Talk:Legal status of Texas

Style

This article was put together using the same general presentation style as found in the Legal status of Hawaii article. I think that approach works here but please offer suggestions if an alternative approach would be better. LarryQ 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I revised the intro and hope you find it helpful. I suggest you move or add the 2 key books about the movement to a section on sources or bibliography or references. I also think some of the statements/claims would benefit from a source citation or quote. Good luck. HG | Talk 03:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC) PS I'm assuming that this article was made due to the topic's independent notability. As you may know, it isn't appropriate (and likely wouldn't be effective) to prepare an article merely to WP:POINT make a point regarding another article, e.g. Hawaii.

Thanks, this is helpful. I will work on your suggestions.

"As you may know, it isn't appropriate (and likely wouldn't be effective) to prepare an article merely to WP:POINT make a point regarding another article, e.g. Hawaii." I agree, that would not work. And the article I am going to write about the Legal status of Alaska is because it is a notable topic too. All three states have minority movements arguing the legal status of the states. A look on the Web will ID them for you pretty quickly. I think I am pretty balanced in coverage when writing on these groups I just want the articles to follow the UNDUE rule. These are notable disputes but the de jure status of the states as American is pretty strong. LarryQ 12:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Problems

Most of the information in this article is unsourced, it clearly has an agenda, and it makes extremely specious claims without any evidence to back them up. On top of that, the style of the opening section is not in the slightest bit encyclopedic and instead reads more like the home page of a website, or a sloppily written essay. If this article can't be revised to NPOV on this issue, if it can't be properly sourced, and it can't be written in a style appropriate for Wikipedia, it ought to be deleted.Antodav2007 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is part of a series which includes the legal status of Hawaii and the legal status of Alaska. In particular, please read the extensive discussion page regarding the legal status of Hawaii. That article has been repeatedly challenged. I think you may some of your concerns voiced and addressed there. I believe this article is NPOV as it shows both sides of this topic while also showing that the view that Texas is legally American is the majority one. LarryQ (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion for several weeks, I am going to remove these tags. LarryQ (talk)

The entire History section is rife with POV. "Citizens of the state voted overwhelmingly not to be part of the United States," "The United States invaded Texas and forced it to be a part of the United States," -- in addition to being crappy writing, this is staunch POV. 68.46.43.198 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

POV? "Citizens of the state voted overwhelmingly not to be part of the United States." They did. That is why Texas seceded and became a Confederate state. Pure fact. "The United States invaded Texas and forced it to be a part of the United States." Which is also true. There were Civil War battles fought in Texas and the Union military victory assured that Texas remained in the Union against the will of Texas voters. How is the POV? This tag should be removed. Texas in the 1860s is very different than it is today. Texas may be legally part of the USA but there is a legal argument for why some believe this is not true. Do not unbalance this article by denying this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.55.241 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The way it's written is blatantly sympathetic toward the advocates of Texas independence. Who are, let's face it, kooks. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd say that the language used is demonstrative of POV rather than NPOV writing, but I think it is noteworthy that governor Sam Houston refused to call a secession convention, prompting the Texas legislature to call an extralegal secession convention. Has anyone thought about incorporating this?Pzleton (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the language should reflect reliable sources, which usually aren't emphatic. For example, the first sentence quoted above probably is ok; the second one POV. Also, the article is supposed to reflect reality and reliable sources, if both point to Texans, past and present, being sympathetic to secession it's not for us to share our WP:Soapbox on their viewpoints. Extralegal secession convention obviously relevant. Put it in with WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Enigmatic language

Regarding this verbiage:

The McLarens and four other Republic of Texas members were sent to prison (though charged with several felonies, all have been dropped).

What exactly does this mean? Does this mean that all the felony charges were dropped, but the people remain in prison? Once you are convicted, there is no legal procedure for "dropping" the charges. There would have to be some sort of action by a court to reverse or vacate the judgment of conviction, and then maybe a decision by the prosecutor not to re-charge, or a decision to drop the charges, etc.

