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.
After reading some of his posts I as a Canadian went from viewing Texas as mostly cactus and cattle with a few moist boggy area in the far eastern part to matching it to Louisiana and Mississippi but with oil money.
After reading some of his posts I as a Canadian went from viewing Texas as mostly cactus and cattle with a few moist boggy area in the far eastern part to matching it to Louisiana and Mississippi but with oil money.
And, no offense, but that is still a very generalized way of looking at Texas and doesn't present an accurate or complete picture. I don't know of any quick and concise way of summing up Texas' mix of topography, but just to use basic descriptions, going from the Westernmost extreme of the state (El Paso) to the Easternmost extreme (the Louisiana border), I'd put it this way:
You go from the basin and range true-desert environment of the American Southwest, to a few isolated "Rockies foothills" pockets like the Davis Mountains, where Pinon and Ponderosa Pine can be seen in the higher elevations, to wide-open sub-desert Steppe, to rolling limestone hills with small pockets of scrub oak, prickly-pear cactus, and cedar stands, to blackland prairies with stands of Post Oak, Pecan, and other small hardwoods, to the increasingly dense Loblolly and Longleaf Pine forests of East Texas, that resemble areas of Louisiana and Mississippi.
From the Northern edge at the top of the panhandle to the Southern tip in Brownsville, you go from flat, high, grassy plains (ie. Great Plains), to the broken plains of the Llano Estacado (broken by mesas and small canyons), to the aforementioned sub-desert Steppe, to the aforementioned limestone hill country, to flat coastal prairie with small stands of Live Oak, to the flat South Texas brush country that ranges from semi-arid to the West (along the Rio Grande) to humid subtropical in the East (along the gulf coast), to the fertile, subtropical Rio Grande Valley, which has a climate resembling central Florida.
Of course that's summing it all up as briefly as possible, and doesn't even touch on all the different cultural aspects of Texas... but I'm sure you can just read back through this thread and see how complicated that gets.
LMAO. Do you not get ANYTHING? Of course they are separate regions, in the sense there is a western South and eastern South. Something like the original Southeast and Southwest athletic conferences.
Both part of the South, yet have a separate identity as well. Nothing contradictory about that. Any more than Nebraska and Ohio are not both Midwestern, yet have an "eastern" and "western" identity.
No, Oklahoma and Texas form their own region that is not really a part of the South, but rather, a unique transition region that consists of the two states. Both states are characterized by a distinct transition from the south to the southwest, and therefore, form their own region. Its not as if both states are dominated by PURE southern culture; Rather, the southern culture in both states is mixed in with frontier western, Hispanic(in Texas), and Native American(in Oklahoma) ideals.
The blunt truth is, that Hollywood "Western" movies" are NOT the truth about Texas history. Yes, there is an Hispanic influence for sure...but relatively speaking, it is NOTHING like the true SW. After the Texas Revolution, most Mexicans left the state and today, there really is -- whether politically correct or not to say it -- no way to tell how much is legal.
While the Hollywood Westerns aren't the exact definition of Texas History, there is truth to them. Many Mexican's did leave the Republic of Texas after the war... to areas that later did become a part of the State of Texas. And San Antonio, which was always a part of the Republic, was a Mexican enclave where many Mexicans resided. Plenty of Texans today are Tejanos; Texans descended from Mexicans who took part in the revolution.
Bottom line is, like the rest of the South, it was an Anglo and Black duality that formed and shaped Texas.
Yes, the Anglo-Black duality did shape Texas... along with the established Hispanic presence in the area, and the frontier wild-west aura present in the area.
*whew* . Would you like me to ONCE AGAIN present the years of surveys and polls that show even a majority of West Texans identify with the South, as opposed to the West?
And would you like me to ONCE AGAIN explain how you can't just swallow those results hook, line, and sinker without considering what went on, behind the scenes?
THAT is the point I have been trying to make; Texas is -- as a whole -- a state where the essence of the South blends with the frontier spirit of the west.
BUT, it is NOT the same west as of Colorado or Utah or Montana or Arizona. Any more than Kansas is of that "west", or that South Carolina and Massachusetts is of the same "East."
