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.
Generally, the Missouri River and west of it and until the rockies is considered the Plains....SD is definitley a plains state, but part of it might identify more with the midwest.
Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, SD & ND, parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, and Texas....all Plains.
I get annoyed when the two regions are lumped together.
The difference is not so much cultural as it is geographical. The two places are just very different in climate and topography. Sure, the midwest is flat too, but in the plains -- you know you are in the plains because the major SKY in the plains you can see for miles and MILES. The midwest does not have that grandeur of sky and rolling (forever) land that the plains have. Plus, the plains have more extreme weather. We in the midwest have extreme weather as well, but its a more humane version. We get more reliable amounts of precipitation and slightly gentler summers, winters, thunderstorms, and fewer tornadoes.
I was annoyed when on the news they kept saying the midwest was flooded...or the tornado outbreak in the midwest...etc. It was in the plains states, but the news organizations are just starting to lump as all together though we are distinctly different regions.
I live in SD and have always considered it to be the Midwest - the western part of SD is anything but plains with the black hills.......
REALLY??? I did live in Rapid City for three years and always considered the area a 'Plains' State. Yes western South Dakota has the Black Hills, but other than than it is pretty Flat in all directions for hundreds of miles. A most BEAUTIFUL area, I might add. (The Black Hills)
Wait a minute! What happened to Central and NE MN, Central and UP MI, northern WI, central and southern MO, southern IL and IN, and the entire state of OH? All of them are usually classified as Midwest, and I would argue that none of them are Plains states.
Central and NE Minnesota, the UP, and northern Wisconsin are what I refer to as the northwoods.They are north of the Midwest core, which is the agricultural and industrial heartland of the US. Southern Illinois and Indiana have a little more in common with the south than the Midwest and have less agriculture and more rugged forest land. Most of Ohio is part of the Midwest except for the far southern and southeast part, which is more rugged, forested, and more influenced by the south.
Central and NE Minnesota, the UP, and northern Wisconsin are what I refer to as the northwoods.They are north of the Midwest core, which is the agricultural and industrial heartland of the US. Southern Illinois and Indiana have a little more in common with the south than the Midwest and have less agriculture and more rugged forest land. Most of Ohio is part of the Midwest except for the far southern and southeast part, which is more rugged, forested, and more influenced by the south.
I would agree with this statement.
The northwoods would be a subregion of the midwest and southern indiana and illinois is iffy....but I generally agree with your assesment. I also would not include the northwoods in the "core" of the midwest. And truly, southern indiana and illinois are culturally a bit different than the midwest "core" though on maps they may appear with the midwest.
I'd definitley say that southeast Ohio is more appalachia than midwest (or southern if it has to be a larger region)
I live in SD and have always considered it to be the Midwest - the western part of SD is anything but plains with the black hills.......
You might consider some parts of South Dakota east of the Missouri River the Midwest, but the majority of South Dakota falls under the plains category in my opinion. Also, most of South Dakota has fewer trees and has a more extreme climate compared with the Midwest core area.
Central and NE Minnesota, the UP, and northern Wisconsin are what I refer to as the northwoods.They are north of the Midwest core, which is the agricultural and industrial heartland of the US. Southern Illinois and Indiana have a little more in common with the south than the Midwest and have less agriculture and more rugged forest land. Most of Ohio is part of the Midwest except for the far southern and southeast part, which is more rugged, forested, and more influenced by the south.
Would agree with the "northwoods" label as above; that is what they call it in Wisconsin (my mom was from there). S. Ill, Indiana, and Ohio are still the midwest. These areas did not secede from the Union nor did they hold slaves prior to the Civil War. Would agree that southern Ohio is appalachia-like, esp in the eastern part. I think the difference in the "midwest" and the "plains" is that the midwest is more humid.
Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Southern/Southeast Ohio have more of a Kentucky-like flavor. The landscape is much more rugged than the Midwest core, and their is much more forest land as well. The portions of these states also rely more on tourism and have much less in the way of agriculture because of the more rugged forested terrain. I tend to agree that southeast Ohio has more in common with Appalachia than with the Midwest.
I think the difference in the "midwest" and the "plains" is that the midwest is more humid.
I agree. The 100th meridian separates the humid Midwest from the arid West. It divides the Dakotas in two almost equal pieces, runs across Nebraska about 1/3 of the way westbound along I-80, cuts across Kansas, severs the Oklahoma panhandle, and meets the Rio Grande at approximately Laredo, TX.
Yes, the commonly used definition of the Midwest is too broad. Think of the difference between Williston, ND, practically on the Montana border, and Youngstown, OH, practically in PA. Or how about Cairo.IL, down in the cotton fields just above the Mississippi Delta, and International Falls, MN up in the northwoods on the Canadian border.
RE: what to call MN, upper MI and northern WI, here in MN, there are several old businesses with the name "Northwest" in them. The now defunct Hamm's Beer, brewed in St. Paul, used to be known as "the beer that grew with the Great Northwest". Wells Fargo recently took over our Norwest Bank, which was still called "Northwest Bank" up until the 80s. Of course MN is no longer the "northwest", and neither is Western NY, but both have been called that sometime back in American history.. The northwest today is WA and OR. I'm guessing MN's designation as a northwestern state gradually was reassigned to the Midwestern states. I believe the original ones were the states above the Ohio River that are east of the Mississippi and west of the Appalachians.
