What is the most populous Southern state? (statistics, safe)

[adirondackguy123]

Originally Posted by krock1dk

It depends on your definition of 'south.' Texas (25-million) is more populated than Florida, but some consider it more southwest. If so, then the answer is Florida (16-million population).

Texas: 25-million
Florida: 16-million
Georgia: 9-million
North Carolina: 9-million
Virginia: 7.5 million
Tennessee: 6.3 million
Louisiana: 4.6
Alabama: 4.5
South Carolina: 4.4
Kentucky: 4.2
Arkansas: 2.6
Mississippi: 2.5
West Virginia: 1.8

Florida has over 18 million people as of 2008.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

It's not about what state is "culturally" southern...the question was which state is the most populous in the South. The answer is Texas, followed by Florida/Georgia/North Carolina.

The regional location of U.S. states on the map doesn't consider cultural differences. Every region has states or areas that don't exactly match the overall culture of the region - but those states or areas are STILL part of that region.

Well if it's not about culture than California is the most populated Southern state as much/most of it is in lower latitudes than Kansas or whatever.

Generally speaking "The South" or "Southern state" does have a cultural element. If you even go by geography it usually means "The Southeast." In geographic terms Texas is either South-Central or Southwest, but it's not Southeast. So Florida would be the most populous Southern state. Still I would say that usually it is a cultural signifier that refers to the states that had slavery or joined the Confederacy. On that basis both Florida and Texas do apply. However it also is often used to imply cultural markers like accent and a high percentage of Baptists and Pentecostals. (Louisiana is largely Catholic, but is among the most Baptist/Pentecostal states in the nation) Going by that Texas would likely still fit, but Florida not so much.

Missouri should possibly be considered a Southern state for the factors mentioned above. However St. Louis and Kansas City are clearly Midwestern. Although the Southern part of Missouri is largely Southern both historically and culturally.

[DeaconJ]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

Well if it's not about culture than California is the most populated Southern state as much/most of it is in lower latitudes than Kansas or whatever.

Generally speaking "The South" or "Southern state" does have a cultural element. If you even go by geography it usually means "The Southeast." In geographic terms Texas is either South-Central or Southwest, but it's not Southeast. So Florida would be the most populous Southern state. Still I would say that usually it is a cultural signifier that refers to the states that had slavery or joined the Confederacy. On that basis both Florida and Texas do apply. However it also is often used to imply cultural markers like accent and a high percentage of Baptists and Pentecostals. (Louisiana is largely Catholic, but is among the most Baptist/Pentecostal states in the nation) Going by that Texas would likely still fit, but Florida not so much.

Missouri should possibly be considered a Southern state for the factors mentioned above. However St. Louis and Kansas City are clearly Midwestern. Although the Southern part of Missouri is largely Southern both historically and culturally.

California isn't considered part of the southern U.S. and never has been. The regions aren't divided by their cultures, but by location...by the Census Bureau. Do you really think that they sit down and consider each little area's culture - then decide which region it should belong to? Not a chance...it's mapped by location...period.

[Thomas R.]

Well okay than it's mapped as the Southeast and not simply "South" or should be if it's not. Although I think the census does in fact trace some cultural elements. Maybe not religion, but ethnic demographics and so forth.

[Nebat]

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

California isn't considered part of the southern U.S. and never has been. The regions aren't divided by their cultures, but by location...by the Census Bureau. Do you really think that they sit down and consider each little area's culture - then decide which region it should belong to? Not a chance...it's mapped by location...period.

If you were to calculate the miles from the northern tip of Maine to the southern tip of Florida, Virginia is dead center on the east coast, slightly north of center. In my opinion perfectly mid-atlantic. Though VA is historically southern, undeniable, much has changed with DC having a major influence over a large portion of the state. There is a mix of northeast attitudes in the cities and laid back(southern) attitudes in the country.

On another note I have never heard of Texas being considered southern until I ventured onto this web site. Geographically it's a mid-west/plains state. It's also such a massive state that it pretty much has it's own culture. But if we're going to insist on using the civil war as a divider then I guess it is southern. BTW, using a boundary set up to divide the country 150 years ago doesn't seem to progressive to me. Why can't people move on?

[Thomas R.]

Not everyone is progressive or even wants to be progressive. Plus borders of things can sometimes be long-lasting.

Granted I would tend to consider Texas to be separate, but the Eastern part is Southern and I guess I could see it. The idea Oklahoma is "The South" is something I've mostly only seen here, but many here are extremely insistent on it. I don't think this has anything to do with the war either as Oklahoma was not a state then. My guess is that it's the cultural factors. Oklahoma is "Bible Belt", more or less, and that's seen as an exclusively Southern thing.

[TANaples]

I don't think California can be considered a Southern state. It's the West Coast. Texas would be the most populous Southern state.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Nebat

On another note I have never heard of Texas being considered southern until I ventured onto this web site.

Once again, I find a thread that gets me into my cause celebre' LOL

Geographically it's a mid-west/plains state. It's also such a massive state that it pretty much has it's own culture.

Physical geography means very little when stacked up to history and culture in considering a states' regional affiliation. To take it to a certain absurd extreme, can "Tornado Alley" be considered a true region?

Texas (and at least a good part of Oklahoma) have almost nothing in common with the northern mid-west plains states in the realm of settlement patterns and basic characteristics.. Any more than Tennessee has in common with Ohio...even though both can be called part of a similar topographical "region". Whatever Texas is, it is emphatically NOT the Midwest! *arrrgh...gasp...rolls around on floor*

But if we're going to insist on using the civil war as a divider then I guess it is southern. BTW, using a boundary set up to divide the country 150 years ago doesn't seem to progressive to me. Why can't people move on?

With all due respect, why do you seem to use the term "progressive" in a way which suggest those who disagree are proceeding from backward premises? Hell's Bells, "progress" can also mean getting ever closer to walking off the edge of a cliff into a pile of cactus!

But seriously -- and not trying to be a smarta$$ -- the "Civil War" division DOES play a very important role in regional considerations. There are many, many, legacies of the same which bond the Old Confederate and at least parts of the "Border States" into an entity known as "The South." There are common bonds of dialect and speech, church membership patterns (Southern Baptist), a political history very different from the rest of the country (i.e. the "Solid South"), "Jim Crow" laws and "massive resistance"...all the way down to the custom of eating black-eyed peas on New Years Day! LOL

Texas is Texas, of course. Not many Texans would say otherwise. It's own thing, in lots of ways. But when considered in term of where it is placed, region wise, it is part of the South. And again, The South itself being a part of the country where self-identification with the South counts for quite a bit. Even most of the things commonly considered to be uniquely TEXAS, have Southern origins and roots (the original Texas cowboy, for instance, has direct roots to the Old South "drover tradition, not the Mexican vaquero and the "herding and tending" way of life)

In this regard, there is nothing to "move on" about. It is not tantamount to re-fighting the WBTS but, rather, realizing what and why makes the South Southern.

[DeaconJ]

I don't think that most nations review their regions every few years and make changes to the boundaries depending on cultural shifts...so the regional boundaries that have been set for many years remain, probably because it isn't all that important. I haven't yet figured out why this is such a hot topic on city-data

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by TANaples

I don't think California can be considered a Southern state. It's the West Coast. Texas would be the most populous Southern state.

I agree (rare for us, TAN!) I don't think there is any question it isn't. While the issue of a Texas, Kentucky, Virginia, Florida, might be debatable in some ways as to the modern day "Southern status", I simply can't see how/why California would even be a discussion topic as to it being a Southern state! It isn't and never has been. Not then, not now!