And the point I'm trying to make is very much the same, only instead, I am arguing that Texas is where the south meets the same west that includes Arizona and New Mexico
Nope, there is no contrary belief to it. When the evangelical protestant population -- according to church membership -- easily outnumbers Catholics.
And again, the increasing numbers of Catholics are due to an increasing number of Hispanics, who, to bed blunt -- don't really feel much true "Texas" spirit, anyway. Some areas fly the Mexican Flag over the Texas Flag and it is increasing all the time. Texas Independence Day is ignored in favor of Cinco de Mayo.
So what the hell do I care what those think and join?
And like I said, its a proven fact that the Catholic Church is THE largest single religious denomination in Texas. The presence of the Catholic Church in Texas is significant compared to many states in the south. Not only is the faith practiced by the large ESTABLISHED Mexican population, it is also practiced by the large established German population, and by many immigrants from Asia, Africa, Europe, and South America. So there goes your silly argument that the Catholic presence coincides only with increasing Hispanics.
And yes, some areas fly the Mexican Flag over the Texas Flag. That just shows that there are many areas in Texas that have no Southern culture whatsoever, and do not answer to the South.
LOL This diversion will not work. The issue of Jim Crow and segregation laws (again, go back and read what I actually wrote) were pretty much correlated to the black/white population of the district itself. Actually, Tennessee had the most "liberal" laws in the former Confederate States. Many west Texas school districts -- where there were little or no black citizens -- declared themselves "in compliance" with the "with all deliberate speed" of the Brown decision, but they could also do so with no social consequences. So Texas was kinda in a unique situation, due to its size and different demographics...
I ask the same question from the opposite viewpoint. When, again, did I ever say integration was a mistake? Far as I am concerned, Integration is fine...so long as it is voluntary.
Do I oppose forced busing? Damn right I do. Do I oppose "quotas" -- also known under the euphemism of "affirmative action"? You bet I do.
Like I said, with the exception of Deep East Texas, much of Texas was too forward-thinking, and advanced to harbor such racial sentiment to the extent that the Southeastern States did. Much of the state desegregated well before the 60s.
Why shouldn't integration be forced. The Southerners still had the backwards slaver mentality going on at the time, and they still tried to hold on to it as long as they could. Of course integration had to be force, it helped advance things faster. If people of that time were really forward thinking, they would've not stooped to such childish hatred.
See above and other posts. And fer gosh sakes, how in the world could New Mexico and Arizona influence Texas. And Mexico? Yes, there are a few things, but again? SEE again. Mississippi and Alabama are states named after Indian tribes. Sorry buddy, but you seem extremely dense on this simple fact of history. Louisiana is named after the King of France...and belonged to them at one time.
New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas were once part of the Spanish Vice-royalty, and that is something the three states share in common. There is a western , frontier ideal you get from all three states.
And Texas is a state named after an Indian word.
ROFLMAO. Ok, kiddo! Have a good evening and night. I truly apologize if I made you look silly. But ok. Merry Christmas to you and yours. I have no more time to spend with you. After all, I have grandchildren who make better sense and I'd rather sing to them than argue with you!
Have a good one, and maybe we can continue this another time!
It was nice of you to sing to your grandchildren, grandpa. Makes you less of a scrub.
After reading some of his posts I as a Canadian went from viewing Texas as mostly cactus and cattle with a few moist boggy area in the far eastern part to matching it to Louisiana and Mississippi but with oil money.
Boblslawblog sums up the topography and climate of Texas well. Only the eastern 1/4 of Texas truly fits the traditional "southern" paradigm that you see in the states to the east of Texas. There are areas where it transitions. Probably the western half and more specifically the western 1/3 look arid and southwestern and even then a lot of the Texas panhandle shares a lot of similarity with the high plains of Kansas.
In general this argument centers around the idea of whether the people make the place or the place makes the people. Eastern and western Texas are drastically different in climate, terrain and dare I say to some extent culture. Texas Reb is correct in that the people who inhabit west Texas were from points east and were southern in origin. However, the time, place and circumstances in which they settled west Texas were vastly different than those of when east Texas and to some degree central Texas was settled.
