas Government Sec. 005

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 8 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hopenevaeh (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kaylanorval122505.

— Assignment last updated by Dr. Misty (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Texas Government Sec. 701

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 26 May 2026 and 3 July 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MaddySugar (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SofiaDeLuna, Szuuyl.

— Assignment last updated by Dr. Misty (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Edits by Cicerosdog

Claimed "Corrected non-neutral, factually inaccurate commentary regarding the Constitution of 1824. Removed contemporary, loaded political terminology and framing with neutral framing to represent both centralist and federalist viewpoints on why the declaration was issued. Added new sources and corrected grammar."

What you have done to the article amounts to claiming the "War of Northern Aggression" wasn't about slavery, but it was just about states' rights. Nevermind which states' rights to do what.

That is full of false statements. "Corrected", no it was already correct, you obfuscated.

"Non-neutral", no, the facts were presented. Facts are not "non-neutral. However, the Declaration itself was non-neutral and nonfactual. It was one-sidedly written by a lawyer from Tennessee, George C. Childress, who criminally immigrated in flagrant violation of Mexican law to write a document he had no legal rights to write within the nation of Mexico. George C. Childress, writing a document within the nation of Mexico, had no more legal authority to declare independence from Mexico than the illegal immigrants currently being detained by ICE and CBP have to declare independence from the USA.

You prevaricated when you said "Removed modern unsourced editorializing" because you deleted the sources that supported the language you disagree with.

You repeatedly attempt to mask the fact that at least 50 of the men who signed the declaration were illegal immigrants, not legal colonists.

You claim the 1835 constitution was viewed as illegal when that was an unsupported opinion, and the new 1835 Mexican constitution was legal and approved by the legislature. Santa Anna was not a dictator or a tyrant as the American immigrants to Texas described him. He had the support of the Mexican legislature to repel the invasion of foreign immigrants.

I did not use modern language as you falsely claim. The language the Mexicans of the time used to describe the immigrants included:

"miserables extranjeros" — wretched foreigners

"invasores" — invaders, particularly when referring to armed foreigners or an attempt to seize Mexican territory

"filibusteros" — filibusters, particularly armed Americans entering Texas to fight

Santa Anna distinguished the existing "colonos" from the Americans who came to Texas to fight. He wrote that the colonists—whom he identified as citizens of the United States—were being joined by large numbers of "filibusteros" from New Orleans, Mobile, and elsewhere. He also referred to armed foreigners entering Texas as “aventureros que se introducen en Texas armados”.

Memoria Política de México in Santa Anna's own words

You claim that the 1824 Constitution didn't allow slavery because it said nothing about it. You have that exactly backwards. It allowed slavery by saying nothing about it. Because everything is legal which isn't banned.

In other documents, the Texas immigrants explicitly complained about having their slaves confiscated and released. Stephen Austin, leader of the legal colonists, was an aggressive supporter of slavery and pursued everything he could to keep it legal in Texas. More than a quarter of the people living in his colonies were slaves, and most of the immigrants he was trying to recruit wanted to keep their slaves when they came to Texas.

You only need to look at the first Constitution of Texas to see how laughable the claim that their war wasn't about slavery is. Just as the Confederates did, the Texans encoded slavery into the very first laws they wrote. In fact making it a crime to give slaves freedom.

You can also look at many documents of the Mexican government to see that slavery was an important concern to them, and that they began the process of freeing slaves during the 1820s.

The 1824 Constitution was legally gotten rid of for the primary reason of stopping immigration from the United States and giving the central government more control over the land within Mexico's own borders. The central government had already abolished slavery, and was extremely concerned about the likelihood that armed Americans would take their land from them. The "rebellion" itself proved that the fears which the government of Mexico had about the settlers were entirely rational.

Mexicans wrote that foreigners entering Texas with arms or assisting the rebels “serán considerados como invasores y enemigos de la República” — “shall be considered invaders and enemies of the Republic.”

Those are the facts. "invaders" "foreigners" "enemies" is how the people you call rebels were actually regarded by the lawful authorities of THAT time.

Was slavery a prominent reason Mexico wanted to keep Americans out? Absolutely—and the Spanish-language sources make this considerably clearer than the conventional “centralism caused the Texas Revolution” narrative sometimes does.

There were really two connected problems from the Mexican government's perspective:

1. The demographic/political takeover of Texas by U.S. immigrants
2. The fact that a large portion of those immigrants came from the slaveholding American South and wanted to maintain slavery

Mexico had abolished slavery in stages, culminating in the 1829 emancipation decree under Vicente Guerrero. That directly conflicted with the economic system being established by many American colonists in Texas.

