Revision as of 18:10, 4 January 2006 editOldwindybear (talk | contribs)5,177 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:30, 16 March 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers806,086 editsNo edit summary | ||
(200 intermediate revisions by 96 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{ArticleHistory | |||
{{featured}} | |||
|action1=PR | |||
{{oldpeerreview}} | |||
|action1date=17:01, 12 October 2005 | |||
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Texas Ranger Division/archive1 | |||
|action1result=reviewed | |||
|action1oldid=25083875 | |||
|action2=FAC | |||
== Anecdotes == | |||
|action2date=10:52, 14 October 2005 | |||
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Texas Ranger Division | |||
|action2result=promoted | |||
|action2oldid=25494662 | |||
|action3=FAR | |||
Has anyone checked out the Texas Rangers' biographies at the ? Many are just vital information, but a few have entertaining anecdotes. For instance: | |||
|action3date=22:26, 17 April 2010 | |||
* A ranger forced to walk to El Paso, stops at the first house he finds, eats 27 eggs in one go before going into town for a full meal | |||
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Texas Ranger Division/archive1 | |||
*A man whose vigilantism earned him an invitation to join the rangers and incurred the wrath of the ] --] | ] 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
|action3result=removed | |||
*''...officer's rank meant little to the rangers, for "They were all `generals.' When we detailed a man to go anywhere to make an arrest or do any particular work, we didn't need to send another man with him to tell him what to do." '' This one includes many quotes, and I'm tempted to look for the mentioned autobiographies. | |||
|action3oldid=355843083 | |||
--] | ] 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
|maindate=January 16, 2006 | |||
== Branch Davidians == | |||
|currentstatus=FFA | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|TX=yes|TX-importance=High|USOldwest=Yes|USOldwest-importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=High}} | |||
}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(365d) | archive = Talk:Texas Ranger Division/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 8 }} | |||
{{Broken anchors|links= | |||
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Anti-guerrilla campaign) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Anti-guerrilla campaign","appear":{"revid":806922139,"parentid":806922074,"timestamp":"2017-10-24T23:32:20Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":947380076,"parentid":947371769,"timestamp":"2020-03-25T23:21:53Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"30≥23","rename_to":"Occupation, guerrilla warfare counter-insurgency, atrocities"} --> | |||
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Counter-guerrilla warfare) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Counter-guerrilla warfare","appear":{"revid":90396352,"parentid":90396285,"timestamp":"2006-11-27T08:21:11Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":964039223,"parentid":964014250,"timestamp":"2020-06-23T07:22:38Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
}} | |||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
Not a big LE fan of any sort, but i did find it interesting when reading the transcript of the branch davidian trial (1994?) that texas rangers testified against FBI and BATF, even while on the stand as prosecution witnesses. as i recall, they were basically disgusted by the whole thing. would be a nice blurb for the article, if somebody is looking for things to add. could also work in the classic "one riot, one ranger" saying, or whatever it was. i don't have time, but if somebody wants a lead to the trial transcript, let me know and i'll try to track it down. haven't been able to find it for years, since the site where it was disappeared. ] 22:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-26">26 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-15">15 December 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 10:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
*Just added the "one riot, one ranger" thing. Interesting. Salty, I don't know enough about the whole Branch Davidian thing to feel comfortable treating that with any authority, but if you find yourself with some time it'd be an interesting addition I think. · ]<sup>]</sup> 23:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Vandalism == | |||
The section about the Ranger unforms appears to have been hacked to display the phrase "Chuck Norris owns you all". Amusing but needs to be removed. Tried but it is hidden in "edit page". | |||
:hadn't checked for a year or so. just found that the trial transcript has resurfaced. like i said, i don't have time to go through it all again right now, but i did locate a snippet , which is mildly representative of a few exchanges re FBI and BATF: | |||
The section also had a section encouraging readers to join a plot to vandalise wikipedia using perl scrips. It has now been removed. | |||
<pre>601 Byrnes - Direct (Mr. Jahn) | |||
3 GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE | |||
4 DAVID ALAN BYRNES, GOVERNMENT WITNESS, SWORN | |||
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION | |||
6 BY MR. JAHN: | |||
10 Q How are you employed, sir? | |||
11 A I'm employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety as a | |||
12 Texas Ranger Captain in Garland, Texas. | |||
---- | |||
Byrnes - Cross (MR. TINKER) 634 | |||
16 Q All right. It concerned you so much that the FBI was | |||
17 destroying the crime scene, as far as you were concerned, that | |||
18 you did complain to the law enforcement -- the prosecutors? | |||
19 A Yes, sir, I expressed my concern.</pre> | |||
Removed the reference to Rangers as homosexuals: "employ ten homosexual men" --> "employ ten men". (Austin could never have said this anyways, since the word "homosexual" didn't exist until the late 19th century). | |||
:if anybody wants to research, here are two to start from. ] 09:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Anecdotes == | |||
Has anyone checked out the Texas Rangers' biographies at the ? Many are just vital information, but a few have entertaining anecdotes. For instance: | |||
* A ranger forced to walk to El Paso, stops at the first house he finds, eats 27 eggs in one go before going into town for a full meal | |||
*A man whose vigilantism earned him an invitation to join the rangers and incurred the wrath of the ] --] | ] 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
*''...officer's rank meant little to the rangers, for "They were all `generals.' When we detailed a man to go anywhere to make an arrest or do any particular work, we didn't need to send another man with him to tell him what to do." '' This one includes many quotes, and I'm tempted to look for the mentioned autobiographies. | |||
--] | ] 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Badge. == | == Badge. == | ||
Took the liberty to clean it up, hope you don't mind, Kate. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | Took the liberty to clean it up, hope you don't mind, Kate. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
:Not at all, it looks great! |
:Not at all, it looks great! · ]<sup>]</sup> 00:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) | ||
== POV? -- Los Rinches == | |||
The reputation of the Rangers is a bit different from the Texan Chicano perspective.--] 14:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I have no idea. Since you're familiar, could you maybe work up a couple of paragraphs? · ]<sup>]</sup> 15:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
