Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 11-12-2014, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
17,618 posts, read 13,433,465 times
Reputation: 17531

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
You folks are beating a dead horse. Every state has a center, a north, a northeastern, a northwestern, a south, a southeastern, a southwestern, yadda yadda yadda. But Texas, which is the state to which the op was referring, is in the south. Just so yall can keep having fun, why don't yall break it down into counties?
How about these: Brewster, Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves, and Terrell counties
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2014, 02:21 PM
 
2,004 posts, read 3,396,214 times
Reputation: 3774
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
How about these: Brewster, Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves, and Terrell counties
Whatever trips your trigger, eddie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 02:23 PM
 
3,201 posts, read 4,387,712 times
Reputation: 4441
3rd coast
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
17,618 posts, read 13,433,465 times
Reputation: 17531
Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
Whatever trips your trigger, eddie.
Actually I would include the part of Texas that is in the Chihuahuan desert as being "southwestern" since the Chihuahuan desert is endemic to the southwestern United States and Mexico by definition.

I suppose to you it is the "desert south" though, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2014, 05:56 PM
 
2,004 posts, read 3,396,214 times
Reputation: 3774
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
Actually I would include the part of Texas that is in the Chihuahuan desert as being "southwestern" since the Chihuahuan desert is endemic to the southwestern United States and Mexico by definition.

I suppose to you it is the "desert south" though, eh?
Nope. It's just the desert. I am talking about Texas as a whole, not the Chihuahuan Desert or any other landmark, natural or manmade. Of course there are different "regions" within the state. Eastern Texas is different from Western Texas. Northern Texas is different from Southern Texas. My hometown of La Grange is in South Central Texas and it's different from the piney woods of Eastern Texas and it's different from the deserts of Southwestern Texas and it's different from the coastal plains of South Eastern Texas along the Gulf Coast. But, as a whole, Texas is part of the South. That was the OP's question. "Is Texas part of the South?" Yup.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
17,618 posts, read 13,433,465 times
Reputation: 17531
Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
Nope. It's just the desert. I am talking about Texas as a whole, not the Chihuahuan Desert or any other landmark, natural or manmade. Of course there are different "regions" within the state. Eastern Texas is different from Western Texas. Northern Texas is different from Southern Texas. My hometown of La Grange is in South Central Texas and it's different from the piney woods of Eastern Texas and it's different from the deserts of Southwestern Texas and it's different from the coastal plains of South Eastern Texas along the Gulf Coast. But, as a whole, Texas is part of the South. That was the OP's question. "Is Texas part of the South?" Yup.
There is certainly no doubt that Texas is part of the south. And I think the part I have expressed as being "southwestern" is certainly influenced by the southern migration from other parts of Texas than it might be had that part of the state been attached to say New Mexico. Also, the southern style state government makes a difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 03:19 AM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,508,561 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
=Steve-o;37230390]Thats because TX, uh, you know, was, um, part of the Confederacy.
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?

Quote:
Confederates invaded AZ and claimed it as theirs, too, but theres no Southern feel here whatsoever, thank goodness.
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.

So, again, there is no Southern feeling there? You are just backing my whole premise.

Quote:
Confederates tried to claim KS as pro-slavery, too, but we all know how that ended for them.
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.

Quote:
There are gravesites and monuments to Confederates in KS, as well as strong rivalries that still exist to this day (albeit peaceful ones), but I would never say KS is southern in feel, even in its far SE section of the state.
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.

[quote] And just like TX, the difference between far eastern and far western KS is like night and day.[/QUOTE]

So what are you saying? Of course the same is true of East and West Texas in terms of terrain, topography, etc. This point has been stated many times. Such would be self-evident to a blind man. The point of contention is that the above differences do not translate into a totally different shared history and heritage and culture, even if (and it does) contain an "east/west" gradient in terms of the same. It involves things that make Texas much more bonded with the southeast (which overwhelmingly shaped it as settlers and migration), that easily offset it with any sort of "kinship" with states of the northeast, Midwest, or far west (which includes any real connection with NM and AZ).

In a nut-shell, "the South" is not and never has been a monolithic region. Rather, it is one that shares certain commonalities that very much differ from other regions of the United States, and cannot be mistaken.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 04:22 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
17,618 posts, read 13,433,465 times
Reputation: 17531
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.

It involves things that make Texas much more bonded with the southeast (which overwhelmingly shaped it as settlers and migration), that easily offset it with any sort of "kinship" with states of the northeast, Midwest, or far west (which includes any real connection with NM and AZ).
Again, this is something the is poorly defined in these discussions. The difference between the culture "then and now".

