I think you are still missing the central point and, no offence (and maybe it is just me), but to be honest, I am having a hard time following yours in several places. But anyway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
“they moved into a different "biome" and this had the effect of altering the way of life in noteable ways” exactly! My point of referencing geography. Texas already is the tipping on thin ice with the cattle drive,
|
I understand your reference to geography. I can understand that there are geographic regions. For instance, the Great Plains, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Coastal Plains, etc. And yes, the topography and physical environment can influence lifestyles. But when speaking of regions within the country as is often done on C-D, what is usually being referred to are those deliniated by similarities of history and culture (linguistic, political, religious, etc) rather than physical geography. This is especially true of the South.
I mean, those living in Appalachian Tennessee (or even north Alabama and Georgia) exist in a very different geographical setting and live different lifestyles from that of those in the lowland South. But it is still all the South. So my point is that while western Texas is, agreed, the most "non-Southern" of all when it comes to classic Southern images? These differences are more than offset by the fact that part of Texas was still overwhelmingly shaped by influences from the American South. Vastly different from the forces that shaped the SW of New Mexico and Arizona.
You mention cattle drives. Ok. Do you mean to say that because cowboys and the cattle drive are western, they are therefore exclusive of anything Southern? This is only true if, again, one believe that
Southeast is synonymous with
Southern.
For one thing, there are at least two "Wests." One is that "Old West" of the post-bellum frontier; that is, the time of cowboys and cattle drives and ranching and other icons made famous in the classic western movies. This particular "West" of Texas legend is not, in essence, separate from "the South" From the Old South, or Deep South, or Southeast? Of course. But not from that basic historical and cultural connection with the entity known as The South. Anymore than this
same "frontier West" era in Kansas separates that state from the Midwest
And again, it was those settlers from states like Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc, that made up the vast majority of west Texas pioneer stock and became those cowboys and gunslingers and ranchers (in fact, the Texas cowboy mostly derived his habits and lifestyle from the Old South cattle drover, not the Mexican vaquero). Some else to mention, is that the stomping grounds of these wild west Texans was not so much in the SW anyway, as it was along the "frontier strip."
Frontier Strip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But anyway, as it was, most Texans were not cowboys or cattlemen anyway. Most -- as to be expected given their deeper South roots -- were small famers and cotton was king. More importantly, it was this Southern stock which brought their culture into West Texas and simply transplanted it to a new and different environment, transforming into a unique sub-region of the larger South itself. That is, the "western South." A place where the traditional South is blended with many characteristics of the frontier West. Those settlers never thought of themselves as anything but Southerners, and in socio-culture surveys today, the majority of their decendents in west Texas still today consider themselves to live in the South and be Southerners.
The "other West" are those states in the western part of the country which constitute a true region in terms of common history, culture, politics, etc (Interior Southwest and Rocky Mountain as defined by the Census Bureau). And Texas -- with that trans-pecos exception -- is not part of it.
While distinctions are often made between southeastern states and much of western Texas, even
broader differences exist when the comparisson is to states like Colorado or Utah or Arizona. As has been brought up, the domiance of the Southern Baptist church, Southern American English spoken, ante-bellum history, a true established "cotton culture", Confederate history...all of which exist extensively in Texas, are virtually unknown in the true West.
Quote:
|
Again east Texas and the triangle is the limit. And it’s not just geography MS is a lot denser than west Texas. If you look at a population map it can’t get any clearer that something is abruptly changing.
|
Well obviously we disagree on your opening statement LOL. But anyway, while I can follow you well on the geographical aspect, I am not sure with the population density aspect. The western states are larger than the eastern states and therefore more sparcely populated. But what is the relevance to this topic? I mean, to use the example of Kansas again. It has much less of a population density than Ohio. But both are considered Midwestern states. So your reasoning on this one escapes me...
Quote:
|
And Arizona is also conservative what does that mean.
|
I assume this is a question. To answer, it appears you didn't read what I wrote. I brought up politics as one component on Texas ties to the South. I said that early on west Texas (like the rest of the state) was dominated by conservative SOUTHERN Democrats, not just conservatives, as you singled out. There is a very relevant difference here. Texas was part of the Democratic Solid South from the time of Reconstruction up until at least the 70's (when Texas, like other Southern states, began to more and more swing Republican).
Quote:
|
East Texas has always been more develop then west Texas, and with some of the history situations you stated. People from the southeast came to West Texas ok but people from Europe and Africa came to Georgia, Georgia is not Europe or Africa.
|
Huh?