::I added the following sentence to the areticle, linking to a discussion by well-known and respected folklorist Americo Paredes on the official Smithsonian Institution website, and Shauri deleted it: From the early 20th century, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans called Rangers by the unaffectionate nickname . ] 04:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::In whole truth, I didn't actually ''delete'' it as such. In fact, I didn't even notice that sentence existed. All the current contents were ellaborated by myself at a Temp page, taking as model the text of the article as of its September 8th version; that is, before you posted it. When I pasted my finished version, your contribution was unintentionally removed. Now that you bring it to my attention, I'll add that information into the article, albeit not as an isolated and unrelated sentence as you originally added it but integrated within its context. | |||
:::Nevertheless, I want to point out that the issue of the turbulent relation between Mexicans, Tejanos and the Rangers has been widely addressed already, especially at the Early 20th century section. I suggest that you read the article thorougly, and you'll see that it doesn't exactly praise their role in said events. Therefore, it's not like I'm trying to remove sensitive information nor whitewash the Rangers' image, like your post seems to suggest. Thanks for your contribution! - ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 13:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::Then it should have been part of your editing procedure to take into account edits made between Sept. 8th and 18th -- when the article not only didn't bear any warning against editing it, but in fact actively solicited users to edit it to bring it up to "featured Texas article" status. ] 18:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::::], AnonMoos.--] 21:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::No argument about that. In fact I ''did'' take them into account, but unfortunately yours got through accidentally, mostly due to an unfortunate event with an editor who removed part of the text in a somewhat odd event. My bad a thousand times - I apollogize, and I intend to re-add your contribution asap. Are we at peace, Moos? And by the way, what's your opinion about the article itself? See any way it can be improved? Hugs, ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Statue of Texas Ranger in front of Capitol == | |||
] | |||
I think we should include an image of the statue in front of the capitol. However, this is the best one I can find at the moment that does not have copyright problems. Can anyone find an image where the statue is larger? It can be a very dramatic stature if shot from the right vantage point. ] 01:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Hey John! Good to see your virtual face around here again. I agree it'd be a nice addition. I don't have anything better myself; looked through all my shots of the Capitol and unfortunately that was one I missed. I have a few friends who live in Austin, I'll see if one of them can get a shot of it with a digital camera. · ]<sup>]</sup> 01:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Hey Kate! Thanks for the welcome. I vanished unexpectedly for a while - just too much work outside of Misplaced Pages. Hopefully I can contribute steadily for a while... About the statue, my memory is that it has a quotation from Teddy Roosevelt on the base, something about feeling secure knowing that a group of Texas Rangers was protecting his flank on San Juan Hill - but I can't find the quoation either. I did find who made the statue by consulting The Handbook of Texas Online , "]...also modeled the equestrian monument to Terry's Texas Rangers (the Eighth Texas Cavalryqv) on the Capitol grounds (1905-07)" I see Coppini has no article yet, so I'll make a stub for him. ] 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::Understand totally. I'm actually about to take a break myself (going to Costa Rica in about a week). I wonder if there's any way to get the state to license the Handbook to Misplaced Pages under GFDL or fair use; it'd be great to wholesale import that information into stubs. As an aside, one of my dad's ancestors was a Rough Rider; Troop M. At the time he mustered out he listed his home as ]; must've been a tough customer. · ]<sup>]</sup> 02:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
== I think I'm done here == | |||
Well, my friends, I've done my best to improve this article, and I honestly don't think what else to add or expand besides from filling its red links. Also, its current size is 44k, so I believe expanding it further wouldn't be for the better either. I'll try and polish its wording and do other minor enhancements, and please feel free to edit it if you consider it necessary. Thanks, and *hugs*! - ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
== do not edit sign == | |||
This is at odds with the notice at the top of this discussion page. It will irritate people. I don't think it serves any useful purpose. ] 15:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I placed the <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> tag because I was in the midst of a copyedit of the entire article. It's a common thing to do when making fairly major changes throughout an article that might take a bit of time. If I do a major copyedit of the article and someone changes one word while I'm doing it, then when I save my copyedit it will tell me there's been an edit conflict, and all my work will have been essentially lost. It's just a courtesy to remind people that there is someone working on the page and to please not edit it or their work will be lost. As you can see, I've removed it. It was there for a total of maybe 15 or 20 minutes. · ]<sup>]</sup> 15:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Regrettably, there's been an edit clash; I've used my version, which covers down to but not including the M-A war. I'm sorry if this causes inconvenience. | |||
I suspect there may be objections at FAC on the basis of racial treatment; extreme sensitivity may be required. | |||
I wonder why you don't delink all the low-value simple years and centuries—no one will hit them, and they make it slightly harder to read. I'll leave this up to the contributors to decide. ] 15:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Well, that's why you either don't edit when someone has placed an inuse tag, or make sure to use the inuse tag yourself when you are making major changes. (Not sure who started editing before whom, but it's largely pointless). This answers why you seem to have reverted some of my copyediting changes. I'll make them again. I'm about to place another inuse tag; are you editing right now? · ]<sup>]</sup> 15:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Style == | |||
Tony, a few style points, and some of this may not be from your edits: "president" and other titles or honorifics are never capitalized unless placed directly before someone's name. I.e. "President Sam Houston" (correct); "Sam Houston, the President" (not correct). ndash should not be used when grammatically a hyphen is called for (Mexican&ndashAmerican War is not ok. Mexican-American War is proper). Please remember periods. (US Army -> U.S. Army). Do not use ASCII characters -- please use mdash for dashes, don't copy and paste an ASCII character. I'll be going back through and copyediting for these style issues as well as general precis -- there are too many articles that aren't needed (the Anglos, the Rangers). Best · ]<sup>]</sup> 03:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for the suggestions, Kate, and I must take responsibility for a few of the mistakes you point out. Be sure I won't commit them twice :) ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 15:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
OK, I thought it was going to stay there for days, and didn't realise it referred to that particular point of time. Sorry for the inconvenience. A number of points: | |||
*I'm ''slightly'' less disinterested in the topic now that I've read more; you might consider engaging the readers more at the top, by mentioning that the Rangers played a key role in a part of American history that has now been mythologised: the wild west. | |||
::Good idea; I'll add a paragraph mentioning this at the lead section. ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