Or, have the individuals been released from prison?

Either way, it appears that either the information is wrong or some crucial bit of information is missing. Famspear (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, since no one has come up with anything, I have deleted the language from the article. Famspear (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what they were referring to:

Richard Lance McLaren was indicted for engaging in organized criminal activity by conspiring to commit the aggravated kidnaping of Joe and Margaret Ann Rowe. The State alleged that McLaren performed the overt act of abducting the Rowes in pursuance of the conspiracy. McLaren was convicted by a jury and sentenced by the trial court to ninety-nine years' confinement. On appeal, we held that there was no evidence that McLaren performed the overt act of abducting the Rowes. See McLaren v. State, 2 S.W.3d 595, 598-99 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1999), rev'd sub nom. Otto v. State, 95 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We therefore reversed the conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal. Id. at 600.

The Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently reversed our judgment, holding that the State was not required to prove that McLaren abducted the Rowes. See Otto v. State, 95 S.W.3d 282, 284-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The court remanded the cause for us to consider the remaining issues raised by McLaren in his appeal to this Court. Id. at 285. Finding no reversible error regarding those issues, we affirm. [1]

Trentc (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Parallel overview

This entire section appears to be a violation of WP:Synthesis. The editor created a chart that alleges that there was a continuous division between “annexationists” and “nationalists”. Aside from the fact that the claims are not sourced, the actual history of Texas does not support the claim.

Starting with 1845, the chart states that there was a nationalist view within Texas that opposed joining the US. In fact, Texans were overwhelmingly in favor of annexation and were the ones that initiated the actions. The Texas Revolution was based on the expectation of eventually joining the US. When Sam Houston was elected as the first president of Texas there was also a referendum on the ballot on whether Texas would accept US annexation -- only 94 voters (out of over 5600) opposed this.

The major opposition to annexation came not from Texas but from Northerners opposed to the Mexican War and the addition of more slave states. This major omission from the chart makes it misleading and accurate.

The next comparison is in 1861. It claims that annexationists opposed secession when, in fact, the northern opponents of secession were in most cases the same forces that had opposed annexation. The supporters of secession (Texans and Southerners) were not supporters of Texas nationalism but were supportive of Texas becoming part of a new nation, the Confederate States of America. Texas nationalism n 1861 WAS NOT an issue. In 1845 these same people were annexationists, not Texas nationalists.

The final two comparisons relate to the outcome of the war and Reconstruction. Once again, the forces that subdued the Texas rebellion were not the same as those who supported Texas annexation. Those opposed to Reconstruction were not advocates of an additional effort to secede -- from Reconstruction up to the Civil Rights era the predominant political sentiment was states’ rights and white supremacy rather than Texas nationalism.

I have tagged this section for both synthesis and original research. The complex issues involved simply do not allow for the simplistic table that has been created. Absent bjections, it apears that the best solution is the elimination of the entire section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Biggest problem is the lack of reliable sources. Pzleton (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than delete, it would be better to add citations and rework problematic areas. This same chart style is used in the Legal status of Hawaii article. Please note that that article has been repeatedly challenged as well. As these are closely related articles, it would be nice to keep them as similar as possible by keeping this section in both articles or by deleting it in both articles. LarryQ (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You pre-suppose that there are actual reliable sources that support the claims of the table. I don't believe such sources exist because I am unaware of any evidence that Texas Nationalism in the 18th Century was a significant force that resisted annexation or supported secession. Either someone comes up with proper sources or the material should be removed from Wikipedia -- this is basic Wikipedia 101.

The issues involved in secession, and reconstruction are not connected to the artificial Annexationist vs. Nationalist dichotomy presented in the table. Annexation involved much more than a legal debate on treaty versus congressional resolution. This latter point is better discussed in the Texas Annexation article where it can be put in its proper perspective.

