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.
My point was that it wasn't like all of East Texas had a major plantation / slavery-based economy - it was parts of NE TX (as you noted, around Marshall) and areas along the Brazos River (and the lower Colorado near the coast) where this was really dominant. Were there enslaved people living elsewhere in the portions of the state where Europeans had immigrated, yes, but that's not the same as a very plantation-focused (in TX, cotton and sugar cane) base economy. I personally tie "Deep South" to that economy vs. general "South" of which East TX and Southeast TX are no doubt a part of. The backwoods folks in the Piney Woods may have ancestry going back to Alabama or wherever, who may have brought some enslaved people with them, but their economy (lumbering for example) wasn't really a plantation economy, in my opinion. Not sure if that's because of soil conditions or some other factors.
I don't think the presence of enslaved people or support of the Confederacy by itself is enough to differentiate "Deep South" from the general "South". I also don't consider tobacco to be a "Deep South" agricultural product like cotton and sugar cane. Maybe by my standards I should also consider much of South Carolina and parts of North Florida as part of the Deep South like Georgia.
But East Texas and Southeast Tx were tied and heavily dependent on the cotton economy. Also majority of enslaved people in Texas lived in plantations.
You have to remember that before the War Texas was much smaller than other southern states. It was the newest addition at the time to the south so of course it had less plantations than other southern states. However they built plantations as soon as they settled in Texas. They basically picked up where they left off in other southern states and more specifically DEEP SOUTH states.
The only reason you probably think Texas wasn't huge on cotton (which Cotton was king in Texas prior to the 1900's) is because it was replaced by the oil boom. I guess you can say Texas east of the Brazos River made somewhat of a cultural shift during the oil boom. Texas was able to escape the dwindling cotton industry via the oil boom unlike other states in the south or more specifically in the Deep South.
This article goes into detail on how the cotton industry laid the foundation for the oil industry in Texas. And how important the crop was to the Texas economy.
Also if you look at the 1860 census record, Texas like I said earlier has a small population compared to other southern states. Yet it's enslaved population mirrors other southern states. It's even more enslaved people in Texas than in a state like Tennessee who people consider Upper South or Deep South depending on what part of the state you're talking about.
Now I guess you can say Virginia had just as many as Texas and VA isn't a deep south state. True but back then Virginia/ The Carolinas and Maryland had the most enslaved people initially before the domestic slave trade really took off in this country.
So I ask the question again, if East Texas had all the traits that define the Deep South than why wouldn't it be the Deep South? I'm just curious? Even if Kathryn say's it's not the Deep South because she can't find a good bowl of grits well you still can find grits in East Texas. Subjective taste buds should determine what region is what.
I'm just curious why some of ya'll wouldn't consider it to be Deep South.
But East Texas and Southeast Tx were tied and heavily dependent on the cotton economy. Also majority of enslaved people in Texas lived in plantations.
You have to remember that before the War Texas was much smaller than other southern states. It was the newest addition at the time to the south so of course it had less plantations than other southern states. However they built plantations as soon as they settled in Texas. They basically picked up where they left off in other southern states and more specifically DEEP SOUTH states.
The only reason you probably think Texas wasn't huge on cotton (which Cotton was king in Texas prior to the 1900's) is because it was replaced by the oil boom. I guess you can say Texas east of the Brazos River made somewhat of a cultural shift during the oil boom. Texas was able to escape the dwindling cotton industry via the oil boom unlike other states in the south or more specifically in the Deep South.
This article goes into detail on how the cotton industry laid the foundation for the oil industry in Texas. And how important the crop was to the Texas economy.
Also if you look at the 1860 census record, Texas like I said earlier has a small population compared to other southern states. Yet it's enslaved population mirrors other southern states. It's even more enslaved people in Texas than in a state like Tennessee who people consider Upper South or Deep South depending on what part of the state you're talking about.
Now I guess you can say Virginia had just as many as Texas and VA isn't a deep south state. True but back then Virginia/ The Carolinas and Maryland had the most enslaved people initially before the domestic slave trade really took off in this country.
So I ask the question again, if East Texas had all the traits that define the Deep South than why wouldn't it be the Deep South? I'm just curious? Even if Kathryn say's it's not the Deep South because she can't find a good bowl of grits well you still can find grits in East Texas. Subjective taste buds should determine what region is what.
I'm just curious why some of ya'll wouldn't consider it to be Deep South.
My issue is that you're generalizing from the areas within East Texas / Brazos Valley which had the plantation economy to that whole side of the state. Granted, most of the pre-Civil War population may have been concentrated in those plantation areas because that's why the lion's share of southerners initially immigrated to the area, and plantations may have been the dominant component of the total Texas economy in the 1840s and 1850s, but the whole population was pretty small compared to other southern states as you noted. It's just pretty difficult for me to define all of East Texas as Deep South, even with some limited portions of the area having a cotton-and-cane slavery / plantation history (and then for just basically 35 years). (And not to say that the Black labor on the plantations post-War wasn't somewhat akin to slavery also.) I have a hard time classifying lumber towns like Lufkin and Nacogdoches as Deep South, though they're certainly "backwoods Southern."
How many slaves were sent to Texas after the Emancipation Proclamation?
I'd say 75 miles west of the Sabine River could maybe considered southern because of the people who settled there brought their customs with them. By the time you get to Dallas and Houston it's a different story. They were growing cotton and on the upper Texas coast, rice. As kids in the 50's we used to swim in the cold clear water bound for irrigating rice fields west of Houston.
First and foremost Texas was Mexico.
Spindletop brought change. Houston tuned into New Jersey in the 70's with all those oil workers moving here. Some were not welcomed.
That bumper sticker that read "If you see my momma don't tell her I work in the oil patch. She still thinks I play piano in a whor--house". And the 'let the bast---- freeze in the dark' was on a lot of cars that were traveling to the building on Main and Elgin.
My issue is that you're generalizing from the areas within East Texas / Brazos Valley which had the plantation economy to that whole side of the state. Granted, most of the pre-Civil War population may have been concentrated in those plantation areas because that's why the lion's share of southerners initially immigrated to the area, and plantations may have been the dominant component of the total Texas economy in the 1840s and 1850s, but the whole population was pretty small compared to other southern states as you noted. It's just pretty difficult for me to define all of East Texas as Deep South, even with some limited portions of the area having a cotton-and-cane slavery / plantation history (and then for just basically 35 years). (And not to say that the Black labor on the plantations post-War wasn't somewhat akin to slavery also.) I have a hard time classifying lumber towns like Lufkin and Nacogdoches as Deep South, though they're certainly "backwoods Southern."
I can actually agree with some of this. Northeast Texas and Deep East Texas while having similarities also have some differences as well and that is a result of the industries that predominated those regions and helped shaped the culture of both areas.
Most small towns and cities started experiencing growth during the timber boom. Even though slavery did exist in that area and even held a few plantations, I can see how the culture would turn out differently when it isn't as centered around a plantation system nor the cotton economy. So I can agree with that part for sure.
But, Deep East Texas has a smaller population compared to Northeast Texas. And Northeast Texas and the lower Brazos and Colorado river communities relied heavily on slave labor. They had plenty of plantations all throughout those 2 areas of the state. And cotton dominated those areas without question. Also Galveston and Houston was home to many slave dealers with connections with the Old South.
I also can't understand the point of bringing up the amount of years slavery existed in Texas when these were people migrating largely from Deep South states. These people were moving here with their enslaved people to settle in new territory. How does that make one less Deep South in culture just because they crossed state lines.
Take my family for instance. My family was brought here via slavery in Harrison county. Prior to being sent via slavery in Harrison county(Marshall) my family was enslaved in Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina. Matter fact I remember my Dad telling me he remembers when a Great Grandparent told him about growing up on a plantation in Mississippi before being sent to Marshall with his Master.
I also have an Uncle who's still living btw, who use to pick cotton when he was a child. My great grandfather who was probably a child at the tail end of slavery was a sharecropper then.
So to label the whole region as an extension of the Deep South sure I can agree with that. But again those towns impacted by the timber boom didn't outnumber the regions that were centered around cotton and plantations and were just continuing a way of life they had in the Old South.
I can actually agree with some of this. Northeast Texas and Deep East Texas while having similarities also have some differences as well and that is a result of the industries that predominated those regions and helped shaped the culture of both areas.
Most small towns and cities started experiencing growth during the timber boom. Even though slavery did exist in that area and even held a few plantations, I can see how the culture would turn out differently when it isn't as centered around a plantation system nor the cotton economy. So I can agree with that part for sure.
But, Deep East Texas has a smaller population compared to Northeast Texas. And Northeast Texas and the lower Brazos and Colorado river communities relied heavily on slave labor. They had plenty of plantations all throughout those 2 areas of the state. And cotton dominated those areas without question. Also Galveston and Houston was home to many slave dealers with connections with the Old South.
I also can't understand the point of bringing up the amount of years slavery existed in Texas when these were people migrating largely from Deep South states. These people were moving here with their enslaved people to settle in new territory. How does that make one less Deep South in culture just because they crossed state lines.
Take my family for instance. My family was brought here via slavery in Harrison county. Prior to being sent via slavery in Harrison county(Marshall) my family was enslaved in Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina. Matter fact I remember my Dad telling me he remembers when a Great Grandparent told him about growing up on a plantation in Mississippi before being sent to Marshall with his Master.
I also have an Uncle who's still living btw, who use to pick cotton when he was a child. My great grandfather who was probably a child at the tail end of slavery was a sharecropper then.
So to label the whole region as an extension of the Deep South sure I can agree with that. But again those towns impacted by the timber boom didn't outnumber the regions that were centered around cotton and plantations and were just continuing a way of life they had in the Old South.
I mostly understand and in a sense agree with what you're saying, in that the earliest years of lasting Anglo and Black settlement, prior to the Civil War, in the eastern half of TX were dominated by cotton plantations that were concentrated in certain subregions. But it's difficult for me to just blanket characterize everything from the Brazos River eastward as all "Deep South", including the areas that were even more sparsely populated (apart from indigenous peoples) and never had a substantial plantation economy, even if some Anglos in those areas had enslaved Black people. There's lots of other areas of the South, and furthermore some border states, that had a similar profile, but aren't considered "Deep South." And of course once you're west of the Brazos you got a lot of Central European settlement that was definitely not Deep South, starting in the 1840s - and much of that area is still technically in the eastern half of the state. Plus the post-Civil War economy and population (like the aforementioned lumber industry) grew or changed so much in the areas that weren't plantation-focused that in many respects it feels like it overshadows the profile of the state, including its eastern half, from the 1830s-1850s. This contrasts with the surface image of the "Deep South" (perhaps incorrect, but still prevalent) is one that has shown very little change since the slavery / plantation times - Mississippi Delta etc.
This is not to say that Deep South vestiges didn't linger in Eastern Texas for a long time, but there was just so many more dimensions soon grew up around it, probably even before oil, that seem to contrast with other "Deep South" areas, so it just feels less obvious in some respects.
No one wants to talk about Delaware, Maryland, the western counties of Virginia, what's now Oklahoma, Missouri, or Kentucky, I see. Culturally none of those qualifies as "Deep South".
Plus 4 border states that are a mix of South / non-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.
