Later: I looked at the history and reverted out the 1861 section. -- Henry Troup 15:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The section on 1861 secession probably doesn't belong to this article, and is rather strong POV. -- Henry Troup 13:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't we break out a separate Texas Revolution page? -- Ben Brumfield

2002-01-10: Added a paragraph of background, including link to new T.R. Page. -- Ben Brumfield

1861

There is absolutely no proof that meets Wikipedia standards from reliable, academic sources that the Republic of Texas was ever reconstituted by anyone after it became the State of Texas. If statements are made to the contrary and accepted, then editors will be trying to prove that something that never happened, never happened, while the person making spurious claims can continue inventing phantoms. Clearly that makes a mockery out of Wikipedia. 80.192.68.143 ( talk) 11:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Just added a section on internal politics. My sources for it were of varying reliability, and are as follows:

• Political factions -- 7th grade history (taken in 1986)
• List of presidents -- Museum at Washington-on-the-Brazos
• Diplomatic recognition of Texas -- The French Legation in Texas Vol I:Recognition Rupture, and Reconciliation, Nancy Nichols Barker 1971
• Burnet as acting president -- The French Legation in Texas Vol I:Recognition Rupture, and Reconciliation, Nancy Nichols Barker 1971 (surely there's a better source -- maybe "Lone Star"?!)

-- Ben Brumfield

2005-01-09: This page tells me nothing about who the Texans were in 1836, and why the rebelled against Mexico. Most of the names are English-sounding. Does this mean that Texans spoke English? Were they the descendents of English settlers? --Alex Tingle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.152.38.2 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, January 9, 2005.

• Tejas had been settled in the Houston area in the late-1400s, and Black Plague victims unearthed recently show their origins to be English. Additionally, the Texas drawl has been attributed by modern linguists to be a direct descendant of Old English.

• Alex, try the Texas Revolution page. - 12.74.168.92 16:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Mr. Tingle, I concur with the previous comment, you wil find more information in Texas Revolution; however, I did add some very brief comments that clarify a little of the historical, ethnic, and political context of the 1836 declaration. -- Supersexyspacemonkey

I added a couple sentences that explain why English-speakers moved into the region.

I added some information about other Mexican states that attempted to secede from Mexico.

-- WisTex 04:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes some were of English Descent, but a lot of us were also of French descent, as my family was. My family came to Texas from Louisiana as migrant farmers. But it also should be noted that mass sustained immigration and settelment into Texas really did not take place until the late 1800s, specially the North Central Part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.211.225 ( talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The map highlighting the current U.S. state of Texas in red is completely inappropriate for this article. Those borders were determined by the U.S. Congress after the annexation, and were never a part of the Republic by any measure. -- Decumanus 07:02, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Agreed. Texas was actually much much larger. -- WisTex 04:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Who was actually de facto in control of the area in dispute between the R. of T. and Mexico? I know the area claimed on the east bank of the Rio Grande in current New Mexico was under Mexican control up until the US-Mexican war, at least -- what about the rest? -- Jfruh 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Texas had de facto control after the defeat of Santa Anna, although there were many border clashes where troops from Texas and Mexico crossed the Rio Grande. In fact, Texas Rangers regularly crossed the Rio Grande to pursue bandits (much to the dismay of the U.S. Army after Texas was annexed, I might add) and patrolled all the territory claimed by the Republic of Texas. You should note that the entire Republic of Texas is "disputed territory" according to the Mexican government. The "disputed area" that you often see on maps was the portion of Texas that was claimed by both the Republic of Texas and the Republic of the Rio Grande. Mexico never recognized Texas as a republic. The United States and several European states did recognize Texas' independence, however. -- WisTex 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, the Treaty of Velasco was signed by Santa Anna as a War prisioner, rendering it a useless piece of paper. Besides, it was never ratified by the Mexican Congress. So it NEVER became a treaty between two countries. It was merely a TREATY between Texas and a war prisioner, with no executive powers whatsoever. So Texas was de-facto Independant but legally was still very much Mexico. The boundries of TEXAS (both as a Mexican State and a Spanish territory) were the Nueces River to the south and Coahuila to the west. So not even by an act of Independance by Texas, the boundry could be just moved south to wherever river or mountain or limit they wished. Setting the border by the US at the Rio Grande was illegal, but very convenient to the interests of border-setting President Polk and the United States. 201.141.227.42 ( talk) 23:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)RGV reply

I removed the Category:Short-lived states notation from the article. A spot check of other entries in that category show that most lasted less than a year, many just a few days. Since the Republic of Texas lasted ten years, I'm not sure it really fits. Any other opinions on this? — Bellhalla 01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• I agree with your reasoning. Johntex\ ^talk 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You're both wrong. Texas was a short lived state. Does ten years really stack up to a couple hundred? Ten eyars is NOTHING.

