As a Fort Worth native I have never considered Fort Worth to be "Where the West begin" Please Chime in (Dallas: how much, high school)
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.
Texas Reb--you should know better
The only SOUTHERN roots a Texas Cowboy has would be from south of the Rio Grande--
everything about the cowboy is derived from Mexican vaqueros--certainly not any cowboy wannabe from Georgia or Virginia that might have herded stock around...
1880 TX cowboy Google Image Result for http://www.old-picture.com/old-west/pictures/Cowboy.jpg
the hat--sombrero--wide brimmed and deep to use for your horse's water bucket, and shade for the afternoon siesta and while working cattle...
the boots very different from those used in the East/South--those heels were more flat and boots themselves were shorter
spurs--
chaps--to deal with the brasada with its thorns
saddle very different from what was common in the south--high, wide horn and raised rear edge
even the horses used were a different breed as were the cattle that normally were allowed to range free...most strains of eastern/southern cattle were not strong enough to forage for themselves in the wild or defend themselves from critters they faces when living wild--their only hope was to intermingle with longhorns...
once ranchers started to fence in their acres and use internal fencing to coordinate herd movement and bring in hay for sustained feeding cows could get beefier vs range-ier--
that is where the term rangy come from...something hard, lean, wiry, muscular vs built for comfort
Sorry, L2R...it simply don't stand up to historical scruinty as to the roots of the Texas cowboy.
C'mon, you should know that if nothing else it just as a matter of historical logic. The real "cattle boom" in Texas began after the "Civil War". It was pioneers from the southeast who made the biggest land-rush in history into western Texas. If nothing else, those guys didn't have the time to adopt the "vaquero" ways. Again, I say, read Terry Jordan's "Trails to Texas; Southern Roots of Western Cattle Ranching" It applies only to Texas. Their whole way of life and attitude stemmed from the Old South drover tradtion...and for sure they considered themselves "Southerners"' The Texans rode "McClellan" saddles. And again, it was a "drover" life-style, not "herding and tending". The former was Southern in roots, the latter was "western and Mexican"
Quote:
But I asked my husband this question this afternoon and he said SOUTHERN--I was so surprised--and he is native Texican as well...but he also asked what feature of Texas I wanted to know about...so he too sees that Texas has many parts and some of them are certainly more West than South
LOL I think I would really like to talk with your husband. Sounds like a guy I would enjoy discussing Texas history with. A fellow who knows what he is talking about!
Remember too, L2R..I am NOT saying Texas is not "western" Only that Texas (or most of it) is the "western South
Nope. Using boundaries as a prop. The West, ABQ westward is culturally, topographically and climatologically different in almost every way than Fort Worth.
The South, Shreveport eastward, not so much... tall pine trees in the Southeast are the main differences.
I didn't think there was a right or a wrong answer to the topic.
Remember, all of Texas was that waste land way out West that no-one in the rest of the US wanted...the South had a chance to claim it and never did.
Thing is, the South did claim it...as it was those settlers from the eastern South that settled it. Which is why even in West Texas "Southern American English" and the Southern Baptist Church dominates. And why cotton is still king...so to speak. And why many of those west Texas counties are named after Confederate heroes (Lubbock, Scurry, etc) and Confederate monuments are found on just about every county courthouse lawn.
Also, a town named Robert Lee north of San Angelo.
From Wikipedia:
" Robert Lee is a city in and the county seat of Coke County, Texas, United States.[3] The founders named the city after Robert E. Lee, who is thought to have set up camp for a time near the current townsite on the Colorado River. Lee served in Texas from 1856 to 1861 as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Second Cavalry, during which time he distinguished himself as a scout and engineer. "
Yes, it is. Yet, St. Louis touts itself as the "Gateway to the West"...but that doesn't translate into that one is leaving the Midwest. Only that they were leaving the "East". That was really the designation the original Ft. Worth slogan was intended to impart. Not leaving "the South' per se, but the East.
