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.
Why is Delaware, DC, and Maryland considered the South? I think to accurately describe the South, it would be anything below Virginia. And Kentucky should be considered the Midwest rather than the South.
Maryland and DC - (1) below the Mason-Dixon line, and (2) as such, they observed Jim Crow laws until 1964. DC was notoriously segregated, and on the eastern shore, there were some vicious racial confrontations in Salisbury MD.
Delaware is north of the M-D Line, but had a tradition of slavery until the Civil War (or shortly before it), which set it apart from other Northeastern States, so it was always historically lumped in with the South.
Those would be the reasons that those states were defined - per the US Census Bureau - as part of the South, likely more than a century ago. The cultural changes that have happened in those states (and Florida, for that matter) are historically very recent - within the last 50 years or less in some places, and the Census definitions are based on (a) historical definitions, and (b) the contiguity of geography, both of which take precedence over cultural changes, especially if the cultural changes haven't been going on in a very through way, for a lot longer than 50 years (which is - in historical terms - the blink of an eye).
Big question. If these 4 regions became independent, which regions (especially Midwest) would now be able to start controlling "free trade" so it benefits their own citizens instead of multinational corporations and foreign mercantilist countries? And would they be able finally (without the Big Oil lobby in certain states) to have an REAL energy policy that gets us off gradually Middle-Eastern oil?
Montclair, I think you started this thread mostly because it is simply intersting. But personally I am begining it might be a good idea, something I never would thought a few years ago. This seems to be a , something we may not have seen since before the Civil War.
************************************************** *****
But unlike the "vast gulf of different beliefs in this country" that we have now versus the time of the Civil War is that these differences are not Geographical but small communities vs large urban communities. There is a breakdown of the 2008 elections county by county here: Election maps
The corporations that are so hated by the Blue Counties are located in Blue cities for the most part. Guessing which region of the country would fare best if the USA split up would be a tough call. If it were to happen I have a feeling we would be speaking Chinese a few years after the split. Western New York State would split from New York City and join the Midwest. California would be paying dearly for water from Colorado and Wyoming. Texas has had severe drought in the West part of the state but even with that they could feed their citizens if they had to. Texas is the ONE State in the country that could probably survive without help from any others. New York City would be toast. As would Boston, Philly and Baltimore.
An interesting thread but the United States became a great country for one reason: It was United and shared a common language and similar beliefs.
I'd probably place Delaware, Maryland, DC and even West Virginia with the Northeast as I think those areas feel a lot more connected with the NE than the South and the same could probably be said for NoVA. It doesn't really matter what the mentality was in these states 50-60 years ago because these states are for the most part more "Northern" culturally (besides WV but the norther part has strong connections to PA and Ohio and the Eastern Panhandle to DC) now and I'm sure most residents wouldn't call themselves Southern in these places.
I'd probably place Delaware, Maryland, DC and even West Virginia with the Northeast as I think those areas feel a lot more connected with the NE than the South and the same could probably be said for NoVA. It doesn't really matter what the mentality was in these states 50-60 years ago because these states are for the most part more "Northern" culturally (besides WV but the norther part has strong connections to PA and Ohio and the Eastern Panhandle to DC) now and I'm sure most residents wouldn't call themselves Southern in these places.
stop trying to rearrange the map, and just go with what the OP posted. People can argue for days over what they consider what, so save us 50 pages of where each state goes and just go with what the census says
Midwest- food and resources, enough cities to still have an international presence, the infrastructure, the cities are spread out pretty nicley and evenly.
Northeast- would be one of the most powerful (and wealthy) countries in the world, great infrastructure, trade would work great.
South- the weather, the economy, and the growing population, plus the fun (NOLA, Miami)
West- has just about everything. Not really the history, but most other things (media, technology)
The south's problem is that it is still the poorest and least educated region. It has closed the gap considerably over the last 50 years but not yet completely.
first, the south has plenty of careers requiring an education and experience most c-d posters haven't reach themselves, such as a ceo, doctor, or lawyer.
second off, we would need the supposed "poor and less educated" workers you speak of to pound nails and work the factories.
Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 11-19-2011 at 05:20 PM..
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.