You have to understand that Texas Reb has a certain mentality that Texans share with each other and that Southerners share with each other.
That is the one for all and all for one mentality. As for Texans, they all share the bonding history of the Texas revolution and the alamo and all that. And as for southerners, they all share the history of the south and the confederacy and in in Texas Reb that makes Texas, the whole of Texas all the same, and the fact that Texas was included in the confederacy makes the whole of Texas southern, never mind the fact that west Texas wasn't even really settled in 1860. There was controversy about Austin being the state capitol when it was chosen because it was considered an "outpost" at the time.
Here is an 1860 county map that illustrates my point. Notice the difference between east and west Texas here. Notice how the the county lines change from diagonal to in line with cardinal planes. (The cardinal plane counties are in gray). As a rule of thumb I would say that the "diagonal" counties represent the part of Texas that is purely southern. The "cardinal plane" counties could be considered southern or southwestern. And the counties that don't exist in 1860 and El Paso County and Presidio would be "southwestern" (although the northern aspect of the panhandle could be considered great plains).
=eddie gein;32772962]Boblslawblog sums up the topography and climate of Texas well. Only the eastern 1/4 of Texas truly fits the traditional "southern" paradigm that you see in the states to the east of Texas. There are areas where it transitions. Probably the western half and more specifically the western 1/3 look arid and southwestern and even then a lot of the Texas panhandle shares a lot of similarity with the high plains of Kansas.
The more and more I look over our exchanges, the more it become somewhat evident, that we are talking past each other.
It seems you are trying to make a point, that I never denied and neither has anyone else.
WHAT is your central point, is the question (at least on my end).
Yes, about a fourth to a third of Texas is forest or semi-forest. The topographical issue has never been the main point when it comes to the State of Texas, as a whole, being a Southern state.
That is to say -- and it has been said countless times -- if geography alone were the criteria of what places a state in a region? Well then, a goodly part of it would not be the landscape of the Deep South. But then again? Neither would other parts of the Old Confederate States. For instance? I can provide pictures of areas of the Mississippi Delta which one could easily -- if they didn't know any different -- look like the flat-lands of west Texas cotton fields.
Quote:
In general this argument centers around the idea of whether the people make the place or the place makes the people. Eastern and western Texas are drastically different in climate, terrain and dare I say to some extent culture.
Yes, this has already been established. Whoever argued different, in that regard....for the most part? See below on the other (cultural) aspect.
Quote:
Texas Reb is correct in that the people who inhabit west Texas were from points east and were southern in origin. However, the time, place and circumstances in which they settled west Texas were vastly different than those of when east Texas and to some degree central Texas was settled.
Not meaning to be rude, but this is wrong as to the overall scheme of things. Sure, the southeastern settlers had to adapt to a different environment. Tennessee moutaineers lived a totally different life than did plantation owners in southern Alabama. Far as that goes, folks in northern Alabama were more akin --in cultural ways -- than their fellow Alabamians in the lower part of the state. And dozens of examples of diversity across the South can be named and listed.
Quote:
You have to understand that Texas Reb has a certain mentality that Texans share with each other and that Southerners share with each other.
LOL Please elaborate on this outlook/comment. I has a ring of condescension, which you do not have the credentials to speak. I mean who is this "you" who has to "understand" something??? Surely you don't have THAT much of a high opinion of your own opinion, to presume everyone else needs something explained to them!
But ok, if I misread it, then pray explain. Still, I chuckle a bit over it. What do you do for a living? Just out of curiosity? Off on a related tangent, my screen name was intended to reflect my Texas/Southern heritage. Uhhhhh, but c'mon....yours is the same as one of the most sadistic monsters in serial killer history. Is it a coincidence?
Hey, can't blame me for asking. But anyway....
