Talk:Coahuila y Tejas

Move the article!
Someone please move it to Tejas y Coahuila. -70.240.95.69 01:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could provide some actual historical references that contradict the four sources at the bottom of the article, sure. Thkckfjdhfjdshfjh

page does not cites its own sources, and "my texas history teacher" is not a WP:RS that can be used here. Kuru talk  02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Go here for sources: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Tejas+y+Coahuila%22&btnG=Google+Search And why isn't Mr. Maxwell a viable source? -70.240.95.69 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Map, please
One would be very useful.Historicist (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Name
Please stop changing the article name. In English sources, this Mexican state is referred to as Coahuila y Tejas not Coahuila y Texas. The transcription of the Constitution of 1824, located at, also uses the j instead of the x (to quote directly: 5.- Las partes de esta federacion son los Estados y territorios siguientes: el Estado de las Chiapas, el de Chihuahua, el de Coahuila y Tejas, el de Durango, el de Guanajuato, el de México, el de Michoacan, el Nuevo Leon, el de Oajaca, el de Puebla de los Angeles, el de Querétaro, el de San Luis Potosí, el de Sonora y Sinaloa, el Tabasco, el de las Tamaulipas, el de Veracruz, el de Xalisco, el de Yucatan y el de Zacatecas: el territorio de la Alta California, el de la Baja California, el de Colima y el de Santa Fé de Nuevo México. Una ley constitucional fijará el carácter de Tlaxcala.) I've read dozens of scholarly works on Mexican Texas, and I've seen none that use Coahuila y Texas; all use the spelling Coahuila y Tejas when discussing the state, and Texas when discussing the Mexican Texas part of the state. Karanacs (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm Mexican and teacher of history, in all the Mexican books of history, in the constitution of the state and in the old constitution of 1824, the name of the state was Coahuila y Texas... like Oaxaca and the state of Mexico, but it sounds like J. Mexican Texas is an american invention, in the history of Mexico doesn't exist anything like Mexican Texas, don't forget this article is about a former Mexican State, so, the "English Sorces" could be wrong. During the Mexican Empire the name was the Intendency of Texas and during the Federal Republic was the State of Coahuila y Texas, even the article in spanish is named Coahuila y Texas.... look the examples here.. 1, 2, 3 and english sources 4, 5, 6. If all these sources are not enough for you, I can't do anything else. Bye. Hpav7 (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The English sources may well differ from those in Spanish, however, on the English Wikipedia we are supposed to use the terminology that is most common in English. Please see Article titles (article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article).  See the sources listed in the references section; they use the Tejas spelling, and these are all academic works in English. Karanacs (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming
I really don't care whether it is "Coahuila y Tejas" or "Coahuila y Texas". However having the article title "Coahuila y Tejas" and the first sentence start "Coahuila y Texas" jars. Needs resolving somehow. -- SGBailey (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coahuila y Tejas. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724194521/http://www.congresocoahuila.gob.mx/index.cfm/mod.historia_legislativa/index.coah?OP=7 to http://www.congresocoahuila.gob.mx/index.cfm/mod.historia_legislativa/index.coah?OP=7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724194543/http://www.congresocoahuila.gob.mx/index.cfm/mod.historia_legislativa/index.coah?OP=6 to http://www.congresocoahuila.gob.mx/index.cfm/mod.historia_legislativa/index.coah?OP=6
 * Added tag to http://texashistory.unt.edu/permalink/meta-pth-2423

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Slavery and the Texas Revolution
So I think it's about time we all have a conversation about slavery in regards to the Texas revolution so that we can all get some things straight in these articles about Texas and the Centralist Mexican Civil War/Rebellions/whatever you want to call them. It seems in recent years that this idea that Texas' reasoning for fighting against Mexico was because of slavery (a la parallels to Texas joining the CSA because of slavery). This is not the broadly accepted narrative amongst historians--it is always possible to find fringe opinions among groups, especially historians, but that does not make them valid outside of discussions of controversy of opinions.