I agree for the most part. St. Louis' "Gateway to the West" title doesn't have much to do with its geographical location. The title was assigned to St. Louis as it was merely a major city that many westward-bound pinoneers passed through on their way to their locations in the West via the Oregon Trail. I doubt the anyone who lives in St. Louis considers their city to be Western in this day and age.
Fort Worth has never merely been a city in which people stopped in briefly on their voyages westward. Fort Worth, in many cases, WAS the final voyage destination of many people traveling westward. Pioneers settled all around Fort Worth during Native American attacks during the 1800s, hence the origin of the name of the nearby town, White Settlement. Fort Worth has retained a great deal of it's fronteir culture that it had in the 1840s, thus driving many residents, including myself, to label the city as "Southwestern." The poll on here shows that many residents will label Fort Worth as being as Southwestern or a Western city long before labeling it Southern. That is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
As I mentioned in my earlier post, certainly from about Ft. Worth westward, the topography is nothing like the forested South (i.e. Southeast in this instance). However, what if one was travelling west to east? The Rocky Mountain West (and even interior Southwest) contains many topographical (including pines) that Texas lacks. If anything, many of the features of western Texas are more typical of the Plains, not the true West. And no one would seriously consider Texas part of the "Plains Midwest".
This is incorrect. The Mountain West is not the only region of the West. You basically assert that because Fort Worth doesn't look like Colorado or Wyoming, it can't be a part of the West. As you state many a-times, there are different regions of the South. As such, there are many regions of the West, as well. Far West Texas is an undisputed region of the West, Southern California and the deserts of Arizona are undisputed regions of the West as well. However, pine forests, by no means, dominate the landscape of these subregions.
El Paso looks more like Tucson than it looks like Scottsbluff, Nebraska. Vegetation wise, many points from Odessa westward resemble parts of New Mexico and the higher elevation, semi-arid regions of eastern Arizona, as well. Many Americans do consider the Plains as being a subregion of the West, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Physical topography is not a good indicator of historic nor cultural affiliation in terms of being grouped with a region.
Physical topography has historically been one of the primary determinants of where people settle, and the resulting cultural regions. There is a reason that Ohio and New Jersey have never been much alike. That's because of the Appalachian Mountains. There is a reason why the culture of Western Washington (Seattle and environs) are nothing like Eastern Washington (Spokane and Walla Walla)... the Cascade Range.
Physical topography is one of the biggest reasons the United States has the subregions it has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
The relative humidity of most of Texas doesn't fall under 50% in most months. Most is classified as humid sub-tropical. Very different from the West. This map is sorta small, but the features can be made out:
The Climate of Texas (http://www.met.tamu.edu/osc/TXclimat.htm - broken link)
DFW's climate is just barely in the Humid, Subtropical category. Comparing Dallas' annual rainfall (33 inches) to Shreveport (47 inches), just a couple hundred miles to the East reveals a great difference. DFW has a very pronounced dry season. Areas of the undisputed South do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
With all due respect, I think what is being done is blurring distinctions with the West as an era and of post-bellum settlement (as opposed to the East) with being the "West" as a region with deep historic and cultural affinity.
With all due respect, this is often the basis of your arguments for why Texas is a Southern state. This is 2009, not 1859. Texas has gone through many transformations, being it's own country, being a state of Westward migrants, and being state tied to Deep South slavery. However, of all those transformations, Fort Worth still holds true to the Texas' era of attracting westward migrants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Wide-open spaces are certainly not a feature of the huge Rocky Mountain West. The large Mexican population in Texas is comparatively recent (and much of it illegal), not at all similar to that indigenous from the beginning of statehood in New Mexico and Arizona. The cattle culture is really more of a post Civil War thing, and its "grounds" were the Plains, not the true West. And Texas cowboys were mostly influenced by the "drover tradition" of the Old South, far as that goes.
Wide open space are VERY much a feature of many areas of the West, including the Rocky Mountain West. As we have established earlier, the Rocky Mountain West is NOT the only region of the West, nor is it the dominant region. Travel through the high country of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, California, Oregon, and Washington and you will see that your statement is VERY much incorrect.