*A map is urgently required, preferably marking the sites of battles and other locations that are mentioned in the text; there are Wikipedians who might assist. | |||
::I think this may be a little harder, although not impossible. A map of Texas including all the mentioned locations means a huge number of references, thus requiring a very large map. The time span of the article is also very long (180 years), in which the frontiers have changed repeatedly. ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::The map: exclude the less important locations and borders so that it's not overly cluttered. It does need to be larger than most of the existing pics. A large number of references for the map—why? Just reference the first one, and then the reader knows to look. Or you could use numerals on the map to reduce clutter, and reference every location with the corresponding numeral in, say, square brackets. ] 13:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::Sounds like an idea. I'm not familiar with any users with expertise in making maps, tho. Any chance that you know anyone who might help us? ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 14:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
*References also urgently required. It's a matter of determining their density; the fewer you can get away with, the better, because the superscript numbers are a little intrusive; but you need to reinforce the credibility of the text by spreading some numbers throughout the article at strategic points. (Otherwise, this will kill it at the FAC stage.) | |||
::I'll address this asap. Personally, I love Footnotes and References, so I'll hold myself and add only a few selected ones at particularly sensitive and important points. ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
*Can someone check through the copyright of all of the images? I know someone who might assist if there's any doubt (otherwise, he loves to kill off FACs). | |||
::To the best of my knowledge, currently all of them qualify to be used properly. Please help me determine if I'm mistaken. Here's the copyright status of the images: | |||
::* ]: taken by a particular Texan user and available at . I first spotted this picture at and contacted the person who had posted it. At my request, he was kind enough to send me a high resolution version, and later he uploaded it into Commons himself. Just in case, all this information is easily verifiable if needed. | |||
::* ]: PD (around 1845). This image, along with more unused material was also provided to me by the same ''Yahoo!'' user. I've just done a small research on its sources and I've discovered that it's available at several webpages like these: , and it's part of the Culver Pictures collection. Therefore, I've taken the liberty of adding this information to its description. | |||
::* ]: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like . | |||
::* ]: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like . Also used as cover illustration for Ford's autobiography ''Rip Ford's Texas'' . | |||
::* ]: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like . | |||
::* ]: PD. Its availability on the web is limited to the credited website and many of its subpages, but it has also been used as cover illustration for books like ''Captain L.H. McNelly - Texas Ranger: The Life and Times of a Fighting Man'' by Chuck Parsons and Marianne Hall Little . | |||
::* ] and ]: Copyrighted by , with properly credited source. The copyright owners allow the use of the image providing that they are credited, as they are in the images' description pages. See . | |||
::* ]: great, all the web sources for this image have gone offline :( The picture seems to have been originally included in the book ''Lone Wolf Gonzaullas: Texas Ranger'' by Brownson Malsch , but without other sources, it could only be used under Fair Use rationale (it's around 60 years old); or perhaps it could be changed by another uncopyrighted picture of Gonzaullas, of which some exist. | |||
::* ]: Fair use. Press release image of the DPS upon the appointment of Captain Coffman as Chief of the Texas Rangers. Not sure if I've tagged it correctly tho. | |||
::* ]: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like . | |||
::* ]: PD since it's some 110 years old, albeit its current source is the only place where I've been able to locate it so far. | |||
::* ] and ]: PD. Widely known and published pictures, available at a huge number of websites. | |||
::* ]: Uploaded by ] under GNU Free Documentation License. | |||
::Your input in doublechecking the status of these images and making suggestions will be greatly appreciated. ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 15:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::For the most part, the images look good. However, | |||
:::*] and ] are not copyrighted-free-use. The "restrictions" page you link to says that they may be used under ] for educational and scholarly purposes. However, the images were created in 1920 and 1915 respectively, so if they were published before 1923, they are in the public domain. If not, they might not go into the public domain until as late as 2048. Probably the best thing to do is to tag them as "fair use", and link to the copyright statement at . | |||
:::*] needs a source indicated, and the copyright status verified. If it isn't public-domain, and there are public domain images of him, it should be replaced. | |||
:::*]: Fair use, and correctly tagged. Needs a ], though. | |||
:::--] 05:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you so much for the input, Carnildo. I'll put your advices to good use :) - ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 16:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
*Where you mention elections, can you add just a little about the limited sufferage? (Male adult property owners?) | |||
*Middle-name initials are an artefact of the 20th century (US social security registration). It would be much nicer to have just first and last names in all cases, unless disambiguation or common usage are at issue. | |||
::We typically call people what they called themselves. Michael J. Fox prefers to be called Michael J. Fox, and indeed, the main article is ], not ]. This is just one example but I'm sure there are others. · ]<sup>]</sup> 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::My own personal belief is that middle-name initials were commonly used at the time; or at least, by people related to the article, and generally in the United States. As examples, I'd like to point out the following documents of the : | |||
:::* Letter to Texas Ranger Capt. John Salmon Ford, addressed as ''"John S. Ford"'' | |||
:::* Letter signed by Ford, same usage | |||
:::* Letter mentioning John Robert Baylor (Indian fighter, 1859) as ''"John R. Baylor"'' | |||
:::* Letter to James Webb Throckmorton (Texas governor, 1866), addressed as ''"James W. Throckmorton"'' . | |||
:::* Letter to Branch Tanner Archer (secretary of war of the Republic of Texas, 1840), addressed as ''"Branch T. Archer"'' and a scrap from the ''Texas Sentinel'' making the same use . | |||
:::These are just a few examples. Many other cases (in fact, a large quantity of them) can be observed by browsing through contemporary documents. Just my two cents. ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 19:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
