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.
On a state-wide level, Maryland is also distinct from northeastern states insofar as African Americans outnumbering Italians and Irish by a large margin.
In PA, NJ, CT, RI, and MA, Italians alone substantially outnumber African Americans. In New York, Italians and Irish outnumber Blacks. In Delaware, Italians and Irish barely outnumber Blacks (196,677 vs 192,629).
In Maryland, Blacks substantially outnumber Italians, Irish, Poles and Jews combined. And that's even if you count each person reporting one of those ancestries as a distinct individual, assuming complete mutual exclusivity among those groups.
Technically speaking townships in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are unincorporated, while towns in New England and New York are incorporated. That said, NJ/PA townships have extensive self-governance (much moreso than the "survey" townships in much of the Midwest) and are treated by the state in most aspects as being equal to cities and boroughs (e.g., a city can't annex land without a popular vote, although it can only annex part of a township, where it would have to swallow an entire city or borough).
Regardless, there is no doubt that in terms of local governance, Maryland and Delaware follow the southern norm. Maryland has only incorporated cities - no towns. Delaware has both, but the incorporated towns are more similar to PA/NJ boroughs - small areas geographically with well over half having less than 2,000 people. Both states have tons of unincorporated county land.
Of course, these are not just the norms in the south, but in the entire west as well. Thus you could argue that "strong county/unincorporated county land" is more of a Sun Belt phenomena than anything. Indeed, it's probably no coincidence that states with this form of government (including MD/DE) continue to have strong local development, as having less local governments does seem to cut down on the ability of NIMBYs to block new construction nearby.
Technically speaking townships in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are unincorporated, while yowns in New England and New York are incorporated. That said, NJ/PA townships have extensive self-governance (much moreso than the "survey" townships in much of the Midwest) and are treated by the state in most aspects as being equal to cities and boroughs (e.g., a city can't annex land without a popular vote, although it can only annex part of a township, where it would have to swallow an entire city or borough).
Regardless, there is no doubt that in terms of local governance, Maryland and Delaware follow the southern norm. Maryland has only incorporated cities - no towns. Delaware has both, but the incorporated towns are more similar to PA/NJ boroughs - small areas geographically with well over half having less than 2,000 people. Both states have tons of unincorporated county land.
Of course, these are not just the norms in the south, but in the entire west as well. Thus you could argue that "strong county/unincorporated county land" is more of a Sun Belt phenomena than anything. Indeed, it's probably no coincidence that states with this form of government (including MD/DE) continue to have strong local development, as having less local governments does seem to cut down on the ability of NIMBY's to block new construction nearby.
I'm not sure the entire cultural antecedents. The differences have widened over time however. New England didn't start formally abolishing county governments until the 1960s, for example, and many states in the south and west formerly had townships and abolished them. But it's now striking, because every single state in the northeast proper, along with every nidwestern state but Iowa, has at least some elected civil governments called towns or townships, whereas every state in the South and West either lacks them entirely, or has the term as synonymous with city.
Edit: I should say though I believe New England in particular developed the "strong Town" model due to the puritan heritage, including the practice of Town Meeting. Also New Englanders tended to settle as an entire community, and in historic times tended to build their houses "in town" and travel out to remote fields. In contrast, southerners, be they plantation owners or yeoman farmers, didn't really like living in cities, and lived directly on the land they worked.
Technically speaking townships in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are unincorporated, while towns in New England and New York are incorporated.
Interesting post, but I'm not entirely sure where you got the notion that townships are unincorporated. They only differ from NY/New England in name only from a technical standpoint and still all have governing bodies.
From Wikipedia:
An unincorporated community is one general term for a geographic area having a common social identity without municipal organization or official political designation (i.e., incorporation as a city or town).
Interesting post, but I'm not entirely sure where you got the notion that townships are unincorporated. They only differ from NY/New England in name only from a technical standpoint and still all have governing bodies.
From Wikipedia:
An unincorporated community is one general term for a geographic area having a common social identity without municipal organization or official political designation (i.e., incorporation as a city or town).
John Waters and Reginald Lewis are a bit different from Aunt Jane (who may or may not exist given the fantastic imagination of C-D posters). These are real Baltimoreans who grew up in Baltimore during the era we're discussing. And they describe it as a southern city during that time, and so do many Baltimore Sun articles. I know you want to dismiss it simply as "opinion," but that's the consensus historical view of the city.