It's very unfair to shove Texas' Mexican population into the illegal category. Texas has ALWAYS had a very large Mexican population. After all, Texas used to be part of Mexico. San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth have always had a very noticeable Mexican population.
Lastly, the West has a very noticeable cowboy culture too. There are very many cattle farms in the undisputed West, with rodeo culture being very visible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
The "frontier attitude" aspect of course is right on target. The qualification though is that the same is found in western parts of the Midwest. This is one of the reasons that just as there is a "division" to be made between the Midwest of the "East" (i.e, Great Lakes, Indiana, Ohio, etc) and the "Plains Midwest" (i.e, Kansas, Nebraska, etc)? So does the same exist with the South. That is, there is the "eastern South" (consisting of most of the other former Confederate states and border areas) and a "western South (i.e. most of Texas and goodly parts of Oklahoma). Yet? The two sets of "twins" in both cases are more connected -- respectively -- with each other than with the true West. That is, just as Ohio is more connected to Kansas in terms of history and culture and settlement patterns, so is Texas more with Arkansas and Alabama. Much more so than either is with Arizona or Colorado.
The frontier attitude of Texas and Oklahoma is NOTHING like the frontier attitude of the Midwest. You have mentioned St. Louis numerous times. St. Louis shed its frontier persona more than a century ago. Fort Worth has not. You will not find large tracts of land in St. Louis or Kansas City with horses and cattle grazing. In Fort Worth you will. St. Louis and Kansas City are very much ripe with Midwestern culture. Fort Worth is not. Fort Worth has not gone through a large cultural transformation since its settler days, Kansas City and St. Louis have. That's one of the reason why there is no question that those two cities are not Western, but there is fact that Fort Worth is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Of course, lots of this has to do with the high number of northern transplants to that area...
It really seems like you want to ignore facts. As a Fort Worth native myself, I can tell you that before Northerners started pouring into the region, Fort Worth still identified as a Southwestern city. Not Western South, just Southwest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
But so far as the basic point, it can also be said that people in Tennessee sound nothing like people in Mississippi. Far as that goes, the speech of people in south Alabama is much different than that in the mountain northern part. Coastal Georgia and South Carolina differ from all. So does south Louisiana and NW Arkansas.
Point is, there is no such thing as a single uniform Southern accent. However, the general dialect and idiom spoken by the majority of native Texans is one of many sub-dialects known broadly as "Southern American English". Linguistically speaking a "Texas accent" is just as much "Southern" as any...
The point is, that Fort Worth is not a Southern city. Our accent doesn't throw us into the South because we say "y'all." There are many other factors that contribute to Fort Worth's location in the United States than our accents.
Hardly the same thing on "Civil War" battles. The battle fought at Glorietta Pass was largely by Texans -- in official CSA units -- attempting to claim the territory for the Confederacy and block Union attempts to invade Texas from the west. While I agree that where battles were fought matters little, which side and to what degree a state made to side with, is. And Texas was very much a Confederate state (one of the original seven). And monuments and holidays are extensive throughout. Something not at all typical of the West.
As to the Jim Crow laws? I think we all agree it wasn't pleasant, and I will be the first to argue that the biggest difference in northern and western segregation as opposed to Southern was that the South was just much less hypocritical about it all. With that said though, as concerns the topic, while segregation was common all over the country (and I would even say much more extensive in the North and West), the so-called "Jim Crow" laws were pretty much a Southern phenomenon, so described and in terminology used. Another aspect is that they more involved a de-jure as opposed to de-facto component...