-G

Yeah, but the United States (which I am guessing you are referring to) isn't the model for all republics. Texas lasted a heck of a lot longer than most republics 205.208.213.99 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC). reply

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution list the number of men defending the Alamo as 183 and the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas list the number of men as being between 180 and 250.

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution list the number of men in Cos' and General Santa Anna's force as being over 1200 and the Texan army as numbering about 900 in Battle of San Jacinto. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas list the number of men in Cos' and General Santa Anna's force as being of 1,600 men and the Texan army as numbering only 800. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto has 1200 and 910 respectively. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.120.196.138 ( talk • contribs) 09:50, March 2, 2006.

Unfortunately, the editor who passed this article to GA status did not write comments in this talk page or leave an edit summary. This article fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to resubmit the article through the nomination process. -- RelHistBuff 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The article says that when Santa Anna returned to Mexico (1836) the Mexican Congress refused to recognize the existence of the Republic of Texas, although it was recognized by every other major power. This is not true. According to [1], when president Lamar began his term (10 December 1838)... "only the United States had recognized her independence, she had no commercial treaties [and] Mexico was threatening reconquest...". -- Alonso 04:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The Memucan Hunt mentioned on this page as a vice presidential candidate in 1841 is not the Memucan Hunt discussed in the article his name links to (since that one died in 1808). There were two of them, possibly the Texas Memucan was the grandson of the North Carolina Memucan (not sure).

Should references be numbered using the ref tag or left without a specific citation? As of 12/28/06, there were no citations using the ref tag. I added a ref'd citation then re-did it as a "generic" reference. Another editor reverted it as a ref'd citation. Given the sheer number of non-ref'd citations is it better to continue using only non-ref'd citations, or should the article use ref'd citations? Davidwr 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I added a cross-ref to the modern Republic of Texas fringe secessionist group. Sussmanbern ( talk) 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• The Burnet Flag, or the current flag? I vote for the current flag, because it was the final one used by the Republic, it was used the longest, and is most associated with Texas. -- JW1805 (Talk) 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, as it was used the for the longest period, too. Argos' Dad 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

As I understand it, the Nueces was not the border claimed by Mexico, which did not recognize Texan independence, but the border of the Mexican state of Texas. I'd like to repeat the question expressed above about where the de facto boundary was. The borders claimed by Texas included territories clearly still under Mexican control after 1836, particularly Santa Fe. john k 16:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Whether Tejas was truly part of Mexico is a matter of conjecture. Mexico claimed Tejas as a territory in the early 19th century, but a protracted battle of claim prevented amalgamation. Mexico itself recognized this continued independence by separating Tejas from Coahuila in its records until it could be conquered. This never happened, and in less than two decades Mexico released its claims on the territory.

Tejas had been settled in the Houston area in the late-1400s, and Black Plague victims unearthed recently show their origins to be English. Additionally, the Texas drawl has been attributed by modern linguists to be a direct descendant of Old English.

But that may not mean much; the English language in general can be said to be a direct descendant of Old English. And who are these unnamed "modern linguists"? The previous paragraph seems to be without any supporting citations.

I am not the original commenter, but might be able to elucidate a bit. In other discussions, I've seen citations from a researcher at the University of Houston citing "black earth" burials in Texas that may have been casualties of an English expedition predating the Spanish settlement of the 1700s (though of course the graves were not from the 1400s, nor were the deaths from the Black Plague). This was used in garbled form to buttress much crypto-history and conspiracy theorizing about some sort of English "Province of Carolana" in Texas on now-deleted Wikipedia articles. See [2] for a bit more on this.

