Talk:History of Texas (1865–1899)

Did they join?
I have a question that is not addressed specifically in this article. The article says "On March 30, 1870, the United States Congress readmitted Texas into the Union, although Texas did not meet all the formal requirements for readmission." My question, "Did Texas ever formally sign the oath that bound them back into the Union and subsequently into the United Stated Of America?" I ask because I have seen it posted in some "Republic Of Texas" websites that they did not, and so Texas is technically still an independent Republic.172.11.110.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I’m having a hard time why this was admitted. US Supreme Court ruled that none of the Confederate states separated from the Union legally because there was no legal mechanism to do that in the Constitution. So who is admitting this information on this page?
 * Current Supreme Court precedent, in Texas v. White, holds that the states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state. More recently, in 2006, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." - Texas secession movements 2600:1700:1E40:AD90:F59E:7176:1B6D:20BA (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

End of Reconstruction
This article lists the era of Reconstruction as 1865-1899, but there's nothing in the article to explain why 1899 is the end date. In fact, other than the Hogg governorship there's no mention of events after 1890 - and these mostly relate to land disputes. There's nothing in the section on Hogg's governorship to explain what his connection is to Reconstruction; he's a Democrat. It's also not at all clear what the Rockefeller incident has to do with Reconstruction. Ileanadu (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In fact, all the governors after Edmund J. Davis (1874) were Democrats, and Texas had been readmitted into the Union in 1870. What's the basis for continuing to count the period after Davis as part of Reconstruction? Ileanadu (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Texas (1865–99). 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/20150201001624/http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1876/a7 to http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1876/a7

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) 23:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The sentence containing the word "ex-Conre"
The "Reconstruction" section (at least, in the "Latest revision as of 14:11, 29 July 2020" version of this article ... which is now the "Latest revision" as I type this) contains -- as the second sentence of the third paragraph -- the sentence "He granted amnesty to ex-Conre, appointing some to office." and I have been struggling with trying to find the word "ex-Conre" somewhere [else] on the internet.

My purpose (initially) is not to question whether this article should offer the reader more "explanation" about the meaning of that word. I just want to know what it means.
 * (...and then [later], "some" of you might have some opinions about possible future changes to that sentence; but for now, let's just "Talk:" about the meaning -- and maybe the spelling -- of that word.)

I did "try" to "look it up"
I consulted not only "Onelook dot com" (see https://www.onelook.com/?w=ex-Conre&ls=a e.g.) but also more than one [other] search engine.

The results at "Onelook dot com" were incomplete and included links (see for yourself) to https://www.onelook.com/?w=ex-c* and https://www.onelook.com/?w=*onre which were ... "disappointing".

As for search engines, the "search results pages" and both contained -- ONLY! -- links that either or or both.
 * https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ex-Conre+-core&ia=web
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22ex-Conre%22+confederate
 * were unhelpful
 * pointed to this Wikipedia article ("History of Texas (1865–99)")

Any comments?
There must be someone who (when that sentence was written or modified) 'knew' the meaning of that word, and thought that it would be intelligible to a reader.

Could there be some "TYPO" or "spelling" issue here?

If you know anything about that word, then please feel free to provide your comments.

Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike Schwartz. This was simple vandalism, that I have now fixed (thank you kindly for bringing this to our attention). Unfortunately, this was done way back on 21:49, April 18, 2018, and persisted since then. You can see the edit that did this here. I was easily able to find this by using the "Wikiblame tool". This can be accessed by going to the page history, and then clicking on the link on the top, left-hand side of the page for "Find addition/removal", and then entering some portion of text, to locate when and by what editor it was added. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)