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.
If you guys knew what "blindfolded eggs" were, you should have been able to figure out what I meant by "basted eggs"
I have no idea what blindfolded eggs are..and have never heard of either that or "basted" eggs. Both might be something I've had, but they didn't go by those names.
=Jack Lance;33394478]In all honesty TR in my mind if Texas is not trying to escape its association with the "South" then it should be.
Ok...now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty dirt band! LOL The above is your opinion, and I respect that. On the other hand? In my opinion? Texas should be trying to re-establish its rightful and definite place and identity as the Empire State of the South.
Quote:
One) the historical stigma of supposed southern backwardness and decadence is something even the deep South should be trying to escape and or remedy and Texas has the opportunity to back out thanks to its historical insignificance too the South.
Jack, may I ask? How long are you going to live in your private world that the South of today is still the South that existed in 1935, 1953, or 1965? Do you just enjoy keeping up the guilt-trip or something, or what? Does it make you feel morally superior? I confess I honest to god don't understand this outlook...
It is you that needs to move on, not the South of today. Today, the Southern states (the 11 Old Confederate plus Kentucky, Oklahoma, and possibly West Virginia), is the region which has the best race-relationships in the country. It is the one that people from the North and west coast are swarming to. So, I guess we must be doing something right! Right? LOL
And where in the hell do you figure that Texas was (past tense for now), "insignificant" to the South at large? PLEASE explain and/or be specific on this one. My gawd, how could a state which was once considered the Empire State of the South, be of miniscule importance?
Quote:
Like you say the South has had a much greater effect on Texas than vice-versa. Texas has always been a side show to the South's main event. But Texas has made a HUGE impression on this country and the world on its own.
Quote:
If what you say about my mis-education is true, and LBJ was just trying to separate Texas from the South for his own political gain, you have to admit it was effective in that there have been 3 Presidents from Texas since his propaganda campaign, and only 1 from all the other southern states combined. So good for LBJ. Also if this is true then I think there may be a reverse campaign to de-southwestern Texas for "political purposes" as well. Seeing that the South is basically the Republican base, it would make sense that the Republicans are wanting to foster more congenial and homogenous attitudes among their member delegations . This is of course total conjecture, but knowing politics the way I do it does make sense.
Not TOTALLY sure where you are going with this, but yes, the once Solid South Democratic bastion, has become the Solid South Republican. As it is, I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Just an Independent Texas/Southern, conservative!
Quote:
BTW I Googled "Wall street of the South" and found other sites that confirm both South and Southwest, so I suspect this is a indication that the debate we are having is being played out in other venues and forums as well in the form of a info-war.
Sorta kinda. As I wrote last night, the "Wall Street of the South" was the original. No question about it. As was "Playground of the South". That can be easily confirmed...it came about in the later part of the 19th Century. The "Wall Street of the Southwest" was a "newbie"...and the reason it was "coined" was that other cities (like New Orleans) "stole" it from Galveston...and I believe, other cities along the Southern Gulf coast. So...as I remember, some Galveston concerns began to shift to "Wall Street of the Southwest"...but ONLY in response so as to differ from the southeast. NOTHING to do with a connection with NM or AZ. They didn't exist then...and weren't Gulf South, anyway.
Quote:
What should Texas have done instead of secession? It could have taken the Kentucky route and not secede but not have contributed to any war effort. Just tell its citizens they were free to hook-up with either side of their own choosing.
Jack, with all due respect, you are arguing from -- not only result -- but a total -- IMHO -- an absolute total lack of comprehension of what Texas was at that time, and the options it was faced with at the time. Texas was NOT Kentucky...and even using alternative history to use such a comparison as to think it was? Welllll, Lincoln did not -- in the long run -- respect Kentucky's neutrality -- what makes you think he would have Texas'?
Texas was, at that time, a totally Lower South "cotton state". It's identity was totally bonded with that of the other states of the Lower South. Again, I know today, that is extremely difficult for many to fathom. But that is what it was at the time and no question about it...
Also? People in Texas were always free to hook up the way they wanted. In Texas? At the least, some 70,000, sided with our fellow Southern states. Around 2,000 joined the Union ranks.
Quote:
Anyway I hope we can rap this up today !
Same here. But if it is ever brought up again -- and I hope it isn't (but that is like wishing winter will never come) -- then it MUST be kept in mind that the Texas of today, is NOT the Texas of then. And at that point? Well, as said earlier, Texas should re-claim its rightful and original status as the Empire State of the South!
TR I wasn't talking about the "new south" but its strange you talk about the new south then on the next line talk about a re-alignment of former confederate states. You say I cannot separate the two, but that's impossible when you obviously see that past as an integral part of todays south. You still act like the south was morally superior at that time, so one has to ask if the south was superior why have the "new south"? Is it just for show ?
Another thing Texas could have done in regard to secession would have been to allow Sam Houston to remain as Governor and allowed him to navigate the treacherous political climate of the time.
=Jack Lance;33402191]TR I wasn't talking about the "new south" but its strange you talk about the new south then on the next line talk about a re-alignment of former confederate states.
Jack, what in the bleeding hell are you [i]even talking about?
Quote:
You say I cannot separate the two, but that's impossible when you obviously see that past as an integral part of todays south.
Jack -- to repeat -- what in the bleeding hell are you even talking about?
I am so bumfuzzled by your response, I don't even know where to begin....or HOW to?
Quote:
You still act like the south was morally superior at that time,
No, not at all. I am one of those who believes that human nature is inherently imperfect, so therefore no society/culture ever in existence can ever be perfect.
But with that said? What society/region/nation/etc, was morally superior to the South? Please name it and give the reasons why...? Isn't that a fair question to ask?