*I've removed the dots from 'U dot S dot' because no one but Americans use them, and even in the US, the more attractive, easier to read 'US' is becoming more common (see even the Misplaced Pages copyright tag for US Government images). ] 03:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::I find "no one but Americans use them" to be a strange argument. This is about an American institution, and Misplaced Pages style says that articles about American things should use American English. Similarly, the ] article should use British English. Beyond which, the ] says this: ''When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this.'' The style should be changed back. · ]<sup>]</sup> 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::Just one final pseudo-point -- Tony's other points are well considered and we should think about how to deal with them going forward. · ]<sup>]</sup> 03:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Take a look at ] to see 'US' without the dots. Also please note that the CIA's World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook) uses 'US' without the dots; you can't get more central to US usage than that, surely. Misplaced Pages's MoS is only a guideline, and you'll see some robust discussion over the last few months over the issue, which is as yet unresolved. Michael J Fox is from the 20th century; I'm talking about the 19th-century people in the article, who'd have have found the usage unusual. | |||
:Well, Misplaced Pages isn't consistent unfortunately. That another article uses mistaken usage really shouldn't bear here. The MOS clearly states what the style should be. Though it's disputed, it's not yet been so disputed that the MOS has changed. Therefore I see no reason not to follow it. Saying it's a guideline and not a policy is hardly a reason not to follow the manual of style, nor is pointing out other articles that use the incorrect style. I fail to see how the CIA Factbook should be seen as some sort of definitive yardstick -- the Associated Press stylebook uses U.S. in all cases. If you want a nationwide style yardstick outside of Misplaced Pages, I'd think that is more appropriate. · ]<sup>]</sup> 15:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
I don't think that your label of 'incorrect/correct' reflects reality. American usage is inconsistent, both in and outside Misplaced Pages. All the more reason to be on the leading rather than following side of the issue, taking the psychology and aesthetics of reading as your yardstick: removing the dots makes the text slightly easier to read and looks better on the page—those are the reasons for this change in usage over the past few decades. I don't want to argue about it any more; I've put my case. ] 01:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I'm sorry, but the MOS is quite clear, as is AP style, regardless of what you personally think is more readable. We can agree to disagree as you like, perhaps we should open an RFC on the matter. · ]<sup>]</sup> 01:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
If you're going to quote chapter and verse from MoS manuals, note that all of the major ones specify no spaces either side of m dashes. ] 06:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
==Oldest? Yes== | |||
I'm sure Texans are suitably proud of this force, but the article on the ] states that they were created in 1729. However, the has ''Est. 1871'' as part of its banner, and its history section only says that it dates back to the "early 1800s". This last statement would suggest that the Texas Rangers article's boast might not be completely safe. Any thoughts? --] 01:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not intimately familiar with the ], but the claims of a longer history seem doubtful from my (very) basic knowledge. As far as I know, although their roots did preceed the Texas Rangers, the RNC as such only exists after 1871, an information that matches the date at their banner. A very small research has led me to , where this idea is confirmed. The following excerpt from that page appears clear to close the issue, in my humble opinion: ''The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) is the oldest police force in Canada,'' '''''which has roots dating to 1729''', and '''was reorganized in 1871 to become the Newfoundland Constabulary.''''' However, I must thank you for bringing up a very interesting point. Hugs! ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 01:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::The date of 1729 reported in the current version of the article is from a time when Newfoundland was still being periodically swapped between French and British control, the British taking permanent control after the ]. In addition, the editor that originally added the claim that the RNC were the oldest only claimed a date of 1833 for the initial formation and 1871 for official creation. Until some source can be provided that a single police force could survive a couple of military invasions, I would tend to side with the Texas Rangers in this dispute. --'']'' <sup>]</sup> 02:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::I've been lucky enough to speedy contact user ], who happens to have deeper knowledge of the issue. After an exchange of information, we've agreed upon the fact that the Texas Rangers are indeed the oldest law enforcement agency in North America, while the RNC began to function as a modern civil police force earlier (at its foundation in 1871). The TRs retained their profile of a semi-military force for some years past that date, and didn't acquire full police functions until the 1901 law. Jcmurphy has also modified the ] article to reflect this distinction. | |||
:::Conclusion: | |||
:::*the TRs are the oldest ''law enforcement agency'' in North America | |||
:::*the RNC are the oldest ''police force'' and the second oldest ''law enforcement agency'' in North America | |||
:::Hope this clears the matter. ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 14:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Ranger "Volunteers" == | |||
Shauri, in the section on the Mexican Revolution, I believe those new Ranger units you mentioned at the time were known as "Ranger Volunteers" because they were supposedly made up in large part of "Volunteer" militiamen. In reality they consisted in large part of thugs and even criminals, which resulted in the attrocities you recount and a stain upon the Texas Rangers' reputation as a whole. In fact, there is a debate now about whether these "Volunteers" should be considered real Rangers at all. Some even go so far as to say their actions helped provoke Poncho Villa's raids, or that some of the crimes blamed on him might have been really been the work of the "Volunteers" themselves. This is speculation, of course (With perhaps a bit of good old Historical Revisionism mixed in :). But the fact remains, these were some rough, nasty hombres. Only wish I could recall where I heard/read about them. I know it was also mentioned in a show on the History Channel here in the States a few months ago. But I'm loathe to cite such things as references. Did find this rather interesting looking book, though- *HUGS* to you my friend, --] 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Excellent info, my dear Ghost, which I will get to check asap. It sounds rather consistent with the historical facts, so it wouldn't suprise me in the least to find a mention in some sources. As you say, it'll be important to have reliable references for such a sensitive topic, especially if we intend to present this article to FAC. Regarding that book on McNelly, yes; I've also read that review, and I wish I could get my hands on it ;) I find the figure of McNelly somewhat fascinating (not as much as Hays tho). I hope to eventually turn ] into a wider article with merits of its own. Feel like helping in the task? ;) Hugs, and thank you so much for your kind support at my RfA! ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Why it would be my honor and pleasure to collaborate with you, sweet Shauri! Though I must admit, I have yet to see that ''Texas Ranger'' movie about McNelly. I should now, though..for "Research' purposes ;) But we both need to find/make the time. You are giving SHJ a rewrite and I've got the whole WikiProject:battles thing going on now (Where Spawn Man has dragged me into WWI...MEEEEDIC! :). But somehow I'm sure we will. Let me know when you are ready and I'll offer you whatever info,ideas and general support I can muster. In the meantime I offer you *HUGS* from your DooD Ex Machina --] 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
== |
==History== | ||
] | |||