I'm guessing that the "Old English/Texas Drawl" reference is more speculation used to buttress some kind dispute of Spanish claims on Texas, though it would require a complete ignorance of both linguistics and the history of Texas to swallow. - Ben 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hah! Found it on an old version of Six flags over Texas [3] - Ben 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

--I agree. It is ludicrous to say that there were any English settlers in Texas prior to the 1820s, and there is no historical evidence for the claim. My own ancestors arrived in the 1820s and the "Texas Drawl" that they speak to this day developed naturally as an extension of the Southern Drawl. And if there had been some native Englishmen to speak with, they and other new arrivals would certainly have known it. There is some speculation that the Karankawa Indians of the Gulf Coast may have had European ancestry, but that is based on circumstantial evidence of their stature and skin coloring. While intriguing, it remains only speculation. If there WAS such a connection, I'd pin their ancestry on Skandinavia long before I considered the English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savrola ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This article is a continuation of most incomplete histories of the Republic of Texas. They basically say that Texas won independence in 1836 and then ten years later was annexed. There's almost no discussion of the events between March 2, 1836 and Jan. 1, 1846, which to me would be the whole point of the article.

There is discussion about Mirabeau Lamar, but not into any of the internal events of the Republic. Some items that should be included would be the Mier and Santa Fe Expeditions (and the multiple Mexican incursions) and the British overtures to Texas to keep it from being annexed.

A good start, but needs work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savrola ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This is on my to-do list. I've been working my way through the Texas history articles. Fort Saint Louis French Texas (avoid disambiguation. doncram ( talk) 02:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)) and Spanish Texas are essentially done, I'm most of the way through Mexican Texas, and I've started cleanup on Texas Revolution, and then, finally, this article will be next! If anyone else is interested in helping to clean up all of these history articles please let me know (or be bold). Karanacs ( talk) 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I was about to comment the same thing, that this article has very little information about the Republic of Texas. -- WisTex ( talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Except for the historical context section, this article appears to be written from the point of view of the United States, instead of a neutral one.

One thing that seems to be common is people with a U.S. point of view claim any facts contrary to their POV are not neutral, therefor skewing the POV towards a U.S. point of view instead of a neutral one. Based on the many edits of this article and others, it appears that people constantly revise any Texas article to have a U.S. point of view, downplaying the fact that Texas was an independent sovereign country recognized by foreign governments. The U.S. point of view dislikes acknowledging the facts, and constantly edit the article to be U.S. point of view. I am not sure what can be done, but it is really annoying that the only "correct" point of view on Texas's independence appears to be the U.S. one according to some contributors. -- WisTex ( talk) 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Did the Republic of Texas have their own currency? 65.167.146.130 ( talk) 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

See Texas redbacks. Kuru ^talk 02:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Mac Torquil, sorry to have to revert 2 of your edits like that. It's an intriguing fact, but that's all it is, that is, unless it can be made into a paragraph or section relevant to the article's focus, or worked into an existing passage in a way that makes sense. However, it can't simply be inserted as an out of context stand alone sentence. For more on writing articles and the form they should take please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Also, when someone says, "Please see talk page", give them the chance to write before reverting their edits. -- Leodmacleod ( talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

