Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (required):

* Type your message here:
>>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: <a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>href="http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/texas/texasxx.htm" >> >>http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/texas/texasxx.htm</a> >> >>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: <a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>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</a> >> >>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: >> >><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>href="http://texascooking.netrelief.com/">http://texas >c >>ooking.netrelief.com/</a> >> >>***** >>"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)
Choose Message Icon: None :-) Happy ;-) Wink :-D Joy :} Smirk <:-} Innocent ☮ Peace >:) Mischief B-) Shades <3 Heart |O Yawn <:P Sick >:-( Angry :~( Sad ? Question *!* Alert Thumbs Up Thumbs Down (!) Idea [Info] Info Oo. Talk [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.