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.
This is mind-boggling to me, especially SC. I can somewhat see why they would say this about Louisiana due to the Creole and Cajun influences (although they are still Southernized cultural influences it seems), but what's the reasoning behind SC? It was the first state to secede, it was where the Civil War started, it had among the most slaves per capita of any other Southern state, and it is Strom Thurmond's home. We're known for all the traditional Southern cuisine staples and are home to various styles of BBQ. Now I don't expect folks from Texas to know ALL of this since the state is kinda far removed, but enough basic facts should be common knowledge to know that, without a doubt, SC is the true South--no ifs, ands, or buts.
Take a look at those lynching stats. Maybe they had a point...
When I think of the "Deep South," the first thing that comes to mind is cotton and lynchings. Texas had a lot of both. Texas trees indeed bore a lot of strange fruit. The states with the most lynchings between 1882 and 1968 were:
MS - 581
GA - 531 TX - 493
GA - 492
LA - 391
AL - 347
AR - 284
FL - 282
TN - 251
SC - 160
MO - 122
NC - 101
VA - 100
And it's not like Texas had more lynchings because there were so many more black people. Texas' black population didn't overtake South Carolina's until 1930 (most lynchings occurred towards the early part of the 20th Century).
Personally, I tend to think of these high-ranking states (MS, TX, AL, GA and LA) as the "Deep South."
Texas leads cotton production by a wide margin. Texas alone produces nearly as much cotton as Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia combined.
There are many more ways to categorize a place as the Deep South than just lynchings and cotton; and have you ever stopped to think that maybe the population and land area in Texas was larger, causing the numbers to be larger?
Like I said, much of Texas falls in the division of South known as the western South. It is not the same as the Deep South.
There are many more ways to categorize a place as the Deep South than just lynchings and cotton; and have you ever stopped to think that maybe the population and land area in Texas was larger, causing the numbers to be larger?
I already addressed that. African Americans were overwhelmingly the targets of lynching in the South. And Texas had fewer African Americans than South Carolina until 1930. This is a fact. It's also a fact that most lynchings occurred during the period from 1900 to 1930. Nevertheless, Texas lynched more than twice as many black people and nearly three times as many people overall.
Correction: Texas does not produce nearly as much cotton as Georgia, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia combined. It produces MORE. Significantly more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA
Like I said, much of Texas falls in the division of South known as the western South. It is not the same as the Deep South.
Okay. If you say so. Billie Holiday would probably say otherwise, however.
I don't need to own anything; I am not from Texas, or any other Southern State; I just visited the region long enough to know what it the Deep South (i.e. Mississippi) and what isn't (Texas).
I never said Atlanta and New Orleans didn't have their own cultural influences; All I said was that they didn't have the western essence Houston shares with the fellow Texas Triangle cities of San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas.
How you gonna make claims about the south based on visits? I've been to NYC but I can't speak about it like I know it.
I already addressed that. African Americans were overwhelmingly the targets of lynching in the South. And Texas had fewer African Americans than South Carolina until 1930. This is a fact. It's also a fact that most lynchings occurred during the period from 1900 to 1930. Nevertheless, Texas lynched more than twice as many black people and nearly three times as many people overall.
It is also a fact that Texas is a larger state, in both land area and population, than South Carolina; therefore, there is more land available for the cotton to grow, and there are more people to perform said lynchings of African American's. And most of the lynchings were in deep East Texas, a small portion of the big state of Texas.
And this is all in spite of the fact that there is lots of criteria involved in placing a state in the Deep South; Texas lacks in much of that criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Okay. If you say so. Billie Holiday would probably say otherwise, however.
Texas and Oklahoma fall into the division of the Western South; the South with a western essence. Not only is there Southern culture, there is also western culture as well. This thread asked for the least Southern of the Southern states, and I choose Texas and Oklahoma.
It is also a fact that Texas is a larger state, in both land area and population, than South Carolina; therefore, there is more land available for the cotton to grow
Texas is not larger in land area than GA, AL, FL, SC, NC and VA combined. I mean, we all know it's a big state, but c'mon on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA
there are more people to perform said lynchings of African American's. And most of the lynchings were in deep East Texas, a small portion of the big state of Texas.
Texas did not have more people than VA, NC, and SC combined in 1930. It certainly had far fewer black people. Yet Texas managed to lynch 132 more people than those states combined. It lynched 27 more blacks than all of these states combined.
Take a look at those lynching stats. Maybe they had a point...
I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking of that, since those stats aren't common knowledge. But they are rather eye-opening in several ways. Georgia's really surprised me.
Off-topic a bit, but it's interesting that SC had among the least number of lynchings in that period but among the highest rates of out-migration during the Great Migration years.
Texas is not larger in land area than GA, AL, FL, SC, NC and VA combined. I mean, we all know it's a big state, but c'mon on.
No, but Texas, being large in land area, was what allowed it to produce more cotton than each of those states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Texas did not have more people than VA, NC, and SC combined in 1930. It certainly had far fewer black people. Yet Texas managed to lynch 132 more people than those states combined. It lynched 27 more blacks than all of these states combined.
Well, even if that is true, as stated before, Texas is not the Deep South. There is more criteria that is involved when you place a state in the Deep South.
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.