There is no doubt that southern Arizona and southern New Mexico were "southern" in 1860 as Arizona territory voted to secede.

Of course settlement patterns changed in those states following the war (particularly in the redefined Arizona territory).

I don't think it's fair to use El Paso's vote for secession and eschew Arizona territories vote for secession as being somehow different. Both places were sparsely populated but both were southern at the time. (Note: Arizona territory consisted of only southern Arizona and New Mexico at that time).

Secondly, the curious idea that Arizona and New Mexico have no influence over Texas. This stands to reason in that migration patterns in the frontier period were always east to west. Never the reverse. Therefore, Texas and the south influenced early day southern New Mexico and Arizona.

As far as Kansas goes, there was a lot of southern migration to Kansas during the "bleeding Kansas" era during the fight for Kansas entry into the Union as a free state, a free soil state or a slave state.

Had the Lecompton state constitution not been thrown out I'd be curious as to how Kansas would be considered today as it would have had a heavy southern style government in place at the time of statehood.

In terms of the war, Kansas citizens did send some soldiers to the confederate army but not a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 05:17 AM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,508,561 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
=eddie gein;37268690]Again, this is something the is poorly defined in these discussions. The difference between the culture "then and now".

There is no doubt that southern Arizona and southern New Mexico were "southern" in 1860 as Arizona territory voted to secede.
Not really, although I see your point and it is a good one. But although they may have been -- for a brief time -- occupied by Texans, the same was very brief and, too, the major influence was never truly "Southern." It just meant there were some voting Texans/Southerners there. That is about it. There is a real difference in a territory -- as opposed to an actual state -- being mostly occupied by those from a certain part of the country. BUT...South or North...it was never either one that really dominated the development of the southwestern territories. Whereas Texas was pretty much solidified with the South from even before we joined the U.S. at all. There is just not much comparison as to Texas and the western territories.

And as a corollary, you are right that one can say that, for a brief time, Kansas had many Southern sympathizers, but that too pretty much ended even before the war began. The "JayHawks" won control of Kansas.

Quote:
I don't think it's fair to use El Paso's vote for secession and eschew Arizona territories vote for secession as being somehow different. Both places were sparsely populated but both were southern at the time. (Note: Arizona territory consisted of only southern Arizona and New Mexico at that time).
The reason I say it is (and I don't and never have deny that the trans-pecos region is "odd man out"! LOL), but seriously, the difference is that at that time, Texas was and had been a true state for a long time, not a territory. Whereas, AZ and NM just happened to be territories in the southern West where it was easier for westward moving settlers to get to, and they were mostly -

Quote:
Secondly, the curious idea that Arizona and New Mexico have no influence over Texas. This stands to reason in that migration patterns in the frontier period were always east to west. Never the reverse. Therefore, Texas and the south influenced early day southern New Mexico and Arizona.
I am not sure of what you are saying here, as in what is the disagreement about, today, has to do with Texas' regional affiliation.

Yes, I agreed with that Texas/South had influence in some years in the early days, but the opposite was never much of anything at all.

Quote:
Had the Lecompton state constitution not been thrown out I'd be curious as to how Kansas would be considered today as it would have had a heavy southern style government in place at the time of statehood.
Interesting question, and up to speculation, but my own guess is that the settlement patterns would have pretty much made it into a northern state (or Midwest) regardless.

Quote:
In terms of the war, Kansas citizens did send some soldiers to the confederate army but not a lot.
There is no state, South or North, that didn't have at least some on the other side of which they chose to side with. That worked both way, as we all know...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
17,618 posts, read 13,433,465 times
Reputation: 17531
Quote:
I am not sure of what you are saying here, as in what is the disagreement about, today, has to do with Texas' regional affiliation.
Nothing really.

It is a general observation about early day anglo settlement patterns always moving east to west and never west to east. So historically Arizona and New Mexico couldn't have and didn't influence Texas. (California influencing Nevada may have been an early day exception to this). Today there is still not much influence (west to east) among states except for California.

Obviously the influence of north to south and south to north has been significant in the last 120 years.

Just saying that Texas' influence on SOUTHERN Arizona and New Mexico was significant but in Arizona was overwhelmed by other culture in future years. In New Mexico it's obviously huge (Texas influence) on eastern NM to this day. And existed along what is the I-25 corridor south of Albuquerque for a portion of the 20th century.


But as for this particular discussion it's not terribly germane to the point.
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.

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top