U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-18-2007, 02:08 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,900,535 times
Reputation: 660

Advertisements

[quote=Louisvilleslugger;734150]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post

The city of St. Louis is in the state of Missouri, a state that in it's early history was considered Southern (remember Mark Twain). Misourri does have certain demographics that are directly attributed to their early early history as a slave holding state. The Prime example of this is the Little Dixie area of the state. This area once held the majority of the states slaves and strongly resembled the old South. To this day the area know as little Dixie (in the heart of the state) has an above average percentage of rural African Americans which is found no where in the Midwest (with the smaller exception of the former slave holding region of Southern Illinois/Little Egypt). The Bootheel region of the state is also considered Delta because it's large rural african American population along the Mississippi.

It should be noted however that Missouri was a slave state that held relatively fewer slaves than just about every other slave holding state (with the exception of maybe Maryland and Delaware). St. Louis has more the many aspects braken away or simply never resembled the rest of the state. A prime example of this is the large German population it recieved during early the migration period. One thing that gets St. Louis considered by todays standard is it's black population. While it was a city that was on the recieving end during the Great Migration North, the influx of Southern blacks seems to have had a major affect on the city especially linguisticly. While Missouri's blacks don't have a tradtional "Southern" dialect their dialect is easily distinguishable from the rest of the Midwest. This is really apparent in modern day rap culture ( which is a major factor in the black population)

here are a few tracks from St. Louis rappers compared to a few other Midwestern rappers

Chingy

http://www.mp3.com/artist/chingy/son...om_clk=arttabs

Nelly

http://www.mp3.com/artist/nelly/song...om_clk=arttabs

Jibbs

http://www.mp3.com/artist/jibbs/summary/

Other Midwestern rappers

Kanye West

http://www.mp3.com/artist/kanye-west...om_clk=arttabs

Common

http://www.mp3.com/artist/common/son...om_clk=arttabs

Eminem

http://www.mp3.com/artist/eminem/son...om_clk=arttabs

While you've acknowledged that Catholism is more dominant than Baptist in the Missouri, you fell to realize that Missouri is the only Midwestern state that has such a large Baptist population. So large that is almost on par with Southern states like Virginia. You will also see the claim that Southern Illinois and Southern Indiana are heavily or even more Southern than Midwestern with this map, along with dialect maps, and the cultural map I produced earlier.









While Louisville might be just up river from Cincinnati, you must remember that the Gateway city to the South is on the opposite side of the Mason Dixon Line from Cincy. The Mason Dixon Line definantly applied it's meaning during the Great Migration during the earlier part of the century. Louisville like every other Southern city lost black population cities like St. Louis and Cincinnati gained black population. Despite being just up river from Cincinnati Louisville has a large Baptist population, which is found no where in any Midwestern city.

Unless you consider almost having an entire section of your town (the just about all of the West End) being comprised on shotgun houses (distinctly Southern), Then I don't see much of an argument for the appearance of the city being Midwestern.

Archtiecturally Louisville's first suburb Old Louisville with it's wrought iron, huge fountains, huge Magnolias looming over the streets and Victorian style architecture that are found only in the most prominent Southern cities of the 19th century like Charleston, New Orleans, Savanah, and even Richmond, NOWHERE in the Midwest.

As far as Rustbelt being exclusively Midwestern argument here's a source that ranks Rustbelt cities by their populatiuon decline and ironically Birmingham, ALABAMA ends the list off, while there is no Louisville in sight.












These linguistic maps state otherwise








Oh well I've never really got that impression from the flat cornfields of the plains, or the area surrounding the Great Lakes. Another arguments is that Louisville and the rest of Kentucky are all located within the humid Sub Tropical climate range (which is the Southern climate range). I believe Missouri is to.



I would definantly consider Appalachia, a mountain chain that streches into Ky, Va, Tn, Nc, Sc, Ga, and Al as compared to Pa, and Ny (northern states) to be more Southern than anything else don't ya think?

http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg (broken link)