Fort Worth is a "western" city. It is also a Southern city. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is the "western South"...as is most of Texas.[/quote]
Everybody is entitled to there but Fort Worth is not Western. Everything about Fort Worth speaks southern. WE IGNORE THE FACT FORT WORTH HAVE ONE OF THE HIGHEST CHURCHES PER CAPITAL THAN ANY OTHER CITY. And that terminology of where the west begin is trash. I will admit this East Fort Worth and West Fort Worth are two completely different world. East Fort Worth is soulful and really don't connect to the terminology Cow Town. Most of us hate the name and feel the city should endorse a better nick name. It makes are city look non progressive. Just my opinion I do understand I am come from an African American background and a proud East Fort Worth Native my views in generally are a lot different.
the state food pretty much says it all
IF Texas were a Southern state, we would BBQ with pork--we don't--we use BEEF--
Beef is not the BBQ meat of the South--
the South--from FL to Memphis to SC-- those states use PORK...you can't find decent brisket anywhere there
ergo...Texas is a Western state...
People who claim Fort Worth is a Western city don't know the West, South or Fort Worth.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but there is a right and wrong answer to the subject of this thread. Right being Fort Worth leans far more Southern than Western.
the state food pretty much says it all
IF Texas were a Southern state, we would BBQ with pork--we don't--we use BEEF--
Beef is not the BBQ meat of the South--
the South--from FL to Memphis to SC-- those states use PORK...you can't find decent brisket anywhere there
ergo...Texas is a Western state...
Differences between types of BBQ meat is somewhat of a petty argument.
Culturally, the size and history of Texas' African-American population alone, tells me this state is more Southern than Western.
Texas, along with Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana etc.. are states crazy about College Football. The West outside of USC enclaves in LA, gernerally could care less about the sport.
I agree for the most part. St. Louis' "Gateway to the West" title doesn't have much to do with its geographical location. The title was assigned to St. Louis as it was merely a major city that many westward-bound pinoneers passed through on their way to their locations in the West via the Oregon Trail. I doubt the anyone who lives in St. Louis considers their city to be Western in this day and age.
Most of Fort Worth's "western" acolades stem from its "cowtown" image and city moniker (very real). But again, the origins never meant that one was leaving the South. Never intended at all to mean such. Heck for one thing, many of those early cattle companies were named something like "Dixie Cattle Company" or some such! LOL
Quote:
Fort Worth has never merely been a city in which people stopped in briefly on their voyages westward. Fort Worth, in many cases, WAS the final voyage destination of many people traveling westward. Pioneers settled all around Fort Worth during Native American attacks during the 1800s, hence the origin of the name of the nearby town, White Settlement. Fort Worth has retained a great deal of it's fronteir culture that it had in the 1840s, thus driving many residents, including myself, to label the city as "Southwestern."
In many cases it WAS a final destination. In others, especially after the "great Southern migration" after the WBTS? It was merely a stop-over. I am familiar with Fort Worth's history as a "fort town". It was originally part of the cordon that extended all up and down the western U.S. Later this same "chain" kept moving westward.
And who ever denied the "frontier" experience? My point is, the West as considered a "region" today is different from the "West" of an era and frontier qualities. Fort Worth (and most of West Texas) is very much a part of the latter. It is not a part of the former. The basic history and culture of the city has very little in common with Tucson, Arizona, or Denver, Colorado.
Quote:
The poll on here shows that many residents will label Fort Worth as being as Southwestern or a Western city long before labeling it Southern. That is a fact.
The "poll' consists of a total (at present) of 13 people responding. It has changed back and forth. It may again tomorow. This is hardly a "scientific" poll. If it does? I can call it a "fact" back. But certainly, with good reason, you wouldn't accept it either in this realm.
Quote:
El Paso looks more like Tucson than it looks like Scottsbluff, Nebraska. Vegetation wise, many points from Odessa westward resemble parts of New Mexico and the higher elevation, semi-arid regions of eastern Arizona, as well. Many Americans do consider the Plains as being a subregion of the West, as well.
I agree -- and always have -- the trans-pecos area of Texas is part of the true Southwest. Also, parts of Texas north of Amarillo are very atypical of a lot of the state. I am sure many Americans consider the Plains being a sub-region of the West. But if one is going to get into that aspect, many more residents in the individual states which make up the "Plains" identify, in terms of regional affiliation, with either the Midwest or South (depending). I can provide solid evidence of this.
