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.
Both of those towns are around 25% Hispanic
Tell me what small town in the South, outside of Texas, is 25% Hispanic
Vermillion, St Martin, and Evangeline parishes in Louisiana have 18% of the population as French speaking.
Tell me what county, or even town in the south, outside of Louisiana, is 18% French speaking.
What's the Spanish influence in La.? I'm unaware of any of significance. Other than New Orleans which is definitely a different thing than the rest of the South - due to its history as the major port on the Gulf for hundreds of years and its ownership by so many different nations. Really, NO is kind of like the South's New York City - very different from what surrounds it in many ways.
Louisiana has French influence.
New Orleans isn't southern either? Bless your heart...
Barbecue is not what makes Texas distinctive or not.
It's the Spanish and Mexican influence, combined with the influence of Southern plantation culture, and the predominance of Anglo and German settlement. The true South does not have the Spanish/Mexican influence. The desert Southwest/California does not have the influence of Southern plantation culture nor the predominance of Anglo/German settlement. The desert Southwest remained culturally Spanish right up to the modern era.
Texas is just Texas.
I'd also point out that unlike the true South where slavery of African ancestry people lasted for almost 300 years, African-American slavery officially existed in Texas for only 20 years. The Southern plantation culture was far weaker here than to the east.
The "truth south" does not have French influence, so I guess Louisiana isn't southern either.
And if Louisiana isn't southern, then I don't think anywhere is southern.
To me the confusing thing here is that geographically east Texas LOOKS more like the deep south than it does any place else in Texas. To some degree that influences it culturally as it is economically driven (in the rural areas) some of the same industries that we see in the normal deep south. However the oil in east Texas makes it more similar to the rest of Texas.
The people who are arguing for Texas as a part of the south are looking at a lot more than just geography. Geographically, yes, many parts of Texas do not resemble the rest of the south. The mountains in eastern Tennessee, western NC, and Virginia don't resemble the land in southern Georgia and Alabama, the coast of South Carolina, or the swamplands of southern Louisiana.
The people who are arguing for Texas as a part of the south are looking at a lot more than just geography. Geographically, yes, many parts of Texas do not resemble the rest of the south. The mountains in eastern Tennessee, western NC, and Virginia don't resemble the land in southern Georgia and Alabama, the coast of South Carolina, or the swamplands of southern Louisiana.
General "southernness" is one thing, "Deep South" (the point of the OP) is another. The parts of TX that share the economic history, cultural history, and agricultural history of the Deep South (plantation-based cotton and sugar cane economy with enslaved persons originally providing the labor, limited range of Protestant Christian denominations with little presence of other faiths, etc.), and particularly pre-Civil War, is very limited - basically just some parts of NE TX and the Brazos Valley, and only for the last few decades prior to the war. That's why it's hard to call most of East Texas "Deep South" even though it's obviously "southern" in many other ways.
Barbecue is not what makes Texas distinctive or not.
It's the Spanish and Mexican influence, combined with the influence of Southern plantation culture, and the predominance of Anglo and German settlement. The true South does not have the Spanish/Mexican influence. The desert Southwest/California does not have the influence of Southern plantation culture nor the predominance of Anglo/German settlement. The desert Southwest remained culturally Spanish right up to the modern era.
Texas is just Texas.
I'd also point out that unlike the true South where slavery of African ancestry people lasted for almost 300 years, African-American slavery officially existed in Texas for only 20 years. The Southern plantation culture was far weaker here than to the east.
1) Yet East Texas for a large part of it's existence had little to no Spanish and Mexican influence. East Texas towns during that period were A LOT different than let's say a city like San Antonio. San Antonio in large part was a frontier city with a strong Spanish history that had a plethora of different cultures. Also German immigrants made a pretty big impact on San Antonio and the towns surrounding San Antonio. East Texas didn't have any of those influences.
Matter fact the Black population is still the 2nd biggest demographic in many towns and cities in East Texas. That's not the case in other parts of the state. The mass influx of Mexican immigrants into East Texas took off later than other parts of the state either. It was generally a Black and White region for a LONG TIME up until the late 80s/early 90s.
Also your take on slavery in Texas is a little misleading. You do realize that many "settlers" that flocked to East Texas were White settlers that migrated from the Southeast generally states that would be considered the DEEP SOUTH. And those White settlers were slave owners or came from families who enslaved people for generations prior to them resettling in Texas. So the concept of slavery wasn't a new concept. East Texas was a continuation of what they had done for generations prior to Texas. Slavery was the most important economy to East Texas.
Also you forget that slavery has existed in what is now Texas before the Republic of Texas existed. Here's a bit of information that explains the role of slavery in developing Texas.
Quote:
For example, Jared Groce arrived from Alabama in 1822 with ninety slaves and set up a cotton plantation on the Brazos River. The first census in Austin's colony in 1825 showed 443 slaves in a total population of 1,800.
As you can see Jared Groce was from Alabama (a Deep South state) and brought with him 90 enslaved people to set up a cotton plantation. And yes they started putting their enslaved people to work immediately to build plantations. Texas THEN was seen as a territory to expand their slave owning empire. In large part Texas east of the Brazos river was seen no different than any other southern state. And I'm going to make the assumption that those who settled from the Southeast saw it no different. Only till after the Oil Boom did those Texans try to differentiate themselves from their southern counterparts. If it wasn't for the oil boom Texas would be no different than Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama at least East of the Brazos River.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
General "southernness" is one thing, "Deep South" (the point of the OP) is another. The parts of TX that share the economic history, cultural history, and agricultural history of the Deep South (plantation-based cotton and sugar cane economy with enslaved persons originally providing the labor, limited range of Protestant Christian denominations with little presence of other faiths, etc.), and particularly pre-Civil War, is very limited - basically just some parts of NE TX and the Brazos Valley, and only for the last few decades prior to the war. That's why it's hard to call most of East Texas "Deep South" even though it's obviously "southern" in many other ways.