"Many of the Anglo-American settlers owned slaves... Anastasio Bustamante ordered that all slaves be freed in 1830. To circumvent the law, many Anglo colonists converted their slaves into indentured servants for life. By 1836 there were 5,000 slaves in Texas." Just be sure that if/when good sourcing is found for this stuff that some logic is introduced as well, like saying that "By 1836 there were 5,000 indentured servants in Texas" as the author just told us that they weren't technically slaves anymore, even though they were no better off than slaves, maybe even "permanently and involuntary indentured servants," I don't know, whatever you can find good references for. Invmog ( talk) 03:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I think it would depend on what the source said. If the source still referred to them as slaves, regardless of what semantics their owners had wrapped around slavery, then it should remain slaves. Even without a clear reference, they were functionally slaves in all but name, and the name is recognized as being a semantic workaround. Therefore, I feel they should still be referred to as slaves. We aren't saying that there were 5000 individuals CALLED slaves, we are saying there were 5000 slaves. If we change it to indentured servants, it should be "called indentured servants", which is more accurate to the historical context. regardless, I favor "slaves". I can call someone a rabbit, but it doesn't make them a rabbit. Jbower47 ( talk) 15:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I have made a few edits today to highlight the fact that the "Republic of Texas" was not universally recognised as a sovereign state internationally. Most noatably, it was not recognised by Mexico which always regarded the "Republic's" territory as Mexican and it was not recognised by the Super Power of the era - the United Kingdom. THe "Republic's" position was somewhat analagous to the contemporary position of the "Republic of Kosovo" / "Kosovo Province" etc. Oddly, this was almost completely ignored in the article. In contrast the disputed status of places like Kosovo is always very prominent in articles regarding present day places with a similar status to the then Texas. 84.203.65.158 ( talk) 20:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The Former Country infobox appears to be partially broken. It isn't displaying Mexico as a predecessor state or Texas as a successor state. Can someone who is more familiar with the infobox than I am fix it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Please provide either a meaningful edit summary or an explanation here of your edit. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I have rolled back the edit by User:TRAJAN 117 that does not have an edit summary or an explanation here. I don't see what its purpose is. If the edit is applied again, please provide an explanation either here or in the edit summary or both. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I've changed the text about the Federal assumption of Texas' debt to the giving to Texas of $10M in Federal bonds. See the Wikipedia article on the Compromise of 1850: "The state of Texas was heavily burdened with debt, which had been contracted during its struggles as the Republic of Texas. The federal government agreed to pay $10 million of bonds in trade for the transfer of a large portion of the claimed area of the state of Texas to the territory of the federal government and for the relinquishment of various claims which Texas had upon the federal government." That is, a flat payment of that much money, not an "assumption of debt" obligations. Abuelo jack ( talk) 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• On October 13, 1845, a large majority of voters in the republic approved both the American offer and the proposed constitution that specifically endorsed slavery and emigrants bringing slaves to Texas.[15] This constitution was later accepted by the US Congress, making Texas a US state on the same day annexation took effect, December 29, 1845.

That's fine, except the lede says:

• The Republic of Texas (Spanish: República de Texas) was an independent sovereign country in North America that existed from March 2, 1836, to February 19, 1846.

How could it have been a state of the Union from December 1845 if it continued as an independent sovereign country until February 1846? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Or vice-versa? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I am attempting to garner consensus on what the Republic of Texas should be listed as in it's Infobox. The article uses the former country infobox template. I have rolled it back from saying "Puppet state" to what it currently is diff, but I feel that is inaccurate. BilCat (based on his edits - he is resistant to discussing it) apparently favors Partially recognized state which redirects to List of states with limited recognition which does not include any mention of the Republic of Texas. The Republic of Texas had embassies in the US, Britain, France, etc. and the US formally recognized them as a country before the Texas-American Boundary Convention (April 25, 1838). Due to these facts, I think that the infobox should say "Defunct Independent Nation - Annexed into United States". Opinions? - CompliantDrone ( talk) 01:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Or, maybe "Former independent nation" (?). Famspear ( talk) 01:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Sounds perfect. - CompliantDrone ( talk) 01:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Formerly independent nation works for me. Karanacs ( talk) 01:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Ditto, sounds great. GregJackP  Boomer! 04:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply

It should probably be left blank. Usually it's only filled in for colonies, tributaries, and vassal states. Illegitimate Barrister 21:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The Spanish words should not be needed. They belong in the Spanish language version of Wikipedia. In Correct ( talk) 12:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

If there is a well-referenced section added to this article where a well regarded historian is cited and quoted as saying that his or her belief that this was a puppet state, that would be a useful addition to the article. However, one cannot simply add a "see also" for such a thing with no reference or antecedent in the text. Please do not do this. -- Jayron 32 18:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.143.164.89 ( talk) 09:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republic 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/20140116142228/http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1845/a8 to http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1845/a8

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Republic 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/20160304104954/http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1836/general_provisions to http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1836/general_provisions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205031127/http://yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/texan04.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/texan04.htm
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://texashistory.unt.edu/permalink/meta-pth-5872
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517011053/http://texashistory.unt.edu/permalink/meta-pth-6726 to http://texashistory.unt.edu/permalink/meta-pth-6726

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply

All over the place, when you see a map of the "less disputed" portion of the Republic of Texas, it always looks like these: [4] [5] [6] To wit: Starting from the mouth of the Nueces River, up that to a certain point, northeast to the San Antonio River, up that to a certain point, then NE, NW, and NE again, until it reaches the US border. There are sometimes exceptions but these seem to be most maps.

