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/arti >c >>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://texa >s >>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) >> >> >>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
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.