Texians had a very explicit Declaration of Independence during the rebellion that nowhere mentioned slavery, but very explicitly stated 13 other reasons for their war (https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/texas175/declaration.html beginning "It has sacrificed our welfare to the state of Coahuila..." and ending "...and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrranical government."). Texians--both Anglo and Hispanic; slave-owning and not--fought alongside one another against the Centralist Mexicans/Santa Anna's armies. Many other states with almost identical complaints had rebellions. And not only that, Mexico continued to allow an exception to Texas for slaves for a time and even after that allowed them through corruption and loose readings of laws to allow "indentured servants". To continue this narrative that "because Santa Anna said it was because of the slavery stuff, it therefore was" or "everything they did was about slavery because they had slaves" is not factual, historical, or logical.

None of this is to say that Texas did not have slaves, nor that the slavery was good, nor that this attitude was carried on, nor that those people were good people, nor that Texas joining the CSA wasn't about slavery (it absolutely was, they just straight-up admitted it in their 1861 DoI). It is about keeping the topic factual. This reactionary editing is absolutely ahistorical revisionism and abusing unaccepted "facts". I would be fine if there was a dedicated section or even article about this "debate"*, but including sentences willy-nilly throughout articles even tangent to the topic should be an absolute no-no. This rant goes for all articles related.

Please, let's have this discussion. This editing in recent years has been horribly destructive to any truth, and completely wipes out any true understanding of the events, people, and places that these series of articles are about.

* We do have an article titled "History of slavery in Texas" (History of slavery in Texas), but it only includes a small section about the Republic mostly focusing on post-revolution slavery; even the "Mexican Texas" section ends with ahistorical reasoning about the Anahuac Incident being about slavery instead of government corruption/abuse of power. I'd like to see something more along the lines of discussing specifically the reasons for the Texas Revolution and debate over what role slavery played. Bismuth96 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * So you want to take their declaration at face value. You claim it doesn't mention slavery. What it does mention is "property". What "property" was the Mexican government confiscating??? The answer to that question is SLAVES. The Mexican government was taking and releasing their SLAVES. Add to that the fact that most of the settlers were in fact NOT legally authorized colonists, but illegal immigrant scoff-laws. And Austin's own personal writing about what a terrible thing it was that Mexico was taking their SLAVES away from them. GalantFan (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If that is difficult for you to accept, you need to take a closer look at Texas's own new constitution, which is VERY explicit in naming and protecting the issue of slavery, and forbidding any attempt to ban it for the future. GalantFan (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They pretty clearly talk about arms as the property actually. Slaves were not the "property" they were discussing. It's really weird that you're acting like their declaration discussed slaves when that was not the fact. It really seems like you've not read it and also haven't studied history. I've seen your comments elsewhere on this topic, and all you've done is show that some of these people were trash people and liked slavery (I agree, and that's not the discussion here)...
 * And yes actually, most of them were legally authorized to move to the territory (it's weird you call them "colonists" when the nation of Mexico is literally a colonist territory turned independent)
 * It is not difficult to accept that actual political manifestos are correct and that slavery had nothing to do with the war for independence if you actually read the historical documents that discuss their reasons why. You are so obsessed with an ahistorical talking point that you look for evidence where it doesn't exist and it's absolutely insane that you would try to push this point on this page and elsewhere. Bismuth96 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes slaves most certainly ARE among the "property of our citizens" they were discussing. If you did any research into it at all, you would learn that the central government was capturing and releasing imported slaves, and Austin and many others thought this was a huge deal.
 * NO, most of them certainly were NOT authorized. At the time, the immigrant population was over 30 thousand, when less than a fifth of that number had authorization. In fact more than 50 of the signatories had immigrated AFTER the ban, including the Tennessee lawyer who wrote it (Childress) immigrated illegally just a few weeks before. GalantFan (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the legal immigrants were part of colonies. The colonies had specific legal requirements, land grants, population caps (mostly a few hundred each), rules and laws to follow. That is why we call immigrants who joined legal colonies colonists. The colonists were legal. Immigrants who were not authorized members of a colony were not legal, and had no rights to govern. Texas has sure turned 180 degrees from the days when American citizens demanded illegal immigrants who refuse to learn the language, obey the law, or pay taxes should have representation, and they demanded open borders. They declared Santa Anna an evil tyrant when he was just trying to get what Texans want today. Law and order, immigration bans, and freedom for all men, black ones included. Too bad he didn't build a wall, right? All along the Red and Sabine rivers. GalantFan (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, all the opinions from those people I've seen you quote have been from 1830 or earlier, not 1835~36. If the war for independence had happened in 1830, I might agree, but by 1835, those were not the things they were predominantly talking about...by then, slavery was not the most important thing to them, as seen in their declaration of independence. It's amazing you manage to miss this super simple fact to support your ahistorical take. Please redirect your ignorance of history to somewhere else, because this is getting ridiculous. Bismuth96 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You think slavery was an issue in 1830 but not 1836. Seriously????? Here is documentation from the Texas State Library official government website.
 * "The Mexican government was opposed to slavery, but even so, there were 5000 slaves in Texas by the time of the Texas Revolution in 1836. By the time of annexation a decade later, there were 30,000; by 1860, the census found 182,566 slaves -- over 30% of the total population of the state."


