The date associated with restricting immigration into Texas is April 6, 1830. Mexico issued the Law of April 6, 1830 to curb immigration from the United States into Texas and to tighten government control over the region. It meant fewer new settlers from the U.S., changes to land grant practices for Americans, and a push to boost Mexican and European settlement. This policy increased tensions between Texas settlers and the Mexican government and helped set the stage for the push toward independence a few years later. Other dates don’t fit this event: March 2, 1836 is when Texas declared independence, January 1, 1830 isn’t tied to a major Texas immigration law, and July 4, 1776 marks U.S. independence.

Remember the Alamo became a powerful reminder of the defenders’ courage at the siege and helped Texans push through to keep fighting for independence. It turned into a unifying slogan used by leaders and volunteers to persevere, especially leading up to and after the decisive Battle of San Jacinto later in 1836. The other phrases don’t fit as closely: one came from an earlier stand at Gonzales, another is a modern-sounding tag, and the remaining option isn’t a recognized rallying cry tied to this event.

The key idea here is identifying which resources powered Texas’s economy when it first became a state. In the early years after statehood, Texas relied mainly on cattle ranching, cotton farming, and timber. Cattle gave rise to long-distance drives and beef that could be sold across the country. Cotton was a major cash crop in Texas’s fertile plains, supporting many farms and communities. Timber supported building needs and rail expansion, especially in East Texas. Oil didn’t become a major economic driver until after the turn of the century, so including it as part of the early statehood economy captures the timeline accurately: later oil, not yet in the early period, transformed Texas later on. The other options don’t fit because they describe resources either not associated with Texas’s early economy (silk, spices, tea) or much more modern or regionally limited (coal, gas, uranium, lithium). Hog production and tobacco/iron aren’t the defining early-state industries of Texas.

The main idea being tested is recognizing what legal document the Texas Declaration of Independence said Santa Anna violated. Texans argued that Santa Anna’s government violated the Mexican Constitution of 1824, which established a federal republic and protections for the states’ rights. When Santa Anna centralized power, dissolved the federal system, and moved toward a strong central authority, he undermined what the 1824 Constitution guaranteed. That breach—suspending or ignoring the federal framework—was a core grievance listed in the declaration. Context helps: After Mexico won independence from Spain, the 1824 Constitution set up a union with shared powers between the national government and the states. Texans and other Mexican states preferred this federal arrangement. Santa Anna’s later centralist policies reversed that setup, concentrating power at the national level and eroding local self-government. That shift is why the Texans cited the Constitution of 1824 as the document being violated. The other options don’t fit because there wasn’t a Constitution of 1820 governing this issue, and 1830 isn’t the charter in question; the Treaty of Tejas is not a constitutional instrument referenced in the declaration.

In Texas history, some Native groups lived by moving around and gathering food rather than growing crops in permanent villages. The Coahuiltecan fit this pattern: they consisted of many small bands across southern Texas who hunted, gathered wild foods, and moved with the seasons. They didn’t build long-lasting farm settlements, so their way of life is clearly hunter-gatherer and nomadic. The other groups had different lifeways. The Caddo built settled villages and farmed crops in East Texas, which isn’t hunter-gatherer. The Karankawa along the Gulf Coast relied on fishing and gathering as their main subsistence, with mobility but not the same broad hunter-gatherer nomad pattern often associated with southern Texas. The Apache were nomadic as well but are associated with different regions and contexts than the classic southern Texas hunter-gatherer groups. So, the Coahuiltecan best match the description.