And that makes sense considering the facts. As mentioned upthread, Maryland was a founding member of both the Southern Legislative Conference and the Southern Governors Association. And since the majority of the state resided in Baltimore and the DC suburbs back then (just as it does now), you can't write it off as a Southern Maryland thing.
Dude, we've already blown this argument to smithereens a thousand times already. Read the whole thread before raising the same arguments over and over again. There is a difference between having a slave economy--with 100,000 plus slaves--and having 1 slave in history like Massachusetts. Slavery was a moribund institution in the Northeast by 1830 and the slave population in northern states was never large in the first place. That's a critical distinction between northern and southern states.
I said how Maryland got a large Black population. Maryland had (and has) a much higher percentage of Blacks than any northern state because it was a slave state. Until the Great Migration, it had a larger Black population than any state above the Mason-Dixon Line or the Ohio River (btw, the mention of the MDL is not an excuse to jump into a discussion about its relevance or lack thereof).
Baltimore didn't industrialize on the same scale as Philadelphia and Boston. That's a big reason why it's so much smaller. It's also a big reason why Baltimore does not have the same percentages of White Catholics as its neighbors to the north.
Virtually every major metro in the Northeast has a much higher Italian/Irish percentage than Baltimore (the MSA is only 6.5% Italian). Here is Italian % by MSA.
New Haven, CT - 23.6%
Scranton, PA - 19.5%
Hartford, CT - 17.1%
Albany, NY - 17.0%
Buffalo - 17.0%
Rochester - 16.7%
Pittsburgh - 16.5%
Syracuse - 16.4%
Providence, RI - 15.6%
Boston - 14.9%
New York - 14.4%
Philadelphia - 14.0%
Erie, PA - 13.0%
Allentown, PA - 13.0%
Worcester, MA - 12.0%
Springfield, MA - 11.5% Baltimore - 6.5%
Hagerstown, MD - 5.0% Washington, DC - 4.3% Richmond - 3.6%
It's not just "at the lower end of the scale." It's significantly below every other Northeastern metro area.
Percentage and absolute number matter. In Philadelphia's case, it has a much higher percentage and a much higher absolute number than Baltimore. If you focused only on percentage, that wouldn't tell the whole story, would it? Without the numbers, you don't get a sense of the scale of these populations. The NYC metro has lots of towns with high Italian/Irish percentages because of the sheer numbers of those populations. You don't see tons of towns in the DC and Baltimore suburbs that are 25% Italian/Irish because the numbers are far less.
It's not that hard. You can cross check the county numbers reported by the ARDA against the numbers reported by the Archdiocese. They are almost always very close to each other. We've already covered this in another thread.
The majority of Catholics in Maryland are non-White (and by "Catholic" people have traditionally meant "White Ethnic"). And that makes sense given that the percentage of Italians and Irish is so low relative to Pennsylvania or New Jersey.
Unfortunately you haven't blown any arguments to 'smithereens'. You have yelled the loudest for the longest. Your arguments are weak and cherry picked, for example constantly focusing on black/Irish/Latino populations when concerning demographics while ignoring the more numerous and striking similarities ( Germans, Catholics and Jews?). As one who makes a living working in the historical field, your historical arguments are often just as flawed if not deeply dishonest. I would venture to say that Nei has made he most solid arguments for MD/DE not being northeastern while still retaining a credible and objective dispoosition. For the record, it has been cpterp, not you, that has 'blown' an argument to 'smithereens' but I suspect that he or she does not have the time or energy to write thousands of redundant posts on the subject.
I don't really see the point in bringing up demographics when referring to northeast regional lines which officially don't include MD or DE.
I see why the information was brought up (to make a distinction of slave states vs non-slave states). But in the end that info is really irrelevant to today. The lines were made, have not moved and will likely not be moved.
I don't really see the point in bringing up demographics when referring to northeast regional lines which officially don't include MD or DE.
I see why the information was brought up (to make a distinction of slave states vs non-slave states). But in the end that info is really irrelevant to today. The lines were made, have not moved and will likely not be moved.
MD and DE are not part of the northeast :-)
Why shouldn't they be moved? Missouri was once considered part of the South, now it officially isn't. Many independent organizations have moved Maryland to the Northeast region in recent times. We don't live in the past.
Why shouldn't they be moved? Missouri was once considered part of the South, now it officially isn't. Many independent organizations have moved Maryland to the Northeast region in recent times. We don't live in the past.
For the same reason we don't put Florida in the north. Cultural and regional similarities do not move regional lines.
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.