 * "The forced labor of the slaves made plantation farming very profitable for the slaveholders. By the time of the Civil War, slaveholders controlled most of the wealth in Texas and dominated politics at all levels. They were pushing slavery westward into Central Texas at the time that the war halted the growth of the slave system." https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/earlystate/slavery-01.html GalantFan (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You think the issue went away by 1836, when it got bigger and bigger.
 * https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/earlystate/slavery-01.html GalantFan (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Slavery was so important to them that Austin was outraged over it in his correspondences, and they wrote it into their new constitution in 1836, making emancipation illegal.
 * In 1828, Austin petitioned the legislature to guarantee that slaveowners, immigrating to Texas, could legally "free" their slaves before immigrating, and contract them into a lifetime term of indentured servitude, thereby avoiding recognizing them as slaves. He lobbied to help his colony elude president Vicente Guerrero's 1829 decree to legally emancipate slaves in the province, and to bypass the government's effort to prohibit slavery when it passed the Law of April 6, 1830.
 * In 1829, John Durst, a prominent landowner and politician, wrote about the president's emancipation of slaves, “We are ruined forever should this measure be adopted” . Stephen F. Austin replied,
 * "I am the owner of one slave only, an old decrepit woman, not worth much, but in this matter I should feel that my constitutional rights as a Mexican were just as much infringed, as they would be if I had a thousand."
 * "It incarcerated in a dungeon, for a long time, one of our citizens, for no other cause but a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government."
 * They claim there was "no other cause", as if fighting to get slavery and open borders incorporated into the permanent law wasn't cause enough. GalantFan (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All you're doing is showing that those historical figures supported slavery (that isn't in question). The question is whether the war was about slavery. You might as well be saying that the US War for Independence was also about slavery (it wasn't). You seriously need to stop unless you have a true source for your claim and not more fringe historians with bad takes (and the quotes you've been using in every talk page don't count either, babes, those are just you using bad logic). Bismuth96 (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, all the quotations I've seen you quote have been from 1832 at the absolute latest; nothing from 1835 or later...which is pretty good evidence that that wasn't the main cause of the war's outbreak (alongside dozens of other reasons why slavery wasn't the cause). All you've been doing is showing that they were ok with slavery, not that they fought the new Centralist Dictator of Mexico's Santa Anna because of slavery (something which was very much up in the air and not even completely banned in the country). Please get better arguments, and stop trying to rewrite history to fit your own ahistorical, revisionist, reactionary ideology. Pick up a dang book. Bismuth96 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

'''SEC. 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.'''