It is also strangely inconsistent for the article to note the Texas vote in favor of secession as an indicator of popular will while failing to acknowledge (see [2]) the massive support in Texas for annexation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I see where we are misunderstanding each other. The article is about the legal staus of Texas today. The nationalistic view is an interpretation of modern status of past events and how this impacts the legality of the American state of Texas now. The word annexionist is probably not the best one either. And yes, just like the Hawaiian debate, "Annexation involved much more than a legal debate on treaty versus congressional resolution." But, when you are dealing with a Legal Status of... article, it comes down to the legal debate today, not what was being debated in the 1840s or the 1890s. The article needs to be reworked to make this clearer. Citations for issues such as whether a Joint Resolution of Congress is legal and the votes on secession exist and can be added. I thought they were already in the article.

I will also admit perhaps that both the Legal Status of Texas and Legal Status of Hawaii article should be deleted or merged into other articles. Both express what may be a fringe legal argument and may violate WP:UNDUE. Maybe that should be the focus of this debate? LarryQ (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I read WP:UNDUE, it speaks to comparative weight of viewpoints within a particular article. WP:NOTE speaks to whether or not a particular topic deserves an article. The question of whether the articles should be merged into other article should be examined in light of WP:NOTE. If the merge happens, the question of whether the merged material should be expunged should be examined in light of WP:UNDUE. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is difficult to justify this topic as a stand alone article. It is not at all clear that the intent of the article is to express the views of a present day group on historical events. Since the group that espouses these vews has its own articles at Republic of Texas (group) and Texas Secession Movement, and since the historical views of the events are better covered at Annexation of Texas and Texas in the American Civil War, this article seems to be totally superfluous. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any strong views except to say that any useful info should be integrated into relevant articles, preferably sooner than later before article may be lost to deletion; some of it whether or not the article is deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been quite a long time since this discussion occurred, and the section still cites no references. The material has been challenged, clearly tagged, discussed and given plenty of time to be sourced. Unfortunately, still no editors have sourced the information. Despite the arguments above, removing the section at the time of the discussion wouldn't have been appropriate, but the material has been given plenty of time for someone to find references for it. Since it still lacks any references, I am removing the content on the basis that it isn't verifiable.Abusing (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I agree with the merge. The articles are very similar. We shouldn't be misleading users by having two articles with similar content. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Texas Secession Movement, this article, Legal status of Texas, Republic of Texas (group), and Texas Annexation, are certainly related and similar. I have not looked at them to see if there would be a way to merge and condense for length but I do know that the articles have been tagged. These tags need attention. Articles or sections that are not sourced should be removed. This is regardless of personal agendas or not and is supported by Wikipedia, especially taking into account there is a tag, no action has been taken in a long time, and there is no need for career type tags hanging around.

• I will review this in a week to see what actions are suggested but will begin at a point to take sanctioned action as allowed by Wikipedia. If there are editors watching these articles it is about time to form a consensus and take action. Otr500 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should merge them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is a consensus to merge. Any suggestions on what the proper name should be? I will have to review all four again but it seems Legal status of Texas or Republic of Texas (group) seems more appropriate. I think Texas Secession Movement and Texas Annexation are too close to actual names used in history. Otr500 (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge request

There is a request to merge this article and Republic of Texas (group) to Texas Secession Movement. There is some confusion that the discussion was not centralized so please weigh in here with "Support", "Oppose", and any comments. Otr500 (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Title

The legal status of Texas is only being questioned by fringe groups. I question if the title should be changed.198.45.184.25 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is consistent with other articles such as the Legal status of Hawaii and the Legal status of Alaska. Honestly, all three are based on fringe theories. Maybe rather than changing the name, these articles should be deleted? 143.43.206.231 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

context added, order changed

The article was getting ab it threadbare. I added a few sentences of context to some of the sections (non-substantive, as segue between sections and in relation to overall topic, because they had been just bullet lists). I also did some re-ordering (historical actions moved to precede current actions, etc).Jbower47 (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal status of Texas. 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/20160206094609/http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1845/debates to http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1845/debates

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)