U.S. 40 cuts off the only areas of the Midwest with large Baptist populations (So In and Il), it cuts off the only areas of the Midwest with rural African American populations (little Egpyt and Little Dixie along with the Mo Bootheel). The area South of the route is often considered to have Southern dialect (or one distinct from the rest of the Midwest). Factors like this cannot simply be put aside to make statements such as "it being solidly Midwest". This is also reflected on the cultural map I've posted. Believe or not my argument is backed with sources yours is based on your own subjective and somewhat biased (an attempt to be labled anything but Southern) opinion.
If you are trying to argue that Missouri is half-Southern or completely Southern, it's just not true. Antebellum Missouri is gone. Looking at this state today you would never even guess it was there. Mark Twain satirizes slavery heavily in his story...it's not necessarily based on where he lived and he actually takes dialects found in extreme Southern Missouri and displaces them a little bit, no that is not an attempt to avoid facts, that is the truth, I googled it awhile back, you will find it trust me. IT may have some Southern characteristics which your maps show, but it has honestly has many more Midwestern ones (i.e. part of the soy bean, corn belt, barley, etc.), and Southern Missouri is arguably a transition point between the North and the South, but as some of your maps also show, it is a region unique unto itself. Missouri's history may not be that of a Midwestern state, but honestly modern Missouri has nothing to do with antebellum Missouri. It was never economically dependent on it and through at least the Northern half of it has a distinctly Midwestern appearance. My family is from Little Dixie and they will tell you it is far more Midwestern today than Southern. IT's got the rolling plains, cornfields, the speech pattern, except for the bible belt and maybe it being conservative, not uncommon for most rural areas anywhere, it's Midwestern. I understand St. Louis may be different from a lot of Missouri, but if that's a reason to argue Missouri should be considered even half-Southern, I just don't buy it. We don't drink sweet tea virtually anywhere in the state, and also with Southern Illinois the lines you draw are rough estimations...they are not the literal boundaries...there is overlap. I agree...Missouri has some Southern characteristics...but has many more characteristics either in common with the Midwest or unique unto itself. Missouri is a predominantly Midwestern state...that means that while there are Southern elements there are more Midwestern ones or unique ones. Also the pictures you show of Kentucky are not uncommon to Southern Ohio and seem to me to show rolling hills and plains...you actually see some of that in Iowa. YES I HAVE BEEN THERE. Our climate is different from the rest of the South. It is more of a hodgepodge and actually not that uncommon Downstate illinois, Indiana, and ohio at least where the Northern half of Missouri is concerned. I just don't see a reason to argue Missouri being or not being Midwestern when it is mostly midwestern in it's northern half and really kind of a hodgepodge in its lower half. that to me says the Midwestern element dominates. The Bible Belt also exists in parts of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas as well as parts of Illinois, etc...it is not exclusive to the South, even if most it is generally a Southern characteristic. My advice to you is don't be so quick to judge a state based on a single characteristic or dividing lines. There will always be overlap and the transtition does not happen at that second. my other quote about Southern Illinois is I get the opinion more often that they are both Midwestern and Southern rather than Southern. I honestly have dealt with this argument many times before, if you need to include half of Missouri in the south, go ahead, but sources from wikipedia (which bring in outside sources), the U.S. Census Bureau, and many people living in Missouri would disagree with those sources. These maps are often confusing that you show and often just labeled with detail I find a little more strange and hard to classify as anything. Oh well. THe bottomline is that Missouri meets the identity of a Midwestern state much better than it does a Southern one, and as a resident of the state for over 20 years and having virtually toured all regions of it and asked many different people, I'm content with that. No region of the U.S. looks the same anywhere you go. It seems like if there is an anomally in any region, people try to further divide the region and it just makes it more confusing. IT always seems to be people from Kentucky (some, not all) who like to vigorously defend their "Southerness" and then lash back by trying to drag parts of the lower Midwest (Missouri included) down with it. Oh well. Just go with the U.S. Census Bureau's definition of the regions. It's much simpler and honestly I think defines the regions better than these maps divide into so many categories classification of any one area is often impossible. Finally, let me also state that if U.S. 40 is in the dividing line between North and South in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri that half of Indiana is in the South as well as 30-40% of illinois and half of Missouri? Please...I no longer believe any of this stuff for even a second. Kentucky you can have as the South, I'm willing to accept that, but modern Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana fit the definition of Midwestern much better than Southern. THerefore, they should be classified for what they are...Midwestern states with some Southern characteristics in certain parts of them. Quit trying to extend the Mason-Dixon further north than the Ohio to firmly place your area in the South. Just deal with it that ur situated on the MAson-Dixon instead of trying to prove you aren't and that you are very close in proximity to the Midwest and that it has more of an influence on Louisville than you claim it to be. This is a waste of my time. Saying Missouri is Southern is like saying Kentucky is Midwestern. In general it's not the truth.

Last edited by ajf131; 05-18-2007 at 03:43 AM..

