VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:38:13 07/18/07 Wed
Author: Travieso
Author Host/IP: cpe-66-25-163-185.austin.res.rr.com / 66.25.163.185
Subject: Re: Texas is not part of teh south!!!
In reply to: Randy (Texas Reb) 's message, "Re: Texas is not part of teh south!!!" on 13:41:53 07/18/07 Wed

>
>>Thanks Randy for replying back. Here are my points.
>
>Thanks in turn, Travis, for your interesting points.
>Here, in turn (as they say) are my own
>"counter-counter points"!
>
>>1. Randy, you wrote: " Texas was settled
>>overwhelmingly by WESTERN European stock (English,
>>Scots-Irish, etc)" and "in the Hill Country of Texas
>>and certain other isolated spots, noteable Germanic
>>communities and settlements".
>>
>>Randy, Germans are not isolated to the Hill country,
>>but more white Texans claim Germanic heritage than any
>>other ancestry. Germans are found throughout Central,
>>West, and South Texas.
>
>Travis, if you really read my original reply you will
>see that I never claimed "Germans" are "isolated" the
>Hill Country. I said there were large German
>commnities there, and OTHER isolated settlements
>elsewhere. Such as in Muenster and Windthorst,
>Texas...both within an hours drive of my own hometown.
>
>
>> A quick look at wikipedia
>>shows that "The largest reported ancestry groups in
>>Texas include: Mexican (25.3%), German (10.9%),
>>African American (10.5%), English (7.2%), and
>>Scots-Irish (7.2%)". The large Germanic and Hispanic
>>population is not like the South which has a large
>>population of white whose ancestry comes from the
>>British Isles.
>
>I am VERY familiar with Wikipedia. In fact, I
>contribute quite a bit to things Southern and Texan.
>But first things first.
>
>For one, the hispanic population of Texas is, in many
>aspects, a fairly recent occurance. Up until a decade
>or so ago, hispanics were a definite minority.
>There is no way to sort out, really, for now, how much
>is legal and illegal. Therefore, this argument is of
>VERY questionable weight in terms of culture and
>religion in Texas.
>
>And here is the link to the map you might be referring
>to:
> >href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_U
>nited_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_
>to_the_United_States
>
>So where, on the "colored" map does this indicate a
>difference in terms of Germanic or English birth?
>Even by your own figures, western and northern
>European ancestry is the norm. Actually, it shows
>(sadly) a pattern of illegal migration...
>
>>2. You wrote "Roman Catholics numbered 4,368,969 in
>>2000" Yes, Catholicism is the largest religion within
>>Texas.
>
>See my above statement. Protestants are the largest
>denomination in Texas, with Southern Baptists far and
>away the majority. The Roman Catholic (which I
>respect, very much) following is very much confined to
>hispanics, which again is questionable in many ways in
>terms of legal citizenship. Among white and black
>Texans, which is the "duality" that shaped the state,
>there is no doubt about where most have their
>affiliations.
>
>>I would be very careful when regarding to the
>>seperation of Tejanos and Illegal immigrants. But,
>>just the fact that you admit a huge hispanic
>>population shows that Texas shares demographic trends
>>more like the Southwest then say Alabama. While
>>hispanic migration into the South is recent, Texas has
>>a well established and very old Tejano community (with
>>it's own culture, dialect, and heritage) much like
>>Arizona and New Mexico. By definition, I would also be
>>considered Tejano becuase my family received a land
>>grants from Spain long before the Civil War. (Yes, I'm
>>bilingual).
>
>Sir, let me make this perfectly clear. I sincerely
>hope you are not presuming to lecture ME on making
>distinctions between legal Tejanoes and illegal
>Mexican aliens. The race card is one I have very
>little tolerance for. I am well aware of it, and
>stand by what I said earlier. And let me remind you as
>well that you are the one who first introduced the
>phrase "white Texans" into this exchange.
>
>In any event, there is a huge difference in an illegal
>invasion and evolved, natural, history. True, certain
>things are taking place that associate parts of Texas
>(south and far west) more with the true Southwest of
>Arizona and New Mexico than Alabama. But, THIS is not
>true Texas, historically or otherwise.
>
>>3. you wrote "The dominating traditional food stuff in
>>Texas is Southern in origin". YOu also wrote that my
>>cuisine didn't sound "texan". Wow! I don't know where
>>you grew up. My whole family is Texan. My mother made
>>homemade tortilla. "Tex-Mex" is a true cuisine that
>>has it's own history. So, you really cannot say that
>>my cuisine is not Texan. It is very Texan. I agree
>>that East Texas is more Southern in cuisine, but for
>>the majority of the State, that cuisine loses
>>popularity. IN South TExas, central Texas, and West
>>Texas tex-mex in much more popular. In Austin, the
>>only major restaurant that serves Southern style
>>cuisine (apart from strictly BBQ) is Threadgills.
>>Taquerias and Tex-Mex restaurants are much more
>>numerous.
