Is Austin a southern, southwestern, or western city? (vs, food)

[orbius]

I got the numbers from the Texas State Libraries archive. U.S. and Texas populations, 1850-2008 - Texas State Library.
As far as the immigration, 320 acres was given to every Texan who served in the Union army in 1868. Also Confederates could not vote in elections. So obviously the power and land was in the hands of the Union and the Union sympathizers. So while Southerners did migrate to Texas they didnt own much land and were fairly geographically concentrated. Land was given instead to European immigrants who settled Central Texas by the State of Texas. So the land, wealth, and therefore power in Texas post civil war was concentrated in the hands of the Germans and the European immigrant population.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by orbius

I got the numbers from the Texas State Libraries archive. U.S. and Texas populations, 1850-2008 - Texas State Library.
As far as the immigration, 320 acres was given to every Texan who served in the Union army in 1868. Also Confederates could not vote in elections. So obviously the power and land was in the hands of the Union and the Union sympathizers. So while Southerners did migrate to Texas they didnt own much land and were fairly geographically concentrated. Land was given instead to European immigrants who settled Central Texas by the State of Texas. So the wealth and therefore power in Texas post civil war was concentrated in the hands of the Germans and the European immigrant population.

Sorry, but this fails the test. The census figure numbers say nothing of where the vast majority of the new population originally came from, which was from the southeastern states, especially before and after the War.

Too, your arguments attempting to relegate Southerners to a minority status in political influence are a bit specious and abbreviated in historical scope (and once more, I say this with the respect due someone who can debate in a civil and reasonable manner! )

For one thing, only some 2,000 Texans (mostly of northern or foriegn birth) joined the Union army (as compared to some 75 to 90 thousand who served in the Confederacy), and even if every one had claimed the land offered, it would have amounted to a drop in the bucket of Texas land. As it is? None ever did, anyway:

Texas State Historical Association - The Handbook of Texas Online - Article Extract

An act of 1868 granted warrants to Texans who had fought in the Union Army, but no land was ever claimed under this law.

Note too that the act offering land to Union Veterans was done under Reconstruction Rule. Hardly a fair indicator of Texas' sentiment! LOL

Now, you are correct about voting. Many ex-Confederates were disenfranchised. However, this had nothing to do with land ownership (more on that in a minute), only a temporary removal of political power -- at the point of a bayonet -- by Radical Republicans who sought to maintain their own power in Congress. Once Reconstruction ended, this changed totally, and the "Solid South" emerged and remained for the next century (of which Texas was very much a part).

Back to land ownership. From early on, Texas was very much dominated by settlers from the southeastern part of the country. So obviously they owned the vast majority of the land in Texas from the start (even if they were artificially displaced from political influence for a time under the force of military rule). Further? Talk about land grants? Here is --from the same source in Texas handbook on line above -- what happened once the majority in the state regained control:

In 1881 the state voted to issue bounty warrants for 1,280 acres to Confederate veterans who had been permanently disabled in service. Bounty and donation grants for military service amounted to a total of 3,149,234 acres.

Further, in 1889, the State of Texas authorized pensions for indigent and disabled Confederate soldiers.

Confederate Pension Records

BTW -- the Texas Confederate Pension records are something those interested in geneaology in Texas might want to look at sometime. I found one of my own ancestors listed, and the papers I got back gave some history of the man and his situation.

Just as an afterthought, I wonder how many Texans would be interested in the idea of seeing about starting a "Texas History Forum"...? Which is probably where the this particular sub-topic belongs if it goes much further! LOL

[TexasHorseLady]

No, no, no! My ancestors who came to Texas through the southeastern United States came there from the northeast (Pennsylvania, primarily) and from there,originally, from Prussia and England and Ireland (well, the Irish contingent originally came from Scotland, being Scots Irish).

My husband's ancestors who came originally from the southeast were there before anybody else and only took good Welsh names in order to do business with the white man. Those could, indeed, be said to originally come from the southeastern states, except that they predated the states' existence. Others originally came from Wurtenberg via ship directly, or, yes, through Louisiana and Florida from Canada, but originally from France.

So if you're going to use the word "originally" in your argument, you're going to have to go back further to where they really originally came from. Remember, we're talking about people only one or two generations, if that, from whatever "Old Country" they came from, sometimes with the generation that came over on the boats still living with them.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by orbius

Also Confederates could not vote in elections. So obviously the power and land was in the hands of the Union and the Union sympathizers.

Categorically untrue. Five states, including Texas didn't block former Confederate soldiers from voting. See Foner's Reconstruction: America's unfinished revolution, 1863-1877.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

No, no, no! My ancestors who came to Texas through the southeastern United States came there from the northeast (Pennsylvania, primarily) and from there,originally, from Prussia and England and Ireland (well, the Irish contingent originally came from Scotland, being Scots Irish).

