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.
just about nailed the south...except that I still dont see how that much of VA and NC can be considered the deep south. But otherwise you nailed it imo.
Your Deep South region is huge. One section covers a third of the total area, and within that section there is a bit of variation.
I would actually can Atlanta part of the Piedmont Region. It would be around Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh. The furthest west it would go is Birmingham, which would definitely be a border city if included. It has of a continual blend of rural and urban. I wouldn't associate it that much with farming as much as the Black belt.
Southern Georgia to southern an western Alabama to most of Mississippi would be black belt. This is the area is mostly flat, unlike the hilly Piedmont region. It is mostly rural and known for its poverty.
The Eastern Gulf area, Biloxi, Mobile, Pensacola, Tallahassee, etc is different from the Black Belt to the North. As noted, there is a more noticeable Catholic presence. The tourism, ports and ocean fishing tends to lead to a slightly different culture.
I don't feel qualified to mention much about West of the Mississippi River.
just about nailed the south...except that I still dont see how that much of VA and NC can be considered the deep south. But otherwise you nailed it imo.
I don't think Virginia and North Carolina are even considered deep south.
I don't think Virginia and North Carolina are even considered deep south.
Ive actually never heard of them referred to as the deep south outside of this lone thread. Im giving the benefit of the doubt here that maybe the OP has more knowledge of the area than what Ive observed when I visited and lived there for a short time.
Great job on revising to pull the "western South" extension back a bit toward the Texas border. That is just about where it should be!
It seems you are adament about your lines of "Northern South" extending so far north into IN and IL. I admire tenacity! LOL
But if you won't consider pulling the northern extension back to the south then, as Free Stater suggested, perhaps change the wording on the pop-up and overall designation?
That is to say, (and yes, only MHO), "Northern South" just sounds a bit awkward, even contradictory. Border South (even though I realize in the the realm of history, this term has a different meaning) or even "Midwestern South", fits better.
Also (and again this is just a respectful suggestion to think on), re-word the opening of the "pop up" a bit...even if in minor ways. For instance, your label is:
The Northern edge of the South. Mostly Southern culture in the south, becoming more Midwestern as you head north. Conservative. Major cities include Louisville, Evansville, Bloomington, IN, Covington, KY and Springfield, MO.
To something like:
The northern most extension of Southern culture. Definite Southern traits in the southern parts, becoming more Midwestern the further north one goes. (And then keep the rest).
Let me hasten to add, I am NOT -- in any way, shape, or form -- trying to interject myself into your efforts. I just post my comments under the auspices of that you asked for opinions, and I am giving mine.
It is your map and you do what you want. And to say again, I think you did one HELL of a good job all in all (I mean, about 90% of it!).
But is the gulf coast cities East of New Orleans that similar to places North of it due to Catholicism? If this is the case maybe a small subculture should be listed here especially considering the importance of religion in defining Southern Culture. (This should be a big criteria in determining the Northern boundary of the South)
Interesting point. If you look at a religion map, you'll see a distinct predominately-Baptist line all the way north to IA's southernmost 2 tiers of counties. Not sure I'd sonsider Southern IA or Northern MO Southern, tho.
Overall, I think it's a good map. I would move Houston and Charlotte from the "Deep South" area and shade them yellow like the ATL (and the Triangle too). I think you did a top-notch job with the coastal areas (anyone with an ear can hear the differences). To reiterate, it was more thorough than some other maps that I've seen on here.
Your Deep South region is huge. One section covers a third of the total area, and within that section there is a bit of variation.
I would actually can Atlanta part of the Piedmont Region. It would be around Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh. The furthest west it would go is Birmingham, which would definitely be a border city if included. It has of a continual blend of rural and urban. I wouldn't associate it that much with farming as much as the Black belt.
Southern Georgia to southern an western Alabama to most of Mississippi would be black belt. This is the area is mostly flat, unlike the hilly Piedmont region. It is mostly rural and known for its poverty.
The Eastern Gulf area, Biloxi, Mobile, Pensacola, Tallahassee, etc is different from the Black Belt to the North. As noted, there is a more noticeable Catholic presence. The tourism, ports and ocean fishing tends to lead to a slightly different culture.
I don't feel qualified to mention much about West of the Mississippi River.
I would agree about splitting the Deep South. I would define it largly on where the coastal plain is since it also correlates to where blacks are more numerous in rural areas. The Piedmont area would be between the Deep South and Appalacia and defined by rapid population growth and becoming less traditionally Southern. I could push the Deep South line up the Mississippi river to Just South of Cape Girardeau but include Cairo, Illinois. (Though this upper part from about Memphis North could be a sepearate Upper Delta Region. Upper South would then be split in two with the West being Ozarks and East as Mid-South. Eastern Gulf is another Deep South Split as well.
The hardest part to delineate is the Northernmost boundary, probobly due to it being an unstable cultural boundary over time. It also has to do with several metro areas very close the line which some parts of a metro and some suburbs exhibit different cultural traits.
Another interesting thought is how do you think these boundaries are going to change the next 20-30 years? I picture the North Peninsula Florida region will be cut in two at I-4 if it already hasn't happened will by then. The Piedmont region expanding from the Atlanta-Charlotte-Raliegh corridor both in meeting the DC area (which also is likely to keep drifting South) and sags Southeast possibly to the fall line area. (say a line from Macon-Augusta-Columbia then over to the I-95 corridor with a wild card of the Myrtle Beach-Wilmington area) Urban Texas is another potental region along with shifting lines in rural areas depending on demographics of Hispanic population. Some cities might really start diverging from the surrounding areas in places where it hasn't happened. Nashville is a prime example.
The trickiest line I think is the northernmost boundaries in weather it drifts North or South. (though it could be it drifts North one part and South another part) It could very well be that a seperate "Midland" region forms defined as a hybrid Midwest/South region that is different from both based along the I-70 Corridor from Kansas City to Columbus and points South.
State lines mean nothing. I flew into Bloomington, Indiana once, expecting to find the Midwest, albeit the Lower Midwest. I stepped off the plane and . . . thick Southern drawls, Magnolia trees, red dirt, steep hills. That's not the Midwest.
I've spent a lot of time in places like Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, St. Louis - those areas are Midwestern. The "Southern side of Cincinnati" (Northern KY), Bloomington, IN, Southern Illinois, Evansville, Athens, OH, etc. are the SOUTH. You do see Midwest influences as you head north in the region, but they are still the South. Driving north on I-65 in Indiana, you can see the South end and the Midwest begin somewhere around Greenwood, Indiana.
I agree with MN55 that the Lower Midwest and Northern South have a lot in common with each other and fit better as one region, but if I have to divide South from Midwest, then I'll stick by my line. Also, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Springfield, IL are all together on my Midwest map as "Lower Midwest." The Northern South starts just south of those cities.
Toxic Toast: Cincinnati is NOT on the South map - Northern Kentucky is. The blue ends right at the Ohio River in Covington. Also, I included the southern 1/3 of Indiana, not "most of Indiana."
So the Cincinnati Metro area is split between the Midwest and South? I know it is in geography books, but if your map is about culture rather than political boundaries, is their that sharp of a change once you cross the Ohio River in the Cinci metro area? (I don't know, been through there but didn't explore, just asking).
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.