The difference is that Georgia was never considered part of Africa or Europe. LOL Whereas Texas has long been counted as part of the American South. Do you really not see differences and relavancies? As has been stated, it was these southeasterners who flooded into Texas from the time the Mexican government opened it up to colonization, and continued to do so up thru the War and long afterwards. And this bunch clearly made the dominant impact on the state at large...all the way out into west Texas.
As an afterthought concerning your mention of Georgia and the Africans and Europeans? Well, as southern migration came westward, I guess it could be safely said the decedendants of the ones who came to Georgia (then to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisisiana,) are those who settled Texas. Which established the American South character. Reckon? After all, at one time, 30% of the population was black.
Quote:
|
There’s a reason Texas doubles as a southwestern which associate with NW and AZ this not out the blue. All of the southeastern states is the south! you can’t say that about the southwest. West Texas sticks out like sore thumb.
|
Yes, all the southeastern states are in the South. And yes, topographically, West Texas sticks out like a sore thumb. But that still doesn't mean the western half of Texas belongs in the same cultural region with NM and AZ.
In terms of whole states, Texas (along with Oklahoma) makes up one "Southwest" and Arizona and New Mexico make up the other. They are two different critters. So when you say the southeast is all the South, but such cannot be said about the "Southwest" you are predicating this upon that I accept the pairs are part of the
same southwest.
As the nation expanded westward, the original definition was, literally, the western/frontier parts of the South (hell, Alabama and Mississippi were considered "Southwest" at one time! LOL). Texas was part of that "old Southwest". The term was mainly used to differentiate from the "Southeast",
not from the broader historical and cultural "South."
Later on, when Arizona and New Mexico became states, they too -- for obvious geographical reasons -- became "Southwestern states." However, as an article in the
Encylopedia of Southern Culture put it, at THIS point the relationship to the South became "increasingly unclear."
This is a very important distinction, as was implied in the article. When speaking of the South and Southwest in terms of Southern history, the latter has usually meant Texas (and Oklahoma to a lesser extent). New Mexico and Arizona were not part of
this particular Southwest, for obvious reasons, as there is little if anything, classically "Southern" about them.
In a nutshell, one is "western South", the other is "southern West." Two sub-regions, and each twin part of
different broader regions.
Quote:
A large part of West Texas wasn't even part of Texas as mexican state, nor part of Texas under spain. When Texas gain independence Texas leaders "East Texas  )" demand land beyond what was consider Texas all the way to the Rio Grande. When todays West Texas was first consider Texas so was part of New Mexico and etc. When Texas join the US it then let go what to be New Mexico and etc with the Compromise of 1850 but the state kept what is now the western part of the state.
|
Sorry, I am not sure what your point is here...
Quote:
|
East Texas is the south, but as for southern, west texas is a cling on. I didn't want to get into the confederate culture thing because that's nothing to boast about but Why would west Texas care about the Confederacy there wasn’t even plantations in west Texas. The eastern half have always dominated the state direction “the population”
|
It really doesn't make any difference whether or not one thinks Confederate history is anything to boast about. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is the the Confederate experience and legacies from the same had a strong impact on Texas history and culture. And what does not having plantations in West Texas have to do with it all? Hell, there were not many in the mountainous areas of the Upper South either. But anyway, it was originally Confederate veterans, and later their decendants who were the main folks who settle western Texas. Do you think these people just suddenly forgot that part of their past when they moved to western Texas? Very true, it as a new start and the memory of the War was not nearly so strong as in the devasted parts of the southeast. But the people still knew their history and bloodlines, and monuments were erected, UCV and SCV camps established, counties named after Southern figures, etc.
Quote:
|
East Texas wanted to secede from the US so history now say the hold state had seceded. But this is only as good as if Texas kept part of New Mexico then New Mexico would claim confederacy history too that's how I'm viewing west history.
|
No offence again, but is a little misplaced. If Texas had not sold off that part of its orginal boundaries which include some of New Mexico? Well then, in that case the section in question would still be
Texas, not New Mexico, wouldn't it? So the
same points would
still apply as to the differences between the two states. It would just be a larger west Texas!
As concerns secession,
Of course the whole state seceded. And it wasn't just East Texas that wanted it (although that was the region where sentiment was virtually unanimous). Actually, even the El Paso area went for secession.
http://www.texasalmanac.com/politics/secession.pdf (broken link)
Well, sorry to have run on so long, so will cut this off post-haste!
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
