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: 17:59:32 07/20/07 Fri
Author: Randy (TexasReb)
Author Host/IP: cpe-66-25-204-230.sw.res.rr.com / 66.25.204.230
Subject: Re: Texas is not part of teh south!!!
In reply to: Travieso 's message, "Re: Texas is not part of teh south!!!" on 07:41:45 07/20/07 Fri

Greetings Travis,

Let me make a suggestion while I am thinking about it. Let's try to keep our posts and opinions/counter opinions on single posts from now on. Otherwise we are going be stretching out OUR stuff down to the South Pole! LOL

Now then, taking my own advise here, I am going to paste from several of your replies, and then give my own. If anyone wants to make earlier reference, then all they have to do is start from the beginning of our thread here.

Anyway, as a preface...

I think you are MUCH more bent on disassociating Texas from the South than I am proving it is PART of it. As I said in my original reply, I don't get "defensive" about it much anymore. Although, yes, I WILL always present a counter-argument (to be taken or left) for those who want to state differently.

In, perhaps not so many words but nonetheless a truism easily discerned, it seems apparent your own reasons are personal and tied up into your own family history. I enjoyed READING that family history -- it was very interesting -- but IF many years of socio-demographic surveys are any indication -- then you are in the minority on the basic and original question. The vast majority of Texans consider themselves to live in the South (even when given a choice of alternate regional affiliations). And further, consider themselves to be Southerners. These surveys are ones I have posted again and will do so again if necessary.

One other thing, before starting this reply though, is that I think, in some ways, we talk "past each other." For instance, you speak of your own family roots having been in Texas since the 1700's. As I said earlier, that is very interesting.

However, and this is a MAJOR point, for the purposes of the discussion/debate at hand (the association of Texas with the rest of the South), at SOME time in history we have to agree on just where "Texas history" begins. EVERY state in the United States today "belonged" to some other nation and/or "tribe" at one time. But where "MODERN history" begins in each of them, in terms of socio-demographic, historical, cultural, political and historical relationships relative to other parts of the country today, by necessity, must be oriented toward westward migration movements and where it began to slant toward true statehood.

Now then, with that said, let me address your points! Noting again that I orient the question of Texas regional affiliation with the natural evolution of westward settlement patterns from those parts considered "united States." Which I date from about the time that Mexico first opened up colonies to Anglo's from the U.S.


>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.

Here is one of the best on-line research souces I have found. It is too lengthy to publish in entirety, but here is the link, and an excerpt from it. VERY good reading. And it pretty well shows that the large majority of early "colonists" to Texas were from the states of eastern (whether Upper or Lower) South. This historical fact contains the very basic roots of Texas as an American state, and Southern, within.

Main link: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/texas/texasxx.htm

Excerpt:
**************
The most obvious index in origins of the Texas population is a study of birthplaces of the settlers who inhabited the state in the nineteenth century. Before the pre-Civil war people mainly trekked from Upper South. By 1830 the total aggregate population was about 20,000. The revolution caused a large influx of Lower southerners and by the time of the federal census in 1850, when the total aggregate population was 210,000, it was obvious that Texas was no longer exclusively within the domain of the upper south. From 1836 to the Civil war, the area dominated by Gulf southerners expanded from a small foothold in the coastal bottomlands, and the upper southerners had been forced to seek land in the interior of Texas, primarily in the Fertile Blackland Prairie, a block of contiguous counties in and to the west.
********************

Ok..back to your own missive

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

Interesting family history! And if you are interested in that aspect of Texas history, I will be happy to try and help you find information (assuming you don't already have it) on which units your own ancestors served with.

In the larger context of our discussion, though, all records of all sorts of the "Civil War" era from Texas (which I have posted, from the vote on secession to actual service in uniform), demonstrate conclusively that there were no true divisions within the state; at least no more than existed within the other states of the "Lower South". When it came down to it, the overwhelming majority of the population supported the Confederacy. That is all there is to it.


>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.

Travis, if I indeed said it like that, then I truly apologize. I dont think I did though. I NEVER intended to imply that "ranching" doesn't have roots in Texas long before western migration hit it.

At THAT point though, I once again point out, that (and even your own link backs it up quite a bit), the TRUE ranching history of Texas began AFTER the War of Southern Independence. That is, when it truly, truly, became an economic force to be reckoned with. Here is a link which, once again, is too lengthy to post in entirety, but is the main one, followed by the relevent excerpt:

Main link: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/CC/ayc1.html

Excerpt:
***************
Numerous Texans, mostly young former Confederates, became contract drovers. The most active of these was probably John T. Lytle,qv who, in association with at least three partners between 1871 and 1886, delivered about a half million head of cattle to Kansas markets. Also important were John R. and William B. Blocker, George W. Littlefield, Ike (Isaac Thomas) Pryor,qqv Moses Coggin, Eugene B. Millett, Charles Goodnight, William H. Jennings, and numerous others, most of whom also became substantial ranchers. In addition to contract deliveries, they often included their own livestock on drives, as well as animals they bought cheaply in Texas and drove to market for speculation. However, most of their profits derived from volume and efficient use of manpower. All told, contract drovers accounted for as much as 90 percent of total trail traffic between 1866 and 1890, the rest being moved by those who had actually raised the animals.
****************

Back to our exchange!