 
Old 05-18-2007, 11:45 AM
 
5,857 posts, read 14,043,096 times
Reputation: 3482
Wow, ajf131, you are so very passionate about this! Why is it so important to you that no one think of MO as anything but Midwestern? Were you abused by a Southerner as a child?
 
Old 05-18-2007, 11:55 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,900,535 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
Wow, ajf131, you are so very passionate about this! Why is it so important to you that no one think of MO as anything but Midwestern? Were you abused by a Southerner as a child?
LOL, hardly. I'm passionate about it because it just goes against my own experience and what I was told by many different people. THat's pretty much it. THough I admit I may be overdramatacizing, or however you spell the damn word lol, but honestly I don't have anything against the South. I just disagree strongly in some areas about how the Midwest and South are classified and believe me I'm not the only one. I guess there are just certain characteristics about most of Missouri that I feel are awfully lacking to classify it as Southern. I actually have to focus on another area of my life besides the regional argument, but I'll finish this thought later. Plains10, now that you've made yourself more clear, I agree with what you are saying. Vegaspilgrim I will give my personal opinions on the cities you mentioned later. What I will say is that Joplin and Springfield belong in a different category than STL, KC, and modern Hannibal. Missouri tends to be a chameleon type of state, it is more Southern near where it touches the Southern states, generally more Midwestern where it touches other Midwestern states. Since the majority of it (most of it) borders Midwestern states, I think that it makes it safe to say it should be included in the Midwest. Again, this is just basic and I don't have time right now to finish this thought. Be patient and I'll explain when I get back from doing what is that I have to do. I'm sure you all have lives outside of this forum too.
 
Old 05-18-2007, 09:36 PM
 
301 posts, read 1,266,446 times
Reputation: 174
[quote=ajf131;735174][quote=Louisvilleslugger;734150]

Quote:
If you are trying to argue that Missouri is half-Southern or completely Southern, it's just not true. Antebellum Missouri is gone. Looking at this state today you would never even guess it was there. Mark Twain satirizes slavery heavily in his story...it's not necessarily based on where he lived and he actually takes dialects found in extreme Southern Missouri and displaces them a little bit, no that is not an attempt to avoid facts, that is the truth, I googled it awhile back, you will find it trust me. IT may have some Southern characteristics which your maps show, but it has honestly has many more Midwestern ones (i.e. part of the soy bean, corn belt, barley, etc.), and Southern Missouri is arguably a transition point between the North and the South, but as some of your maps also show, it is a region unique unto itself.
When have I stated that Missouri is mostly or even half Southern? When I was looking through this thread, I came to the conclusion that you were blissfully unaware (or simply didn't want to admit to) of any cultural traits Missouri may share with the South. When someone else brought up a comparison that showed the Missouri unlike any Midwestern state had pockets of RURAL counties that were in severe poverty, (which was more tied to the South than any other region), you bitterly rejected the demographic connection as nothing more than a coincidence. So to stop this before it goes any further I don't feel that Missouri is a Southern state, However while it isn't a "Southern state" it has quite a few undeniable cultural connections to the South, But is simply NOT SOUTHERN ENOUGH to be labeled a Southern state.

Quote:
Missouri's history may not be that of a Midwestern state, but honestly modern Missouri has nothing to do with antebellum Missouri. It was never economically dependent on it and through at least the Northern half of it has a distinctly Midwestern appearance. My family is from Little Dixie and they will tell you it is far more Midwestern today than Southern.
Missouri's History is indeed that of a mixed state, so is Kentucky and to some degree even Virginia. However IMO as time went on (entering the 20th century) Missouri really cut alot (not all) of it's ties to South. Whereas it was moreso the opposite for Kentucky, it became more Southern as time went on (after the Civil War).

Quote:
Also the pictures you show of Kentucky are not uncommon to Southern Ohio and seem to me to show rolling hills and plains...you actually see some of that in Iowa. YES I HAVE BEEN THERE.
That is the famed Bluegrass horse farming Region of Kentucky, I would seriously doubt that you can produce pictures in Ohio that imitate it's landscape.

Quote:
These maps are often confusing that you show and often just labeled with detail I find a little more strange and hard to classify as anything. Oh well.
I'm not to sure what you mean by this statement, But I assure my sources are more than credible.