>
>All I can say is (south Texas exempted) go to a cafe
>or restaruant about any where in Texas, and see what
>most people are eating. And what is most popular.
>
>And yes, I CAN say what you grew up eating is NOT
>Texan...not in the traditional sense. I have never
>been to a place once in my native state that chicken
>fried steak, BBQ or all the other thing mentioned are
>not the listed cruisine! LOL
>
>And DEFINTITELY, what folks usually cook around the
>home place, or grew up with, is Southern in orgin. No
>offence intended, Travis, but I truly think you missed
>out on the traditional Texas experience!
>
>
>>
>>As regards to BBQ. BBQ is not a strictly Southern
>>dish. BBQ is common throughout many cultures. Barbecoa
>>is Mexico is a staple.
>
>EVERYthing has some roots SOMEWHERE. Okra, for
>instance, is native to Africa, not the Southern United
>States. But what is, in America, considered
>"Barbeque" is of Southern birth. And it extended into
>Texas (although beef tends to be more popular than
>pork)
>
>
>>4. In regards to music. There is a true western
>>"cowboy" sound that is not the same as the music that
>>often comes form Nashville. It is a genre of music on
>>it's own. The national Cowboy and Western Heritage
>>Museum explores Western Artists, many who are Texans
>>such as Gene Autry.
>
>
>So WHAT? Roy Rogers and Buck Owens are NOT from Texas.
>Does that, in itself, make a case? "Blues" music can
>be sonsidered, in my humble opinion, the most truly
>Southern music of all. It originated in the
>Mississippi Delta, and spread to Louisiana, and, yep
>Texas. Those states are still where it enjoys a
>great popularity and following.
>
>>5.Okay let's talk about the Texas role of the civil
>>War.
>>
>>- Most Texas regiments did not see action in South. As
>>the texas handbook indicates "Two-thirds of the Texans
>>enrolled in the military spent the war in the
>>Southwest, either defending the state from Indian
>>attacks and Union invasion or participating in
>>expansionist moves into New Mexico Territory." Also,
>>many texas regiments were used to guard the coast from
>>a possible union takeover of Galveston by Union
>forces.
>
>The "Southwest" theatre of war was the
>"Trans-Mississippi" Department (most of Louisiana, and
>all of Arkansas and Texas).
>
>Of COURSE most state units spent most of their time in
>their home areas! Georgia troops did the same thing.
>As did Mississippi (where my own ancestors served) and
>Tennessee....Louisiana....etc, etc.
>
>>- Union sympathy was high in many parts of Texas. As
>>the Texas handbook indicates : Unionism remained
>>strong in some sections of the state. This was
>>especially true in some of the German counties in the
>>Hill Country and in a group of counties north of
>>Dallas".
>
>Union sympathy was high in ALL the orginal Confederate
>states, relatively speaking. A county in Alabama
>(Winston) actually "seceeded" from Alabama, as did one
>in Mississippi, sorta.
>
>Botton line is, however, other than in South Carolina,
>where the vote was unanimous, the percentage of
>delegates deciding the question voting to secede, was
>higher in Texas than ANY other state of the Lower
>South (166 - 7) THEN later backed up by a popular
>vote of 3/4 of Texans.
>
>What I really think you are again, with all due
>respect, is confusing "Union sentiment" with being a
>"northern sympathizer." In fact, with VERY few
>exceptions, Southern Unionists, (as typlified by Sam
>Houston) stood four-square for Southern rights. They
>simply believed that secession, at the moment in time,
>was "rash action." Maybe it was. BUT...don't think
>for a moment that this translates into how most Texans
>believed or felt when it came down to a question of
>either/or. The record is clear on that fact.
>
> >href="http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/status/allstates.htm"
>>http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/status/allstates.htm
>
>>Likewise, this doesn't even take into account
>>the role of anti-confederate feelings by Tejanos who
>>dominated South Texas.
>
>One of the most distinguished Confederate units in
>Texas was Hispanic. I will be happy to send you some
>information on them.
>
>Otherwise, again, anti-Confederate sentiment was
>notable in MANY parts of the South. North Alabama and
>Georgia. Many part of North Carolina and Tennessee
>and Arkansas. The southern parts of Louisiana
>objected. West Virginia "seceded" from Virginia over
>the issue. What is your point?
>
>
>>-Texas suffered the least in the Civil War. While
>>there were some suffering with rationing, etc. Texas'
>>border with Mexico insured more trade then other
>>states in the confederacy.
>
>True. We agree on this, and I brought it up in my
>original article.
>
>>-Likewise, Texas, with it large and more established
>>tradition of ranching and later oil did not suffer as
>>much as southern states after the civil war. Ranching
>>has a longer history in Texas than Cotton production,
>>so many Texans didn't just rely on cottom production
>>finaincially. IN fact, South Texas, West TExas, and
>>Central Texas did not suffer because they depended
>>more on animal husbandry than cotton.