The two places are just very different in climate and topography. Sure, the midwest is flat too, but in the plains -- you know you are in the plains because the major SKY in the plains you can see for miles and MILES. The midwest does not have that grandeur of sky and rolling (forever) land that the plains have.
Yes thats precisely whats so attractive about the plains. You get really more of that feeling of grandeur, wheat and vistas that stretch on for miles and miles
Not another regions war!! I'm honestly not sure what the distinction is between "plains" and "midwest." Eastern Colorado is definitely plains-- as well as a lot of Wyoming, Eastern Montana, and Eastern New Mexico. Why does your definition abruptly end with Kansas? Western Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle are about as "plains" as you can get; if that ain't the plains, I don't know what is. While I'm sure these "plains" areas are a distinct region, there are many other distinct subregions within the midwest. From my pov, having lived in CO and AZ, I split the country up a little differently. I tend to think of the whole central US as one gigantic valley, between the Rockies and the Appalachians, with the Mississippi River right in the middle. This entire super-region of the country is divided up into a 1 square mile grid surveying system, hence, the straight roads that seem to continue forever. Denver is the transition city between the Greater Central US and the Western US. Saint Louis is the transition city between North Central and South Central US.
If you are speaking geographically the best argument you can make for St. Louis being the geographic transition from north to south is just its latitude location. Landscape wise Missouri because of the Ozark foothills and then further south the Mountains may not look like the rest of the Midwest, but honestly you can't argue that you're entering the South because it's a ****ing mountain range...Arkansas looks nothing like it. Culturally St. Louis and Missouri are absolutely not partially divided between the North and South. Missouri overall fits the definition of a lower Midwestern state and the cornfields mix in with the cliffs (drive on I-55 to see what I mean). The Midwest is too easily stereotyped as looking like a single type of landscape. Trust me Minnesota looks different from Iowa, Wisconsin looks different from Illinois, Indiana looks different from Ohio....parts of North Dakota and also Southern Ohio look like Southern Missouri. I'm also not in agreement that Southern Illinois and Southern Indiana and Southern Ohio are more Southern than Midwestern unless you are practically out of those states. They may not look like a bunch of the Midwest but honestly they don't look or seem very Southern at all to me. Missouri is completely Midwestern from St. Louis and Kansas City on up, and a transition point for the Southern half. that to me pretty much says it's a predominantly Midwestern state because it is not noticeably Southern in every category until you practically leave it. The culture should be used as the real indicator. Culturally St. Louis is absolutely not where the South meets the Midwest. Speech patterns and religion do not favor the South by a majority until you are really deep into Southern Missouri. Southern speech patterns and sweet tea from what I've noticed generally skirt only a minor portion of Southern Missouri. You are not really in the true South until around Sikeston, MO. That's when everything becomes predominantly Southern. If Kentucky has to be placed fully in the South, than Missouri has to be in the Midwest. That's my view of it. From my point of view, if you want to define a state in the central U.S. as being Midwestern or Southern, you need to take into account the dialect, the culture, the weather...and honestly you have to allow for some variety because it's not homogenous. My definition of the Midwest...North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, most of Missouri except the extreme Southern portions, most of Illinois except again the very extreme southern portions, like around Carbondale, most of indiana, most or all of Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan. I'm also willing to include Oklahoma and the Texas PAnhandle, and even Northern Kentucky and parts of West Virginia. It's just ridiculous to divide Missouri in half unless you truly believe geography based on latitude alone is a perfectly accurate indicator of culture, climate in all cases, and believe that the Mason-Dixon line starts at Maryland and Pennsylvania and extends due west. Sorry to break it to you, but becomes the Ohio River which divides the Midwest and South, and then extends cross the extreme southern parts of Missouri at the 36 degree latitude line, roughing placing just about all of Missouri geographically in the Midwest. I'd also like to add that Missouri from what I've seen exclusively features trees found either everywhere in the U.S. or exclusively in the Midwest. The so-called in-between regions of the U.S. of the Midwest and South I'd generally define as Kentucky, West Virginia, and Southern Missouri (not all of it, I'd say maybe 1/3 of it in full transition of all aspects)
Last edited by ajf131; 05-17-2007 at 02:10 AM..
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.
Definitions
What happened to Central and NE MN, Central and UP MI, northern WI, central and southern MO, southern IL and IN, and the entire state of OH? All of them are usually classified as Midwest, and I would argue that none of them are Plains states.
South Dakota
I'm honestly not sure what the distinction is between "plains" and "midwest." Eastern Colorado is definitely plains-- as well as a lot of Wyoming, Eastern Montana, and Eastern New Mexico. Why does your definition abruptly end with Kansas? Western Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle are about as "plains" as you can get; if that ain't the plains, I don't know what is. While I'm sure these "plains" areas are a distinct region, there are many other distinct subregions within the midwest. From my pov, having lived in CO and AZ, I split the country up a little differently. I tend to think of the whole central US as one gigantic valley, between the Rockies and the Appalachians, with the Mississippi River right in the middle. This entire super-region of the country is divided up into a 1 square mile grid surveying system, hence, the straight roads that seem to continue forever. Denver is the transition city between the Greater Central US and the Western US. Saint Louis is the transition city between North Central and South Central US.
