U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What is Texas?
The South 97 51.87%
The Southwest 22 11.76%
The West 1 0.53%
The Midwest 3 1.60%
Can't categorize it. It's just Texas. 64 34.22%
Voters: 187. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-14-2014, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,005 posts, read 69,468,004 times
Reputation: 10118

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Gosh, thanks for that news flash. Wow! I never knew Texas was part of the Confederacy!

But whatever... that is part of the main point. That Texas' membership in the Confederacy (one of the original charter states, in fact), is just one of many reasons why it is essentially a Southern state. It was also legacies of reconstruction and etc, etc, and a shared history and heritage of politics, culture, attitudes, traditions, speech and religion, etc.

So what is your point?
I only mentioned that because you brought up the fact that TX has places, etc, named after rebel generals, etc. Simple as that. Anyways, I concur that central TX and eastward is definitely southern in culture and whatnot. But west TX has never felt that way to me. I just dont get that vibe there that I do in east TX.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Of course they "invaded" the unclaimed territories, just as the Yankees did. It was war, and both sides wanted to claim the western territories. Nothing hard to figure out about that. And in fact, your bolded statement above makes my point in my ways. That is to say, Texas -- as a whole -- doesn't belong to be grouped with the true SW states as in terms of a separate region. Arizona and New Mexico (which did not even become states until around 1912 were southern West, while Texas was western South. And self-identity studies confirm the difference.
My point was that AZ, while occupied by rebels, does not feel southern in culture, etc, in the same way that El Paso doesnt, either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
No, they didn't. Brush up on your history that you seemingly tell everyone else to do. The Confederacy did not exist when the "bleeding Kansas" event occurred. It was several years prior to secession, when the bloodshed was between factions from Missouri and Kansas -- neither officially associated with either side at the time --both wanting to settle the state itself.

When all was said and done, Kansas was a pro-Union state to the max. At no time did the CSA government itself try and "claim" Kansas.
Youre correct, I should have used better words. However, even though the CSA didnt exist at the time of Bleeding KS, I still call them Confederates. I guess Ill use the term "pro-slavery" from here on out when describing pre-CSA events. Regardless, at the time pro-slavery individuals were busy raiding and persuading, trying to push their very-Southern agenda onto KS. The raid on Lawrence is proof of just how far they were willing to go to accomplish their twisted goals. So Im not sure when you said "no they didnt" (try to push KS into the pro-slavery realm) as a cheap shot at me because I said "Confederates" vs "pro-slavery folks", or "no they didnt" try to push their agenda on KS like they didnt care about KS. Im assuming the former.





Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
So where are these Confederate monuments you speak of? My ex was from Kansas and I have spent time up there, and never saw one to the Confederacy. Nothing wrong with that, far as it goes -- that was the side most Kansans chose -- just as there is only one Union monument in Texas to the Union (down in the "Hill Country"). So please reveal where these Confederate monuments exist in Kansas???

And of course Kansas is not southern, whoever said different? It never was, far as that goes.
In all honesty, I dont know exactly where. My brother and I were on a trip to SW MO doing some snake hunting and hiking, and we drove a short stint into SE KS for the day, bumming around Lawrence area, and the parks around there in search for rattlesnakes. When there, my brother (who is a war reenactor and history buff) made a stop at a small cemetary, and lo and behold there were several graves of southern soldiers. Ill have to ask him if he can remember, but I saw them with my own two eyes. We werent overly shocked, seeing how close to AR we were, but they were there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2014, 05:47 AM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,136,223 times
Reputation: 5742
Quote:
=Steve-o;37274400]I only mentioned that because you brought up the fact that TX has places, etc, named after rebel generals, etc. Simple as that. Anyways, I concur that central TX and eastward is definitely southern in culture and whatnot.
Yes, I brought it up originally because the naming of many counties in west Texas after Confederate figures was directly related to the overwhelming settlement of southeastern pioneers.

Quote:
But west TX has never felt that way to me. I just dont get that vibe there that I do in east TX.
.

Of course not, I don't either (get the same vibe). But it isn't that much different from why one does not get the same "vibe" in, say, western Tennessee and south Alabama.

Quote:
My point was that AZ, while occupied by rebels, does not feel southern in culture, etc, in the same way that El Paso doesnt, either.
Of course it doesn't feel Southern in culture, because it never was. And I have many times stated that the trans-pecos "horn" (El Paso the major city) is the one area of Texas that, today, can fairly be grouped with the interior Southwest (although it did go for secession at that time).

Quote:
Youre correct, I should have used better words. However, even though the CSA didnt exist at the time of Bleeding KS, I still call them Confederates. I guess Ill use the term "pro-slavery" from here on out when describing pre-CSA events. Regardless, at the time pro-slavery individuals were busy raiding and persuading, trying to push their very-Southern agenda onto KS.
You can call them what you like, just so long as it is clear they were not Confederates in any official capacity and the Confederacy didn't exist then, at any rate. But regardless, the warring in Kansas was pretty much between outlaw groups on both sides. And if you think for one moment that there were not outrages committed by both sides, then wellllll, there is the swamp land to sell in your home-state of Arizona.