Quote:
That is the one for all and all for one mentality. As for Texans, they all share the bonding history of the Texas revolution and the alamo and all that. And as for southerners, they all share the history of the south and the confederacy and in in Texas Reb that makes Texas, the whole of Texas all the same, and the fact that Texas was included in the confederacy makes the whole of Texas southern, never mind the fact that west Texas wasn't even really settled in 1860. There was controversy about Austin being the state capitol when it was chosen because it was considered an "outpost" at the time.
As said above, how many times does it have to be said that I AGREE that if parts of Texas were carved off to stand alone, they may easily belong to different regions. East Texas would easily be the western extension of the Deep South. The trans-pecos, part of the interior SW. The upper Panhandle, arguably the Plains Midwest. Far South Texas? Well, that one is on the fence. It kinda remains to be seen...
BUT? When a state is put into a region, as a whole -- which it is?
IMHO, Texas is Southern. Just as Kansas is Midwestern even though it differs quite a bit from east to west and certainly from Ohio or Illinois.
Quote:
Here is an 1860 county map that illustrates my point. Notice the difference between east and west Texas here. Notice how the the county lines change from diagonal to in line with cardinal planes. (The cardinal plane counties are in gray). As a rule of thumb I would say that the "diagonal" counties represent the part of Texas that is purely southern. The "cardinal plane" counties could be considered southern or southwestern. And the counties that don't exist in 1860 and El Paso County and Presidio would be "southwestern" (although the northern aspect of the panhandle could be considered great plains).
So? Who argues that? The point is, that after the War for Southern Independence, this line you present of 1860, kept moving further west into what we now know as west Texas. Lots of those new counties were named after Confederate heroes and have Confederate monuments on the grounds. Attitudes and a common history of culture and shared-hardship, don't change just because they move into a different cultural environment.
Anyway, to try and kill two birds on an earlier post of yours, Arizona did not secede. It was declared a territory by Texas Confederates, and for a while a portion of it announced for the South. But that reversed later, when the Confederates were repulsed at the Battle of Glorieta Pass. Had the South won the war, yes, Arizona (or portions of it) might have been a CSA State.
But that didn't happen (dammit! LOL), and the "CSA government" of Arizona was exiled to El Paso, Texas. Not all that different that the "Confederate Government" of Missouri" was located in Marshall, Texas! But even then, there is a difference. Missouri was a true "state" and declared a "separate government." Arizona was simply a territory, and, more than that, today, there is a radical difference in the history and culture of Texas and Arizona....not the least of which that the latter NEVER made a claim to being a Southern state. Whereas the history of Texas, for the most part, is absolutely obvious!
Again, see self-identification polls, just as a starter...
Just on a last note (cos my fingers are getting tired from typing! LOL), I am not sure at all what the "cotton" thing is! As said, yes, today, Arizona does grow cotton, So does California and Kansas...but none belong in the same region because of -- at the least -- a couple of dozens other difference.
I mean, South Carolina and Massachusetts share an Atlantic fishing industry and colonial history. But who in the world would think them part of the region?
Time to go eat some catfish and grits and hushpuppies. Replies to other exchanges will just have to wait until another day. This un' will do for now!
Still, last word, you are a worthy opponent, and I even if words and exchanges get heated sometime, I don't take disagreement personal even if I vehemently disagree with the position....as we do, on lots of levels.
But dad-gum, time to eat, have fried catfish...and listen to some classic oldies!
West Texas should be differentiated from east Texas. Not settled till after the Civil Warm, different climate and so forth. Does have the connections you talk of although I could find only a couple of confederate monuments in west Texas on the web, but the county names etc. I will call it the "arid south" from now on.
However, the Arizona and New Mexico thing needs to be addressed again. Southern Arizona and Southern New Mexico were settled by Texans and southerners and had requested that the territory of Arizona (southern New Mexico and southern Arizona) be admitted as a slave territory as early as 1856. The US house and senate voted the proposal down. In March of 1861 the territory claimed itself a confederate territory which was several months before the confederate troops arrived from Texas to make it official.
Point being is that southern arizona and new mexico have a similar settlement pattern to Texas' western parts. Again, I feel like even today, the southeast part of NM should be considered "southern" if west Texas is considered southern.
