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.
Those who say it's not in the South, have no logic to back it up. None. It's in the South. You can't go any farther south, people, and still be in the United States.
The original Texas settlers didn't rebel at Mexico just for rebelling sake.
What they want us to learn in school is that the US colonists in Texas were oppressed, they stood up to the oppressive Mexican government for their rights, bla bla bla, and we should be proud of those heros....
In actuality, it was just about straight up southern racism and the proliferation of slavery.
The Anglo Texians resented being subservient to to the Mexican government and even more significant they were of the opinion that they could not remain economically viable without slave labor.
The Mexican government was adamant on their ban on slavery. Letters from the so called father of Texas detail his pleas to the Mexican government. Cotton was King in Texas like the rest of the south, and Austin was of the opinion that the only way the colonies would survive was by maintaining slavery.
The Texas rebellion was just a smaller version of the confederate war. Just another southern state fighting to maintain the enslavement and oppression of other human beings.
We can remain naive and brainwashed by the romanticized Hollywood and Disney version of the story, but the Texas rebellion was just another case of southerners fighting to keep slavery
The original Texas settlers didn't rebel at Mexico just for rebelling sake.
What they want us to learn in school is that the US colonists in Texas were oppressed, they stood up to the oppressive Mexican government for their rights, bla bla bla, and we should be proud of those heros....
In actuality, it was just about straight up southern racism and the proliferation of slavery.
The Anglo Texians resented being subservient to to the Mexican government and even more significant they were of the opinion that they could not remain economically viable without slave labor.
The Mexican government was adamant on their ban on slavery. Letters from the so called father of Texas detail his pleas to the Mexican government. Cotton was King in Texas like the rest of the south, and Austin was of the opinion that the only way the colonies would survive was by maintaining slavery.
The Texas rebellion was just a smaller version of the confederate war. Just another southern state fighting to maintain the enslavement and oppression of other human beings.
We can remain naive and brainwashed by the romanticized Hollywood and Disney version of the story, but the Texas rebellion was just another case of southerners fighting to keep slavery
I think this post is getting a bit off topic and will no doubt be controversial but it does illustrate that historically the institution of slavery pretty much defined "the south". And to me that is what is interesting about Texas. Only east to central Texas was settled and had slaves.
West Texas was still the Comancheria in those times. All the cities mentioned could be considered southern to some degree however west Texas has a completely different history. And while the area was settled by southerners and Texas law was southern so to speak, it isn't the same.
This is about major metros.
West Texas has no major metros.
It is still largely sparse.
Your point is a valid one but it doesn't make a difference because all of the cities in question shared the same origins. SA was the biggest city in the Mexican states of Coahuila y Tejas but was still heavily dependent on cotton. Houston and Dallas were too.
All these cities had southern roots and like the previous posters have alluded to, it's many transplants pushing the non southern conversation
Last edited by atadytic19; 06-11-2021 at 09:29 AM..
The original Texas settlers didn't rebel at Mexico just for rebelling sake.
What they want us to learn in school is that the US colonists in Texas were oppressed, they stood up to the oppressive Mexican government for their rights, bla bla bla, and we should be proud of those heros....
In actuality, it was just about straight up southern racism and the proliferation of slavery.
The Anglo Texians resented being subservient to to the Mexican government and even more significant they were of the opinion that they could not remain economically viable without slave labor.
The Mexican government was adamant on their ban on slavery. Letters from the so called father of Texas detail his pleas to the Mexican government. Cotton was King in Texas like the rest of the south, and Austin was of the opinion that the only way the colonies would survive was by maintaining slavery.
The Texas rebellion was just a smaller version of the confederate war. Just another southern state fighting to maintain the enslavement and oppression of other human beings.
We can remain naive and brainwashed by the romanticized Hollywood and Disney version of the story, but the Texas rebellion was just another case of southerners fighting to keep slavery
Usually I would agree with things like this, if you look at my post history, but the slavery as a cause of secession is a much more peripheral issue. If you looked more at what was occurring in Mexico rather than the USA, the situation becomes more clear and the slavery connection is an Americanism.
In post-independence Mexico, the power of the Federal government was the most critical issue. Many states in Mexico were in rebellion along with Texas. Northern Mexico by the 1830s had become completely consumed in violent conflict between federal armies and more indigenous rebels. The same types of federalist rebellions were occurring in pretty much every state outside of central Mexico.
This was because in 1835, the prior federal government of Mexico was replaced with a much more centralized government that aimed to consolidate direct control. Two other countries were also also founded during this period, which were the Republic of the Yucatán, and the Republic of the Rio-Grande. Those two newly founded nations were eventually brought under Mexican control but because of the distance of Texas from Mexico City and the already unstable environment of Northern Mexico, the Mexican government failed to consolidate control. This is not say that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with Texas identity during this period, but when looking at the wider context, the Texas rebellion was a small part of the wider Mexican Civil War and it would be ahistorical to present slavery as the main reason for the Texas Rebellion.
Cotton wasn’t king at all in Texas at the time considering that the slave population was much smaller compared to the rest of the Southern States until after annexation and then those massive transformations occurred with the slave population rapidly expanding as the cotton belt was able to spread west.
The Texians used what ever turmoil going on in Mexico as an excuse to jump into the fray.
Secondly, Cotton was grown in Texas even before the Anglo colonizers started growing it and it most definitely became king soon after the Anglos arrived. By the Civil War Texas was already among the top cotton producing states and Cotton has been Texas' leading cash crop since the 1800s. Texas has been the #1 cotton producer since the 1880s.
Again, people can by in to the romanticized version of the story, but the Anglo settlers were far removed from what was going on with the centralized government. Their main concern was maintaining their way of life and slavery was the biggest part of that
Usually I would agree with things like this, if you look at my post history, but the slavery as a cause of secession is a much more peripheral issue. If you looked more at what was occurring in Mexico rather than the USA, the situation becomes more clear and the slavery connection is an Americanism.
In post-independence Mexico, the power of the Federal government was the most critical issue. Many states in Mexico were in rebellion along with Texas. Northern Mexico by the 1830s had become completely consumed in violent conflict between federal armies and more indigenous rebels. The same types of federalist rebellions were occurring in pretty much every state outside of central Mexico.
This was because in 1835, the prior federal government of Mexico was replaced with a much more centralized government that aimed to consolidate direct control. Two other countries were also also founded during this period, which were the Republic of the Yucatán, and the Republic of the Rio-Grande. Those two newly founded nations were eventually brought under Mexican control but because of the distance of Texas from Mexico City and the already unstable environment of Northern Mexico, the Mexican government failed to consolidate control. This is not say that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with Texas identity during this period, but when looking at the wider context, the Texas rebellion was a small part of the wider Mexican Civil War and it would be ahistorical to present slavery as the main reason for the Texas Rebellion.
Cotton wasn’t king at all in Texas at the time considering that the slave population was much smaller compared to the rest of the Southern States until after annexation and then those massive transformations occurred with the slave population rapidly expanding as the cotton belt was able to spread west.
Yep. It's always about the money.
I dunno why all this romanticism about Texas being different is so intrenched. Texas is just another southern state.
With a population that is nearly 40% Latino, and with the cities in question having similar and sometimes more such representation, Texas is not remotely demographically Southern.The only way to to pretend Texas is Southern is to deny and/or ignore the massive impact and contributions of people of Mexican descent - from the old Tejanos (we did not move, the border did) to the waves of immigration over the last two hundred years or so. No state besides California is as dependent on often undocumented Mexican labor as Texas. Construction/ Agriculture and most service industries would grind to a crashing halt in Texas without Mexican labor. Since these cities with the exception of San Antonio, all have southern roots and elements, they are sufficiently southern not be southwestern, but they are also demographically and culturally too Mexican to be southern . . .
With a population that is nearly 40% Latino, and with the cities in question having similar and sometimes more such representation, Texas is not remotely demographically Southern.The only way to to pretend Texas is Southern is to deny and/or ignore the massive impact and contributions of people of Mexican descent - from the old Tejanos (we did not move, the border did) to the waves of immigration over the last two hundred years or so. No state besides California is as dependent on often undocumented Mexican labor as Texas. Construction/ Agriculture and most service industries would grind to a crashing halt in Texas without Mexican labor. Since these cities with the exception of San Antonio, all have southern roots and elements, they are sufficiently southern not be southwestern, but they are also demographically and culturally too Mexican to be southern . . .
Dallas felt very Southern to me and it has a huge Mexican population. I think you're insinuating that Mexican descent people are incapable of assimilating
Dallas felt very Southern to me and it has a huge Mexican population. I think you're insinuating that Mexican descent people are incapable of assimilating
Assimilation is a two way street, think Tex-Mex food which is pervasive in DFW in a way that it really is not in let's say Atlanta. I generally find arguing with people's feelings to be pointless....
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.