Quote:
IT always seems to be people from Kentucky (some, not all) who like to vigorously defend their "Southerness" and then lash back by trying to drag parts of the lower Midwest (Missouri included) down with it. Oh well. Just go with the U.S. Census Bureau's definition of the regions. It's much simpler and honestly I think defines the regions better than these maps divide into so many categories classification of any one area is often impossible.
If you would have an unbiased opinion in the subject you would see how valid an argument it is to make. What I have basically showed (with sources) is that Southern Illinois, Southern Missouri, and Southern Indiana all have strong Southern traits ranging from large Baptist populations, Southern dialect, to History. If these areas of Midwestern states produce so many Southern traits then wouldn't it be silly to argue that they are just as Midwestern as areas of Minnesota or Wisconsin.....Yes! If these areas directly North of Kentucky dipict such strong Southern characteristics then it's only logical to see that Kentucky is indeed a Southern state (whiel you have admitted it). While it is a Southern state it does have Midwestern characteristics, WHICH I HAVE NOT DENIED!!

Quote:
Just deal with it that ur situated on the MAson-Dixon instead of trying to prove you aren't and that you are very close in proximity to the Midwest and that it has more of an influence on Louisville than you claim it to be. This is a waste of my time. Saying Missouri is Southern is like saying Kentucky is Midwestern. In general it's not the truth
.

I'm aware that Louisville is on the Mason Dixon, But The Gateway city to the South is indeed South of that line. Despite the rural counties immediately north of Kentucky being to North of it, they still display undeniable Southern traits, that cannot permit them to be called "solidly Midwestern", at the same time Louisville has Midwestern traits that cannot permit it to be called "Solidly Southern". But just looking at dialect maps, religious denomination, cultural, and historical maps, along with the city's architecture will show that Louisville is logically more Southern than Midwestern. Again please do not take my post of out of context, no one is asserting that Missouri is a Southern state, I'm merely pointing out to you that this state is not immune to Southern culture, in certain aspects that other Midwestern state's don't have. SO RELAX!
 
Old 05-18-2007, 10:22 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,900,535 times
Reputation: 660
[quote=Louisvilleslugger;739713][quote=ajf131;735174]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisvilleslugger View Post



When have I stated that Missouri is mostly or even half Southern? When I was looking through this thread, I came to the conclusion that you were blissfully unaware (or simply didn't want to admit to) of any cultural traits Missouri may share with the South. When someone else brought up a comparison that showed the Missouri unlike any Midwestern state had pockets of RURAL counties that were in severe poverty, (which was more tied to the South than any other region), you bitterly rejected the demographic connection as nothing more than a coincidence. So to stop this before it goes any further I don't feel that Missouri is a Southern state, However while it isn't a "Southern state" it has quite a few undeniable cultural connections to the South, But is simply NOT SOUTHERN ENOUGH to be labeled a Southern state.



Missouri's History is indeed that of a mixed state, so is Kentucky and to some degree even Virginia. However IMO as time went on (entering the 20th century) Missouri really cut alot (not all) of it's ties to South. Whereas it was moreso the opposite for Kentucky, it became more Southern as time went on (after the Civil War).



That is the famed Bluegrass horse farming Region of Kentucky, I would seriously doubt that you can produce pictures in Ohio that imitate it's landscape.



I'm not to sure what you mean by this statement, But I assure my sources are more than credible.



If you would have an unbiased opinion in the subject you would see how valid an argument it is to make. What I have basically showed (with sources) is that Southern Illinois, Southern Missouri, and Southern Indiana all have strong Southern traits ranging from large Baptist populations, Southern dialect, to History. If these areas of Midwestern states produce so many Southern traits then wouldn't it be silly to argue that they are just as Midwestern as areas of Minnesota or Wisconsin.....Yes! If these areas directly North of Kentucky dipict such strong Southern characteristics then it's only logical to see that Kentucky is indeed a Southern state (whiel you have admitted it). While it is a Southern state it does have Midwestern characteristics, WHICH I HAVE NOT DENIED!!

.

I'm aware that Louisville is on the Mason Dixon, But The Gateway city to the South is indeed South of that line. Despite the rural counties immediately north of Kentucky being to North of it, they still display undeniable Southern traits, that cannot permit them to be called "solidly Midwestern", at the same time Louisville has Midwestern traits that cannot permit it to be called "Solidly Southern". But just looking at dialect maps, religious denomination, cultural, and historical maps, along with the city's architecture will show that Louisville is logically more Southern than Midwestern. Again please do not take my post of out of context, no one is asserting that Missouri is a Southern state, I'm merely pointing out to you that this state is not immune to Southern culture, in certain aspects that other Midwestern state's don't have. SO RELAX!