Texas Ranger lore dates the first rangers to 1823, when Stephen F. Austin employed ten men to act as rangers to protect 600 to 700 newly settled families who arrived in Texas following the ].<ref>Cox, Mike, ''The Texas Rangers''.</ref> The Texas Rangers were formally constituted in 1835, and in November ] was chosen to be the first Major of the Texas Rangers. Within two years the Rangers comprised more than 300 men. Following the ] and the creation of the ], newly elected president ] raised a force of 56 Rangers to fight the ] and the ], partly in retaliation for the support they had given the Mexicans at the ] against the Republic.<ref>Webb, Walter Prescott, ''The Texas Rangers: A Century of Frontier Defense''.</ref> The size of the Rangers was increased to 150 by ], President of the Republic, in 1841. The Rangers continued to participate in skirmishes with Indians through 1846, when the annexation of Texas within the United States and the ] in 1846 saw several companies of Rangers were mustered into federal service. They played important roles at various battles, acting as guides and participating in ], soon establishing a fearsome reputation amongst both Mexicans and Americans. Following the end of the war in 1848 the Rangers were largey disbanded, but the election of ] as governor in 1857 meant that $70,000 was allocated to fund the Rangers under ], a veteran of the Mexican war. The now 100-strong Rangers participated in campaigns against the Comanche and other tribes, whose raids against the settlers and their properties had become common. | |||
This article uses too many commas. Can I fix it? --] 16:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Sure! Be our guest! Feel free to improve it any way you deem necessary. I recommend that you create an account, and you're welcome aboard. And remember: edit like the wind (as my friend ] says) and ]! <font color="green">]</font color> ] <small><font color="peach">]</font color>]<font color="peach">]</font color></small> <font color="black"><small>''20:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)''</font color></small> | |||
The success of a series of campaigns in the 1860s marked a turning point in Rangers' history. The U.S. Army could provide only limited and thinly stretched protection in the enormous territory of Texas. In contrast, the Rangers' effectiveness when dealing with these threats convinced both the people of the state and the political leaders that a well-funded and organized local Ranger force was essential. Such a force could use the deep familiarity with the territory and the proximity with the theater of operations as major advantages in its favor. This option was not pursued in the light of the emerging national political problems, and the Rangers were again dissolved.<ref>Wilkins, Frederick, ''Defending the Borders: The Texas Rangers, 1848–1861''.</ref> | |||
== Loyalty Rangers, Los Rinches == | |||
Many Rangers enlisted to fight for the ] following the ] of Texas from the United States in 1861 during the American Civil War. During ], the Rangers were replaced by the Union-controlled ] who soon fell into disrepute, and were disbanded only three years later in 1873.<ref> Webb, Walter Prescott, ''The Texas Rangers: A Century of Frontier Justice'', University of Texas Press, 1965, second edition, pp. 219-229.</ref> The state election of 1873 saw newly elected Governor ] and the state ] recommission the Rangers.<ref>Utley, Robert M., ''Lone Star Justice: The First Century of the Texas Rangers'', Berkley Books, 2003, p. 144.</ref> It was at these times that many of the Rangers' myths were born, such as their success in capturing or killing notorious criminals and '']s'' (including bank robber ] and gunfighter ]) and their decisive role in the defeat of the Comanche, the ] and the ] peoples. It was also during these years that the Rangers suffered the only defeat in their history when they surrendered at the ] in 1877. Despite the fame of their deeds, the conduct of the Rangers during this period was questionable. In particular, McNelly and his men used ruthless methods that often rivaled the brutality of their opponents, such as taking part in ]s and confessions induced by ] and intimidation.<ref>Parsons, Chuck & Hall Little, Marianne E., ''Captain L. H. McNelly, Texas Ranger: The Life and Times of a Fighting Man''.</ref> | |||
The article is great as it is but I feel it could be greatly expanded. For example there is only the smallest reference to the so called "Loyalty Rangers." These "rangers" were groups of men deputized by Texas Rangers that were often responsible for many of the atrocities that the Texas Rangers are blamed for during the Mexican Revolution. | |||
]<!--Non free image removed by DASHBot--> | |||
Also opinion of the rangers by border dwellers in general, including Mexican Americans, could stand to be expanded upon. Many inhabitants of the border were disgusted by the acts of certain ranger units. | |||
The Rangers next saw serious action during the ] that began in 1910 against ] ]. The breakdown of law and order on the Mexican side of the Border, coupled with the lack of federal military forces meant that the Rangers were once again called upon to restore and maintain law and order, by any necessary means. However, the situation necessitated the appointment of hundreds of new special Rangers by the state, which neglected to carefully screen aspiring members. The Rangers were responsible for several incidents, ending in the 1918 massacre of the male population (fifteen Mexican men and boys ranging in age from 16 to 72 years) of the tiny community of Porvenir, Texas on the Mexican border in western Presidio County. Before the decade was over, thousands of lives were lost, Texans and Mexicans alike. In January 1919 an investigation by the Texas Legislature found that from 300 to 5,000 people, mostly of Hispanic descent, had been killed by Rangers from 1910 to 1919, and that members of the Rangers had been involved in many acts of brutality and injustice.<ref>Harris, Charles H. III & Sadler, Louis R., ibid.</ref> The Rangers were reformed by a resolution of the Legislature in 1919, which saw the special Ranger groups disbanded and a complaints system instituted.<center>Capt. Monroe Fox and two other Rangers on horseback with their lariats around the bodies of dead Mexican bandits, after the Las Norias Bandit Raid October 8, 1915</center><!--Non free image removed by DASHBot--> | |||
The Rangers next saw serious action during the ] that began in 1910 against ] ]. The breakdown of law and order on the Mexican side of the Border, coupled with the lack of federal military forces meant that the Rangers were once again called upon to restore and maintain law and order, by any necessary means. However, the situation necessitated the appointment of hundreds of new special Rangers by the state, which neglected to carefully screen aspiring members. The Rangers were responsible for several incidents, ending in the 1918 massacre of the male population (fifteen Mexican men and boys ranging in age from 16 to 72 years) of the tiny community of Porvenir, Texas on the Mexican border in western Presidio County. Before the decade was over, thousands of lives were lost, Texans and Mexicans alike. In January 1919 an investigation by the Texas Legislature found that from 300 to 5,000 people, mostly of Hispanic descent, had been killed by Rangers from 1910 to 1919, and that members of the Rangers had been involved in many acts of brutality and injustice.<ref>Harris, Charles H. III & Sadler, Louis R., ibid.</ref> The Rangers were reformed by a resolution of the Legislature in 1919, which saw the special Ranger groups disbanded and a complaints system instituted. | |||
The ] forced both the federal and state governments to cut down on personnel and funding of their organizations, and the number of commissioned officers was reduced to 45 and the only means of transportation afforded to Rangers were free railroad passes, or using their personal horses. The agency was again damaged after supporting Governor ] in his re-election campaign - but after his opponent ] won, she proceeded to discharge all serving Rangers in 1933. | |||
