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 08-07-2007, 01:14 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,902,786 times
Reputation: 660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
I too have exercised restraint with the sweet tea thing. I think sweet tea is being given to much leverage as a distinctive southern beverage. For goodness sakes, you can get sweet tea damn near anywhere! And if you cant, just go to wal mart and buy some.
I completely agree as far as that goes...however, sweet tea can still be used as a very good way to distinguish the south. Sweet tea is available in basically every restaurant in the South....it's service is almost unlimited. Contrast this with the Midwest...while sweet tea can be found here (largely due to the fact that Cracker Barrels and McDonald's now sell it)...its service is still limited to only a few places. The South offers sweet tea unconditionally. Pittsburgh, D.C., Baltimore, Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Kansas City may offer sweet tea but only likely at one or two of the chain restaurants existing there and one of those two restaurant chains is guaranteed to be a Cracker Barrel....sweet tea is very hard to find in restaurants of these cities....St. Louis' oldest and most famous restaurants do not serve sweet tea nor do any of its restaurants besides McDonald's, which less than a month ago started offering sweet tea, and Cracker Barrel. Compare this to Louisville, Lexington, Richmond, Nashville, and Memphis....there sweet tea is a FAR more accepted beverage. Springfield and Joplin and Sikeston, MO all promote sweet tea in most of their restaurants, but these three cities are more or less Southern. This is a pattern which is undisputable and more or less very telling about what region of the country you are in, not like speech patterns, but still pretty distinctive.

 
Old 08-07-2007, 01:18 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,902,786 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by vasinger View Post
Despite years of Washington swallowing up our fair state, Northern Virginia is NOT Northeastern.


Its Southern lite. But its a very transient area that has people from all over. Thats why its not likely to be included as typically "southern". Same can be said for Hampton Roads area and many parts of North Carolina.

40 years ago, it was no different than the rest of Virginia.
Hampton Roads and many parts of North Carolina? Yes they have people from all over but they should not be compared to Northern Virginia. Northern Virginia I agree isn't Northeastern, however I think it has always been a border region. When I was in Northern Virginia I actually didn't really get the impression I was in the South...not just from the people, but from the overall feeling in general. Hampton Roads and North Carolina, while definitely populated by people from all over, still feel distinctly Southern.
 
Old 08-07-2007, 10:38 PM
 
122 posts, read 353,553 times
Reputation: 49
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and south east Texas. Maybe pieces of Florida and Tennessee.
 
Old 08-08-2007, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Kentucky
6,749 posts, read 19,950,499 times
Reputation: 2129
Throx you left off quite a bit of the South! No one can deny Tennessee OR the Carolinas! I can see why some may not think Kentucky or Virginia but not those!
 
Old 08-08-2007, 06:09 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,902,786 times
Reputation: 660
I think Kentucky and Virginia are definitely Southern. If the Union had not literally tried its hardest to sway enough citizens to not secede, the likelihood is that Kentucky would have done so. Kentucky's behavior in the Civil War I saw as leaning more to the South....they didn't secede because the Confederacy literally launched an unwelcome attack on the state. Even those fighting for the Union in Kentucky were pro-slavery with a passion. And the Russellville Convention while not officially recognized had between 60 and 70 counties in Kentucky supporting secession....with my knowledge about the Civil War, Kentucky likely would have seceded eventually had the Union not literally thrown everything it had to convince it not to. Maryland is questionable...while it was occupied forcefully I apparently read that there was as just a good a chance as not that Maryland wouldn't have seceded. Missouri IMO would not have seceded...most Missourians at the time of the election of 1861 held moderate Unionist beliefs...the vast majority were anti-secessionist...while a good deal were pro-slavery, the majority were not willing to break away from the country to defend it...a good number of Missourians were freeing their slaves at this time, generally the ones who did not live on farms...and truth be told, most of Missouri never needed slaves to begin with. Missouri's rump secessionist government was basically a joke compared to Kentucky...they had to go all the way to Neosho, practically in Arkansas in the far southwestern corner of the state, to actually even meet there. Delaware, West Virginia, and Missouri IMO ran the least risk of seceding of the historic border states.
 
Old 08-08-2007, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs,CO
2,368 posts, read 6,828,172 times
Reputation: 624
Couldn't West Virginia be considered Southern?Its got alot of the aspects.
 
Old 08-08-2007, 06:21 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,902,786 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTownNative View Post
Couldn't West Virginia be considered Southern?Its got alot of the aspects.
Partially, yes, not completely though. Dialect maps place the dialect there roughly the entire part of West Virginia below and along Charleston. Charleston, WV and Huntington are hybrid cities...they actually have a lot of rust-belt characteristics. I don't think it makes sense to consider West Virginia 100% southern..my dad grew up in Clarksburg, WV...that part of WV is much more similar to Pennsylvania. West Virginia was originally part of Virginia, but the people there were opposed to slavery and economically, West Virginia didn't need slavery for the most part. The vast majority of West Virginia is east of roughly 2/3-3/4 of Ohio, so IMO it does not really make a lot of sense to call it Southern. It is a region unto itself.
 
Old 08-08-2007, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Kentucky
6,749 posts, read 19,950,499 times
Reputation: 2129
Didn't WV secede from Virginia TO stay in the Union? Not that that necessarily matters now...
 
Old 08-08-2007, 11:19 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,902,786 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by missymomof3 View Post
Didn't WV secede from Virginia TO stay in the Union? Not that that necessarily matters now...
Yes...but I believe an initial clause gradually eliminating slavery from the state was put into place upon the state's formation. West Virginia, like Missouri, did not have an economy dependent on slavery...I know Missouri and WV were not necessarily against slavery, but i do know that the vast majority of the citizens there were not willing to break away from the Union to protect an institution that they did not economically require in the vast majority of their states. Kentucky to my knowledge depended heavily on slavery, due to its agriculture being similar to that of Virginia, especially in the Bluegrass Region. I actually think the Bluegrass Region may have been the most pro-slavery region of Kentucky. The only areas where slavery was probably necessary in Missouri were in the extreme Southeastern and Southwestern portions where cotton and other more Southern-type crops grow. Other than that, Missouri's agriculture and staple crops were pretty much just like those of other Midwestern states. And due to the fact that the Missouri river bluffs, Mississippi River, and the Ozark foothills/mountains cover much of Southern Missouri, back then and now obviously, slavery was not really necessary. and
 
Old 08-08-2007, 11:21 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,902,786 times
Reputation: 660
I also need to make a correction....my dad spent a few years of his early childhood in Clarksburg. The vast majority of his childhood was in Joplin, MO.
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