Why do Texans deny their southern heritage? (Houston, El Paso: transfer, vs.)

[texasdreamin]

Oh...I guess that explains it. I was getting so confused

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by texasdreamin

Oh...I guess that explains it. I was getting so confused

Don't worry. You were right in your first post in many ways. While Texas is Texas, it is also essentially a Southern state in terms of regional affiliation.

At the same time though, the term "Deep South" is not a geographical one in relation to location within the United States. Rather, it is a cultural term used, generally, to apply to those states/areas where things most often thought of (historically and culturally) as "Southern" exist in their most concentrated and undiluted form. Parts of East Texas can be fairly said to fit this classification. But most of Texas, while basically (and/or atypically) Southern, is not Deep South Southern!

Here is a link that provides a little information on the term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South

[TexasHorseLady]

Did you contribute to this Wikipedia page, also, TexasReb?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Did you contribute to this Wikipedia page, also, TexasReb?

Yes, this part right here, mainly:

The Deep South was also commonly referred to as the Lower South or the "Cotton States".

Today, the Deep South is usually delineated as being those states and areas where things most often thought of as "Southern" exist in their most undiluted and concentrated form.[1]

Surely, you don't disagree with that! LOL

By the way, as a bit of historical trivia. Although the term Deep South is often used in history books to refer to the original 7 Confederate States (South Carolina thru Texas), it is actually of early 20th Century coinage. In the day, the term "Lower South" was used to label this sub-region. Anyway, while they are often used as synonyms in an historical context, they really aren't, technically speaking!

[TexasHorseLady]

Wasn't a matter of disagreeing, just curiousity. Thanks!

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Wasn't a matter of disagreeing, just curiousity. Thanks!

No problem! You're welcome. You post came thru as I was adding something, by the way. Originally, the term "Deep South" was even more limited than commonly used today. At first, it referred to north Louisiana, Mississippi, south Alabama and Georgia (excluded the Appalalchian areas of both states) and the Florida panhandle. Later, it became expanded out to usually mean, in terms of whole states, the five from Louisiana to South Carolina, although sometimes adjoining parts of other states were included.

Anyway, main thing being that it really isn't the same, historically nor culturally speaking, as Lower South, even if they are often used interchangeably in history books to refer to the progress of secession.

[Cathy4017]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Exactly.

It's not so much about denying our southern heritage as taking issue with those who deny our TEXAN heritage by insisting that we're part of the South.

Very much agreed.

LOL!! Here we all go again....

There are many times when I wish that Texas had told both the Confederacy and the Union to stuff it where the sun don't shine....and returned to its Republic/Nation-state roots!!

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Cathy4017

Very much agreed.

LOL!! Here we all go again....

There are many times when I wish that Texas had told both the Confederacy and the Union to stuff it where the sun don't shine....and returned to its Republic/Nation-state roots!!

LOL One of these days, my good friend, Cathy, this topic may die a natural death! I sure as hell hope so! LOL

As it is, I am glad you and I can discuss/debate our disagreements in the way that should be among good friends, right?

Anyway, as concerning the wish (I think shared by many Texans today at least! LOL) to revert to the status of a Republic, it just simply would not have been either practical or possible or even desired at that time.

A book (which I need to add to the list of those in the Texas books thread) by former Gov. Francis Lubbock, titled Six Decades in Texas, covers that subject pretty well. And the reality of the options available. Which were to either remain in the Union, revert to the status of an independent Republic and attempt to remain neutral, or join the Confederacy (which was in the process of being formed by the other six states of the Lower South when Texas was considering the issue of secession).

Houston accepted secession, but wanted to become once again an independent nation. But as Lubbock pointed out "the people of Texas were allied to the seceding states by the ties of blood...and common interests" and it was "realized she could not preserve a neutral attitude and maintain herself in that condition."

To remain in the Union and "thereby array herself with the avowed enemies of the South was not to be thought of."

So, when it came down to it, Texas "turned to her sister states of the South...as naturally, promptly, and unalterably as a needle to the pole."

