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: 09:27:58 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


1. Firstly, I don't east chain corporate crap. I'm sure we can both agree of the quality of that stuff. I grew up with Tex-Mex. I can make my own salsa, tortillas, nopalitos, refired beans, rice, etc. form scratch. My mom taught me well. I do eat at REAL cafes and restaurants. Taquerias are not chains. They are usually mom and pop operations that serve the local people and their taste. Actually, Austin has been really good at maintaining great long-term tex-Mex restaurants and taquerias with their "buy local" campaign.


I am bilingual like many anglos in South Texas (though I do have some mestizo ancestry).


2. Again, about ranching. I researched this, because we talked a lot about ranching in my graduate Texas history course. It was so important to the Texas economy from the time it was part of Mexico up to the 20th century.

I was talking to my brother, who is getting a doctorate in history if I was right about ranching in Texas. Well, he did give me a reference that I looked up on the web. As I wrote in a post about my own family texas history, ranching has been practiced in the family since the 1700's.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/RR/azr2.html

Here is a site on cowboys.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0814_030815_cowboys.html

Cowboys took so many customes and words fromm Spanish -rodeo, lasso, etc.

A quote from the piece states, "All of the skills, traditions, and ways of working with cattle are very much rooted in the Mexican vaquero," Nelson told National Geographic News. "If you are a cowboy in the U.S. today, you have developed what you know from the vaquero."

Also, you argue that most white cowboys were southerners moving into the West. That is totally not true. I found a good quote from the National parks Service history page.

"Most cowboys were young--in their teens and twenties. Unlike the all-white casts of Hollywood westerns, the historic cowboys were a mix of ethnic groups reflecting American society. About a quarter of them were African-American, with a strong representation of Hispanics, too. English, Irish, German, and French immigrants were to be found, and among the finest cowboys were American Indians. What bound them together was upholding the reputation of their outfit (the ranch or cattleman who employed them), the teamwork and shared adversity of working cattle on roundups and trail drives, and personal pride in what they did. "

I have never heard that cowboys were southern whites who came west, though some of them were, cowboys and the West was the most ethnically diverse of the US at the time.

Randy, where are you from? I don't mean this disrespectfully, but since you are very proud of your southern roots, have you thought about moving to the South?

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.