>
>Wrong, Travis. Texas had no tradition of "ranching"
>up until the early 20th century. I truly, really,
>dont mean to be disrespectful, but I wonder where you
>get your information as to Texas history?
>
>The "cattle and ranching" you mention? Did you know
>that this aspect is directly related to the fall of
>Vickburg in the "Civil War"? And that the "Texas
>cowboy" and the habits and ect, are directly related
>to the Old South "cattle drovers"? That most of them
>were former Confederate soldiers? See James Michners
>historical novel "Texas" for verification.
>
>Look it up. Cotton remains today the most important
>agricultural crop in Texas. Going back to the past?
>In 1860, a third of the population of Texas were
>blacks working on cotton plantations. Why do you
>think so many from other folks from eastern Southern
>states moved west? The land was virgin and it yielded
>something almost unheard of.
>
>After the War (Civil War, if that is what you call it)
>Texas was a poor devasated Southern state. Some form
>of cotton share or tenant farming was how most people
>lived and made a daily living.
>
>Oil and Ranching came later.
>
>>- I have a real problem with many histories of the
>>Civil War, especially the less academic history books
>>because they concentrate solely on the anglo
>>perespective, yet so many Texans at the time,
>>including German and central European immigrants,
>>Tejanos, free Blacks, and native-americans are not
>>even included in the civil war story. That is wrong,
>>considering that they made a huge portion of the Texas
>>population. IN fact, many San Antonians actually
>>fought with the Union!!!! Likewise, Central Texas saw
>>huge sympathy for the Union.
>
>What I am seeing here now are, YOUR own perspectives
>and sympathies. Which is fine. I respect that.
>However, for one, they did NOT make a "huge" part of
>the population. If that were so, then the vote to
>secede and the support for the Confederacy would not
>have existed.
>
>While I am thinking about it, the large majority of
>"Native Americans" cast their lot with the South.
>
>As I said earlier, EVERY Southern state had men who
>fought for the Union. So let me just refer you back to
>that site. It will be easy to discern, which side,
>percentage wise, who fought where and on which "part
>of the creek:. LOL
>
>>- I also disagree with your claim that most in
>>Missouri fought for the Union. Missouri was about
>>equally split, especially with North-South Split. My
>>argument is that if you want a good tour of Civil War
>>america, don't come to Texas. Go to Missouri.
>
>Travis? See the "Civil War Records" URL I posted. I
>will argue with you when you can prove otherwise. If
>you can't, then, sorry, I don't much feel like like
>getting into it with you.
>
>And? WHERE did I claim Texas was a site of "Civil War"
>battlefields??? So far as which side most
>Missiourians fought on (again!)...work out the records
>for yourself...
>
>>And let's face it. Most Texans now cannot claim
>>Southern Roots. Texas is so diverse and so large that
>>it now has immigrants from so many places. Texas is
>>experiencing huge immigration, not just from Mexico,
>>but from Asia and other countries.
>
>Face what? That you DO have an arguable point that
>dates back from a decade or so? BUT..this is NOT
>traditional Texas. Which was a major sub-point of my
>argument. TEXAS, as TEXAS, belongs to the South. ANY
>place can become something else, over time, if it
>becomes infestated by illegal aliens long enough.
>
>>I also think that you should be careful when saying
>>something is "not Texan". I was really taken aback by
>>your claim that my cuisine was not 'texan". It may not
>>be your texas cuisine, but it is texan and it is a
>>viable culture. The issue here also is that Anglos
>>came later, while people of Mediterrainean stock have
>>been here longer.
>
>Again, don't presume to lecture ME on what I should or
>should not be careful about. Otherwise, I will say
>flat out that you need to be very careful of how you
>articulate and make your case.
>
>Anglo's came later? Yes, we did. But EVERYONE stole
>land from somewhere. LOL
>
>Anyway, again, to my way of thinking, your experience
>is NOT Texan. You say you have a lot of hispanic
>blood. I respect and admire your heritage. And yes,
>in the part of Texas you live, it is very much the
>norm, anymore. But it is NOT, again, historical
>Texas.
>
>And by the way, did you know that TEXAS "chili" is
>SOUTHERN in origin? It is NOT "southwestern" (as out
>that way they use beans), but a spicy mix of meat and
>all that cowboys (mostly and originally from East
>Texas and the deeper South) made on the trail!
>
>Winding it up, Travis? To repeat. If YOU dont think
>of Texas as Southern or yourself as Southern, then no
>problem. However you have proved a certain point,
>even if intended or not. Which is that Texas is
>becoming a very divided state. I hate to see that
>happen, but it is so.
>
>I have to wonder. Why didnt you just state flat out,
>originally, that you had a lot of hispanic blood in
>you? I respect and admire that heritage. I also know
>that hispanics do not really think of themselves as
>"Southern" in the same way blacks and whites do....
>
>
>
>>Thanks and appreciated,
>>Travis
>
>Best Texas and Southern Regards,
>Randy (Texas Reb)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.