West Texas should be differentiated from east Texas. Not settled till after the Civil Warm, different climate and so forth. Does have the connections you talk of although I could find only a couple of confederate monuments in west Texas on the web, but the county names etc. I will call it the "arid south" from now on.
However, the Arizona and New Mexico thing needs to be addressed again. Southern Arizona and Southern New Mexico were settled by Texans and southerners and had requested that the territory of Arizona (southern New Mexico and southern Arizona) be admitted as a slave territory as early as 1856. The US house and senate voted the proposal down. In March of 1861 the territory claimed itself a confederate territory which was several months before the confederate troops arrived from Texas to make it official.
Point being is that southern arizona and new mexico have a similar settlement pattern to Texas' western parts. Again, I feel like even today, the southeast part of NM should be considered "southern" if west Texas is considered southern.
If by West Texas you mean possibly El Paso I'll entertain the argument. If you mean the pan handle and places like Midland-Odessa you are wrong. There is a decidedly more southern influence in west Texas than in Arizona or New Mexico except for a small sliver of eastern New Mexico. In fact you are greatly overstating any southern influence at all in those states. Reb is correct about the Civil War history. The Confederates set up a puppet government in the New Mexico territory and sure there were sympathizers but the Confederates had sympathizers in Southern California too. You wouldn't consider So Cal southern would you? You also greatly exaggerate Texan settlement into Arizona. Sure a few traveled out West but to say they were the majority and had a lasting influence in the culture of Arizona is completely false. There are no monuments, schools, or roads named after anybody related to the Confederacy in Arizona. In fact most people living in Arizona probably don't know the Confederacy even claimed parts of AZ unless they are students of history. When I was a kid we learned about the Battle of Picacho Peak and it was interesting and kind of an odd foot note in the Civil War. It was the only battle fought on Arizona soil even if it was a small skirmish. Nobody looked at the battle through the eyes of the South. We Arizonan natives associated ourselves squarely with the North. The puppet government that existed in Tucson was exiled back to Texas. I'm sure a few Texans did venture out to Arizona, New Mexico, and other western states after the war to engage in agriculture and ranching but again they were far from the majority. Arizona was settled mostly by opportunists with mining interests from the East, of course Mormons, those who headed to California seeking fortune and ended up in Arizona. And most of all those from the Midwest and east discovered that the winter climate was very favorable and those with Tuberculosis were sent out west had a major impact upon the settlement of Arizona. I can think of no major cities or towns in Arizona that were established by Southerners. I don't know why you are trying to rewrite history. You can debate how Southern Texas is and where it becomes less Southern but Reb is dead on. Texas with the possible exception of El Paso is the SOUTHwest and Arizona and New Mexico are south West. Very different altogether.
If by West Texas you mean possibly El Paso I'll entertain the argument. If you mean the pan handle and places like Midland-Odessa you are wrong. There is a decidedly more southern influence in west Texas than in Arizona or New Mexico except for a small sliver of eastern New Mexico. In fact you are greatly overstating any southern influence at all in those states. Reb is correct about the Civil War history. The Confederates set up a puppet government in the New Mexico territory and sure there were sympathizers but the Confederates had sympathizers in Southern California too. You wouldn't consider So Cal southern would you? You also greatly exaggerate Texan settlement into Arizona. Sure a few traveled out West but to say they were the majority and had a lasting influence in the culture of Arizona is completely false. There are no monuments, schools, or roads named after anybody related to the Confederacy in Arizona. In fact most people living in Arizona probably don't know the Confederacy even claimed parts of AZ unless they are students of history. When I was a kid we learned about the Battle of Picacho Peak and it was interesting and kind of an odd foot note in the Civil War. It was the only battle fought on Arizona soil even if it was a small skirmish. Nobody looked at the battle through the eyes of the South. We Arizonan natives associated ourselves squarely with the North. The puppet government that existed in Tucson was exiled back to Texas. I'm sure a few Texans did venture out to Arizona, New Mexico, and other western states after the war to engage in agriculture and ranching but again they were far from the majority. Arizona was settled mostly by opportunists with mining interests from the East, of course Mormons, those who headed to California seeking fortune and ended up in Arizona. And most of all those from the Midwest and east discovered that the winter climate was very favorable and those with Tuberculosis were sent out west had a major impact upon the settlement of Arizona. I can think of no major cities or towns in Arizona that were established by Southerners. I don't know why you are trying to rewrite history. You can debate how Southern Texas is and where it becomes less Southern but Reb is dead on. Texas with the possible exception of El Paso is the SOUTHwest and Arizona and New Mexico are south West. Very different altogether.