Quote:
Physical topography has historically been one of the primary determinants of where people settle, and the resulting cultural regions. There is a reason that Ohio and New Jersey have never been much alike. That's because of the Appalachian Mountains. There is a reason why the culture of Western Washington (Seattle and environs) are nothing like Eastern Washington (Spokane and Walla Walla)... the Cascade Range.
Of course, it has. But none of this negates the basic bonds of history and primary culture when it comes to grouping states within a region. There is a good reason why Texas is much more often labeled South than West
Quote:
Physical topography is one of the biggest reasons the United States has the subregions it has.
Of course it figures into it. Which is why (and I keep using this example as it is the one I am most familiar with) Kansas and Nebraska are in a different "sub-region" of the Midwest. Same as Texas (and most of Oklahoma and, arguably, some of Arkansas) are a "sub-region" of the South. The "western South".
Quote:
DFW's climate is just barely in the Humid, Subtropical category. Comparing Dallas' annual rainfall (33 inches) to Shreveport (47 inches), just a couple hundred miles to the East reveals a great difference. DFW has a very pronounced dry season. Areas of the undisputed South do not.
Sorry, but it is not just barely in this climatic zone as per either humid sub-tropical or sub-humid subtropical. You mention topography...and it is only somewhere around the 100th parallel (in fact, actually even much further west), where the elevation changes to the point of becoming a climate more typical of the "West" than the South.
Quote:
With all due respect, this is often the basis of your arguments for why Texas is a Southern state. This is 2009, not 1859. Texas has gone through many transformations, being it's own country, being a state of Westward migrants, and being state tied to Deep South slavery. However, of all those transformations, Fort Worth still holds true to the Texas' era of attracting westward migrants.
I appreciate your opening sentiments...and I return the with all due respect. But you are making strawman arguments. The basic point is that Fort Worth (and the vast majority of West Texas) was settled by westward moving pioneers from the southeast. It is that culture and history which dominated. It is found in everything from Confederate monuments on courthouse lawns, to the speech patterns, and even such seemingly trivial items as the deeply entrenched custom of eating black-eyed peas on New Years Day. To say nothing of that -- Hollywood movies not withstanding -- it was cotton, not cattle, that was really the staple of existence.
Quote:
Wide open space are VERY much a feature of many areas of the West, including the Rocky Mountain West. As we have established earlier, the Rocky Mountain West is NOT the only region of the West, nor is it the dominant region. Travel through the high country of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, California, Oregon, and Washington and you will see that your statement is VERY much incorrect.
I don't know where you are going with this. Who said wide-open spaces weren't a feature of the West? What I said was that it was more a feature of the Plains than the Rocky Mountain West which yes, other than the West Coast, IS the domimant region of the West (same as the southeast is probably the dominant sub-region of the South ).
But regardless, your original point was attempting to link Texas with the West because of wide-open spaces. What I countered with was that there are many parts of the West where this is definitely not the case, so it can hardly be used as an argument. And going a bit further (what makes you think I haven't been there, by the way?) even many of those places with "wide-open" spaces are nothing like anything in Texas.
And speaking of the "high country"? My fiance is FROM the true West. Colorado, in fact. And lived in Nevada for many years as well. And a veteran of the Navy who has lived all over the country when a WAVE. Not that it really matters, but she is adament that Texas is NOT a "western state" as she thinks of the West. She told me where she comes from, Texas was always considered a Southern state, and moving and living here did nothing but confirm it. The whole culture and attitudes are different.
Quote:
It's very unfair to shove Texas' Mexican population into the illegal category. Texas has ALWAYS had a very large Mexican population. After all, Texas used to be part of Mexico. San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth have always had a very noticeable Mexican population.
I hope you are not making a racial case of this. If you are, your arguments (which again, I find very compelling and good... even in disagreement) are lost. As playing this card is the last resort for those who cannot win the pot any other way. What I said was, and stand by, is that much of the Mexican population into Texas is relatively recent (as compared with the interior Southwest)...and that much of it is illegal. How much? I don't know. But no doubt it is considerable.