There I would agree with you. What i will say about Missouri and honestly this is probably the most accurate picture of it I can give, is that the Northern half of it, St. Louis, Jefferson City, Columbia, etc...those areas are part of the Midwest core. I've rethought Kentucky and honestly i'd have to say yes it probably fits better in with the Upper South than the Midwest. And besides, it's practically impossible to make a case for it being Midwestern anyways besides it's location, which can be argued for either or and says nothing about the state. Anyways...back to Missouri. Below the Midwest core is Southern Missouri. The further south you go, the less Midwestern Missouri becomes and the more Southern it gets. But the Southern element never overpowers the Midwestern one nor does any type of speech pattern that is noticeably southern or sweet tea or anything like that appear until like around the level of Cape Gireardeau or something like that...which is around the Mason-Dixon line through Missouri and very near the Kentucky-Arkansas border. through this argument I think it's pretty safe to say Missouri can be considered Midwestern because the South dominates only a very minor portion of the state. Sorry for the fireworks. Some of what you were saying I didn't understand initially but now that you have clarified it a little better I'm now actually in agreement with you. I don't want Missouri to not be Southern, I just simply was speaking from my experience and from the opinions of many Missourians that I know. Whatever. Look...I love the South ok? I just don't see most of Missouri being like it to a great degree. Basically...now I agree with you for the most part. Take it easy.
 
Old 05-20-2007, 12:13 PM
 
301 posts, read 1,266,446 times
Reputation: 174
[quote=ajf131;739913][quote=Louisvilleslugger;739713][quote=ajf131;735174]

Quote:
But the Southern element never overpowers the Midwestern one nor does any type of speech pattern that is noticeably southern or sweet tea or anything like that appear until like around the level of Cape Gireardeau or something like that...which is around the Mason-Dixon line through Missouri and very near the Kentucky-Arkansas border.
I kind of have to disagree with you on this one statement, while Missouri is not a Southern state, the Bootheel is a mirror of the rest of the lower Mississippi Delta. It's a rural area of the state that has a large rural inpoverished black population. This however is the only area of the state that one can say is without a doubt Southern.
 
Old 05-20-2007, 03:01 PM
 
Location: 602/520
2,441 posts, read 6,118,885 times
Reputation: 1815
[quote=Louisvilleslugger;745793][quote=ajf131;739913][quote=Louisvilleslugger;739713]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post



I kind of have to disagree with you on this one statement, while Missouri is not a Southern state, the Bootheel is a mirror of the rest of the lower Mississippi Delta. It's a rural area of the state that has a large rural inpoverished black population. This however is the only area of the state that one can say is without a doubt Southern.
Exactly. I have said before the area of the Missouri Bootheel (around Sikeston, Caruthersville, and Hayti) has an extremely strong southern element. Caruthersville is less than a two hour drive from Olive Branch, Mississippi (suburban Memphis). It would be foolish to believe that an area less than two hours away from Mississippi doesn't not share any southern traits.

I also believe that areas of extreme southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio all show some aspects of southern culture. I can see how the "southerness" of the area is debatable; the accents of native residents of these areas aren't always consistent, to the point where you would completely classify these areas as being southern. From Cairo, through Evansville, and areas east of Cincinnati along the Ohio River, there are certain elements that are largely attributed to the South. A boundary as trivial as the Ohio River or the Mason-Dixon line does not separate cultural areas.

Also, physical geography does not separate the South from surrounding areas. The notion that the South is primarily flat farmland is just flat-out wrong. Areas of eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, northern Georgia and Alabama, as well as western North Carolina, South Carolina, and Viriginia are all mountainous areas that share in southern culture.
 
Old 05-20-2007, 03:11 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,983 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
I've read a lot of this and find it quite entertaining. I am glad there are so many people looking up all these statistics and maps. I find them very interesting. However, having lived in central Illinois and having visited s. Ill, Ind and Ohio, IMO, those states are still north. The people there consider themselves northerners.

Missouri, I don't know. Interesting arguments on both sides. When I was a kid growing up in PA, we were taught the southern states were the slave states. Therefore, MO is southern. It doesn't matter if they didn't have as many slaves, whatever. Slavery was legal there and not in Illinois, or Maine, or wherever up north.

I was in elementary school a long time ago. Times have changed. I knew some people from St. Louis when I lived in Ill. While they didn't talk exactly 'southern', they didn't have the classic midwest accent either. They talked more like the Texans I would later meet here in Colorado. I beleive that there is little of antebellum Missouri left in the state today. Probably that is true of most of the southern states.
 