The Mexican government's Law of April 6, 1830 is particularly important. The Mexican government's own educational history site explains that the law was intended to address the situation in Texas and included both restrictions on further immigration from the United States and restrictions concerning slaves.

Austin's settlers brought enslaved people despite Mexican prohibitions, and when Guerrero's 1829 emancipation decree was issued, Austin protested. The subsequent colonization law was designed in part to address both the American immigration problem and slavery.

So when you falsely claim that I am using modern political terminology or being biased and non-neutral, you are just wrong. Claiming the rebellion was about "centralism" is the same level of nonsense as the claim that the Civil War was about "states' rights". In both cases, slavery was a root cause of why they fought against the central government. GalantFan (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Mexican government had enacted the Law of April 6, 1830, six years earlier.

The original Mexican legal text is particularly important. Article 11 stated:

“se prohíbe colonizar a los extranjeros limítrofes en aquellos estados y territorios de la federación que colindan con sus naciones.”

In other words, Mexico prohibited foreigners from neighboring countries from colonizing the Mexican states and territories bordering their own countries.

In November 1830, Mexican minister José María Tornel issued an announcement interpreting the new law and stated that contracts made contrary to it were:

“nulo e invalido”

and specifically warned that colonization in Coahuila and Texas was prohibited to citizens of the United States.

So Childress's arrival in December 1835 was not a legal immigration under the Mexican colonization regime. He was a U.S. citizen entering Texas after the federal prohibition on new U.S. colonization, and so were the vast majority of other signatories. GalantFan (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You are writing this with a clear bias toward the centralist cause and Santa Anna. You are making a concerted effort to apologize for Santa Anna's centralist coup and to only frame the Texas Revolution in the context of the broader American struggle to abolish slavery. Slavery was obviously a factor but to treat it a the only sole and most critical factor is a blatant attempt to ignore inconvenient historical realities. You have also made repeated stylistic and grammatical issues which are not fitting for an encyclopedia which I have addressed. I think it's worth breaking down how that is the case.

First, use of encyclopedic tone versus using historical quotes. Using quotes from Santa Anna or José María Tornel, specifically terms like "invasores" or "filibusteros" are legitimate primary-source viewpoints. They belong in the article when framed as the official perspective of the Mexican Government under Santa Anna. Otherwise it is no better than allowing Santa Anna himself to write this article, who I believe you may have a bias toward. Additionally, all Wikipedia articles must be written in an objective, third-person encyclopedic voice (WP:TONE). Terms like "illegal immigrants" or "occupiers" in the voice of the encyclopedia to describe 19th-century figures introduce modern political idioms and terms that evade neutral framing. Describing the legal mechanisms directly, such as noting that settlers arrived following the passage of the Law of April 6, 1830, which prohibited further U.S. immigration, conveys the exact same legal facts without violating neutral point of view standards. This is an encyclopedia not an opinion piece in a newspaper.

Second, when you frame Siete Leyes purely as a routine, universally accepted legislative action you are ignoring the broader academic consensus regarding the Mexican constitutional crisis of 1835–1836. You are also ignoring the consensus of the Mexicans who rebelled against centralist changes across the country. The abolition of the 1824 Constitution triggered armed federalist revolts across multiple Mexican states, including Zacatecas, Yucatán, and Coahuila y Tejas, to name a few. To present Santa Anna's centralization as an undisputed constitutional process misrepresents the broader civil war taking place throughout the Mexican Republic. A neutral article must account for both the centralist government’s sovereignty concerns and the federalist resistance to the suspension of state autonomy.

Third, slavery was definitley a major factor in Anglo-Texian settlement, economic motivations, and friction with the Mexican federal government. Stephen F. Austin’s efforts to protect the institution are well-documented historical facts. Equating the Texas Revolution exclusively to the American Civil War oversimplifies a complex conflict that involved significant Tejano leadership (e.g., Lorenzo de Zavala, José Antonio Navarro) who opposed centralism on republican, non-slavery grounds, as did many of the original settlers. Instead of omitting slavery or declaring it the sole cause,, the proper approach under WP:WEIGHT is to explicitly detail the Law of April 6, 1830, Guerrero’s 1829 Emancipation Decree, and the economic reliance on enslaved labor alongside the political and constitutional grievances.

Fourth, to address some of your claims directly.

