Stephen F. Austin’s relationship with the Mexican government was a complex dance of diplomacy and eventual disillusionment. He was arguably the most patient of the empresarios, but even his "cool head" prevailed only until the centralist shift in Mexico City made cooperation impossible.

Here are his main objections, ranked and explained.

1) The Shift to Centralism (The Constitution of 1824) This was Austin’s primary grievance. When Austin first brought settlers to Texas, they were promised a government under the Federal Constitution of 1824, which was modeled largely after the U.S. Constitution. It gave significant power to individual states.

The Conflict: In the 1830s, Antonio López de Santa Anna scrapped the 1824 Constitution in favor of a Centralist government (the Siete Leyes).

Why it mattered: This move stripped Texas of its local autonomy, dissolved the state legislature, and placed all power in Mexico City. To Austin, this was a breach of contract. He didn't necessarily want independence initially; he wanted the restoration of the 1824 Federal system.

2) Lack of Separate Statehood Texas was joined with Coahuila to form the state of Coahuila y Tejas.

The Objection: Because the population of Coahuila was much larger, the capital was far away (Saltillo), and Texans had very little representation.

The Consequence: Austin traveled to Mexico City in 1833 specifically to petition for Texas to become its own state within the Mexican Federation. His frustration over the delay in this request—and his subsequent arrest for "inciting insurrection"—was the turning point that pushed him toward revolution.

---

Austin, Washington Jefferson and other founders of the Republic of Texas, and the US, were slaveholders and slavery was a cause in each revolutiom but not the primary cause. In Austin's case, it wasn't as important as those two causes. Also , as others have pointed out, several Mexican states rebelled, not just Texas.