It is also long since time to call Frank Hamer's murder of Bonnie Parker. She was not wanted anywhere for any capital offense, had not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, even fired a shot at anyone, and ther was NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR HER EXECUTION BY FRANK HAMER, who cold bloodedly murdered her by shooting her to pieces whiel she screamed in agony. And for this, congres gave him a citation. We are sure a great country, lol. | |||
The ensuing disorganization of law enforcement in the state caused the Legislature to engaged a firm of consultants to reorganize the state security agencies; they recommended merging the Rangers with the ] under a new agency called the ] (DPS), which took place in 1935 with an initial budget of $450,000. With minor rearrangements over the years, the 1935 reforms have ruled the Texas Rangers' organization until present day. Hiring new members, which had been largely a political decision, was achieved through a series of examinations and merit evaluations. Promotion relied on seniority and performance in the line of duty. Today, the historical importance and symbolism of the Texas Rangers is such that they are protected by statute from being disbanded.<ref>''"The division relating to the Texas Rangers may not be abolished"'' - Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, September 1, 1987.</ref> | |||
Jovita Idar's well documented experience with a group of "outlaw" Texas Rangers could also be included along with some of the more "interesting" atrocities that the Texas Rangers are blamed for. If there is space for famous Texas Ranger cases, why isn't there space for these incidents? | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
I am in the process of gathering sources about this time period in the history of the rangers but I don't doubt that some of these are in Spanish and taking notes from those books could take some time. Is anyone else in the process of doing something similar? ] 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I agree that it could use some balance in that area. It's not a subject I have any special knowledge of, but if you do please feel free to contribute. also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages; you can do this quickly by typing four tiles in a row (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) For me, I type four tildes and it spits out this: · ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Los Diablos Tejanos == | ||
Can we please remove this? The sourced link is an old very biased Texas Monthly article and from there leads to another article that claims "some Mexicans say..." Which Mexicans? I've tried tracking this down and in most Spanish sources the term for the Rangers is Los Rinches, usually with a pejorative attached. We don't have to put Los Rinches but its got a whole lot more sources than "Diablos Tejanos." I thought I'd ask as the "old guard" seems to still be lurking around. ] (]) 23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
When I edit, I get the little notice that this article is larger than usually deemed appropriate. I wouldn't mention it but then I notice people in the Talk here complaining about edit clashes — that's yet another good reason to break the article up a little, eh? ] 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Bonnie Parker== | |||
It is also long since time to call Frank Hamer's murder of Bonnie Parker. She was not wanted anywhere for any capital offense, had not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, even fired a shot at anyone, and ther was NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR HER EXECUTION BY FRANK HAMER, who cold bloodedly murdered her by shooting her to pieces whiel she screamed in agony. And for this, congres gave him a citation. We are sure a great country, lol. {{unsigned|Oldwindybear}} | |||
:Literally the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and Museum website uses this term. Now, they don't have a citation for where they got it from, but it's also on the Bullock Texas State History Website as well as the website for the Texas Department of Public Safety on the history of the Texas Rangers. So, I don't know about Mexicans but according to the Texas Rangers, that's what people called the Texas Rangers. | |||
This is a signed explanation by ] who challanges the revert, respectfully, and asks this encylclopedia to take the bold step of printing fact instead of legend, law instead of propaganda for a sickening murder. Hi Kat, this is ] and let me explain the lack of legal authority to kill Bonnie Parker, and you can then decide whether your revert was right. I am a certified paralegal, with 2 degrees in history, one in paralegal studies, and another I am finishing in law and ethics. I went to the library of congress, and studied the laws of the states of Texas and Louisiana, and the United States Code, during the period in question, 1932-1934. There was no charge which Bonnie could have been charged with which would have allowed use of lethal force to effect her capture. Unlike today, they did not have accessory in the first or second degree, nor conspiracy to committ murder, as we do today. Further, I went to Louisiana, and had previously checked the extensive library at teh University of Houston, where i graduated from, and the University of Texas library on the Department of Corrections -- and there were no warrants in effect in any jurisdiction for Bonnie Parker for Murder, or any charge which could have possibly justified use of lethal force. Further, no historian has ever alleged she fired a shot at anyone. No one --no offense to you -- wants to accept what this means, and bell the cat. 1) If she had no charges pending which allowed the use of lethal force; 2) had committed no act which could have resulted in such charges; then 3) the killing of her was unlawful homicide under the laws of all three jurisdictions, both then, and now. Politics ruled the day then, and she was swept into history as just another victim of a society which has one set of rules for the rich and powerful, and another for poor kids from the Dallas Viaduct. My research is without flaw, and seriously, IN 72 YEARS NO ONE HAS ALLEGED OTHERWISE. Isn't it time for wikipedia to tell the truth? I ask you to allow me to put in the flat facts that exist, not the phony story the government pawned off to justify this girl's murder. Are we here for facts? If we are not, I will stop writing for the encyclopedia, because there is no point. No matter how much proof you bring, you chose to print the legend, not the facts. Please take the right step, and print the truth,]2:34 1/5 (I live outside dc, email me at j1994r89@hotmail.com to discuss this, please -- isn't it time someone told the truth? I reverted part of your revert, telling only what i can factually and legally prove. Are you interested at all in the truth? ] 1/4 9am | |||
:https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/texas-rangers/history-texas-rangers ] (]) 22:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Hi bear, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, I had to revert your changes again. It's not that the question of whether there was a legal basis to kill Parker can't be included in the article. It's that such assertions must be properly sourced to something that's already been published. While I greatly respect the amount of research you've done, and read with interest your findings, unless that research has been published somewhere in some reputable publication, we can't use it. It's simply against Misplaced Pages's ]. I mean you no disrespect in saying this, so I hope you won't take it as such. You inserted: ''There was no charge which Bonnie could have been charged with which would have allowed use of lethal force to effect her capture.'' The way to properly insert and attribute this statement would be to say "In the book TITLE, AUTHOR argues that there was no legal basis for the use of lethal force against Parker. (link to citation)". | |||
== Henry Lee Lucas == | |||
:Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies that ], ] and ], as well as Misplaced Pages's policies requiring articles be presented from a ]. Opinions such as "While Clyde died instantly from a head shot, posse members report Bonnie screaming in agony. For this, Congress awarded Hamer a citation!" are simply not appropriate for Misplaced Pages in any shape or form. If you have a source for someone criticizing Hamer, that can be properly summarized within the article. But we can't just have the article making a statement of opinion like that without it being attributed to a published source. | |||
Nothing in the "High-Profile Cases" section about notorious serial killer Henry Lee Lucas and how the Rangers used him as a scapegoat to close hundreds of cold cases they failed?] (]) 19:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:This may seem counterintuitive, but Misplaced Pages does not strive to "tell the truth." It strives to present all sides of a debate by summarizing published material. The hurdle here is verifiability, not "truth," because "truth" is inherently subjective and a Misplaced Pages article should take no sides in a dispute. From ]: ''"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Misplaced Pages. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.'' | |||
== Illegal fight == | |||
:Also, please remember to sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes in a row (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). This will make it much easier for you and everybody who reads your comments. · ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 16:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
The "one riot, one Ranger" section talks about the "illegal heavyweight prize fight between Pete Maher and Bob Fitzsimmons". The article on that fight points out that boxing was illegal in Langtry, but this article lists that as one of the later venues. Why was the fight illegal? The internet is frustratingly vague. Was boxing illegal in all of Texas? -] (]) 12:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
>]</ this is ] the trouble is that there is NO BOOK that says this -- what there is consists of the laws of the states involved, the US Code, and the legal record, including warrants. I understand your point, and to a certain extent, sympathize with it. But what you are saying is that because no author saw a profit in exposing the corruption active in Texas at the time (and as a texas resident, as I was, you know that existed!) that the law does not matter, the library of congress does not matter, nothing matters, because a fiction writer did not write it in a novel. That is NOT the way an encyclopedia is run! All I can do is resign in protest, retract the contribution I was going to give, and urge my fellow veterans on our websites, (Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars) that wikidpedia is not interested in the truth, won't accept facts, but demands that someone write them in a book! Why not cite me? I wrote a paper for college called "The True Story of BONNIE and CLYDE, Murdered by the Government, May 23,1934" for the University of Maryland! Kate, you seem sincere -- don't you see the dicotomy in what you are saying? You admit that my research is probably valid (and you know reasonably it is, or someone in the last 72 years would have found a warrant for Bonnie, or cited a statue she violated somewhere that justified lethal force apprehension! Instead, you say, damn the facts, we publish the legend, That makes wikipedia a joke, i am sorry to say. i won't try to tell the truth anymore in wikipedia, because wikipedia is not interested in giving students or others seeking knowledge the truth, it is interested in being policitcally correct, and that is sad, I bow out, I am not interested at my age in political correctness, but the facts, Ma'am. just the facts...] |
Latest revision as of 19:30, 16 March 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Texas Ranger Division article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
Texas Ranger Division is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 16, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S730910.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism
The section about the Ranger unforms appears to have been hacked to display the phrase "Chuck Norris owns you all". Amusing but needs to be removed. Tried but it is hidden in "edit page".
The section also had a section encouraging readers to join a plot to vandalise wikipedia using perl scrips. It has now been removed.
Removed the reference to Rangers as homosexuals: "employ ten homosexual men" --> "employ ten men". (Austin could never have said this anyways, since the word "homosexual" didn't exist until the late 19th century).
Anecdotes
Has anyone checked out the Texas Rangers' biographies at the Texas State Cemetery Honored Texans section? Many are just vital information, but a few have entertaining anecdotes. For instance:
- A ranger forced to walk to El Paso, stops at the first house he finds, eats 27 eggs in one go before going into town for a full meal
- A man whose vigilantism earned him an invitation to join the rangers and incurred the wrath of the Wild Bunch --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ...officer's rank meant little to the rangers, for "They were all `generals.' When we detailed a man to go anywhere to make an arrest or do any particular work, we didn't need to send another man with him to tell him what to do." This one includes many quotes, and I'm tempted to look for the mentioned autobiographies.
--Laura Scudder | Talk 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Badge.
Took the liberty to clean it up, hope you don't mind, Kate. Shem 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not at all, it looks great! · Katefan0 00:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
History
Texas Ranger lore dates the first rangers to 1823, when Stephen F. Austin employed ten men to act as rangers to protect 600 to 700 newly settled families who arrived in Texas following the Mexican War of Independence. The Texas Rangers were formally constituted in 1835, and in November Robert McAlpin Williamson was chosen to be the first Major of the Texas Rangers. Within two years the Rangers comprised more than 300 men. Following the Texas Revolution and the creation of the Republic of Texas, newly elected president Mirabeau B. Lamar raised a force of 56 Rangers to fight the Cherokee and the Comanche, partly in retaliation for the support they had given the Mexicans at the Cordova Rebellion against the Republic. The size of the Rangers was increased to 150 by Sam Houston, President of the Republic, in 1841. The Rangers continued to participate in skirmishes with Indians through 1846, when the annexation of Texas within the United States and the Mexican–American War in 1846 saw several companies of Rangers were mustered into federal service. They played important roles at various battles, acting as guides and participating in guerrilla warfare, soon establishing a fearsome reputation amongst both Mexicans and Americans. Following the end of the war in 1848 the Rangers were largey disbanded, but the election of Hardin Richard Runnels as governor in 1857 meant that $70,000 was allocated to fund the Rangers under John Salmon "Rip" Ford, a veteran of the Mexican war. The now 100-strong Rangers participated in campaigns against the Comanche and other tribes, whose raids against the settlers and their properties had become common.
The success of a series of campaigns in the 1860s marked a turning point in Rangers' history. The U.S. Army could provide only limited and thinly stretched protection in the enormous territory of Texas. In contrast, the Rangers' effectiveness when dealing with these threats convinced both the people of the state and the political leaders that a well-funded and organized local Ranger force was essential. Such a force could use the deep familiarity with the territory and the proximity with the theater of operations as major advantages in its favor. This option was not pursued in the light of the emerging national political problems, and the Rangers were again dissolved.