>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.

Now CERTAIN parts of this, we surely agree on. Yes, and I wrote and stand by it in my orginal article, Texas IS unique. A "Whole Nother Country" as the slogan goes! LOL I am VERY proud of that fact!

And ANOTHER thing stated the article, which was an original point, was that being Texan and Southern are NOT mutually exclusive. THAT aspect was a major sub-theme of mine. I appreciate that you in turn agree with that point. As to what "most" fellow Texans think, I once again refer back that to those surveys noted earlier...

Moving on here...

>>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.

We can DEFINTELY agree about the corporate chain stuff. LOL Where we part company is what food stuffs are most prominently listed on the menus of most "local" Texas cafes and restaurants. And the tradtional "home Texas" kitchen. As I challenged earlier, I dont think you will deny that blackeyed peas on New Years Day (perhaps the most Southern tradition of all) are not the norm in Texas. It might follow from that fact that, yep, the origins of a traditional Texas kitchen, smells of fried chicken more than tamales.

I TRULY am, tempted to make a bet with you on this aspect of Texas culture. As in, lets do our OWN original research. Going further, write an article together on it to be submitted for publication..?

But to basics Even once again, great link, and an excerpt:

http://texascooking.netrelief.com/

*****
"But most Texans, and most Texas dishes, are of Anglo-Saxon origin with a Southern touch."
*****

As to more of the particulars of your own experience, Travis? Even "Tex-Mex" is not "Mexican." It is a blend of SOUTHERN and Mexican crusine, which pretty much makes it something a uniquely Texan. Chili? It is the "State Dish"! However, the way it is done in Texas, and what you'll get when you order it in cafes and restaurants is NOT the same as what it is in the true "southwest". In Texas, it originated as a spicy "stew" -- operative term here -- cooked on the trail, in which the biggest difference being that TEXAS chili doesn't have beans in it!

>>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.

Travis, let me first of all ask from which college did you graduate, and tell me more about the graduate "Texas History Course" you took? I too have a double-minor (in terms of semester hours) in history, so truly want to hear about your own as relates to Texas history. Please tell me more about those you took as postgrad, toward an MA?

>>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.

I too (see above) posted some links and excerpts directly related to the same. See in particular the part about "ranching" and "cowboys" as relate to the era of Texas settlement from the time it was "opened up" to the Revolution to Annexation to Statehood to the "Civil War." and post-bellum settlement.

>>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."

Read your own paste and quote, Travis. Lets examine it. What ARE this Nelson man's credentials that gives him superior credentials on the subject? Wearily, I say again, I refer back to the historic pieces I have linked and pasted on the subject matter.

Does this mean that those who "tend and raise" cattle in the Deep South (Misssippi and Alabama, for example) derive their habits from the Mexican "vaquero"? C'mon...

Sure, this a little facitious, and I dont mean it disrespectfully, but the bottom line is that what is really the Texas cattle tradition, starting with the old cattle drives and later, ranches, were started by anglo-Southerners moving west after the War.

>>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.

See the links I posted above. In say, Colorado or Nevada or Arizona or California, the anglo-Southern cattle drover tradition was NOT the true root of it all. In Texas, it WAS! The ranching and cowboy tradition started after the war and was a "drover" tradition" not "raising and tending".

Regardless though, even today, cotton still makes more money in Texas than cattle! Here is a figure:

********************

RATIO OF COTTON FARMS TO ALL FARMS

Mississippi: 82.9%

Alabama: 80.4%

Texas: 70.5%

South Carolina: 70.0%

Louisiana: 69.6%

Arkansas: 69.2%

Georgia: 67.4%

Oklahoma: 42.3%

North Carolina: 27.6%

Tennessee: 27.3%

Florida: 9.5%

Virginia: 2.0%

Kentucky: 0.2%

SOURCE: Regionalism and the South: Selected Papers of Rupert Vance. Contributors: John Shelton Reed - author, Daniel Joseph Singal - author, Rupert Bayless Vance - author. Publisher: University of North Carolina Press. Place of Publication: Chapel Hill, NC. Publication Year: 1982. Page Number: 101.
***********************************************

To try and wind it up...because I am getting hungry! LOL
You wrote:

>>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?

Travis? How can I MOVE to the South when I LIVE in the South? And if you live in Texas, then so do YOU, whether you like it or not.

I really do know that you don't intend the query disrespectfully, although yes, I DO detect a bit of frustrated sarcasm in it, as well as an undertone of irony and satire, which I hope you don't think flies over my head.

Do I once again need to post decades of opinion polls on how fellow Texans think on the subject?

Finally?

>>Also, my aunt told me something funny the other day. She >>said anything east of I-45 is the South. Anything north >>of that is Texas as a whole other country. I thought >>that was funny.

LOL Love it! And pretty well on target. Not at all out of line though, of my own thesis of the fact that most of Texas is TEXAS. But that what MAKES Texas TEXAS, is Southern in orgin.

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.