Quote:
so one has to ask if the south was superior why have the "new south"? Is it just for show ?
JL, you are just beginning to totally self-destruct. LOL What do you even mean by "New South"? A more industrialized one? One where people from the Northeast and Midwest and West Coast are flooding the find jobs? Whaaat, fer gawds sake? If some of any of it is right...then how in the world does it have anything at all to do with that the South was right during the War Between the States. Why should the existence of one negate the other...?
Quote:
Another thing Texas could have done in regard to secession would have been to allow Sam Houston to remain as Governor and allowed him to navigate the treacherous political climate of the time.
Just when I start to think you might actually have some historical insight, you baffle me with something so historically myopic as this!
Can you PLEASE explain how your suggestion would have even been remotely and/or legally, possible????
JL? Follow carefully (and I don't mean to be patronizing...but I don't know any other way to put it):
The secession convention had voted to leave the Union. This action was upheld by the Texas Legislature. They further voted to join the new Confederacy. State officials were required to take an oath of allegiance to their new nation; same as state officials had been required to do the same when Texas joined the United States.
When the day came, Houston remained silent when his name was called out three times. He didn't respond, not ever come up to the podium to explain himself. The office of governor was declared vacant and Houston was deposed from office.
He knew full well the laws and what he was doing. And what the consequences would be. And I actually respect and admire him -- even if I would have opposed him at the time -- for having the guts and fortitude to stick to his principles, as he saw them to be....
But anyway, your notion that "Texas" should have "allowed" Houston to "stay in office" makes not the slightest bit of sense....
The simple reason is that Houston failed to answer the call to come forth as governor. There was no way, he could be allowed to stay in office as governor for the basic reason he didn't respond to -- for better or worse -- to the call to answer to the office of governor.
Jack, what in the bleeding hell are you even talking about? I am so bumfuzzled by your response, I don't even know where to begin....or HOW to? ?
Yet you reply anyway? oh boy !
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
But with that said? What society/region/nation/etc, was morally superior to the South? Please name it and give the reasons why...? Isn't that a fair question to ask??
lol And you say I am self destructing, this is incredible. Answer: pretty much every modern society in existence today The USA post 13th amendment, Post war Germany after 1945. In the case of the last two because they admitted their mistakes reformed their governments and extended rights to all their citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
JL, you are just beginning to totally self-destruct. LOL What do you even mean by "New South"? ?
The south that just got out from under the special provisions of the voting rights act!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Just when I start to think you might actually have some historical insight, you baffle me with something so historically myopic as this!
Can you PLEASE explain how your suggestion would have even been remotely and/or legally, possible????
JL? Follow carefully (and I don't mean to be patronizing...but I don't know any other way to put it):
The secession convention had voted to leave the Union. This action was upheld by the Texas Legislature. They further voted to join the new Confederacy. State officials were required to take an oath of allegiance to their new nation; same as state officials had been required to do the same when Texas joined the United States.
When the day came, Houston remained silent when his name was called out three times. He didn't respond, not ever come up to the podium to explain himself. The office of governor was declared vacant and Houston was deposed from office.
He knew full well the laws and what he was doing. And what the consequences would be. And I actually respect and admire him -- even if I would have opposed him at the time -- for having the guts and fortitude to stick to his principles, as he saw them to be....
But anyway, your notion that "Texas" should have "allowed" Houston to "stay in office" makes not the slightest bit of sense....?
You asked what "Texas" should have done. Texas should not have seceded , so there should not have been a convention or a call to the Governor. Again your defense of the CSA totally destroys any credibility you had with regards to the modern world.
This is my last post on the subject. Have fun trying to get your "New Confederacy" going
Whoever left the argumentative "rep" - don't argue with me via reps. If you want to discuss this topic, discuss it on the thread. But thanks for the points!
To continue your conversation - I never said that Texas is "deep south" - which is what Georgia is. In fact, I do not believe Texas is part of the Deep South (just my personal opinion) and have stated that opinion many times on this forum. But Texas is part of the South and many parts of it FEEL southern. Virginia and Arkansas and North Carolina don't feel "deep South" to me either - but they're southern.
That being said, Texas is southern and MUCH, MUCH MORE to me - it's Texas first and foremost, and that's an entity in and of itself.
Whoever left the argumentative "rep" - don't argue with me via reps. If you want to discuss this topic, discuss it on the thread. But thanks for the points!
To continue your conversation - I never said that Texas is "deep south" - which is what Georgia is. In fact, I do not believe Texas is part of the Deep South (just my personal opinion) and have stated that opinion many times on this forum. But Texas is part of the South and many parts of it FEEL southern. Virginia and Arkansas and North Carolina don't feel "deep South" to me either - but they're southern.
That being said, Texas is southern and MUCH, MUCH MORE to me - it's Texas first and foremost, and that's an entity in and of itself.
Can you give me your opinion on the Golden Triangle? I think that area and the rest of Deep East Texas is on par with the rest of the "Deep South" but I could be wrong. The Deep South ends somewhere between I45 and the Texas/LA border but that just my opinion.
Can you give me your opinion on the Golden Triangle? I think that area and the rest of Deep East Texas is on par with the rest of the "Deep South" but I could be wrong. The Deep South ends somewhere between I45 and the Texas/LA border but that just my opinion.
Southeast Texas and Deep East Texas are both in the Deep South, in my opinion as well.
Southeast Texas and Deep East Texas are both in the Deep South, in my opinion as well.
You know we eat grits!
O yea, with cheese, light on the butter and sugar.
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.
The USA post 13th amendment, Post war Germany after 1945. In the case of the last two because they admitted their mistakes reformed their governments and extended rights to all their citizens.