1. You want to use the Texian historical documents against them. Yes slavery was included in them I don't deny it but if we're taking what they wrote at face value why do you deny the authenticity of their claims that they had sworn an oath to the Mexican Constitutions of 1824 and were rebelling due to it being overturned?
2. You claim there was support by the legislature for the 1835 Constitution and Santa Anna was not a dictator, that as stated above flys in the face of historical consensus. Santa Anna's functional centralist coup resulted in armed rebellion in the decade that followed across Mexico and multiple state secessions or secession attempts as a result.
3. Fighting against centralism was clearly a root cause, all you must do is analyze the documents written by the people involved in the concerned events to see it, along with others including slavery, led to the revolution.
4. Yes, you are using modern political terminology which is even clearer here when you use ICE or CBP as references to frame your response.
5. You claim Santa Anna considered the colonists who came prior to the April 6, 1830 law to be U.S. citizens. That's fine and his perspective is a valid primary source but has to be included alongside the fact that they were invited and encouraged to arrive due to a desire by the Spanish and then Mexican governments to develop their frontier economically and to establish a buffer against hostile Native American tribes.
6. You are insistent on calling Santa Anna the lawful authority when the Mexican's of that time don't agree with you. I'll refer you above to the multiple states that rebelled to reestablish a federal system or tried to secede.
7. It doesn't matter if the Declaration was non-neutral it is a political document. But the commentary discussing it and what led to it must be for an encyclopedia.

I think if you truly care about history the way forward involves crafting an article that is neutral in tone and historically accurate. Cicerosdog (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You betray your own bias by claiming "Santa Anna's centralist coup". He did not have a coup. He was legitimately elected and the 1835 constitution was legitimately passed by elected legislators. There were far more Mexicans who did not rebel against it than those who did.

You are claiming that the "rebels" had consensus and that the central authority was the outlier, when that is the opposite of the facts at that time.

You also show bias in the claim that they were settlers, when no more than 10/60 of them came from USA legally as colonists. And even those colonists were not obeying Mexican law.

You claim using the word "settlers" is neutral and "illegal immigrant" is not neutral. The laws of both Mexico and USA are not on your side. Most of them were not settlers. They were criminals. There is no reasonable standard by which Childress can be described as a settler. All the neutral facts show that the majority of the signatories were criminals.

MOST of them were people who immigrated illegally. They were NOT colonists or settlers under the law. Most of them were not even living within the bounds of a colony, on land given to the colonies. They were not paying taxes. They were not obeying Mexican law. Those are neutral, objective facts. That is not a modern interpretation. That is according to all the law of their own time.

There were over 30,000 immigrants and around 5000 slaves, when the lawful colonies were only permitted to have populations of a few hundred families each. The lawful colonies were not even at capacity. Most of them didn't even have half of the allowed number of legal colonists. The majority of the population then was people who immigrated illegally, and took land that was not approved for a colony, and did not obey the laws of the colonies.

The first and foremost concern of Mexico was the fear that their land was being stolen by armed Americans.

In much the same way, the land was Lincoln's and Mexico's primary concern, but slavery was a primary motive of the separatists. Slavery and land are the foremost reasons they wanted the 1824 constitution. Stephen Austin said so himself in his documentation of events. The importance of slavery to them was underscored by many of them saying they would go back to the USA if they were not allowed to keep their slaves. To those ones, keeping slaves was more important than keeping the land.

Only weeks after declaring independence, they encoded slavery into their new constitution.

The article was already neutral in tone, and you are claiming that it wasn't because you find the facts offensive and are clearly biased to the side of the slave-holding illegal immigrants and ten colonists who unlawfully declared independence with a document that had no legal authority from any government of the time it was signed.

GalantFan (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

To make progress on this draft, if you are actually operating in good-faith, we need to separate personal arguments about 19th-century morality from Wikipedia's core editorial policies (WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:TONE)..

Wikipedia is written from a neutral, academic point of view reflecting modern scholarly consenss, —not from the partisan perspective ofeitherr the 1836 Mexican centralist government or the Texian revolutionaries

First, regarding the 1835 structural legal changes to Mexican governance, modern academic historians (such as Timothy Bowman, Will Fowler, and Josefina Zoraida Vázquez) do not describe the 1835 transition to the Siete Leyes as a routine, universally accepted constitutional adjustment. President Santa Anna suspended the 1824 Constitution, dissolved Congress, and replaced elected state governors with military appointees. If this is not a coup de jure it is a de facto one. This centralist shift sparked widespread armed federalist revolts beyond Texas most notably in Zacatecas (which was brutally suppressed in May 1835), Coahuila, Yucatán, and Tamaulipas. Presenting Santa Anna's actions as a universally recognized legal process ignores the major Mexican civil conflicts of 1835–1836 documented in scholarly sources. The article should describe the Siete Leyes neutrally: "Centralist leaders in Mexico City framed the Seven Laws as a legitimate constitutional restructuring, while federalists across several Mexican states viewed the suspension of the 1824 Constitution as an illegal centralization of power."