Reb isn't correct about his Arizona history. The southern part of the New Mexico territory was settled by southerners who wanted to carve Arizona territory out of New Mexico territory. In 1860 they attempted to set up their own territory but the US Congress (fearing it would end up a slave state if ever admitted). The territorial governor was a guy named Louis Owings who was born in Tennessee, moved to Texas (sound familiar?) and then on to Tucson. The early settlement of Arizona damned sure WAS southerners and the federal government knew it. Your puppet government came in during the war and was headed by a Texan named Baylor. The point being is that the southerners were there BEFORE the war.
Why does this matter. Because West Texas wasn't settled before the war. And it was originally settled about the time of Arizona and New Mexico. When you want to say a "sliver" of NM is like Texas I'd have to argue that the entire SW quarter of the state is exactly like west Texas. Hobbs, Artesia, Lovington, Roswell, Portales, Clovis. If that's a sliver, then whatever. In Arizona, it was basically the area around Willcox that was very Texan.
The whole point of the argument is where west Texas fits in to the equation. It is southern and I will admit it but it is also southwestern in many ways.
For many years, the Apache Indians prevented ranchers from settling outside the Santa Cruz Valley. By the end of the American Civil War in 1865, conditions became favorable for large-scale ranching in Arizona. The Civil War had disrupted the cattle industry, leaving five million longhorns to overgraze the pastures of Texas. With grass little more than stubble, Texas ranchers moved north as well as west into Arizona. Cattle numbers in Arizona quickly grew as Texas cows populated the area. In addition, the windmill, which was used to pump groundwater into storage ponds, and two transcontinental railroads across Arizona enabled large capital investments by businessmen seeing profit in the growing beef markets.
And I will condense it even more! (I mean this good naturedly, by the way)
Quote:
West Texas should be differentiated from east Texas. Not settled till after the Civil Warm, different climate and so forth. Does have the connections you talk of although I could find only a couple of confederate monuments in west Texas on the web, but the county names etc. I will call it the "arid south" from now on.
Heck, we all know that! Just as north Alabama is different from south Alabama in a topographical sense. Or Smoky Mountain Tennessee, different from lowland South Carolina.
One thing though, VERY little of Texas is truly arid. But to be fair, I know what you are alluding too. Most of Texas is either sub-tropical, sub-humid or humid-subtropical, or continental.
Here is a good map:
But to break for a moment?
Quote:
However, the Arizona and New Mexico thing needs to be addressed again. Southern Arizona and Southern New Mexico were settled by Texans and southerners and had requested that the territory of Arizona (southern New Mexico and southern Arizona) be admitted as a slave territory as early as 1856. The US house and senate voted the proposal down. In March of 1861 the territory claimed itself a confederate territory which was several months before the confederate troops arrived from Texas to make it official.
To address this one (again), would be, pretty much, what LAX-PHX so succinctly said.
Quote:
Point being is that southern arizona and new mexico have a similar settlement pattern to Texas' western parts. Again, I feel like even today, the southeast part of NM should be considered "southern" if west Texas is considered southern.
There are "Southern" elements in slices of eastern New Mexico. There is a pocket around Bakersfield, California, that has wonderful characteristics of the western South. But those are anomalies when it comes to regionalizing a whole state.
Southern migration did not extend much further west than eastern Mexico. Heck, all one has to do is look at maps of Southern Baptist Church extention, of Southern American English range, of literally dozens of other things -- including self-identification with a region -- to see this. After the War was over, settlers from other regions of the country poured in. Any connection with the South was lost, and such was true with most of the western territories (operative term here).
I mean, it can't be a coincidence that in survey types above, that even most west Texans consider themselves to live in the South and think of themselves as Southerner, whereas this response is different as day and night when one gets west of Texas and north of Oklahoma. The response being West and Westerners in the former Midwestern in the latter.
In a nutshell, take just about any thing generally considered "Southern" -- even if there is an argument about what those "things" may be? Well, whatever they are, one will almost always find the things that might a region a region will verify Texas is essentially Southern. On the other hand, there is just not much Southern about Arizona. It just isn't the same and neither do the natives (if one goes by surveys and polls) consider themselves Southern. And there is NOTHING wrong with that in the least.
And I will condense it even more! (I mean this good naturedly, by the way)
Heck, we all know that! Just as north Alabama is different from south Alabama in a topographical sense. Or Smoky Mountain Tennessee, different from lowland South Carolina.
One thing though, VERY little of Texas is truly arid. But to be fair, I know what you are alluding too. Most of Texas is either sub-tropical, sub-humid or humid-subtropical, or continental.
Here is a good map:
But to break for a moment?
To address this one (again), would be, pretty much, what LAX-PHX so succinctly said.
There are "Southern" elements in slices of eastern New Mexico. There is a pocket around Bakersfield, California, that has wonderful characteristics of the western South. But those are anomalies when it comes to regionalizing a whole state.
Southern migration did not extend much further west than eastern Mexico. Heck, all one has to do is look at maps of Southern Baptist Church extention, of Southern American English range, of literally dozens of other things -- including self-identification with a region -- to see this. After the War was over, settlers from other regions of the country poured in. Any connection with the South was lost, and such was true with most of the western territories (operative term here).
I mean, it can't be a coincidence that in survey types above, that even most west Texans consider themselves to live in the South and think of themselves as Southerner, whereas this response is different as day and night when one gets west of Texas and north of Oklahoma. The response being West and Westerners in the former Midwestern in the latter.
In a nutshell, take just about any thing generally considered "Southern" -- even if there is an argument about what those "things" may be? Well, whatever they are, one will almost always find the things that might a region a region will verify Texas is essentially Southern. On the other hand, there is just not much Southern about Arizona. It just isn't the same and neither do the natives (if one goes by surveys and polls) consider themselves Southern. And there is NOTHING wrong with that in the least.
James A. Wilson, "West Texas Influence on the Early Cattle Industry of Arizona," Southwestern Historical Quarterly (1967) 71#1 PP 26-36.
After the Civil War Texans brought large-scale ranching to southern Arizona. They introduced their proven range methods to the new grass country. Texas rustlers also came, and brought lawlessness. Inexperienced ranchers brought poor management resulted in overstocking, and introduced destructive diseases. Local cattleman organizations were formed to handle these problems.[6] The Territory experienced a cattle boom in 1873-91, as the herds were expanded from 40,000 to 1.5 million head. However the drought of 1891-93 killed off over half the cattle and produced severe overgrazing
All I am saying is that what few people in SE Arizona and Southern New Mexico BEFORE the civil war were southerners. AFTER the war, west Texas was settled approximately the same way and at the same time as SE Arizona and southern NM (by anglos). There is no doubt that the culture in Arizona and NM was influenced by the spanish and missions and Mormons and Texas was not.
My only intent is to say that west Texas and the southwest NM and AZ anglo settlement had much similarity.
Last edited by eddie gein; 12-31-2013 at 06:59 PM..
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.
. Would you like me to ONCE AGAIN present the years of surveys and polls that show even a majority of West Texans identify with the South, as opposed to the West? 
The issue of Jim Crow and segregation laws (again, go back and read what I actually wrote) were pretty much correlated to the black/white population of the district itself. Actually, Tennessee had the most "liberal" laws in the former Confederate States. Many west Texas school districts -- where there were little or no black citizens -- declared themselves "in compliance" with the "with all deliberate speed" of the Brown decision, but they could also do so with no social consequences. So Texas was kinda in a unique situation, due to its size and different demographics... 
When, again, did I ever say integration was a mistake? Far as I am concerned, Integration is fine...so long as it is voluntary. 