Anyway, that is a book you might want to read sometime, and it covers much more of Texas history than just the WBTS.

[Delta Planter]

I've been "thinking" about this subject of denial for a little while. First, let me say I am not a native Texan, but a native Mississippian, and obviously a native Southerner (or, as Texas Reb prefers, a Southron ) and I have never denied my heritage, my Southerness. After all, I didn't really have a choice in where or when I was hatched, but I sure am glad the hatching was Down South!

With all the influx of different folks into a region, as well as the outflux (isn't that a real word?), the culture within a region is going to change. The traditions get bent, broken, and repaired, though not to the original state only to be bent, broken, and repaired again. Thusly, while one may think the state as a whole is in denial, I seriously doubt that. I don't think I've ever met a Texan - native or immigrant - who is not proud of where s/he lives, proud of his/her environs, glad to proclaim they are in fact Texans. However, the immigrants, such as I am, don't necessarily hold hard and fast to strict rules and regulations of place and time as do the natives. Such is life.

I do know this, though, when I travel out of the state, to wherever, I miss this place. And on the return trip, when I cross the state line, see that sign that welcomes me, I sho' does feel good, cause I know I'm home. And I rarely fly, so 99% of my trips are on the road.

Hm, does this make any sense?

[Cathy4017]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

LOL One of these days, my good friend, Cathy, this topic may die a natural death! I sure as hell hope so! LOL

As it is, I am glad you and I can discuss/debate our disagreements in the way that should be among good friends, right?

Anyway, as concerning the wish (I think shared by many Texans today at least! LOL) to revert to the status of a Republic, it just simply would not have been either practical or possible or even desired at that time.

A book (which I need to add to the list of those in the Texas books thread) by former Gov. Francis Lubbock, titled Six Decades in Texas, covers that subject pretty well. And the reality of the options available. Which were to either remain in the Union, revert to the status of an independent Republic and attempt to remain neutral, or join the Confederacy (which was in the process of being formed by the other six states of the Lower South when Texas was considering the issue of secession).

Houston accepted secession, but wanted to become once again an independent nation. But as Lubbock pointed out "the people of Texas were allied to the seceding states by the ties of blood...and common interests" and it was "realized she could not preserve a neutral attitude and maintain herself in that condition."

To remain in the Union and "thereby array herself with the avowed enemies of the South was not to be thought of."

So, when it came down to it, Texas "turned to her sister states of the South...as naturally, promptly, and unalterably as a needle to the pole."

Anyway, that is a book you might want to read sometime, and it covers much more of Texas history than just the WBTS.

((((TexasReb))))) LOL!! Of course we can disagree as friends. You embrace your southerness wholeheartedly, and therefore, all of your posts are slanted in that direction (and that is NOT meant as a putdown at all)...it's just something that you identify with very strongly!

Just as I, while I acknowledge Texas' very definite Confederate past, I see her as more a product of her western heritage--and European/Mexican as well! I identify with that more than I ever have the so-called South, especially after having lived a while in the REALLY "Deep South" state of Mississippi. You don't get any deeper south culturally than MS, AL, GA, NC, SC, et al......!

I knew that Houston accepted secession, but he didn't want Texas to join the Confederacy. How I wish they had listened to him instead of forcing him out of office after secession.

I'll see if the library can get Lubbock's book...I have been aware of it for many years, as I requested to take Texas history at Tech (usually reserved for majors as Juniors) in place of the second half of American history, to satisfy the basic credits...and they allowed it! It was one of the best courses I ever took, but since it has been over 30 years ago, memory fades, LOL!! It is available at Amazon as a reprint, but I buy very few books these days, having had to get rid of a ton when I moved!

Did you know that Lubbock also wrote A Yankee Comes to Texas, 1840?

There is also another book that I'm going to see if I can get, titled The Civil War in Arizona, by Andrew E. Masich. It deals with wartime in AZ, NM, far WT (Fort Davis, et al) and CA. It looks like an interesting read.

I can read about the south with a western slant....