Talk:Battle of San Jacinto

History is written by the victors.

This article has been rewritten over the last three years into a very slanted propaganda piece.

"removed the occupying Mexican army from Texas" When the army of a nation is patrolling and defending within its own borders, is it really an "occupying army"? No, the Mexican army wasn't occupying Texas, Tejas was a state of Mexico, on the other side of a clearly defined border established by the Adams-Onis Treaty.

"Santa Anna takes the Alamo" No, Santa Anna recaptured the Alamo that was his to begin with, which was stolen by illegal aliens invading San Antonio in December, 1835. Yet the article makes no mention of this. Suddenly the illegal American immigrants who just crossed the Red or Sabine River and barely got their feet dry when they invaded San Antonio are "Texans". Seriously? Is that what we call illegal border crossers today? GalantFan (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been my understanding that Texas seceded from the Mexico, and did not become part of the United States until years after winning independence. So while calling the Mexican Army "occupiers" may not be the best word choice, I don't think calling the native Texans "immigrants" is accurate either. Although it is true that many of the defenders of the Alamo came from outside of Texas, which might influence language options in the article. FYI the culture of native Texans, a fusion of brown-skinned Mexicans and immigrant white German settlers whose existance in Texas predates the Alamo as a unique cultural identity still exists, and their cultural identity is independent of the dichotomy of brown vs. white, Mexican vs. "American". They are "Native Texans", and do not necessarily trace their lineage back to either Mexico or the United States. Instead they see themselves as separate and distinct from either of these.2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Changed the term "Anglo settlers" to "American settlers" for improved accuracy. The British Empire was not the one settling in Texas, the Americans were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:5C7F:CFAB:7818:7ACA:5DCE:60CF (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The above quote from the article refers to ONLY the Siege of Béxar, when martial law had been declared and Cos, in his own words, did indeed "occupy" San Antonio and institute military rule over the existing civilian rule. Mexican troops were quartered in civilian homes without the consent of the owners. In the ensuing battle, Cos (his words) "occupied" the Alamo. When martial law is declared, and the military becomes the ruling authority in a civilian area, it is indeed an "occupation". Cos said so, and we might as well say so. The Texians had not yet declared independence, and it was the occupying military they were booting out. — Maile (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me throw in some context here, as a Native Texan. Firstly, realize Mexico had only had claim on Texas for some 15 years. Next, the Republic of Texas rebellion already exists as of October 2, 1835. Regardless of 'legality' in a rebellion, when you take a rebel base you occupy it. Of course it's true that the victors write the rules. However, after humiliating the despot Santa Anna he went on to admit, in his own memoir, the crimes he had committed against Texas. After becoming a dictator in Mexico and eventually a social pariah, he of course immigrated to America and is largely responsible for the existence of wrigley chewing gum. Do you similarly attack the republic of the rio grande or zacatecas? They were all in the same set of conflicts after Mexican independence from Spain. In any case, Tejas was already Tejas. Though we did take new mexico. Aside from this, about the article in general, there are inaccuracies about the nature of diplomacy at the Alamo. Additionally there's an odd lack of the cultural, political and legendary role in morale this battle played in the battle of San Jacinto. The section should reflect the Alamo's significance, the days long siege and severely disproportionate casualties caused by a rag tag band of defenders who ultimately lost their lives as heros.

anontexan --73.95.137.6 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

General Colonization Law and Empresario are both articles that explain more fully on who was here legally, through contracts offered by the Mexican government. Texas is one of those subject matters that has been reinvented through 182 years of legend via popular TV, movies and other media. I would suggest anyone seriously wanting the facts visit their local library. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

badly written

ive seen better accounts of greek wars vs Persia after 2000 years than this only 100 years later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.130.142.29 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)