Poll: is Texas the south?

[invalid]

To be real, outside of Boothill, most of Missouri has little in common with the South.

It was the Missouri Compromise that legally defined Missouri as the South. So there is a little bit more that Missouri has in common.

What legally defined the south was 1) the Mason Dixon Line and 2) Confederate Participation.

So although regionally Missouri is Midwest, thinking only in terms of the dichotomy between “north” and “south”, it legally became a part of the South via the Compromise.

And I think we need to recognize that there are different types of southern cultures. For instance, because Missouri is a border state, it’s culture is going to be similar to other border states, like, for instance Kentucky, which are both very different from Alabama.

And, I stated in another post, it takes about a 2 hour drive south of Chicago both in either Illinois or Indiana to start hearing the accents change. By the time you get to Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Missouri, to my ears, I hear full-on southern accents. So I think there are elements of southern culture, especially along the border states, that are more nuanced than what you might initially assume.

And studies have certainly backed these observation, especially those that have researched cultural regions around the country.

 

[Spade]

That map has been circulating around the internet for years and I hated it then and hate it still. I don't think the Deep South extends that far in Texas and I'm hard pressed to believe somebody from Central Pennsylvania has the same regional accent or culture as Austin and Lubbock.

I get your point about the bootheel of Missouri, Southern Illinois and Southern Indiana. Southern Ohio gets this thought as well. But whenever I'm visiting St Louis or KC, nothing about these towns scream Southern to me. I don't know much about Colombia so that may have some Southern characteristics but still most likely more Midwestern. People say the same thing about portions of Texas having Midwestern characteristics though Great Plains Midwestern and not Great Lakes Midwestern.

 

[JayYoung713]

As a Texas native we are the south. Now anything west of San Antonio/Austin is debatable. Hell the eastern portion of San Antonio is undeniably southern Ive lived out there and have family there still and anyone who has spunt any time there would say the same now the rest of the city I could see the southwestern argument especially taking into account how the terrain changes west of the city with the mountains and deserts and shyt it starts looking more western but you also have to take into account that SA is a large military city with I think 3 military bases so a good portion of the population there aren’t native. However, the natives especially the black folks in the eastern portion of the city are definitely southern and most have ties to Houston, Louisiana, etc.

With that said, anyone not from Tx, never been to Texas, or spunt a considerate amount of time here please exit the thread. I don’t need a Vermont ass nikka who has never been south of Boston trying to give us history of the south and telling us what the south is.

Also, as stated earlier in this thread we are full and don’t need nobody else moving here.

Thanks,
Management

 

[Biscayne]

It was the Missouri Compromise that legally defined Missouri as the South. So there is a little bit more that Missouri has in common.

What legally defined the south was 1) the Mason Dixon Line and 2) Confederate Participation.

So although regionally Missouri is Midwest, thinking only in terms of the dichotomy between “north” and “south”, it legally became a part of the South via the Compromise.

And I think we need to recognize that there are different types of southern cultures. For instance, because Missouri is a border state, it’s culture is going to be similar to other border states, like, for instance Kentucky, which are both very different from Alabama.

And, I stated in another post, it takes about a 2 hour drive south of Chicago both in either Illinois or Indiana to start hearing the accents change. By the time you get to Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Missouri, to my ears, I hear full-on southern accents. So I think there are elements of southern culture, especially along the border states, that are more nuanced than what you might initially assume.

And studies have certainly backed these observation, especially those that have researched cultural regions around the country.

Good map. But, I agree with @Spade

They got the deep south going too far into Texas. On this map, they have counties immediately East of Travis and Williamson and Bexar counties, counted as "deep south". I couldn't disagree more.

 

[Biscayne]

Good map. But, I agree with @Spade

They got the deep south going too far into Texas. On this map, they have counties immediately East of Travis and Williamson and Bexar counties, counted as "deep south". I couldn't disagree more.

Not only that, but they also got Orlando and areas in Central Florida and Tampa counted as the "Deep South". They got the "Deep South" extended too far into Florida. They might as well group Orlando with that "Spanish Caribbean" category, as Orlando/Central Florida has the highest Puerto Rican population in the US at the moment. Also Orlando has a bunch of Haitians, and Jamaicans as well. I don't even like the whole "Spanish Caribbean" title in and of it's self, because Miami and Orlando amd Florida in general still has a very large ADOS popultion. Orlando and areas south of there, aren't deep south or "Spanish Caribbean" they're just " Peninsular Florida". And "Peninsular Florida" can be alot of things that feel like they contradict each other. Southerners, Northern transplants, Black West Indians, Latinos, ADOS, Jews, Russians, Middle Easterners, and Southern European and Northern European immigrants, all take residence in peninsular Florida.

 

[invalid]

That map has been circulating around the internet for years and I hated it then and hate it still. I don't think the Deep South extends that far in Texas and I'm hard pressed to believe somebody from Central Pennsylvania has the same regional accent or culture as Austin and Lubbock.

I’m not sure that the map is insinuating that they share the same accents, obviously there is regional variation even within the same states.

I think it’s saying that these specific regions share a collective historical origin which has shaped the ways, mores, attitudes, and perspectives of the people living in those areas today.

No. Texas was not settled by Tidewater or Barbados Aristocrats who initially formed the cotton kingdoms of Virginia and South Carolina. However, Texas did model parts of its society based off their rigid systems of chattel slavery that regulated all parts of it society and vastly influenced how it’s citizens thought, interacted, and made decisions.

If not Deep South, what would you classify it as?

Good map. But, I agree with @Spade

They got the deep south going too far into Texas. On this map, they have counties immediately East of Travis and Williamson and Bexar counties, counted as "deep south". I couldn't disagree more.

Here are some of the definitions for a few of the classifications.

The Midlands
Settled by English Quakers, The Midlands are a welcoming middle-class society that spawned the culture of the “American Heartland.” Political opinion is moderate, and government regulation is frowned upon. Woodard calls the ethnically diverse Midlands “America's great swing region.” Within the Midlands are parts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.

Greater Appalachia
Colonised by settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands, Greater Appalachia is stereotyped as the land of hillbillies and rednecks. Woodard says Appalachia values personal sovereignty and individual liberty and is “intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike.” It sides with the Deep South to counter the influence of federal government. Within Greater Appalachia are parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana, Illinois, and Texas.

Deep South
The Deep South was established by English slave lords from Barbados and was styled as a West Indies-style slave society, Woodard notes. It has a very rigid social structure and fights against government regulation that threatens individual liberty. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina are all part of the Deep South.

El Norte
Composed of the borderlands of the Spanish-American empire, El Norte is “a place apart” from the rest of America, according to Woodard. Hispanic culture dominates in the area, and the region values independence, self-sufficiency, and hard work above all else. Parts of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California are in El Norte.

 

[Biscayne]

I’m not sure that the map is insinuating that they share the same accents, obviously there is regional variation even within the same states.

I think it’s saying that these specific regions share a collective historical origin which has shaped the ways, mores, attitudes, and perspectives of the people living in those areas today.

No. Texas was not settled by Tidewater or Barbados Aristocrats who initially formed the cotton kingdoms of Virginia and South Carolina. However, Texas did model parts of its society based off their rigid systems of chattel slavery that regulated all parts of it society and vastly influenced how it’s citizens thought, interacted, and made decisions.

If not Deep South, what would you classify it as?



Here are some of the definitions for a few of the classifications.

The Midlands
Settled by English Quakers, The Midlands are a welcoming middle-class society that spawned the culture of the “American Heartland.” Political opinion is moderate, and government regulation is frowned upon. Woodard calls the ethnically diverse Midlands “America's great swing region.” Within the Midlands are parts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.

Greater Appalachia
Colonised by settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands, Greater Appalachia is stereotyped as the land of hillbillies and rednecks. Woodard says Appalachia values personal sovereignty and individual liberty and is “intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike.” It sides with the Deep South to counter the influence of federal government. Within Greater Appalachia are parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana, Illinois, and Texas.

Deep South
The Deep South was established by English slave lords from Barbados and was styled as a West Indies-style slave society, Woodard notes. It has a very rigid social structure and fights against government regulation that threatens individual liberty. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina are all part of the Deep South.

El Norte
Composed of the borderlands of the Spanish-American empire, El Norte is “a place apart” from the rest of America, according to Woodard. Hispanic culture dominates in the area, and the region values independence, self-sufficiency, and hard work above all else. Parts of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California are in El Norte.

Close. And I see the vision of the map maker, but using those definitions, parts of Austin, Dallas, Houston, Orlando, and Tampa can also be considered "El Norte". They were all part of the Spanish Empire, even if for a short time. You can still find Spanish missions in some of those parts. Albeit, not nearly as much as you'd find in somewhere like ABQ, PHX, or LA. While Dallas, Houston, and Austin were overall settled by the Anglos with ancestry in Appalachia and the Deep South, I think those cities run way too close to "El Norte" to be considered part of the "Deep South". Houston fits the Deep South bill. The rest of them sit on I-35, and to me I-35 always seemed like one big transition zone. Elements of the Deep South in Central Texas? Yes, of course. Same as there are elements of the Deep South in the piedmont/Appalachian region. But Texas is too much of a mixed bag. Especially central Texas. That map doesn't have enough nuisance for central texas. There's no mention of the German settlers of Central and South Texas, and how those cultures blended with Northern Mexcan culture. There's German influence on Tejano music. Especially when it comes to the use of the Accordian. But maybe, I'm going too deep..

 

[kdslittlebro]

Missouri thinks it’s the Midwest. Missourah is the gotdamn south.

SEMO maybe

 

[Supper]

Close. And I see the vision of the map maker, but using those definitions, parts of Austin, Dallas, Houston, Orlando, and Tampa can also be considered "El Norte". They were all part of the Spanish Empire, even if for a short time. You can still find Spanish missions in some of those parts. Albeit, not nearly as much as you'd find in somewhere like ABQ, PHX, or LA. While Dallas, Houston, and Austin were overall settled by the Anglos with ancestry in Appalachia and the Deep South, I think those cities run way too close to "El Norte" to be considered part of the "Deep South". Houston fits the Deep South bill. The rest of them sit on I-35, and to me I-35 always seemed like one big transition zone. Elements of the Deep South in Central Texas? Yes, of course. Same as there are elements of the Deep South in the piedmont/Appalachian region. But Texas is too much of a mixed bag. Especially central Texas. That map doesn't have enough nuisance for central texas. There's no mention of the German settlers of Central and South Texas, and how those cultures blended with Northern Mexcan culture. There's German influence on Tejano music. Especially when it comes to the use of the Accordian. But maybe, I'm going too deep..

Just real quick. Austin, Dallas, Houston were NEVER apart of the Spanish Empire or under Mexican rule. Austin & Houston were founded by Anglos(there were a small # louisiana francophones involved in the original settlement of houston) and built by African-American slave labor AFTER the Texas revolution under the independent nation of Texas before it voted became apart of the US by choice. Dallas was founded after Texas became apart of the US.

There are no colonial Spanish missions in those places at all. The oldest black catholic church in Houston is older than the oldest mexican catholic church. lol

Any hispanic culture in these places was imported via immigration(mostly recent). Hispanics are not part of the foundational population in those cities.

 

[Biscayne]

Just real quick. Austin, Dallas, Houston were NEVER apart of the Spanish Empire or under Mexican rule. Austin & Houston were founded by Anglos(there were a small # louisiana francophones involved in the original settlement of houston) and built by African-American slave labor AFTER the Texas revolution under the independent nation of Texas before it voted became apart of the US by choice. Dallas was founded after Texas became apart of the US.

There are no colonial Spanish missions in those places at all. The oldest black catholic church in Houston is older than the oldest mexican catholic church. lol

Any hispanic culture in these places was imported via immigration(mostly recent). Hispanics are not part of the foundational population in those cities.

While you're correct that Austin, and Houston and Dallas were founded by Anglo settlers and built by ADOS, there were a good number of Spanish Missions in East Texas, and at least one directly East of Houston in the adjacent county. And there were a handful of Spanish missions in Austin and other parts of central Texas. Many of these missions date back to the rise of the Spanish Empire in the 1600's through late-1700's dating to right before the start of the Texas revolution. Many of the missions were abandoned and became nothing more than a placemark to show that Spanish settlers beat the Anglos to the punch, but the Spanish were there first.

The Spanish Missions in Texas | Texas Almanac

Similar to Florida, Texas changed hands from the Spanish to the Anglos, and fully embraced chattle slavery to build the cities and to "settle" the land. But some of the Spanish place names remain. And at least in San Antonio/South Texas/West Texas(similar to St.Augustine, Tampa and SoFla) the architecture remains. Classic "El Norte".

 

[Supper]

While you're correct that Austin, and Houston and Dallas were founded by Anglo settlers and built by ADOS, there were a good number of Spanish Missions in East Texas, and at least one directly East of Houston in the adjacent county. And there were a handful of Spanish missions in Austin and other parts of central Texas. Many of these missions date back to the rise of the Spanish Empire in the 1600's through late-1700's dating to right before the start of the Texas revolution. Many of the missions were abandoned and became nothing more than a placemark to show that Spanish settlers beat the Anglos to the punch, but the Spanish were there first.

The Spanish Missions in Texas | Texas Almanac

Similar to Florida, Texas changed hands from the Spanish to the Anglos, and fully embraced chattle slavery to build the cities and to "settle" the land. But some of the Spanish place names remain. And at least in San Antonio/South Texas/West Texas(similar to St.Augustine, Tampa and SoFla) the architecture remains. Classic "El Norte".

Cool the only correct I need to make is that there was some short lived missions in present day austin. Everything else is accurate.

I never said there was no spanish presence in East TX, only that was no MEXICAN presence in East TX established during their 15 year rule of the state.

And I'll add that colonial spanish east TX is certainly not an extension of mexican-hispanic "el norte" at all. If anything the it's an extension of colonial Louisiana. As those few places they settled in East TX were societies that ran off of trade between the spanish, the french, and the natives across the Texas/Louisiana border. It was a sparsely populated frontier of wild uneuropeanized natives, runaway slaves, french and anglo american deserters, and spanish merchants.

In fact Spanish Nacadoches

In Texas, as throughout New Spain, Afro-Mexican slaves made up only a small proportion of the population. Field slavery of the type common in England’s American colonies and in parts of Spanish America did not exist in Texas absent an export cash crop economy. In Texas, as in most of New Spain by the latter part of the Spanish colonial period, slave ownership was a matter of status and most slaves provided domestic services. Present from the beginning of Hispanic settlement in Texas, slavery was closely associated with governors, military officers, and a few prosperous individuals. Only in Nacogdoches, at the turn of the nineteenth century, was there a substantial increase in the number of slaves, although the number of households reporting slave ownership remained small, a majority of them having French and English surnames, thus indicating recent arrival in the area. The fact that most slaves were female except in late colonial Nacogdoches, where by 1806 male slaves outnumbered females thirty-nine to thirty-six, points to more diversified economic roles for the enslaved Afro-Texan population in the Louisiana border region.

Colonial East TX was basically a less populated spanish version of colonial Louisiana. In fact it spent 40 years under the same governance as Louisiana when the Spanish bought Louisiana, compared to the 15 years it was under mexican rule.

The French Louisianaian presence and impact in Spanish East TX can't be understanded. It was much more significant than that of the Mexicans. The Spanish weren't even interested in East TX until french louisianaian pirate René-Robert Cavelier built his settlement along the matagorda bay in present day houston metro(not proper). Before that there was no Spanish presence in Colonial East TX.

The first permanent european settlement in Galveston was established by French Louisianaian pirate Louis Michel Aury for the purpose of establishing trasporting African slaves back and forth from Louisiana to Galveston. Anglo American explorers, pirates, and rebels working with mexican revolutionaries, like Warren Hall & Henry Perry were also involved in this trade.

Even in the Mission Nuestra Señora de la Luz outside of Houston you mentioned was established for the very purpose of disrupting French trade with indian that was happening there at was built on top of a french trading post that was there BEFORE the spanish mission.

The French at Natchitoches, near Los Adaes, had been actively trading in the area around Los Adaes, Texas' first capital, in present-day Louisiana, since the 1720s. Their activity threatened the trade monopoly and influence the Spanish were fostering among the indigenous peoples there. In 1754, the Spanish governor, Jacinto de Barrios y Jáuregui, sent soldiers to arrest the French working at a small trade post at the mouth of the Trinity River, among them, Joseph Blancpain and his associates. The Spaniards marched the French prisoners down to Mexico City, where Blancpain later died. Barrios decided to establish a military outpost at the site of the French trading outpost. In 1756, it became the Presidio San Agustín de Ahumada.

Mission Nuestra Señora de la Luz - Spanish Missions/Misiones Españolas (U.S. National Park Service)

So, which ever way you slice it the spanish were not the first non native settlers in the Houston area or even East TX as a whole. And even the spanish settlements themselves were more akin to the culture of louisiana than "el norte". In Galveston an actual slave trading based afro-anglo-french society existed before the spanish finally settled.

Not at all like the fully hispanized biracial mestizo(euro/indo) society of Colonial South and West Texas which were actually like and tied to the society of northern Mexico itself.

So, unless you're going to say that the french and spanish history of Louisiana takes away from it's southernness and ties it more to the caribbean or something then you can't say the Spanish history of east TX takes away from it's southerness and ties it to "el norte".

 

[Biscayne]

Cool the only correct I need to make is that there was some short lived missions in present day austin. Everything else is accurate.

I never said there was no spanish presence in East TX, only that was no MEXICAN presence in East TX established during their 15 year rule of the state.

And I'll add that colonial spanish east TX is certainly not an extension of mexican-hispanic "el norte" at all. If anything the it's an extension of colonial Louisiana. As those few places they settled in East TX were societies that ran off of trade between the spanish, the french, and the natives across the Texas/Louisiana border. It was a sparsely populated frontier of wild uneuropeanized natives, runaway slaves, french and anglo american deserters, and spanish merchants.

In fact Spanish Nacadoches



Colonial East TX was basically a less populated spanish version of colonial Louisiana. In fact it spent 40 years under the same governance as Louisiana when the Spanish bought Louisiana, compared to the 15 years it was under mexican rule.

The French Louisianaian presence and impact in Spanish East TX can't be understanded. It was much more significant than that of the Mexicans. The Spanish weren't even interested in East TX until french louisianaian pirate René-Robert Cavelier built his settlement along the matagorda bay in present day houston metro(not proper). Before that there was no Spanish presence in Colonial East TX.

The first permanent european settlement in Galveston was established by French Louisianaian pirate Louis Michel Aury for the purpose of establishing trasporting African slaves back and forth from Louisiana to Galveston. Anglo American explorers, pirates, and rebels working with mexican revolutionaries, like Warren Hall & Henry Perry were also involved in this trade.

Even in the Mission Nuestra Señora de la Luz outside of Houston you mentioned was established for the very purpose of disrupting French trade with indian that was happening there at was built on top of a french trading post that was there BEFORE the spanish mission.


Mission Nuestra Señora de la Luz - Spanish Missions/Misiones Españolas (U.S. National Park Service)

So, which ever way you slice it the spanish were not the first non native settlers in the Houston area or even East TX as a whole. And even the spanish settlements themselves were more akin to the culture of louisiana than "el norte". In Galveston an actual slave trading based afro-anglo-french society existed before the spanish finally settled.

Not at all like the fully hispanized biracial mestizo(euro/indo) of Colonial South and West Texas which were actually like and tied to the society of northern Mexico itself.

So, unless you're going to say that the french and spanish history of Louisiana takes away from it's southernness and ties it more to the caribbean or something then you can't say the Spanish history of east TX takes away from it's southerness and ties it to "el norte".

Good point. Houston and East Texas is deep south. I have no rebuttal.



ATL still more southern than Houston though.

 

[Supper]

Good point. Houston and East Texas is deep south. I have no rebuttal.



ATL still more southern than Houston though.

ATL is what you get if you take all the soul out the south.

NY yuppies with country accents basically.

 

[Supper]

The reasoning for this, was because of Texas trying to dissociate from Ante bellum history via cattle herding and cattle trails. Being a "Cowboy" was looked down upon by Southern aristocrats back East. After the civil war, heading towards texas and the lower Midwest was the logical thing to do for many freed slaves, poor whites and others. All of a sudden, cattle driving was the "in" thing. That's where the romanticism of the cowboy came into play in subsequent years and in the years after reconstruction. Romanticism of "The West" and new beginnings became associated with Texas, Cattle Driving, and oil. But alot of the cowboy culture also derived from the Vaquero culture. From Mexico and from Spain before that. Even older Cowboy lingo like "Buccaroo" is the b*stardized version of "Vaquero". Florida was a Spanish colony. And alot of the architecture from that era remains. The crackers were influenced by the Spaniards..

Vaquero - Wikipedia

Many of the asthetics associate with today's cowboys come from the Mexican vaquero tradition, but the actual lifestyle of black cowboys in texas is by and large derived from cattle cultures of the old south and florida.

Floridians, Americans first cowboys.
Riding Off Into the (Florida) Sunset: America's First Cowboys

Black cowboys of Florida.
NPR Choice page

Not enough attention is given to the Florida cowboy culture is which too is a descendant of spanish vaquero and anglophone cattle ranching traditions(which of course people of african descent played a part in both). Texas was not unique in this aspect. And we know when it comes to black cowboys that there is a direct link between FL & TX via the black seminoles. The article also states that there are other links between FL and TX black cowboys as well.

This book talks about the Carolina influence on Texas cowboys and cattle ranching tradition. Like I said I'm really interested in reading about the influence of old south and florida cattle ranching traditions on the Texas cowboy culture. Because, a lot of Mexicans try to act like it %100 comes from mexican vaqueros. I'm starting to think the mex vaqueros had a smaller influence than I previously thought actually.

The legendary TX cowboy bill picket himself had SC roots on both sides of his family.
https://www.thecoli.com/goto/post?id=32582390#post-32582390
(credit to @IllmaticDelta)

This book claims that it was Louisiana, not Mexican Texas that Americans first came into contact with the Spanish vaquero tradition.

Regardless if it was Florida or Louisiana, Americans weren't first exposed to the vaquero tradition when they came into Mexican Texas, nor were they absent of their own cattle driving tradition.

In fact we know that even in colonial British North America, African slaves were often chosen for their skills in cattle driving. Ben Solomon, a fulani slave, in America like many other fulanis brought to america was put to work to in cattle driving because of the skills he picked up in his culture's pastoral tradition in West Africa.
Ayuba Suleiman Diallo - Wikipedia

So, I don't see how Mexicans can make the claim that Texas cowboys are simply derived from the mexican vaquero tradition fully, let alone black texas cowboys, who if anything are rooted in culture(s) of Florida and the Old South primarily. In fact it was Mexicans who hired and trusted black seminole cowboys from Florida, known as Mascogos in Mexico, to guard their frontier against white anglo expansionist and hostile indians. Again, see the Callahan Expedition.
https://www.thecoli.com/posts/33873575/

Black cowboys tended make their cattle drives along north-south corridors as was the tradition of the old south cattle drives, not east-west as in the case of the Mexican vaquero.

Stuff like ten gallon hats and cowboy boots, which weren't even worn by black cowboys in the cowboy era, does come from the Mexican vaquero tradition.

 

[Supper]

Another interesting discussion is why Houston rap style took on a slow smooth melodic bluesy soulful sound, while other southern rap styles like that of Miami, New Orleans, and Atlanta took on a faster rhythmic bass heavy sound.

Both seem to draw from southern musical sensibilities, but emphasize two different aspects of southern music traditions.

Memphis rap imo seems to draw from a mix of the two.