With that said, and as concerns this topic, I think this observation by Raymond Gastil in his great (and original) book "Cultural Regions of the United States" says it well. This is the one where he put almost the entire state of Texas in a sub-region of the "Greater South" aptly named the "western South". He noted the vast differences with the true SW, one of which was the hispanic influence:
Unlike the Interior Southwest, neither aboriginal Indian nor Spanish-American culture played a central role in the definition of the area. The people of Texas are mostly from the Lower, Upper, and Mountain South and these Southerners easily outnumbered the Spanish speaking and Indian people even before the state joined the Union. Therefore, when we refer to a large Spanish-speaking population in Texas, we are primarily speaking of a relatively recent immigrant population, quite different from the core areas of the Interior Southwest."
Quote:
Lastly, the West has a very noticeable cowboy culture too. There are very many cattle farms in the undisputed West, with rodeo culture being very visible.
There are still many visible cattle farms in the undisputed South. I am not sure of your point here. What I said was, and stand by, is that the primary prototype of the Texas cowboy was of the old Southern cattle droving tradition, and not the Mexican vaquero...which more influenced the West and Southwest.
Quote:
The frontier attitude of Texas and Oklahoma is NOTHING like the frontier attitude of the Midwest. You have mentioned St. Louis numerous times. St. Louis shed its frontier persona more than a century ago. Fort Worth has not. You will not find large tracts of land in St. Louis or Kansas City with horses and cattle grazing. In Fort Worth you will. St. Louis and Kansas City are very much ripe with Midwestern culture. Fort Worth is not. Fort Worth has not gone through a large cultural transformation since its settler days, Kansas City and St. Louis have. That's one of the reason why there is no question that those two cities are not Western, but there is fact that Fort Worth is.
I think you are missing my major point. Which was that a "western" affiliation identity cannot be determined by city monikers. St. Louis just happened to be the most notable example.
Quote:
It really seems like you want to ignore facts. As a Fort Worth native myself, I can tell you that before Northerners started pouring into the region, Fort Worth still identified as a Southwestern city. Not Western South, just Southwest.
What "facts" have you presented which cannot be countered? And have not been? Is it your contention that if one doesnt accept the "facts' you present as solid evidence of your thesis, that they are either being deliberately wrong or pig-headed? LOL
To use that phrase again, with all due respect? You seem to confuse this topic as being one of a purely scientific nature with such an opening statement. It isn't. "Facts" may be "facts" but as to how they "prove" the point at hand depends on the subject at hand.
I mean, it is a "fact" that ice is a necessary ingredient of ice-cream. Of that there is no argument. On the other hand, as to whether or not, say, "dialect" or "cattle culture" makes a state more this or more that, is subject to individual interpretation.
Regional affiliation is a more of an "art" than a true science...in some ways. It certainly isn't an "objective science". Same as history isn't. They are kin, in fact. For instance (and I am NOT trying to be condecending, of that, I promise), it is a "fact" that the South fired on Ft. Sumter. But that "fact" can be interpreted different ways in terms of the larger question of which side started the War. For some, it means the South asked for it. For others (like me! LOL), it was a justified measure because the Union troops were armed troops within "our" territorial waters and represented a threat to our declared soveriengty! LOL
See what I mean? Same thing applies with the "facts" we both present. You take them to mean Texas is more West. I take the same and present how it is more South!
To sum it up...there IS a difference of the Southwest of the West as opposed to the Southwest of the South. They are different critters. And that is a major point too. Fort Worth is "western South". Not "southern West".
And what is wrong with that? It blends the basic history and culture of the South with all those admirable frontier elements and qualities of the post-bellum "west". It makes it something very unique. And I PROUD of that!
But anyway, I need a beer! And I apologize for such a long rambling post!
Last edited by TexasReb; 06-20-2009 at 12:54 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
