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: 21:26:00 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: Travieso 's message, "Re: Texas is not part of teh south!!!" on 20:50:00 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: >>href="http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/texas/texasxx.htm"
>>
>>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: >>href="http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/artic
>l
>>es/CC/ayc1.html">http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/o
>n
>>line/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:
>>
>> >>href="http://texascooking.netrelief.com/">http://texas
>c
>>ooking.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)
>
>
>I have a Bachelors degree from University of Texas at
>Austin in History. I took some grad hours there, but
>got my Masters at Southwest Texas (now it's Texas
>State) because they had more night class then UT.
>
>Also, I have to admit that since I'm a teacher as well
>and it's raining constantly, I have a lot of time on
>my hands. lol. No randy, you seem like a good guy. You
>are definitely intelligent and I like how you
>research.
>
>ONe of the best Texas history profs I had was Dr. de
>la Teja, who shockingly isn't texan (with a name like
>de la teja).
>
>I am really a big fan of Texas history. A really good
>book about texas history in "Texian Iliad" about the
>revolution. Chipman also wrote a great book called
>"Spanish Texas". de la Teja also wrote a good book
>about Juan Seguin that I really enjoyed.
>
>I really like the texas revolution and pre-revolution
>history. You could most definitely out argue me on the
>civil war. It has been so long since I read anything
>on the civil war that I'm basically a civil war idiot
>(lol).
>
>I also like modern texas history esp. after
>spindletop. I think Spindletop really changed the
>direction of texas and set it apart from neighboring
>states. Texas didn't just become modern, it shaped
>modern america with it's dependence on cheap oil and
>all the cultural implications because of a cheap
>energy source.
>
>Anyway, I can't chat much more, because the rain has
>stopped. But, it was nice chatting. Thanks.
>
>Travieso

[ 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.