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.
Lower Southwest: Southern California, Southern Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico
Upper Mid South: Kansas, Missouri
Lower Mid South: Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas
Upper Southeast: Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina
Lower Southeast: Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida
That is not a bad division in terms of the geographically definined locations of the states in the generally "southern tier" of the country. Good job, all in all, in that regard!
However, what is being discussed/debated here is more about that area of the country which is culturally and historically known as "The South". Thus, from that perspective, (if one accepts it), it is almost a given that states west of Texas, or immediately north of Oklahoma and Kentucky, or the Mason-Dixon line, do not qualify at all as "Southern" in the classic sense. The debate and definition usually centers around those states on the "peripherary". Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware are most often points of contension, even though the U.S. Census Bureau places the latter two in the "South" region. The blunt fact is though, that a majority of residents of those states do not consider themselves to live in the South nor think of themselves as Southerns. And perhaps for that reason, and many others, many of those in the deeper South do not consider them "part of the family", either....
Texas is a bit different, as it has a unique identity of its own and is quite a bit west of the other Lower South states. Its original charter membership in the Confederacy and obviously strong ties to the southeast in terms of bonded institutions, speech, settlement patterns, and on and on etc, confirm its basic Southern credentials, even if it went its own way a bit. The outlaw younger brother, I guess...
Our deep southeast cousins have always had a hard time figuring out just which branch of the family tree we belong on. A few want to cut it off completely, as we embarass them, while others just put us off on the western limb somewhere (pun intended!)...while some others just purely accept us as a natural part of the family tree... even if a somewhat eccentric one! LOL
That is not a bad division in terms of the geographically definined locations of the states in the generally "southern tier" of the country. Good job, all in all, in that regard!
However, what is being discussed/debated here is more about that area of the country which is culturally and historically known as "The South". Thus, from that perspective, (if one accepts it), it is almost a given that states west of Texas, or immediately north of Oklahoma and Kentucky, or the Mason-Dixon line, do not qualify at all as "Southern" in the classic sense. The debate and definition usually centers around those states on the "peripherary". Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware are most often points of contension, even though the U.S. Census Bureau places the latter two in the "South" region. The blunt fact is though, that a majority of residents of those states do not consider themselves to live in the South nor think of themselves as Southerns.
Texas is a bit different, as it has a unique identity of its own and is quite a bit west of the other Lower South states. Its original charter membership in the Confederacy and obviously strong ties to the southeast in terms of bonded institutions, speech, settlement patterns, and on and on etc, confirm its basic Southern credentials, even if it went its own way a bit. The outlaw younger brother, I guess...
Our deep southeast cousins have always had a hard time figuring out just which branch of the family tree we belong on. A few want to cut it off completely, as we embarass them, while others just put us off on the western limb somewhere (pun intended!)...while some others just purely accept us as a natural part of the family tree... even if a somewhat eccentric one! LOL
Excellent post again. One of the reasons you are one of my favorites here on CD!
As defined by the United States Census Bureau,[1] the Southern region of the United States includes sixteen states. As of 2010, an estimated 114,555,744 people, or thirty-seven percent of all U.S. residents, lived in the South, the nation's most populous region.[20] The Census Bureau defined three smaller units, or divisions:
As defined by the United States Census Bureau,[1] the Southern region of the United States includes sixteen states. As of 2010, an estimated 114,555,744 people, or thirty-seven percent of all U.S. residents, lived in the South, the nation's most populous region.[20] The Census Bureau defined three smaller units, or divisions:
This was how I learned the regions of the southern US in the 1960s in school. We never used the terms Southeast and Southwest. Arizona and New Mexico were Rocky mountain States.
The South has become such a diverse region in the past few years that I don't see the need to single out diverse areas as "unsouthern" anymore. Yes South Florida has a strong Latin culture mixed with the southern culture, but there are other large areas of the South that are very diverse as well. Texas is very Mexican, but do we need to separate it for that reason? Whatever the differences in culture, they are all part of the southern U.S. in my opinion.
North Mississippi is considered the Mid south, at least that's what my local news says.