My husband's ancestors who came originally from the southeast were there before anybody else and only took good Welsh names in order to do business with the white man. Those could, indeed, be said to originally come from the southeastern states, except that they predated the states' existence. Others originally came from Wurtenberg via ship directly, or, yes, through Louisiana and Florida from Canada, but originally from France.

So if you're going to use the word "originally" in your argument, you're going to have to go back further to where they really originally came from. Remember, we're talking about people only one or two generations, if that, from whatever "Old Country" they came from, sometimes with the generation that came over on the boats still living with them.

Yes Yes Yes!! LOL

Seriously, we are probably just talking past each other and using a different definition as to "originally" in this context. Sure, EVERYONE's ancestors -- except the Native Americans -- came from somewhere in one of the old countries. But if one goes that way, then there is no part of the United States that has a culture that can be seperated as distinctly regionally American.

Most of those who eventually came to Texas were from the southeast, and whose own ancestors first came to the American colonies by way of a southern Atlantic port. That is, Virginia or the Carolinas. Not a whole lot dated the initial ancestral entry to the northeast. Anyway, point being that one has to start somewhere and, in this context, when I speak of "origins" of settlers, I mean it to refer as coming from a place in the country where regional American ways and institutions had been established from early on (New England, Middle, Southern, etc). Not saying anything is wrong with how you do it, just that we approach it from different angles and premises.

On a related tangent though -- which involves your own outlook and you might be interested in -- speaking OF dating thing back to the old countries -- there was a book out a while back titled "Cracker Culture in the Old South."

It was written by the late Dr. Grady McWhiney of TCU. His thesis was that one of the oft overlooked causes of the War Between the States indeed DID trace back to old country animosities. That is, those who settled the northern states were influenced primarily by Puritan stock and those who came from industrial areas of lower England.

On the other hand, the Southern colonies has a strong Celtic strain (especially Scots-Irish) along with the Anglo, and came from upland England and Scotland. These people didn't really care for each other from the beginning, and no wonder they settled where they did (industrial vs. agricultural areas) and finally got mad enough to fight! So, in a sense, they were Southerners and Northerners even before the terms originated! LOL

We really need a Texas history forum!

[Pvt. Parts]

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

The term Southwestern really is only used here as a reference to the rest of the USA. Tucson and Albuquerque are "Southwestern" cities as per a cultural term.

Yeah, we're considered "southwestern" out here. When I think of Texas in general, think of "The West"....

[jread]

Austin is Southwestern in culture, climate and landscape. I can't imagine anyone thinking of it any other way. Calling Austin a "Southern" city is just ludicrous... we have WAY more in common with Albuquerque and Tucson than we do with Memphis and Birmingham.

[atx58]

Here's a list of cities and they're average humidity.

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitors sites is not allowed


So ya'll can quit with all the make believe that Austin is dry and arid. Not one southwest city is even close, and Austin is a lot more comparable to other southern cities. Funny you have to drive Northwest 9 hours to get to El Paso and Louisiana is 5 hours east. I went to school in AISD with people from all over the country, and the majority of people from outside of Texas were from Louisiana, and other parts of the south like Mississippi,Tennessee and Arkansas. The teachers in school told us we lived in the south, I think most of the people saying Austin is southwest are embarrassed to be associated with the south or are from out of town lived in Austin a little while, maybe went to UT associating with lots of other people not from Austin. The black population (but not limited to) in Austin is very southern in culture and besides the Katrina evacuees the black population in Austin stays about the same. Look at a map of the United States and get a compass and its pretty obvious. The only thing we have in common with the southwest is lots of Mexicans. Austin is very different than any other city in the world and is a melting pot of cultures, so of course its not just like the rest of the south. Austin is the western edge of the American South.



Show me where in Arizona, New Mexico,Nevada, Utah, West Texas looks anything like this

[tstone]

Originally Posted by atx58

...I think most of the people saying Austin is southwest are embarrassed to be associated with the south or are from out of town lived in Austin a little while, maybe went to UT associating with lots of other people not from Austin.

This is the issue. The enlightened ones don't want to be associated with the south in any way, even though it pretty much stares them in the face. Live oaks & plantation homes in Arizona. That's rich!! If I could compare the look of the Hill Country area to any place in the US, I'd compare it to Central or Eastern Tennessee at least for 6 months of the year. The big difference is TN looks quite a bit more dramatic. There is no way I'd compare Austin to any place in the desert SW.

Interesting humidity chart BTW. It says Austin is almost identical to Atlanta, and not too far off from Houston, either. Says it is nothing like Tucson, Albuquerque or El Paso. One only needs to take a daytime road trip with eyes open to notice the massive difference.

And if you want to talk about having a large Mexican population, there is still an ethnic difference between those in Texas vs those in the true SW.

[TexasHorseLady]

I'm not embarrassed to be associated with the South. In fact, as a little girl growing up in East Texas, I WANTED Texas to be Southern, but growing up, I figured out that all the wishing in the world wouldn't make it so.

And Austin is considerably less so than East Texas.