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: 07:41:45 07/20/07 Fri
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 11:38:55 07/19/07 Thu

>Travis,
>
>Not trying to overwhelm with comments, responses, and
>replies, but wanted to post this one as well ... since
>last night I was pretty tired and didn't quite feel up
>to locating all my researched sources to post.
>
>Anyway, to these in particular, I wanted to note:
>
>>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.
>
>I truly do not mean to insult you and/or your own
>experience, food wise (or otherwise for that matter).
>However, I stand by my own earlier statements about
>traditional Texas food and its origins. Including
>chili! Austin, or many of the DFW area chain eating
>places, are NOT true Texas. They are nationwide and
>"trendy" places that exist all over the South today.
>Not just Texas.
>
>Go into a REAL cafe or local restaurant, and if you
>can verify that chicken-fried steak, fried chicken,
>catfish and REAL BBQ are not on the menu in the
>majority of places? Then I promise to push a goober
>pea down to down where you live and buy you a meal of
>your choice! LOL
>
>And surely even you don't deny that black-eyed peas
>are not traditional on New Years Day! Hell's
>bells...they are refered to around these parts as
>"Texas Caviar" LOL
>
>>- 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". Likewise, this doesn't even take into account
>>the role of anti-confederate feelings by Tejanos who
>>dominated South Texas.
>
>>In fact, many San Antonians actually
>>fought with the Union!!!! Likewise, Central Texas saw
>>huge sympathy for the Union.
>>
>>- 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.
>
>Let me take things on the "Civil War" issue one at a
>time. First of all, there is no question of where
>the overwhelming majority of Texans' loyalties were.
>You mentioned Wikipedia in an earlier post. If you
>like, please check out this article: >target=_blank
>href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_in_the_America
>n_Civil_War">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_in_the_
>American_Civil_War
>
>I pretty much wrote the "Secession Convention and the
>Confederacy" section, and contributed a a good part
>(mostly about Sam Houston) as to the "Unionist"
>section. I have researched and stand by all the facts
>within.
>
>Speaking of Unionist again? As I stated earlier, one
>of the biggest sources of confusion of "Civil War"
>history is to associate "Unionist" as synonymous with
>"northern sympathizer" (this was brought out in my
>writing on the topic). With VERY few exceptions,
>"Unionists" in the South were solidly
>"Southern/States" rights". They just warned of
>secession being a wrong move, and possibly lead to a
>conflict sure to favor the North in the long run.
>
>"Unionist" sentiment, as defined in the South in
>opposition to secession, existed in MANY parts of it.
>If one goes by elected delegates voting on the
>question, only (among the Lower South states...as the
>Upper South rejected it until the War actually
>started) in South Carolina was the vote of a higher
>percentage. As a point of comparisson, in Texas it
>was 166-7. In Mississippi it was 84-15, in Alabama it
>was 61-39 annd in Georgia it was 208-89.
>
>BUT...when all was said and done? The majority of
>those, Texas and elsewhere in the Lower South, who
>initially opposed secession for whatever reason,
>accepted the verdict and supported the Confederacy.
>There was not much division in the 7 states of the
>"Cotton South" as to which color uniform they wore
>
>To back up that point? I posted a URL yesterday
>evening on the existing records, by state, of how many
>fought for what side. I went today and found another
>which broke it down into simple mathematics. Here
>they are (since Missouri has been an issue, you might
>want to note it in particular):
>
>***********
>Percent of records indicating Union Service as to
>compared to Confederate in the Southern/Border states
>
>Alabama - 1.4 Arkansas - 10.1 Florida - 6.2 Georgia
>-.001 Kentucky - 63% Louisiana - 1.1 Maryland - 89%
>Mississippi - .005 MISSOURI - 64% North Carolina -
>2.7 Oklahoma (Indian Territory) -- no records
>available, although a noteable majority of the "Five
>Civilized Tribes" allied with the Confederacy. South
>Carolina - .006 Tennessee -- 27% TEXAS- 2.7
>Virginia (includes later day West Virginia) -- 17%
>***************
>
>In my own honest opinion, I think those figures pretty
>well indicate how divided or not a state was on the
>issue when it came down to brass tacks.
>
>Ok. Posted enough and gotta run. I enjoy the
>exchange, AND, to make it clear, agree that we keep it
>civil and not take it personal.
>
>Best Texas and Southern Regards,
>Randy




Randy,

Let me tell you a little bit about my family history. It is a true Texas story, and then maybe you will understand why I say what I say.

You say you are a fourth generation Texan. Great!!! We have always heard stories in the family, but my mother really knows. Livingston, Texas is named after some of my family members, and my family were one of the oldest settlers to Texas south Gulf Coast.

The earliest we know of any my family in Texas was after the LaSalle expedition(about 1700s). A french officer who came with LaSalle(we know what happened there) came after the failed expedition and settled into one of the french colonies there around the Guld coast. It failed, and many of those french colonists inculturated themselves into the mestizo population that was prevelent within the south Texas population. Not much is known about that family, but that they were ranchers who owned land in South TExas.

The second wave of European settlers came around 1820-1830 from the Carolinas and Alabama. They were Scot/Irish and Indian. From what we understand, as the government was taking lands from the cherokee and choctaw, many people of mixed ancestry moved into Texas and West. larger groups of Cheerokee came later into Northeast Texas even though they were eventually moved into the reservation in Oklahoma.

This family moved in the Northeast area and many were killed in the Killough massacre. Only a few women survived the massacre. One of those women was an ancestor of mine who, I don't know how, moved South, because she married into my family that were ranchers in South Texas. By this time, many in my family was marrying into the later anglos that came, renouncing their Catholicism. However, not all. Many of my cousins and relatives are still Catholic.

The civil war really torn my family apart. While many fought for the confederacy, there were some who actually fought for the Union.

So we have a very long history of ranching in the family. My father's family cam her in the 1920's from Canada to work as oil riggers. How Texan!(lol)

So when you say ranching wasn't important to Texas and Tex-Mex isn't really Texan, it really does seem biased towards a more east Texas history. Texas is so huge and so vast that it really is another country! I do beleive that you are very proud of being Southern, yet many, who are even more Texan by heritage, cannot simultaneously claim southern heritage. They are not mutual exclusive.

Thanks
Travis

[ 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.