The local news in Southeast Missouri calls it "The Heartland". It covers SE Missouri, far Southern Illinois, Western KY, NW Tennessee and one county in NE Arkansas. Just last weekend I heard a sports game on the radio in Murray, KY (10 Miles north of the Tennessee state line) and they were commenting on how it was "A nice fall day here in the Midwest" . Needless to say people from that 5 state region have their own definition of the "Midwest". People from there also don't understand that "Midwest" and "South" are supposed to be mutually exclusive.
That is not a bad division in terms of the geographically definined locations of the states in the generally "southern tier" of the country. Good job, all in all, in that regard!
However, what is being discussed/debated here is more about that area of the country which is culturally and historically known as "The South". Thus, from that perspective, (if one accepts it), it is almost a given that states west of Texas, or immediately north of Oklahoma and Kentucky, or the Mason-Dixon line, do not qualify at all as "Southern" in the classic sense. The debate and definition usually centers around those states on the "peripherary". Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware are most often points of contension, even though the U.S. Census Bureau places the latter two in the "South" region. The blunt fact is though, that a majority of residents of those states do not consider themselves to live in the South nor think of themselves as Southerns. And perhaps for that reason, and many others, many of those in the deeper South do not consider them "part of the family", either....
Texas is a bit different, as it has a unique identity of its own and is quite a bit west of the other Lower South states. Its original charter membership in the Confederacy and obviously strong ties to the southeast in terms of bonded institutions, speech, settlement patterns, and on and on etc, confirm its basic Southern credentials, even if it went its own way a bit. The outlaw younger brother, I guess...
Our deep southeast cousins have always had a hard time figuring out just which branch of the family tree we belong on. A few want to cut it off completely, as we embarass them, while others just put us off on the western limb somewhere (pun intended!)...while some others just purely accept us as a natural part of the family tree... even if a somewhat eccentric one! LOL
The bottom line on Texas is if it were split in half and made two seperate states and the western half wasn't part of the confederacy the "state" of "West Texas" wouldn't be considered southern. Rather it would be southwestern, however since west Texas went in with the rest of Texas it carries the legacy of the rest of Texas.
There is nothing "southern" about Ft. Davis, Texas except for the fact that it is named after Jefferson Davis.
The bottom line on Texas is if it were split in half and made two seperate states and the western half wasn't part of the confederacy the "state" of "West Texas" wouldn't be considered southern.
That is not a "bottom line" at all...simply your own interpretation of "alternate" Texas history. And yes, the western half WAS part of the Confederacy. Which part wasn't? In fact, in some ways, topography not withstanding, the dominance of the eastern South on west Texas may be an untapped story in itself. It is rural, Southern Baptist to the max, the "Southern twang" is right there, and cotton is king...
But regardless, west Texas today would not be what it is if not for the overwhelming influence of southeastern settlers making it. It was the South that shaped West Texas, not the Rocky Mountain West nor interior Southwest. Thus, with all due respect, your thesis is just historically impossible to have ever happened at all except if the migration patterns has gone west to east.....
Quote:
Rather it would be southwestern, however since west Texas went in with the rest of Texas it carries the legacy of the rest of Texas.
No, what most of west Texas contains, from the very start, is the simple fact it is the South moved west. Where the basic character of the South is blended with the frontier traits of the post-bellum west. It is the old Southwest of the 19th century. Its whole "Southwestern" character is nothing at all like that of the interior SW of New Mexico and Arizona. If anything, there is a thin slice of eastern New Mexico that shares certain traits with west Texas. NOT the other way around.
Quote:
There is nothing "southern" about Ft. Davis, Texas except for the fact that it is named after Jefferson Davis.
Uhhh, then I guess that alone indicates there must be something "southern about it? Plus that the area went for secession and there are Confederate monuments out that way?
With that said though, of course, I would agree that there isn't much classically Southern about it. But STILL, more than that in New Mexico and Arizona.
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.
. Needless to say people from that 5 state region have their own definition of the "Midwest". People from there also don't understand that "Midwest" and "South" are supposed to be mutually exclusive. 
Plus that the area went for secession and there are Confederate monuments out that way? 