Next, lets talk about terminology, "settlers" versus "illegal immigrants". Wikipedia articles must maintain a formal, impartial tone as I'm sure you are aware. Terms like "criminals" or "illegal immigrants" used in the voice of the encyclopedia to describe 19th-century historical populations violate WP:TONE by applying modern conversational idioms and non-neutral labeling. Stating that individuals "entered the region in violation of Mexico's Law of April 6, 1830" or "lacked legal standing under federal immigration statutes" communicates the exact legal reality accurately and factually while maintaining a neutral voice and tone. We can explicitly state that the Mexican government viewed these new arrivals as unlawful intruders (invasores) and a direct threat to national sovereignty while also recognizing that that wasn't the case for every revolutionary.

Finally, on the issue of slavery there is no dispute that slavery was a central factor in Anglo-American migration, economic interest, and friction with the Mexican federal government. Stephen F. Austin's defensive efforts regarding slavery and the Texas Constitution of 1836's explicit protection of the institution are clear historical facts. But we aren't talking about the Texas Constitution here. A balanced and honest section should clearly detail how Mexican emancipation decrees (such as the 1829 Guerrero Decree) and the Law of April 6, 1830, created deep economic and political friction over slavery alongside the constitutional conflict over centralism Cicerosdog (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I am NOT taking what they wrote at face value, because what they wrote is contradicted by the facts of the time. It seems like you are taking the written words at face value and you are objecting to me adding in the factual context information which contradicts them.

Your question "why do you deny the authenticity of their claims that they had sworn an oath to the Mexican Constitutions of 1824" is absurd in the light of the fact that they: crossed into Mexico illegally after a ban on immigration, did not join lawful colonies, and refused to pay taxes, refused to obey the laws required of colonists.

Unlike other Mexican states which merely wanted 1824 laws back, Texas was economically dependent on a growing population of slaves. The other states had either abolished slavery outright, or had enacted legislation that all the children of slaves were born free.

So how can you, with a straight face, accept their claim of swearing an oath, when they weren't even permitted to be in the country, and flaunted the laws and legal authority of the government in every way? How could they swear an oath to a government which wanted them gone and called them foreigners?

The federalists and centralists of Mexico were unified in their opposition to allowing Texas to become an American colony, and to allowing slavery to continue and spread. GalantFan (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok so this response is showing me that you really want to argue your own personal deduction of the facts instead of the facts themselves. Let's make three points clear that we can hopefully agree on:

1. WP:OR (Original Research) / WP:SYNTH: Editors cannot use their own logical deductions to override published secondary sources.
2. WP:PSTS (Primary vs. Secondary Sources): Wikipedia relies on modern academic historians to synthesize historical facts, not on individual editors analyzing 19th-century behavior.
3. WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View): Presenting historical claims as attributions ("Texian delegates claimed X, while Mexican authorities viewed Y") rather than adopting either side's argument as absolute truth. You think I am taking the Texian's side and you are clearly acting as a quasi-apologist for the Santa Anna administration.

We do not need, and shouldn't be, debating the personal logic or sincerity of the 1836 delegates. Wikipedia does not decide whether historical actors were "hypocrites" or "sincere" as our job is simply to summarize what reliable, published academic sources say about their actions and stated positions. Under WP:OR (Original Research) and WP:RS (Reliable Sources), we cannot construct our own logical arguments to refute historical claims in the voice of the encyclopedia. Instead, policy requires us to handle these points through proper attribution and reliable synthesis. If yo have some peer-reviewed academic work you have published and would like to reference be my guest.

When the text mentions that delegates invoked the Constitution of 1824, it is stating a documented historical fact about their declared position, not endorsing their personal integrity or compliance with Mexican law. We can, and should, state clearly that while Texian leaders publicly justified their resistance as a defense of the 1824 federalist constitution, Mexican officials and modern historians note that many of these individuals had entered the territory in violation of the Law of April 6, 1830, and refused to abide by Mexican legal restrictions (including anti-slavery laws). Deductive arguments such as "They entered illegally, therefore they could not have sworn an oath" constitute original synthesis unless explicitly cited from a published, peer-reviewed historian making that exact analytical point.