So... where is this described in any official fashion? Googling around with various combinations of "Texas" "Border" "Nueces" "San Antonio River" gets me nothing. Is this a chain letter with no beginning? I'd love to have some concrete reasoning for these lines, if not concrete definitions, to add to Territorial evolution of the United States. -- Golbez ( talk) 19:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I believe some of the reason the dispute is marked on maps the way it is is described here:

The border of Texas as an independent state was originally never settled. The Republic of Texas claimed land up to the Rio Grande based on the Treaties of Velasco, but Mexico refused to accept these as valid, claiming that the Rio Grande in the treaty was the Nueces, and referred to the Rio Grande as the Rio Bravo.

I realize this section itself lacks good citations but it might give you someplace to start. It's frustrating because Mexico never ratified the Treaty of Velasco and thus never recognized any border as valid, but the way it's traditionally narrated seems to imply there was a border dispute. It may be that the Nueces was unofficially recognized as the de facto border -- that is, Mexico was not going to formally acknowledge Texan independence but would not restart hostilities as long as the Texian government didn't try to impose its will beyond the Nueces. Certainly the causus belli of the Mexican-American War came when the US Army crossed the Nueces and set up a fort at the mouth of the Rio Grande, rather than just when the US annexed Texas. -- Jfruh ( talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah, when it comes to the Nueces, the best I've been able to find for the justification is that's where the "Tejas" of "Coahuila y Tejas" began. But that still doesn't explain the other borders - why is everyone always so consistent with "Nueces, NE to San Antonio River, NE, NW, NE"? I'm starting to think everyone's just been copying off everyone else. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Three years (!) ago I wrote on the talk page of Territorial evolution of the United States, "As for Texas' western border with Mexico, could that be viewed as the border that existed (prior to the 1836 Texas independence) between the Mexican Departments of New Mexico and Chihuahua on the one hand and Coahuila y Tejas on the other hand? (See http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/co&tex1836.htm.) I don't think anyone except later cartographers agreed to use a zig-zag to indicate an undetermined boundary." So I am in the same place you are -- everyone seems to have been copying what the first guy did. Also, I came across a map called the General Austin map of 1840 ( https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/12/eb/2812eb3b69c11c510efee250e0bce06a.jpg ) that I had never seen before. Looks interesting. Jeff in CA ( talk) 05:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hm, actually that helps a bit - I'd been using the wrong river. At that point, it's not the San Antonio River, but the Medina River. And that gets me to [7] which states, "In 1721 the Medina River was considered the boundary between Texas and Coahuila; in 1811 the Nueces River was the boundary between Texas and Tamaulipas. " OK, so that explains why those rivers, but not necessarily the specific line between them. But, it also led me to [8] which is very interesting. And... holy crap, we might have the grail here: "By a royal cedula of 1805, "the western boundary of Texas began at the mouth of the Rio Nueces, thence up that river to its junction with Moros creek, thence in a northeasterly direction to near the Garza crossing of the Medina river, thence up that river to its source, thence in a direct line to the source of the San Saba river, thence northwesterly to the intersection of the 103rd meridian of west longitude and the 32nd parallel of north latitude, thence northeasterly to the intersection of the Red Eiver by the 100th meridian, thence down said river." And there you go, that's the borders. Yay! -- Golbez ( talk) 13:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Eureka! Great find! Jeff in CA ( talk) 16:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Still leaves open the question of to what extent anyone considered this the "real" border of the Republic of Texas, though :) Definitely don't mean to denigrate your sleuthing, though, this is great work. -- Jfruh ( talk) 00:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi. The graphic on this page of the borders is very hard to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.224.219.226 ( talk) 19:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm actually with the deletion on this one. It's not like Texas was surveyed to within an inch of a modern datum. It was defined as the region north of the Rio Grande - and remains so. That the Rio Grande has shifted slightly over the centuries doesn't change that definition. It's minuscule in the extreme, and I question if any other former county article has the same. For example, the article on the CSA doesn't say "today part of Mexico" and rightly so. And I say all this as someone immensely interested in the minuscule, but for an infobox, it's way excessive. -- Golbez ( talk) 04:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply