Is Texas more Western or Southern? (Houston, San Antonio: high schools, top, to work)

[ReppingDFW]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

The strong religious element in Texas' politics is a relatively new thing, unlike the incursions of fundamentalist religion into public education, for example, in some other places in the South. That's what the reactionary elements of the Repugnican Party have brought the State.

Sodomy Laws and Dry counties seem pretty religiously motivated.

[doctorjef]

Originally Posted by ReppingDFW

Sodomy Laws and Dry counties seem pretty religiously motivated.

Well, that's true. Maybe it's just that religious political rhetoric and activism have become more vociferous and blatant in recent years. You do have, however, a dotting of dry precincts or counties around the country, not just in the South (although when I was a kid, Mississippi had statewide prohibition, at least on sales). A lot of states had sodomy laws or their equivalents. IIRC there were lots of prescriptive peculiarities in Massachusetts' law regarding the permissible form for heterosexual intercourse, while Illinois was I believe the first state to legalise consenting sexual relations between same-gender persons, perhaps back in the early 1960s.

[TexasReb]

I thought long and hard about this one. That is, re-opening a thread in which the topic itself never seems to die, but should, and will never be settled. In that regard, I apologize in advance. BUT...the more I read this post, the more irritated I get. Not so much the points (and everyone is entitled to their opinion), but the supercilious and condecending tone of it all. I cannot let it go unaddressed...

=homeinatx;24068731]COME ON . . This is almost laughable, and fittingly ends in a tautology: the logical form favored by mystics. "It is because it is." Only a passionately irrational identificatory NEED for Texas to be essentially southern in the face of dozens of pages of evidence to the contrary can produce such a non-argument.

What is "laughable" -- to the nth degree -- is your reliance upon "evidence to the contrary" that does not exist at all! Or at least not presented.

I have yet to see ONE fact that contradicts Texas being essentially a Southern state. Nor ONE that proves it to be essentially a "Western" state. The fallacy in the whole argument -- as concerns Texas -- is that Southern and Western are mutually exclusive of one another.

Tautology and mystics? Please spare me your attempts to be clever with meaningless words and connections. It might work and impress in some circles, but not with me....

What these threads endlessly prove is that Texas is not ESSENTIALLY a Southern state (unless you have a very idiosyncratic definition of "essentially") or a western or a southwestern one.

Uhhhhh, "essentially"? An adverb meaning "in essence; at bottom or by one's (or its) very nature". . What is so hard to understand about that? If your point is that Texas is TEXAS, then I agree totally. My point is that, if it is placed within a region, then it properly belongs -- historically and culturally -- with the American South, not the Rocky Mountain West.

If it was, there would be no need for all this discussion. South Carolina is essentially a southern state. The question never needs to come up.

Hell, I know some from Mississippi and Alabama (some are distant kin) who barely include South Carolina in the "true South." Many of these "Deep South Purists" don't even count Louisiana....much less Arkansas, Virginia, and certainly not Florida.

Your premise makes no sense whatsoever. The discussion comes up for the very reason that the question of "What makes the South the South" comes up as a topic of endless discussion/debate...and countless articles, books, etc...

Texas does not contain the essence of the south, no matter how you define it. Texas is arguably southern, contestedly southern, partially southern, maybe even historically and partially culturally southern, but is definitively NOT essentially southern. It is not demographically southern, not southern across all of its history or geography.

Talk about laughable and contradictory? Read the above. You don't bother to define the South -- as in what makes the South Southern -- as a starting point at all...but state with certainty that Texas is not part of it? And you provided nothing at all by refuting the things I and others have listed that -- opinion, naturally -- make it essentially Southern.

Your argument for the idea of the western south, makes Texas peripherally southern, not essentially southern. And the very idea of a historical essence is a contradiction in terms.

No, it isn't. But to start, a broader historical/cultural region contains many sub-regions as well. The Southern American English span stretches all across the Old Confederate and border states. Yet there are many sub-dialects as well. In many ways it can be argued (and has been) that the accent heard most often in rural west Texas is more akin to that heard in north Alabama than the latter is akin to that in south Alabama.

As it is, much of Texas is the "western South"; It is the South moved into a more post-bellum western/frontier environment. As way of comparisson/contrast? Kansas is also a "western" state...but who disputes it being essentially a Midwestern one?

How is "historical essence" a contradiction? You state it, but don't bother to explain it. Very clever. Not apt, but clever...

One can just as plausibly claim that Texas is essentially a western state with vestigial and increasingly irrelevant southern historical elements. I think that claim is wrong. but no more or less wrong than the claim that Texas is "essentially" southern.

Then please "plausibly" show Texas is essentially a "Western" state (as in having more culturally/historically in common with Arizona or Wyoming, than Tennessee and Alabama). If you can do so, then we can continue...

I hasten to add, that, of course, if one sets out to show Texas as more of a "western" than "eastern" state, then I would likely agree totally. But to attempt to distinguish Texas as Western rather than Southern just makes no sense at all. Again, for the simple reason there is nothing contradictory about the two when it comes to our state.

If Texas was "essentially" anything - i.e it's meaning is fixed for all space and time, why does the question persist and persist and persist?

Ahhhh geez, the "mystics" again. LOL And as to why the question persists. In some ways, I would answer by saying dammed if I know. I would like it to just fade away, as there is no right answer, anyway. On the other hand, it persists because it is a valid question...same as is what makes the South Southern? Is Florida a Southern state. Is Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, etc.?

Let me suggest because it is not REMOTELY a settled matter, no matter how much you seem to emotionally need to believe it is.

Oh boy. LOL. Of COURSE it is not a "settled matter". Who ever said different. I sure never did. However, you (and at least one other poster) seem to think it is. Me thinks you are the one who needs to look back on just who said what in terms of anything being settled for good. Word to the wise, ya know...

Emotional need? Ok...ok...maybe so if it suits your fancy to believe such. Meanwhile, on the flip side of the broken record, it suits mine to conclude that you have an "emotional need" (whatever the hell that means, anyway) to distance Texas from its basic Southern roots and bond it more with Mexico. Or whatever.

Now then, with all that said? I truly lament that our exchange took such a negative turn. In the beginning, it was very informative, civil, courteous, respectful, and even fun. It is your call on if it can become so again. Or if (which would be equally welcome) to just let it die...

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

@TexasReb. Both the French Revolution and the American Civil War involved the shedding of blood. The former swept away the Ancien Regime irrevocably. It brought the Declaration of the Rights of Man as well as Robespierre, and ultimately - with the advent of the Third Republic - a stable democratic France based on a foundation of strong humanistic ideals.

The point is though, DocJ, that -- to use the old adage -- the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. The French Revolution brought about a greater tyranny than ever existed in the "Old Regime." It was not democratic nor humanistic at all. On the contrary, it was one of death and blood and tryannical persecution.

The latter proved to be a conflict in which, to paraphrase Lincoln's Second Inaugural, every drop of blood extracted by the slaveholder's whip had to be payed for in the blood of the war dead, but also finally created an unquestionably indissoluable political union in which the national government has definitive authority,

We can all agree that the ending of slavery was a good outcome (although it would have been eventually, anyway, and was not cause of the War in a moral sense), but where I take strong issue is where you advance the notion that Union is even a Union -- in the proper sense -- if it has to be held together by force.

I love this quote by CSA vice-president Alex Stephens (who was actually a good friend of Lincoln, and they remained so, even during the War):

"If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity." - Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America

the priniciple of equality under law is established, and a feudalistic system was swept away. It created essentially a Second American Republic. You may pine for the previous republic; I find the one given us by Lincoln vastly preferable to its predecessor.

Given your ideological vision/outlook/principles, I can understand why you write what you do. But I prefer the original American ideals as espoused by the Anti-Federalists like Jefferson, who saw the dangers of centralized power. Also, the emphasis on "equality" -- at all costs -- comes at the expense of liberty and freedom. People and institutions are NOT all equal, and any attempt to make it so is artificial and takes a tyranny to enforce.

But anyway...let's all go have a beer! LOL

[Solana]

Texas is died-in-the-wool southern but would like to present itself with a western image.

Never quite jibes with reality though.

[High_Plains_Retired]

Oh boy! This fun topic again?

(Runs to get the popcorn.)

[KathrynAragon]

Oh dear. I'm not even getting involved in this song and dance again.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Solana

Texas is died-in-the-wool southern but would like to present itself with a western image.

Never quite jibes with reality though.

Welcome to the Texas forum, Solana!

But I just have to say, this particular topic has been beaten and beaten to death; something like the proverbial horse and a good ol' Texas chicken fried steak before it is fried!

There are countless past threads on this one and countless opinions on it. I happen to agree with you, generally speaking. Other long timers take an opposite viewpoint. Some others vary with both. And many (such as me as well) believe that when it applies to Texas, that the terms Southern and Western are not mutually exclusive.

So anyway -- and again, welcome -- this is a topic that most of us have just mutually agreed (as you can see from a few previous replies) -- to let die a natural death and agree to disagree on!

[Blackscorpion]

I would rather it be western, but realistically, its probably a mix

[PostOak5115]

Hollywood has always portrayed Texas to be western with a Spanish mix; Viva La Alamo. Truth be told it is more southern, and especially on the eastern side. With all that being said, Texas probably has more cowboy and western themed parties than any other state...think Cattle Barons Gala.