Old 05-20-2007, 05:26 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,900,535 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittnurse70 View Post
I've read a lot of this and find it quite entertaining. I am glad there are so many people looking up all these statistics and maps. I find them very interesting. However, having lived in central Illinois and having visited s. Ill, Ind and Ohio, IMO, those states are still north. The people there consider themselves northerners.

Missouri, I don't know. Interesting arguments on both sides. When I was a kid growing up in PA, we were taught the southern states were the slave states. Therefore, MO is southern. It doesn't matter if they didn't have as many slaves, whatever. Slavery was legal there and not in Illinois, or Maine, or wherever up north.


I was in elementary school a long time ago. Times have changed. I knew some people from St. Louis when I lived in Ill. While they didn't talk exactly 'southern', they didn't have the classic midwest accent either. They talked more like the Texans I would later meet here in Colorado. I beleive that there is little of antebellum Missouri left in the state today. Probably that is true of most of the southern states.

Pittnurse, i have to disagree strongly. Just because a state allowed slavery did not mean it was pro-Southern. Nobody from St. Louis sounds even remotely close to Texas, you're the first I've ever met to say St. Louis people sounded Southern. St. Louis people sound just like people from Chicago today, and I was taught growing up that there were slave states, but that it did not mean they were Southern necessarily. Missouri's economy never depended on slavery, it was not really needed except in places like the bootheel and other parts of lower southern Missouri. Delaware was a slave state, and you would call that Southern as well? Most people I know would not. missouri while a slave state did not generally have slaves above the Missouri Compromise line and St. Louis was NEVER pro-Southern. And Missouri did not secede by an overwhelming amount AND the Dred Scott case took place here, where Missouri awarded Scott his freedom but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling. Slave states do not make Southern states at all, and classifying a state based on what it was 140-150 years ago is just a bad way to do it. Also, another way to look at this is that Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio were just as divided over the slavery issue as Missouri even though they were not slave states. You can't make an argument for Missouri being Southern other than the slave state one, which as far as I'm concerned is no way to define a state today. Modern Missouri is not antebellum Missouri, which honestly was more of a border state than a Southern one back then. Missouri cut most of its ties to the South after the Civil War and became predominantly Midwestern in demeanor. Dialects group us in with the Midwest, our climate is more Midwestern, and just like Illinois and Indiana, only very small portions of Missouri are predominantly Southern.
 
Old 05-20-2007, 05:33 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,900,535 times
Reputation: 660
[quote=Louisvilleslugger;745793][quote=ajf131;739913][quote=Louisvilleslugger;739713]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post



I kind of have to disagree with you on this one statement, while Missouri is not a Southern state, the Bootheel is a mirror of the rest of the lower Mississippi Delta. It's a rural area of the state that has a large rural inpoverished black population. This however is the only area of the state that one can say is without a doubt Southern.
LOL, Louisville slugger, that's basically what i'm saying, do you realize how insignificant of a portion of the state the bootheel is as well areas as of Missouri which are South of and around where the Ohio River flows into the Mississippi. The Bootheel should be a part of Arkansas. I have said numerous times in other discussions here that around Cape Gireardeau on down is where the Southern persona emerges as the dominant one in Missouri. That is still a small portion of the state and honestly really is not unusual for a lower Midwestern state. The very southernmost portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (notably the part of Ohio that dips into Kentucky West Virginia, not the Cincy suburbs) tends to be more Southern than Midwestern. Missouri fits in much better as a part of the lower Midwest. What people forget is the Midwest is not uniform everywhere you go. THere is the lower Midwest and the Upper Midwest. So when you say that certain parts of the lower Midwest can't be Midwestern because they're not like Minneapolis or Detroit, it's honestly not a really relevant comparison. Like the South is divided into the Upper South and Deep South, the Midwest is divided into the lower Midwest and Upper Midwest. there are some noticable differences between the two. Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri basically fit the profiles of lower Midwestern states because they have Southern components to them in certain parts of their states but they are predominantly Midwestern. States like Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan are the upper Midwest because they are predominantly Midwestern with no Southern component to them. Upper Southern states like Kentucky and Virginia have some northern characteristics but the Southern ones obviously overpower. Deep Southern states have no Northern characteristics. This is not just my opinion either. Some of my family comes from the South, so it wouldn't bother me to say that Missouri belongs in the South if that were the case. But that argument has pretty much been ludicrous for a very long time now. I also have relatives in Cleveland and in Northern illinois and they consider Missouri a little more Southern than the parts of the Midwest they are from but they still think it's Midwestern.

Last edited by ajf131; 05-20-2007 at 05:44 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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top