You are entirely correct that Texas differed significantly from other federalist revolts (like Zacatecas or Yucatán) due to its heavy economic dependency on chattel slavery and American immigration. This distinction belongs in the article. Academic sources (such as Randolph Campbell's An Empire for Slavery or Paul Lack's The Texas Revolutionary Experience) explicitly detail how the preservation of slavery was a primary driver unique to the Texas conflict compared to internal Mexican federalist uprisings. That said, treating it as the only driving factor of the revolt, as you appear keen to do, is a mistake and is intellectually dishonest. It also does not take away from the fact that there were numerous other pro-federalist revolts and that Texas's was not a one-off. Cicerosdog (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You are beating a number of strawmen.

I did NOT use any original research. The other authors and I have provided secondary and primary sources, and all of my statements are supported by them. In fact you have deleted sources that supported what I wrote, and then claimed that what I wrote was not supported.

The words "illegal immigrant" are factual but I suppose in the spirit of neutrality, you could call them "undocumented immigrants". I wonder how you describe people who cross the border in the other direction. Do you also call them settlers?

No, Santa Anna did not suspend the old constitution. The new congress wrote a new replacement constitution. Santa Anna also did not appoint most of the new governors. Barragán appointed most of the new governors, and he did so from a list of nominees chosen by local governments.

It was George Childress who wrote the words of the declaration. There is no evidence that he, arriving in Texas in December of 1835, while Siete Leyes were already in the final stages of enactment, actually took an oath to uphold the Constitution of 1824. Lawful colonists had to take an oath promising to abide by the federal and state constitutions, to worship according to the Christian religion, and to display sound moral principles and good conduct. After accepting these terms and settling in Texas, immigrants earned the standing of naturalized Mexicans. Mexican Texas Except for the few who were lawful colonists, receiving land from the Mexican government legally, there was no process for the others to take that oath that they claimed they made and Mexico violated. He claims he did, but it seems appropriate to point out the illegality and impossibility of that claim. GalantFan (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

First, I never said you used any original research. If you read what I said I said that if you had any peer-reviewed research you should use that in place of using your own personal deductions of the facts so as to maintain a neutral tone. Also you claim I'm beating a number of strawmen but which ones?

In the spirit of a productive discussion, we need to align our phrasing with established academic standards rather than personal interpretations of 19th-century legalities.The article's job when summarizing the Texas Declaration of Independence is to report what the document stated, clearly framed as the delegates' declared justifications. Demonstrating that the author (George Childress) or other signatories arrived after 1830 does not invalidate documenting what the text actually says; it simply requires proper attribution. It also doesn't change that there were members of the original colonists who came as part of the original grants who, along with Tejanos, were driving the political opposition to centralism prior to lets say 1835. No one is disputing that many settlers came in contravention to the 1830 law but that acting as if political friction only began when they poured in just isn't accurate.

Next, you insist on applying 21st-century terminology like "undocumented immigrants" or "illegal aliens" in the voice of the encyclopedia to describe 19th-century North American frontier populations which is anachronistic and violates WP:TONE. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend as if there is no distinction between how we in 2026 use the term "illegal alien", "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant" versus the term "settler" or "colonist". A person or family coming to Mexican Texas in the 1820's as a colonist under the empresario system, or for that matter if they were coming from what we today know as Mexico to Texas, New Mexico, or California, was coming to an area that had little meaningful civil infrastructure to support them. This is of course part of why they were wanted there anyways. They had to make communities and the infrastructure to support themselves. There is an obvious difference between a colonist or settler in 1826 and an immigrant in 2026. Continuing, academic historians (such as David J. Weber or Randolph Campbell) refer to these populations as "Anglo-American settlers" or "colonists." Using precise historical terms such as stating that individuals "entered in violation of the Law of April 6, 1830" conveys the legal reality accurately without introducing modern political idioms.

I'm not sure how many times this can be said but mainstream historiography (e.g., Will Fowler's Santa Anna of Mexico, Josefina Zoraida Vázquez) does not view Santa Anna as a passive bystander to a routine legislative procedure. In May 1834, Santa Anna executed the Plan de Cuernavaca, dissolved the federal congress by executive force, suspended state legislatures, ousted governors, and his brutal military enforcement in Zacatecas, were extra-constitutional maneuvers that directly dismantled the 1824 federal system and triggered civil wars across multiple Mexican states. Cicerosdog (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The meaning of the word colonist has not changed. In order to be called a colonist, they must have joined a colony. The colonies had rules and laws to follow. Of the 30,000 American immigrants in Texas at the time, at least 20,000 of them were not law-abiding colonists.