Quote:
The raid on Lawrence is proof of just how far they were willing to go to accomplish their twisted goals. So Im not sure when you said "no they didnt" (try to push KS into the pro-slavery realm) as a cheap shot at me because I said "Confederates" vs "pro-slavery folks", or "no they didnt" try to push their agenda on KS like they didnt care about KS. Im assuming the former.
Actually, you were the one taking cheap shots originally. But whatever, the raid on Lawrence, was preceded by outrages by Kansas "Jayhawkers" on towns in Missouri. Here is a good link and an excerpt from the same that gives the chronology:


The Sacking of Osceola was a Union Jayhawker initiative on September 23, 1861. Many years before the official "Civil War" that was recognized and waged in the east, Jayhawker bands waged numerous invasions into Missouri and also committed some of the most notorious atrocities of the Civil War. These atrocities escalated into the Lane-led massacre at Osceola, Missouri, in which the entire town was set aflame and at least 9 of the male residents killed.

The Missouri Partisan Ranger - Sacking & Massacre Of Osceola

So really, the pro-Unionists and their latter day apologists have no moral high ground whatsoever to stand on; even though you are certainly entitled to your opinion. No problem there at all.

Quote:
In all honesty, I dont know exactly where. My brother and I were on a trip to SW MO doing some snake hunting and hiking, and we drove a short stint into SE KS for the day, bumming around Lawrence area, and the parks around there in search for rattlesnakes. When there, my brother (who is a war reenactor and history buff) made a stop at a small cemetary, and lo and behold there were several graves of southern soldiers. Ill have to ask him if he can remember, but I saw them with my own two eyes. We werent overly shocked, seeing how close to AR we were, but they were there.
I did some research and there is exactly one Confederate monument in Kansas and it was erected by the Kansas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, but that is the extent of it. Just as there is only one Union monument in Texas.

The Trans-Mississippian: A Confederate Monument in Kansas

And yes, I would be very interested to see the grave-markers of Southern soldiers in Kansas. Not
guerilla raiders that operated outside of official Confederate sanction. Of course, I am sure there are former Confederate veterans whose headstones indicate service to the CSA. BUT...how many of these were actual official Confederate soldiers or simply Southerners who served in the Confederate army and later moved to Kansas after the War (for whatever reason) and -- by rights -- are listed as CSA soldiers -- just as GAR veterans who moved to the South after the conflict are buried down here and had their service duly indicated on their headstones.

Now, to be fair, I do need to make a minor correction. Yes, there was a battle between Confederate forces in eastern Kansas following an ill-fated attempt to go into Missouri (which was claimed as a CSA state), but there is also good evidence that the said event (Battle of Mine Creek) was likely to be a mistake of just exactly where the state line between KS and MO. actually was (not surprising given maps of the day). It is a sketchy event and partisans on both sides can claim truth...

Just as an afterthought...speaking of twisted agendas...the slave trade itself was totally in the hands of northern shipping merchants. No slave ship was ever chartered out of a Southern port.

Slavery in the North

Also to mention that Abraham Lincoln stated quite frankly his real reason for opposing slavery in the western territories was....welllll, let me quote his own words in 1854:

The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them.


Summed up, while you and I have our own opinions (as history is not an objective subject), which is fine, no one has a platform to express settled questions of historical morality by the standards of the day. In other words, again, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2014, 07:15 AM
 
Location: Ouachita Mtns of Arkansas
1,974 posts, read 2,721,445 times
Reputation: 3626
Lincoln letter to Horace Greeley in 1862. "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2014, 08:25 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,173,154 times
Reputation: 4350
Yeah, Abe was a jerk. But so were the Confederates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2014, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Ouachita Mtns of Arkansas
1,974 posts, read 2,721,445 times
Reputation: 3626
Quote:
Originally Posted by mega man View Post
Yeah, Abe was a jerk. But so were the Confederates.
I wouldn't know. I wasn't alive at that time in history and all of my ancestors that fought in the Civil War fought on the northern side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2014, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Wonderland
45,148 posts, read 36,338,000 times
Reputation: 63907
Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
I wouldn't know. I wasn't alive at that time in history and all of my ancestors that fought in the Civil War fought on the northern side.
Most but not all of mine fought on the southern side - but I do have a few Unionists in my family tree.

Same with the Revolutionary War - most fought on the American side but several were Tories.

It's all good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 06:03 AM
 
Location: The Dirty South.
1,573 posts, read 1,434,263 times
Reputation: 1097
Most of Texas is southern. Most Texans live in the portion of Texas that's considered southern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top