- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
history discussion on why SC and Georgia are nicer/classier than Alabama and Mississippi
Posted on 9/20/23 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 9/20/23 at 12:55 pm
This is probably not something most of you care about but I’m not sure where I should post this. We need a history board
It seems to me as somebody from texas that the people of South Carolina and Georgia are in general more uppity, classy, dress nicer, rich, better manners, even the accent, etc than their southern brothers in the western states. Have you ever pondered about why this is?
Not trying to offend anybody. I’m from texas.
I’m sure some will just say it’s because they have more black people. I don’t think this has anything to do with it. My hypothesis is that it has something to do with the way that america was settled westward. The people who live in these states are pretty much descended from the same families more or less. I have traced my ancestry and I think I have an ancestor that lived, died, and maybe even fought for the confederacy in basically every southern state besides Louisiana and texas (they all came here after the war though). Obviously they settled to texas by the 1900s or sooner but my ancestors old families descendants still lives all over the south today and I’m sure I could find people with my last name in most of the cities that y’all live in who are distant cousins. Anyways I think the reason is because either the richer people or the older brothers of the family got the land in South Carolina, Georgia, hell even Virginia and North Carolina so they stayed and kept the nice community flourishing there and the younger brothers or the poorer people who I am descended from (and probably most people from Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and Mississippi that aren’t Cajun) had to settle west to claim their own land. This made a natural frontier environment that was more ragged. And then you get to texas which is about as ragged as can be and they even developed a whole new culture with the Spanish and Indians they encountered.
Arkansas would have been more settled by people from Tennessee and Virginia and North Carolina.
What do y’all think?
It seems to me as somebody from texas that the people of South Carolina and Georgia are in general more uppity, classy, dress nicer, rich, better manners, even the accent, etc than their southern brothers in the western states. Have you ever pondered about why this is?
Not trying to offend anybody. I’m from texas.
I’m sure some will just say it’s because they have more black people. I don’t think this has anything to do with it. My hypothesis is that it has something to do with the way that america was settled westward. The people who live in these states are pretty much descended from the same families more or less. I have traced my ancestry and I think I have an ancestor that lived, died, and maybe even fought for the confederacy in basically every southern state besides Louisiana and texas (they all came here after the war though). Obviously they settled to texas by the 1900s or sooner but my ancestors old families descendants still lives all over the south today and I’m sure I could find people with my last name in most of the cities that y’all live in who are distant cousins. Anyways I think the reason is because either the richer people or the older brothers of the family got the land in South Carolina, Georgia, hell even Virginia and North Carolina so they stayed and kept the nice community flourishing there and the younger brothers or the poorer people who I am descended from (and probably most people from Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and Mississippi that aren’t Cajun) had to settle west to claim their own land. This made a natural frontier environment that was more ragged. And then you get to texas which is about as ragged as can be and they even developed a whole new culture with the Spanish and Indians they encountered.
Arkansas would have been more settled by people from Tennessee and Virginia and North Carolina.
What do y’all think?
24
Posted on 9/20/23 at 12:56 pm to justaniceguy
Atlantic coastal cities
Posted on 9/20/23 at 12:57 pm to justaniceguy
Being one of the 13 colonies had its benefits
Eastern time zone bias
Eastern time zone bias
Posted on 9/20/23 at 12:57 pm to justaniceguy
Alabama is from the inbreeding.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 12:58 pm to rmnldr
The coastal cities in South Carolina and Georgia are probably worse than the ones more inland so I don’t think so.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 12:59 pm to justaniceguy
Migration of the Scots Irish versus the more refined English subjects.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:02 pm to Y.A. Tittle
My own ancestors are both scots Irish (which is often really just northern English) and southern English who are the more refined southerners. Maybe South Carolina benefited from not getting as many of these Scots Irish people coming in but you would think Georgia would’ve gotten just as many as Alabama
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:02 pm to justaniceguy
It's because Alabama's football team is on the decline.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:02 pm to Y.A. Tittle
But yes this seems to be the commonly held belief. Know any books on this subject?
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:04 pm to justaniceguy
its Texas not texas, poser
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:05 pm to justaniceguy
Alabama and Mississippi (at least the southern parts) had a heavy French influence that carried over well after the formation of the United States. Georgia and South Carolina were English colonies and nothing else.
Not so much for Georgia, but South Carolina was settled by a very high class of planters, many that migrated from established plantations in Barbados.
Not so much for Georgia, but South Carolina was settled by a very high class of planters, many that migrated from established plantations in Barbados.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:05 pm to justaniceguy
Have you been to rural Georgia and SC? 
This post was edited on 9/20/23 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:06 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
its Texas not texas, poser
when did you start limiting your use of commas? get a manicure lately? talons trimmed nice and neat?
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:07 pm to justaniceguy
quote:
Maybe South Carolina benefited from not getting as many of these Scots Irish people coming in but you would think Georgia would’ve gotten just as many as Alabama
I don’t think it’s a raw numbers deal as much as it is who was in the first wave of settling each region. With the original colonies it was mostly English. When territories like Miss and Bama opened up, it was a lot more of the Scots Irish in the initial waves.
This post was edited on 9/20/23 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:08 pm to justaniceguy
They didn’t get fricked as hard during reconstruction and the fact that they have ports on the Atlantic?
This post was edited on 9/20/23 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:09 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
Not so much for Georgia, but South Carolina was settled by a very high class of planters, many that migrated from established plantations in Barbados.
Georgia, OTOH, was a debtor colony similar to Australia.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:10 pm to justaniceguy
quote:
My hypothesis is that it has something to do with the way that america was settled westward
Louisiana was settled by the French decades before the United States was established.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:11 pm to bad93ex
quote:
They didn’t get fricked as hard during reconstruction and the fact that they have ports on the Atlantic?
SC got fricked hard in Reconstruction for multiple reasons including for being the breeding ground of the Confederacy.
They were one of the last three states to be under Federal control along with Louisiana and Florida.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:11 pm to justaniceguy
I have a different take that challenges the presumption embedded in the hypothesis.
I'll start with South Carolina.
Start at the top right corner of the state on the Atlantic, draw a line going 7 miles inland, then draw that line 7 miles inland to the bottom of the state. Now use a giant exacto knife to cut that part of the state off. Now, South Carolina is no classier than MS or AL. Well, maybe better than MS.
For Georgia- cut a ring around metro Atlanta and pull that circle out. Georgia is no longer classier than AL or MS. Well, maybe a little better than MS.
I'll start with South Carolina.
Start at the top right corner of the state on the Atlantic, draw a line going 7 miles inland, then draw that line 7 miles inland to the bottom of the state. Now use a giant exacto knife to cut that part of the state off. Now, South Carolina is no classier than MS or AL. Well, maybe better than MS.
For Georgia- cut a ring around metro Atlanta and pull that circle out. Georgia is no longer classier than AL or MS. Well, maybe a little better than MS.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 1:12 pm to deeprig9
When you get to the rural parts they're all the same
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News