I am writing in the context of the lie that they had been invited and that Santa Anna was a brutal tyrant who broke his promise to all those lovely people fighting so righteously to defend the federalism they had sworn to uphold.

Illegal immigrant is exactly the appropriate description of the majority of them, not only in modern terms but also according to the laws of Mexico at that time. Describing them simply as settlers is an attempt at white-washing. Especially when that is applied to the "War Party" who were hauling in guns and ammo to shoot Mexicans, like many of the people in that room for the declaration had done. Not a friendly band of settlers, but outlaws, killers, invaders. GalantFan (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Your response makes your editorial stance clear: you state that you are writing to counter what you view as a "lie" and insist on using labels like "outlaws, killers, invaders" to describe the populations at question.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum to correct historical grievances or engage in moral crusades against 19th-century historical figures. The encyclopedia does not adopt partisan labels like "outlaws, killers, invaders" or "righteous heroes" in its encyclopedic voice. If you really feel strongly I'd encourage you to write a book or conduct some peer-reviewed research. Using the Talk page to wage a moral campaign against historical actors or other editors violates Wikipedia policy. Content here should and must reflect neutral, published academic consensus, not an editor’s personal desire to counter a perceived narrative. Your choice of words is in clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I will say this for about the fourth time, mainstream academic historians (such as David J. Weber, Randolph Campbell, Will Fowler, and Josefina Zoraida Vázquez) do not use modern polemical labels like "illegal immigrants" or "outlaws" in encyclopedic narrative. They describe these populations as using historically accurate terms and detail their statutory status factually by stating that they "entered in violation of the Law of April 6, 1830" or something to that effect.

Several more things that aren't controversial:

1.The Mexican government explicitly invited foreign settlement through the General Colonization Law of 1824 and state laws like the 1825 Coahuila y Tejas Colonization Law. Mexico intentionally recruited foreign colonists (empresarios like Stephen F. Austin, Green DeWitt, and Martin De León) to create a economic and military buffer against Indigenous powers like the Comanches. Claiming they were never invited is factually incorrect. While many people arrived after the 1830 ban and during the events of 1835-1836, to participate in the revolution, there is a need to establish nuance between them and the settlers invited by the Mexican government.

2. Santa Anna was a dictator, and would be so again later in his life, as I'm sure you know. By May 1834, Santa Anna had executed the Plan de Cuernavaca, overthrown the federal government, suspended state legislatures, and replaced elected officials. In October 1835, he officially dissolved the 1824 Constitution and established the centralized Siete Leyes. He ruled by decree as a military dictator, this is not a modern judgment, but the consensus of Mexican and international historiography.

3. Santa Anna was a human and complicated but left a distinct trail of brutality in his wake that horrified his own centralist officers. Santa Anna crushed the Mexican federalist uprising in Zacatecas and permitted his troops to sack the city, murder civilians, and pillage for two days as a warning to other rebellious Mexican states. After the Battle of Coleto, over 300 Texian prisoners of war under James Fannin surrendered to General Urrea under assurances they would be treated as prisoners of war. Santa Anna explicitly overruled Urrea, cited his controversial "Tornel Decree" (which declared all foreign rebels pirates to be executed without trial), and ordered the cold-blooded execution of the disarmed garrison. This was against the wishes of his commander in the field, General Urrea. During the Siege of the Alamo, Santa Anna ordered no quarter to be given during the assault, and following the battle, had the small handful of surviving defenders (including Davy Crockett, according to several historical accounts) executed on the spot, despite objections from officers like General Manuel Fernández Castrillón. General Castrillón actually participated in the assault and had a front row seat to the gore and destruction, along with Colonel Jose Enrique de la Pena. De la Pena reports in his diary that many of the Mexican officers who stormed the Alamo found Santa Anna's order to execute prisoners of war in cold blood abhorrent and refused to execute it.

4. Again, there is a clear distinction between immigrants, colonists, and settlers. To pretend an 21st century immigrant and an early 19th century colonist are comparable is intellectually dishonest.

5. To say that because not everyone fighting for the Texas cause was an original settler automatically means that there wasn't a desire to defend the federalist system or that it proves Santa Anna wasn't a centralist dictator is just dishonest and inaccurate. The many other federalist rebellions across Mexico, before and after Texas's, prove otherwise. Cicerosdog (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)