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.
You would be surprised how many people friends have told me stories about how someone from out of state asked them if Texans still rode horses everywhere.
I think this is often due to "tongue-in-cheek" comments going over someone's head.
Like a buddy of mine, if he meets someone from the South at a bar or something, he might say "Oh, so you're inbred then?"
Offensive? Maybe. Does he really think you're inbred? No. It's all about getting a cheap laugh. Either that or punched in the face.
While Texas was part of the Confederacy and was a slave state, its history was dramatically different from that of the other southern states, by virtue of obtaining its own independence in a revolutionary war against Mexico. It was the only state (except possibly Hawaii) that was an independent country for a significant length of time, and entered the United States by virtue of a multinational treaty (by which, among other things, it kept its unappropriated lands, unique in the United States, and a major source of wealth for UT, aTm, and the public schools by virtue of the oil discovered there). When I was growing up in Houston, the public schools would alternate semesters between teaching US history, world history, and Texas history, at least through junior high. The Alamo, San Jacinto, Goliad, Gonzales, and Washington on the Brazos were iconic places for us, and Austin, Bowie, Crockett, Travis, and Houston were iconic heroes. What's interesting to me is that, after moving to Missouri, my interest in and knowledge of local history quickly outpaced that of my friends and in-laws, which I thought was telling-- a lack of interest in their state's history, to me, hinted of a lack of pride in it. (And that's really a shame, because Missouri history is interesting in its own right.)
Yes, the Republic of Texas history does give the state a different history than the other Southern states. At the same time though, it was settlers from the American South which mostly made it possible, so that when it joined the Union, it was unquestionably part of the South.
Quote:
There's far less identification with the Confederacy in Texas than in other parts of the south.
To a noteable extent, this is true. Largely due to the fact the state relatively emerged unscathed by the devastation and, too, was mostly settled after the War, Texas was able to recover from it all in a way not possible in most of the southeast. Thus -- Reconstruction not withstanding -- it was easier to put the conflict behind them, and move on. This did make for a certain divergence with other states of the Old Confederacy. Still, Confederate monuments are present on most county courthouse lawns and Confederate Heroes Day is an official state holiday. Too many schools within Texas are named for prominent Confederates...and the use of "Rebels" as a mascot and "Dixie" as a fight song, while fading (but this is true all over the South) is still not uncommon.
Quote:
Also, Texas encompasses a number of diverse areas-- while east Texas could be characterized as quite southern in ways similar to Arkansas and northern Louisiana, most of the rest of the state is far more western, and there's a whole mindset associated with that.
This is where, IMHO, a lot of confusion comes in. Yes, much of Texas is "western", but not Western in the same sense as the Rocky Mountain or Interior SW states (the true West as classified by the Census Bureau).
As was mentioned earlier, it was overwhelming settled before the WBTS by Southerners and then, afterwards by the same breed looking to get a new start. They brought with them their basic culture and history and attitudes. Of course, due to the fact much of Texas had a different terrian than the forested southeast, and plus it was a frontier, you are correct that adaptations were made in terms of life-styles and mind-sets (to some extent).
However, these "modifications" did not seperate Texas from the South per se, but rather, transformed large parts of it into a unique sub-region of the whole. The "western South" so to speak, as opposed to the Southeast. That is, essentially Southern in its history, culture, traditions, speech, political and religious patterns and affiliations and outlook, but heavily flavored with characteristics of the ante-bellum western frontier (which is not the same "West" as that of the region composed of Arizona, Colorada, Montana, etc.)
As was mentioned earlier, it was overwhelming settled before the WBTS by Southerners and then, afterwards by the same breed looking to get a new start. They brought with them their basic culture and history and attitudes. Of course, due to the fact much of Texas had a different terrian than the forested southeast, and plus it was a frontier, you are correct that adaptations were made in terms of life-styles and mind-sets (to some extent).
However, these "modifications" did not seperate Texas from the South per se, but rather, transformed large parts of it into a unique sub-region of the whole. The "western South" so to speak, as opposed to the Southeast. That is, essentially Southern in its history, culture, traditions, speech, political and religious patterns and affiliations and outlook, but heavily flavored with characteristics of the ante-bellum western frontier (which is not the same "West" as that of the region composed of Arizona, Colorada, Montana, etc.)
Just some thoughts!
ACTUALLY, Stephen Austin and the settlers from his time came from Kentucky, Tennesee,... northern Confederate states that were quite different from the Slave south. This is coupled by the fact that many of them LEFT those places because they didn't like the institutions associated with landowning, agriculture, etc. So this does separate Texas greatly from it's southern neighbors. LATER, Deep South southerners started settling East Texas by the droves and brought their slaves with them, creating thelegacy of the Deep South in Texas.
What you're leaving out is the large swaths of land in West Texas and the Panhandle that have a lot more in common with the southwest or the Great Plains. Even Deep South Texas has always been distinctly different.
ACTUALLY, Stephen Austin and the settlers from his time came from Kentucky, Tennesee,... northern Confederate states that were quite different from the Slave south. This is coupled by the fact that many of them LEFT those places because they didn't like the institutions associated with landowning, agriculture, etc. So this does separate Texas greatly from it's southern neighbors. LATER, Deep South southerners started settling East Texas by the droves and brought their slaves with them, creating thelegacy of the Deep South in Texas.
I think I see the point you are making, but I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw (Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier). Most of the original settlers were from the Upper South, yes, but after 1836, the point of newcomer origins swung increasingly toward the Gulf. Tennesse still furnished the largest continent, with Alabama a close second, and Mississippi not far behind (I'd have to dig out the table to see for sure which states came next! L). By 1860, Texas was a "Lower South" state and this was reflected in that it was one of the original "fire-eating" charter members of the CSA.
I am not sure what you mean by that this seperated Texas from its Southern neighbors. Which ones? Do you mean the fact that, at first, most were from the Upper South? Yes, that made it, initially, different from states to the immediate east, but no different than the Upper South states varied with the same. Later, again, as you say, it was the Deep South which dominated, and then Texas became different than the Upper South! LOL
Leaving because they didn't like the institutions associated with landowning and agriculture? I am sure there were exceptions, but the reason the vast majority came to Texas was because of the cheap land. And by agriculture the same made their living. And it was the virgin soil perfect for cotton that was the biggest draw of all (especially after statehood). Now if by "institutions" you mean some of those who came to Texas disliked slavery? Sure, but that hardly made the state different than any other place in the South (and most didn't have any, anyway...although in 1860 a third of the population of Texas was black). Anyway, if this (slavery) was the institution you are referring to, then why would they leave a slave state to come to a slave-permitting Republic and later, slave state? Doesn't make sense (assuming that is what you meant).
Bottom line is, if anything, one could say that, overall -- in those early days from Republic to statehood to WBTS -- Texas was sort of a micrososm of the South at large, which made it somewhat unique, not seperate. Upper Southerners tended to dominate in the Northern part, Lower South in the East, with a mix in the Central and South.
Maybe we are saying the same thing in different words, I don't know!
Quote:
What you're leaving out is the large swaths of land in West Texas and the Panhandle that have a lot more in common with the southwest or the Great Plains. Even Deep South Texas has always been distinctly different.
No, I am not leaving it out. I mentioned it previously (that is, the western frontier characteristics). To re-interate, topographically, yes, the Panhandle and most of west Texas is more like the Great Plains and certain parts of the Interior SW (i.e. Arizona and New Mexico) than the forested southeast. No question. But physical geography takes a backseat to history and culture when it comes to classifying states into regions in the traditional sense.
Using the historical and cultural combinations, with the exception of the very upper Panhandle, Texas has/had very little in common with the Plains Midwest (which was dominated by northern settlers). Likewise, other than the trans-pecos area -- and perhaps today, a good part of South Texas -- the same lack applies to the Interior SW (where the Mexican and Native-American population played a much greater role -- and in a much different way -- than in Texas). West Texas was largely settled by Southerners, and -- to name a couple -- one sees it in the accents, the dominance of the Southern Baptist Church, voting patterns and, perhaps most importantly, self-identification (even in West Texas, the majority of residents -- according to the two most extensive sociological surveys ever done -- say they live in the South and consider themselves Southerners). Traits not found in the Midwest and/or true Southwest...