 * You and others want to preserve the notion that Texans were noble people fighting for federal government and representation. One of Austin's primary purposes in his job as their representative was in keeping SLAVERY in opposition to the "central" government's explicit ban on it, and on immigration. The only legal "colonists" were a four digit number permitted in very specific boundaries and agreeing to specific terms including paying taxes, speaking Spanish, and practicing Catholicism. As has also been documented, Mexico recently passed laws banning slavery, as well as banning immigration. It is a matter of record that the overwhelming majority of settlers were NOT legal colonists. That includes nearly all of the men who signed that holy "declaration". Mexico also wanted "closed borders". Those noble "Texians" were *illegal immigrants* who wanted *open borders*, *free stuff*, and of course SLAVES, all of which was in direct opposition to the laws of the central government.GalantFan (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote yourself "And not only that, Mexico continued to allow an exception to Texas for slaves for a time and even after that allowed them through corruption and loose readings of laws to allow "indentured servants"." You write that as if it somehow disproves that they were fighting for the slavery they explicitly protected in their new constitution. As if Texans were just willing to kill or be killed because "central government" was such a terrible thing. Take a closer look at what the central government was doing at the time. Seizing and freeing imported slaves, ousting illegal immigrants, and putting an end to the local exemption for slavery and corruption. You also mentioned the CSA. I hope there is no doubt in your mind that the CSA was very explicit in fighting for and preserving slavery. GalantFan (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please point to the portion of my post where I said that they did not support slavery...I explicitly say that many of them did and I agree that it is something they wanted in their new nation. But a Constitution is not a Declaration of Independence (i.e., the point of war for independence). You want to introduce a new, ahistorical and afactual understanding of history by saying that slavery was a reason why, while also ignoring dozens of other actual talking points that say otherwise. I think it would be understandable to have a new page discussing this "debate" (where evidence doesn't support your point, but you can freely spam your fringe opinion), but including this unaccepted theory in every page regarding the topic is not acceptable. You are spreading misinformation on a large scale and it's disgusting. Bismuth96 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You claim I am against the facts, you have it backwards:
 * "The Mexican government was opposed to slavery, but even so, there were 5000 slaves in Texas by the time of the Texas Revolution in 1836. By the time of annexation a decade later, there were 30,000; by 1860, the census found 182,566 slaves -- over 30% of the total population of the state."
 * "The forced labor of the slaves made plantation farming very profitable for the slaveholders. By the time of the Civil War, slaveholders controlled most of the wealth in Texas and dominated politics at all levels." https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/earlystate/slavery-01.html
 * Also, this article is not even about the declaration the illegal immigrants and slave owners wrote. It is about the Mexican state. GalantFan (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Richard Ellis, President of the Convention and Delegate from Red River
 * "Ellis was a lawyer and then a judge on the Alabama Supreme Court before moving to Texas. He originally came to Texas just to collect a debt in 1826 but met Stephen F. Austin. In 1834, he moved his family and more than twenty-five slaves to Texas and established a cotton plantation." Four years after slavery and immigration were both illegal under the law in Mexico. The document was written by illegal immigrants and law breakers.
 * Regarding your contention that slavery wasn't a primary issue: "great excitement prevailed throughout the several Colonies in that country , when he left there, in consequence of the recent passage of a law by the Mexican Government for the Emancipation Of All The Slaves In The Province Of Texas, and that orders had been received for carrying it into immediate effect. As many well be supposed, this information produced the greatest consternation among the slave-holders, all of whom had emigrated to that country under an assurance, as we are informed, from the local authorities of Texas, that they could hold their slaves; though we are under the impression that slavery is prohibited throughout the Republic by the Constitution of Mexico." And that right there is the most economically important reason they wanted federal, not central, government. Not a gun ban. The emancipation of slaves. GalantFan (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Benjamin Lundy published in 1836, at the close of the Texas Revolution, a pamphlet entitled: The War in Texas; a Review of Facts and Circumstances, showing that this Contest is the Result of a long Premeditated Crusade against the Government set on foot by Slaveholders, Land Speculators, etc., with the View of Re-establishing, Extending and Perpetuating the System of Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Republic of Mexico. Expanding this thesis, he declared: "It is susceptible of the clearest demonstration that the immediate cause and the leading object of this contest originated in a settled design among the slaveholders of this country (with land speculators and slave-traders) to wrest the large and valuable territory of Texas from the Mexican Republic in order to re-establish the System of Slavery, to open a vast and profitable Slave Market therein, and ultimately, to annex it to the United States." https://books.google.com/books?id=EkTClcUTTAkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * https://rio.tamiu.edu/rarebooks/1/ GalantFan (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)