If it's limited it's only due to most of those towns being established shortly after the war. But they were occupied and founded by people generally from the Southeast. The towns that were established prior to the War were heavily dependent on slave labor. It was loyal to the confederacy. Marshall, TX for example became one of the most important cities west of the Mississippi for the Confederacy. I believe there's 6 confederate generals buried in Marshall. There's still a Confederate monument in the middle of downtown. Not a statue of any "Texas hero" from the Alamo or anything of that nature but a Confederate one.
As you can see East Texas was largely made up of White settlers, White slave owners and Enslaved people from Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana. As you can see Central and North Texas are mostly people from the Upper South.
Even this map from the 70's states East Texas became an extension of the Deep South.
1) Yet East Texas for a large part of it's existence had little to no Spanish and Mexican influence. East Texas towns during that period were A LOT different than let's say a city like San Antonio.
--snip--
Marshall, TX for example became one of the most important cities west of the Mississippi for the Confederacy. I believe there's 6 confederate generals buried in Marshall. There's still a Confederate monument in the middle of downtown. Not a statue of any "Texas hero" from the Alamo or anything of that nature but a Confederate one.
I know you mentioned Marshall in a prior post and how it's location is not exactly "East Texas", but I think you are right in that you can extend the "Deep South" part of "East TX" to include Marshall and even further west to around the Tyler/Edom area and even to Austin/San Antonio by looking at where slave plantations were or still are and preserved as historical landmarks (or in the case of the one near Tyler, a slave plantation now used as a wedding venue).
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/tyler-tx
"As in much of East Texas, the city's [Tyler] economy was heavily dependent on slavery. In 1860 more than 35 percent of the total population of 1,021 were slaves. Not surprisingly, Tyler residents voted overwhelmingly for secession, and local men volunteered for army service in large numbers. With so much of its wealth invested in slavery, Tyler and Smith County suffered from an economic depression in the early post war period."
Roseland Plantation near Tyler was a slave plantation and grew cotton. The original owner, Hambrick, came from Virginia.
From the official TX State gov website: https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/...ery-01.htmlThe enslavement of African Americans was the curse of early American life, and Texas was no exception. The Mexican government was opposed to slavery, but even so, there were 5000 slaves in Texas by the time of the Texas Revolution in 1836. By the time of annexation a decade later, there were 30,000; by 1860, the census found 182,566 slaves -- over 30% of the total population of the state.
Most slaves came to Texas with their owners, and the vast majority lived on large cotton plantations in East Texas.
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/slavery
In the fewer than fifty years between 1821 and 1865, the "Peculiar Institution," as Southerners called it, spread over the eastern two-fifths of the state, an area nearly as large as Alabama and Mississippi combined. Slavery thus linked Texas inextricably with the Old South.
"...when Stephen F. Austin was recognized as heir to his father's contract later that year, it was agreed that settlers could receive eighty acres of land for each enslaved person they brought to the colony. The motivation for bringing slaves to Texas was primarily economic – using their labor to grow cotton, which was by 1820 the most valuable commodity in the Atlantic world. To Anglo-American slave owners slavery was a practical necessity in Texas – the only way to grow cotton profitably on its vast areas of fertile land. Stephen F. Austin made this clear in 1824: “The principal product that will elevate us from poverty is cotton,” he wrote, “and we cannot do this without the help of slaves.”
"The great majority of slaves in Texas came with their owners from the older slave states. [as mentioned by Redlionjr earlier] Sizable numbers, however, came through the domestic slave trade. New Orleans was the center of this trade in the Deep South, but there were slave dealers in Galveston and Houston, too. A relatively few slaves, perhaps as many as 2,000 between 1835 and 1865, came through the illegal African trade."
Also, there is at least a couple posters in the TX forums who are proud of the deep south heritage and show it by posting confederate flag memes.
1)If it's limited it's only due to most of those towns being established shortly after the war. But they were occupied and founded by people generally from the Southeast. The towns that were established prior to the War were heavily dependent on slave labor. It was loyal to the confederacy. Marshall, TX for example became one of the most important cities west of the Mississippi for the Confederacy. I believe there's 6 confederate generals buried in Marshall. There's still a Confederate monument in the middle of downtown. Not a statue of any "Texas hero" from the Alamo or anything of that nature but a Confederate one.
As you can see East Texas was largely made up of White settlers, White slave owners and Enslaved people from Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana. As you can see Central and North Texas are mostly people from the Upper South.
Even this map from the 70's states East Texas became an extension of the Deep South.
My point was that it wasn't like all of East Texas had a major plantation / slavery-based economy - it was parts of NE TX (as you noted, around Marshall) and areas along the Brazos River (and the lower Colorado near the coast) where this was really dominant. Were there enslaved people living elsewhere in the portions of the state where Europeans had immigrated, yes, but that's not the same as a very plantation-focused (in TX, cotton and sugar cane) base economy. I personally tie "Deep South" to that economy vs. general "South" of which East TX and Southeast TX are no doubt a part of. The backwoods folks in the Piney Woods may have ancestry going back to Alabama or wherever, who may have brought some enslaved people with them, but their economy (lumbering for example) wasn't really a plantation economy, in my opinion. Not sure if that's because of soil conditions or some other factors.
I don't think the presence of enslaved people or support of the Confederacy by itself is enough to differentiate "Deep South" from the general "South". I also don't consider tobacco to be a "Deep South" agricultural product like cotton and sugar cane. Maybe by my standards I should also consider much of South Carolina and parts of North Florida as part of the Deep South like Georgia.
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.