Here is a good map -- credit to JimmyJohnWilson of C-D -- which illustrates all this (hope it comes out!). With "western South" (first coined by Raymond Gastil in "Cultural Regions of the United States) being considered a very unique subregion of the South itself. Essentially Southern, but containing characteristics which offset it from the Southeast (that is, the experiences of the post-bellum western frontier):
I think I see the point you are making, but I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw (Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier). Most of the original settlers were from the Upper South, yes, but after 1836, the point of newcomer origins swung increasingly toward the Gulf. Tennesse still furnished the largest continent, with Alabama a close second, and Mississippi not far behind (I'd have to dig out the table to see for sure which states came next! L). By 1860, Texas was a "Lower South" state and this was reflected in that it was one of the original "fire-eating" charter members of the CSA.
I am not sure what you mean by that this seperated Texas from its Southern neighbors. Which ones? Do you mean the fact that, at first, most were from the Upper South? Yes, that made it, initially, different from states to the immediate east, but no different than the Upper South states varied with the same. Later, again, as you say, it was the Deep South which dominated, and then Texas became different than the Upper South! LOL
Leaving because they didn't like the institutions associated with landowning and agriculture? I am sure there were exceptions, but the reason the vast majority came to Texas was because of the cheap land. And by agriculture the same made their living. And it was the virgin soil perfect for cotton that was the biggest draw of all (especially after statehood). Now if by "institutions" you mean some of those who came to Texas disliked slavery? Sure, but that hardly made the state different than any other place in the South (and most didn't have any, anyway...although in 1860 a third of the population of Texas was black). Anyway, if this (slavery) was the institution you are referring to, then why would they leave a slave state to come to a slave-permitting Republic and later, slave state? Doesn't make sense (assuming that is what you meant).
Bottom line is, if anything, one could say that, overall -- in those early days from Republic to statehood to WBTS -- Texas was sort of a micrososm of the South at large, which made it somewhat unique, not seperate. Upper Southerners tended to dominate in the Northern part, Lower South in the East, with a mix in the Central and South.
Maybe we are saying the same thing in different words, I don't know!
No, I am not leaving it out. I mentioned it previously (that is, the western frontier characteristics). To re-interate, topographically, yes, the Panhandle and most of west Texas is more like the Great Plains and certain parts of the Interior SW (i.e. Arizona and New Mexico) than the forested southeast. No question. But physical geography takes a backseat to history and culture when it comes to classifying states into regions in the traditional sense.
Using the historical and cultural combinations, with the exception of the very upper Panhandle, Texas has/had very little in common with the Plains Midwest (which was dominated by northern settlers). Likewise, other than the trans-pecos area -- and perhaps today, a good part of South Texas -- the same lack applies to the Interior SW (where the Mexican and Native-American population played a much greater role -- and in a much different way -- than in Texas). West Texas was largely settled by Southerners, and -- to name a couple -- one sees it in the accents, the dominance of the Southern Baptist Church, voting patterns and, perhaps most importantly, self-identification (even in West Texas, the majority of residents -- according to the two most extensive sociological surveys ever done -- say they live in the South and consider themselves Southerners). Traits not found in the Midwest and/or true Southwest...
Here is a good map -- credit to JimmyJohnWilson of C-D -- which illustrates all this (hope it comes out!). With "western South" (first coined by Raymond Gastil in "Cultural Regions of the United States) being considered a very unique subregion of the South itself. Essentially Southern, but containing characteristics which offset it from the Southeast (that is, the experiences of the post-bellum western frontier):
I agree with you on the West TX people, you could pick a city up like Amarillo and place the people in a suburb of Atlanta or Birmingham or Nashville and they would blend in better than they would in Arizona or NM.
the people in Hoover,Al actually reminded me of the people in Amarillo.
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.