Many Rangers enlisted to fight for the Confederacy following the secession of Texas from the United States in 1861 during the American Civil War. During Reconstruction, the Rangers were replaced by the Union-controlled Texas State Police who soon fell into disrepute, and were disbanded only three years later in 1873. The state election of 1873 saw newly elected Governor Richard Coke and the state legislature recommission the Rangers. It was at these times that many of the Rangers' myths were born, such as their success in capturing or killing notorious criminals and desperados (including bank robber Sam Bass and gunfighter John Wesley Hardin) and their decisive role in the defeat of the Comanche, the Kiowa and the Apache peoples. It was also during these years that the Rangers suffered the only defeat in their history when they surrendered at the Salinero Revolt in 1877. Despite the fame of their deeds, the conduct of the Rangers during this period was questionable. In particular, McNelly and his men used ruthless methods that often rivaled the brutality of their opponents, such as taking part in summary executions and confessions induced by torture and intimidation.
The Rangers next saw serious action during the Mexican Revolution that began in 1910 against President Porfirio Díaz. The breakdown of law and order on the Mexican side of the Border, coupled with the lack of federal military forces meant that the Rangers were once again called upon to restore and maintain law and order, by any necessary means. However, the situation necessitated the appointment of hundreds of new special Rangers by the state, which neglected to carefully screen aspiring members. The Rangers were responsible for several incidents, ending in the 1918 massacre of the male population (fifteen Mexican men and boys ranging in age from 16 to 72 years) of the tiny community of Porvenir, Texas on the Mexican border in western Presidio County. Before the decade was over, thousands of lives were lost, Texans and Mexicans alike. In January 1919 an investigation by the Texas Legislature found that from 300 to 5,000 people, mostly of Hispanic descent, had been killed by Rangers from 1910 to 1919, and that members of the Rangers had been involved in many acts of brutality and injustice. The Rangers were reformed by a resolution of the Legislature in 1919, which saw the special Ranger groups disbanded and a complaints system instituted.
The Rangers next saw serious action during the Mexican Revolution that began in 1910 against President Porfirio Díaz. The breakdown of law and order on the Mexican side of the Border, coupled with the lack of federal military forces meant that the Rangers were once again called upon to restore and maintain law and order, by any necessary means. However, the situation necessitated the appointment of hundreds of new special Rangers by the state, which neglected to carefully screen aspiring members. The Rangers were responsible for several incidents, ending in the 1918 massacre of the male population (fifteen Mexican men and boys ranging in age from 16 to 72 years) of the tiny community of Porvenir, Texas on the Mexican border in western Presidio County. Before the decade was over, thousands of lives were lost, Texans and Mexicans alike. In January 1919 an investigation by the Texas Legislature found that from 300 to 5,000 people, mostly of Hispanic descent, had been killed by Rangers from 1910 to 1919, and that members of the Rangers had been involved in many acts of brutality and injustice. The Rangers were reformed by a resolution of the Legislature in 1919, which saw the special Ranger groups disbanded and a complaints system instituted.
The Great Depression forced both the federal and state governments to cut down on personnel and funding of their organizations, and the number of commissioned officers was reduced to 45 and the only means of transportation afforded to Rangers were free railroad passes, or using their personal horses. The agency was again damaged after supporting Governor Ross Sterling in his re-election campaign - but after his opponent Miriam Amanda "Ma" Ferguson won, she proceeded to discharge all serving Rangers in 1933.
The ensuing disorganization of law enforcement in the state caused the Legislature to engaged a firm of consultants to reorganize the state security agencies; they recommended merging the Rangers with the Texas Highway Patrol under a new agency called the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), which took place in 1935 with an initial budget of $450,000. With minor rearrangements over the years, the 1935 reforms have ruled the Texas Rangers' organization until present day. Hiring new members, which had been largely a political decision, was achieved through a series of examinations and merit evaluations. Promotion relied on seniority and performance in the line of duty. Today, the historical importance and symbolism of the Texas Rangers is such that they are protected by statute from being disbanded.
References
- Cox, Mike, The Texas Rangers.
- Webb, Walter Prescott, The Texas Rangers: A Century of Frontier Defense.
- Wilkins, Frederick, Defending the Borders: The Texas Rangers, 1848–1861.
- Webb, Walter Prescott, The Texas Rangers: A Century of Frontier Justice, University of Texas Press, 1965, second edition, pp. 219-229.
- Utley, Robert M., Lone Star Justice: The First Century of the Texas Rangers, Berkley Books, 2003, p. 144.
- Parsons, Chuck & Hall Little, Marianne E., Captain L. H. McNelly, Texas Ranger: The Life and Times of a Fighting Man.
- Harris, Charles H. III & Sadler, Louis R., ibid.
- Harris, Charles H. III & Sadler, Louis R., ibid.
- "The division relating to the Texas Rangers may not be abolished" - Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, September 1, 1987.
Los Diablos Tejanos
Can we please remove this? The sourced link is an old very biased Texas Monthly article and from there leads to another article that claims "some Mexicans say..." Which Mexicans? I've tried tracking this down and in most Spanish sources the term for the Rangers is Los Rinches, usually with a pejorative attached. We don't have to put Los Rinches but its got a whole lot more sources than "Diablos Tejanos." I thought I'd ask as the "old guard" seems to still be lurking around. Mosquito 02 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Literally the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and Museum website uses this term. Now, they don't have a citation for where they got it from, but it's also on the Bullock Texas State History Website as well as the website for the Texas Department of Public Safety on the history of the Texas Rangers. So, I don't know about Mexicans but according to the Texas Rangers, that's what people called the Texas Rangers.
- https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/texas-rangers/history-texas-rangers Attack.Iguana (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Henry Lee Lucas
Nothing in the "High-Profile Cases" section about notorious serial killer Henry Lee Lucas and how the Rangers used him as a scapegoat to close hundreds of cold cases they failed?172.87.33.194 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Illegal fight
The "one riot, one Ranger" section talks about the "illegal heavyweight prize fight between Pete Maher and Bob Fitzsimmons". The article on that fight points out that boxing was illegal in Langtry, but this article lists that as one of the later venues. Why was the fight illegal? The internet is frustratingly vague. Was boxing illegal in all of Texas? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of High-importance
- C-Class American Old West articles
- High-importance American Old West articles
- WikiProject American Old West articles
- C-Class Texas articles
- High-importance Texas articles
- WikiProject Texas articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Law enforcement articles
- Mid-importance Law enforcement articles
- WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
- C-Class organization articles
- High-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles