Why is Texas labeled as a "Deep South State"?

[hopper]

I don't get why Texas is seen by some as a Deep South State. It see it as part of the Southwest like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado not like Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama which is Deep South territory. Does Texas's or Texas A&M's affiliation with the Deep South ly in College Athletics because Texas A&M plays in the SEC and Texas A&M and Texas played in the old Southwest Conference with South Carolina and Arkansas up to the early 1990's when both moved it to the Big 8 or Big 12? Is it because of politics because the state of Texas is a GOP stronghold along with rest of the Deep South States?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Eastern Texas.

[Indy Texas]

I don't get why Texas is seen by some as a Deep South State. It see it as part of the Southwest like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado not like Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama which is Deep South territory. Does Texas's or Texas A&M's affiliation with the Deep South ly in College Athletics because Texas A&M plays in the SEC and Texas A&M and Texas played in the old Southwest Conference with South Carolina and Arkansas up to the early 1990's when both moved it to the Big 8 or Big 12? Is it because of politics because the state of Texas is a GOP stronghold along with rest of the Deep South States?

The western part of the state (El Paso and everything west of the Pecos River) is obviously very southwestern/western, as is the Panhandle. But very few people live in those areas of the state. Most of the population and economic activity is in Central and East Texas.

I do agree that while you can call Texas part of the South, it's inaccurate to call it a Deep South state. I confine that term to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina.

[The Mikado]

East Texas along the Louisiana border is pretty standard Southern, but even that isn't really Deep South.  Louisiana is a weird, weird duck to begin with and is not totally Deep South in the sense of Alabama/Mississippi, and Texas is even further from that area.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Mainly because it was one of the seven States that seceded from the Union before Fort Sumter.

[muon2]

Mainly because it was one of the seven States that seceded from the Union before Fort Sumter.

Yes it's on that historical basis that it gets the label. Demographically only East TX can possibly fit. San Antonio and parts south and west fit better with AZ. Even DFW has more in common with KC than Atlanta.

[jimrtex]

I don't get why Texas is seen by some as a Deep South State. It see it as part of the Southwest like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado not like Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama which is Deep South territory. Does Texas's or Texas A&M's affiliation with the Deep South ly in College Athletics because Texas A&M plays in the SEC and Texas A&M and Texas played in the old Southwest Conference with South Carolina and Arkansas up to the early 1990's when both moved it to the Big 8 or Big 12? Is it because of politics because the state of Texas is a GOP stronghold along with rest of the Deep South States?

Texas has had a lot more recent migration than typical Southern states.  Texas was only one of the United States for 16 years before the Civil War, and plantation slavery was only established in a few areas such as the Brazos and Colorado rivers and in east Texas along the Red River and tributaries, and upper Sabine and Neches.  But a lot of the settlers were from the Upper South, particularly Tennessee.

Since Texas owned most of the land, they were able to attract immigrants from Europe.   If you draw a line from Port Arthur to Childress, the dominant Anglo ancestry group to the northeast is Irish, while to the southwest it is German.  You don't have Danish, Norwegian, Czech, and Polish colonies in the Deep South, but you do in Texas.  San Antonio was mainly developed by Germans, and they were also significant in Houston.  Galveston was like other port cities with a great variety of immigrants.

Texas has had a lot of oil booms, which brought in workers and others from many places, including the midwest and south.   For example, Conrad Hilton was of Norwegian-German descent raised in New Mexico, who bought his first hotel in Cisco, Texas during the Ranger oil boom.  George HW Bush was from Connecticut before he moved to Odessa.  Southeast Texas was pretty lightly settled before Spindletop and development of timbering further north.  The area around Marshall was one of the centers of plantation slavery, but the population was greatly augmented by the East Texas Field, and the population shifted westward to Tyler and Longview.

The Panhandle was settled in the 20th Century, largely after irrigation from the Ogallala aquifer was developed, along with various oil booms.

A more natural division of the country would be East (Illinois to Maine), South, Midwest, Texas, West, and Pacific.

ps South Carolina was not in the Southwest Conference, they were in Atlantic Coast Conference, but tired of the hillbillies.

[minionofmidas]

Because they don't know what they're talking about. Texas is the cross section of Upper South and Interior West.

Except the Southeastern part, which was part of the Black Belt before destroyed by Black emigration and White immigration.

[jimrtex]

Because they don't know what they're talking about. Texas is the cross section of Upper South and Interior West.

Except the Southeastern part, which was part of the Black Belt before destroyed by Black emigration and White immigration.

Southeastern Texas was never part of the Black Belt.  Parts of northeastern Texas, and parts of east central Texas were.

[minionofmidas]

Where do you place "Southeastern Texas"? Anywhere around Houston and the lower Brazos Valley was Black majority in the second half of the 19th century; super heavily in some cases - notably Brazoria and Fort Bend (until their very low populations started to rise in the 1890s with all the incomers being White. Oil, I presume?)

But you're right, there's another historic Black majority pocket further north around Marshall and Longview. I didn't remember that, really the impressiveness of the Black percentages south of Houston and of their collapse is the only reason I remembered having looked at this stuff before.

[Peter the Lefty]

Probably just because it was part of the Confederacy. 

[CatoMinor]

Because the eastern half of the state fits in with Arkansas and Louisiana much more than it does with New Mexico and Arizona.

[jimrtex]

Where do you place "Southeastern Texas"? Anywhere around Houston and the lower Brazos Valley was Black majority in the second half of the 19th century; super heavily in some cases - notably Brazoria and Fort Bend (until their very low populations started to rise in the 1890s with all the incomers being White. Oil, I presume?)

But you're right, there's another historic Black majority pocket further north around Marshall and Longview. I didn't remember that, really the impressiveness of the Black percentages south of Houston and of their collapse is the only reason I remembered having looked at this stuff before.

Southeastern Texas is east of Houston.  While there was a high concentration of Blacks in the lower Brazos and Colorado, the population was relatively low.  No oil until after 1901 Spindletop



For comparison, this is 1870.   While the areas along the upper coast are very black, the overall population is low.  I suspect that tropical diseases such as malaria and yellow fever, and hurricanes made it less inhabitable.  With very flat terrain, there would be drainage problems.  Sugar could be cultivated, which is probably why the slave population was so large.  Between 1860 and 1870 the percentage of blacks was increasing along the middle Brazos and Colorado rivers.  In 1850, the black population was 27.6%, in 1860 30.4%, and 1870 31.1%.



A few oddities show up like Menard and Kinney.  The black population in Menard was related to Buffalo Soldiers at Fort McKavett.  In Kinney, it may be Black Seminoles at Fort Clark.

[jimrtex]

Continuing on to 1880, the black share of the population declined from 31.1% to 24.7% during the decade, as the black population increased by 55% while the white population increased by 112%.  This population share is comparable to Arkansas, Tennessee, and Maryland; while at the time Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina were majority black; and Alabama, Georgia, and Florida were very close to being so.



In 1880, the Texas-born population was 55% of the population, with 32% black.  Immigrants from other states were 38% of the population, with 19% black.  Presumably, most had been brought as slaves before the Civil War, which was 19 years earlier.

By State, immigrants included:

Alabama 94K
Tennessee 83K
Mississippi 63K
Georgia 61K
Missouri 43K
Arkansas 41K
Louisiana 38K
Kentucky 34K
Virginia 28K
North Carolina 23K
South Carolina 22K
Illinois 20K
Others ~53K

Among Whites:

Tennessee 73K
Alabama 73K
Mississippi 50K
Georgia 47K
Missouri 40K
Arkansas 36K
Kentucky 29K
Louisiana 26K
Illinois 20K
North Carolina 16K
South Carolina 15K
Virginia 15K
Others ~52K

Among Blacks:

Alabama 20K
Georgia 14K
Mississippi 13K
Virginia 13K
Louisiana 12K
Tennessee 10K
North Carolina 7K
South Carolina 7K
Arkansas 5K
Kentucky 5K
Missouri 3K
Others ~5K

Presumably, many slaves had been born in the Atlantic South, and then sold, accounting for the relatively high share of blacks among those born in those States (Virginia 46%, South Carolina 32%, North Carolina 30%, Georgia 23%) vs. (Alabama 22% and Mississippi 20%)

The foreign-born population was 7.2% in 1880, quite atypical for the South, of these 43K were from Mexico, and 35K from Germany (German Empire), and around 37K others.

Among those 35 to 60, around 16% to 18% were foreign born, vs. 6% for those 20 to 25.  This suggests that there was a sharp drop in foreign immigration about the time of the Civil War (prime immigration age is the early 20s, when people realize their prospects aren't too bright in the home country, and don't yet have a family to tie them down).

In 1880, there were 37K German-born, vs 50K US-born of German parents, or at least one German-born parent).

In 1880, Galveston had a 22.7% foreign-born population reflecting it being a port city (and the largest city in Texas at that time).  San Antonio was 27.2% foreign-born, with large numbers from Mexico and Germany (only the share for Bexar County were in the census reports).

This map shows the source of the largest share of the population not born in Texas.  For counties shown as Germany, Mexico, or Ireland, those countries have a larger share than any single state.  Counties with less than 100 persons not shown.

[muon2]

It seems fitting that the largest share of non-Texans in the Austin area in 1880 are from TN, and a century later it's the musical counter point to Nashville.