Louisville is NOT the south (Lexington, Union: high crime, college, to live)

[oobanks]

Originally Posted by Mezter

Since Louisville is in a transition zone, it's technically both. Don't fight it. I actually think it's cool to be part of 2 regions

I totally Agree. Most people want to put it in the Southern Arena because it's in Kentucky. Too be honest, Kentucky is Unique in it's self because its in a Transition zone between the Midwest and Mid South. It's definitely not Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi, the Deep south. It's great to be a Hybrid though,,, lol

[U146]

Originally Posted by oobanks

I totally Agree. Most people want to put it in the Southern Arena because it's in Kentucky. Too be honest, Kentucky is Unique in it's self because its in a Transition zone between the Midwest and Mid South. It's definitely not Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi, the Deep south. It's great to be a Hybrid though,,, lol

Kentucky is not Midwestern except for in the Cincinnati suburbs. Kentucky is culturally, linguistically, and demographically Southern. Louisville is a Southern city with some Midwestern demographics.

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by U146

No it's not. Louisville has some Midwestern demographics. That's it. Louisville is Southern in every other way shape and form,

Louisville sits geographically 58 miles south of Cincinnati, and 25 miles geographically north of Evansville Indiana. (It is also Ironically only 25 miles Geographically south of St Louis which means their suburbs would overlap longitudinally) All three of these cities have metropolitan cores straddling the Ohio river. With parts of their urban areas sitting in both the Geographically considered south, and the Midwest. Something tells me you would be just intense if it were inferred that these other "Midwestern" cities were southern. Louisville is a shorter drive distance to Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis than it is to Atlanta, Birmingham, and Memphis. Yes Nashville is closer than those cities, but you can still get to Indy and Cinci in almost half that distance. One could even make the case that Louisville is fairly geographically isolated from the rest of Kentucky.

Automobiles began being assembled in Louisville in 1913 when Ford opened a model T plant. Ford continued producing cars in the city and eventually outgrew its facilities. Louisville became a major automobile assembly city in the early 1950's when Ford first started construction on the Louisville Assembly Plant, and shortly thereafter Kentucky Truck. This was almost 40 years before the rest of "the south" started seeing auto manufacturing trickle down(80 years from it's origins). Because of this it is a big UAW town (VERY un-southern). After that Louisville started emerging as a corporate center in the 80's and 90's with the rise of Humana, Yum, and Papa Johns. There is plenty of evidence of blended regions in this area. Probably much more so after the 1950's lead to the areas economy being more dominated by Midwestern industries.

Yes it is a Southern city. Your intense and relentless battle to not let even a hit of grey in this matter is perplexing. I don't know if there something you have against the city of Louisville, or certain posters. The tone of your posts make it sound as if you feel Louisville is the benchmark definition of all that is southern. It's just more complex than that.

[censusdata]

There are two topics here: one is whether Louisville was pro Union or pro Confederate during the Civil War and whether the Confederate monument should be removed, the other is whether Louisville is today culturally Southern or Midwestern.


One the first point Louisville and most of Kentucky was overwhelmingly pro Union with some Confederate supporters. The only places in Kentucky with majorities supporting the CSA was around Lexington and in the Southwest part of the state. The rest of the state, including Louisville, was mostly pro Union. A Confederate monument in a city that was 80/20 Union makes no sense and is in bad taste as it glorifies a cause that would have kept the ancestors of 25% of Louisvillians slaves for decades longer. I believe all Confederate monuments or statues on public property should be placed in the care of a private trust paid for by people who aren't offended by them.


On the second point Louisville is in a region that is clearly a transition zone from the Deep South to Great Lakes regions. Louisville is very different from both the UP of Michigan and South Alabama but clearly has some traits from both regions. To me it's splitting hairs to argue over whether Louisville is 60/40 one way or the other, especially since regional differences are decreasing with mass media and national chain restaurants. I just got back on a trip to the Gulf Coast region and compared to down there Louisville feels Midwestern. But when I got back from visiting the Great Lakes region last September Louisville felt Southern.

[Peter1948]

Originally Posted by mjlo

Louisville sits geographically 58 miles south of Cincinnati, and 25 miles geographically north of Evansville Indiana. (It is also Ironically only 25 miles Geographically south of St Louis which means their suburbs would overlap longitudinally) All three of these cities have metropolitan cores straddling the Ohio river. With parts of their urban areas sitting in both the Geographically considered south, and the Midwest. Something tells me you would be just intense if it were inferred that these other "Midwestern" cities were southern. Louisville is a shorter drive distance to Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis than it is to Atlanta, Birmingham, and Memphis. Yes Nashville is closer than those cities, but you can still get to Indy and Cinci in almost half that distance. One could even make the case that Louisville is fairly geographically isolated from the rest of Kentucky.

Automobiles began being assembled in Louisville in 1913 when Ford opened a model T plant. Ford continued producing cars in the city and eventually outgrew its facilities. Louisville became a major automobile assembly city in the early 1950's when Ford first started construction on the Louisville Assembly Plant, and shortly thereafter Kentucky Truck. This was almost 40 years before the rest of "the south" started seeing auto manufacturing trickle down(80 years from it's origins). Because of this it is a big UAW town (VERY un-southern). After that Louisville started emerging as a corporate center in the 80's and 90's with the rise of Humana, Yum, and Papa Johns. There is plenty of evidence of blended regions in this area. Probably much more so after the 1950's lead to the areas economy being more dominated by Midwestern industries.

Yes it is a Southern city. Your intense and relentless battle to not let even a hit of grey in this matter is perplexing. I don't know if there something you have against the city of Louisville, or certain posters. The tone of your posts make it sound as if you feel Louisville is the benchmark definition of all that is southern. It's just more complex than that.

Great analysis. Heres the skinny: There are lots of folks, mainly from declining rust belt cities, who feel threatened by Louisville and cities like it. Specifically, they hate my enthusiasm and promoting the city. So they try their best to make Louisville loom like a "small southern town." Well, it is not working as Louisville keeps developing at record pace. Just look at a suburb like New Albany.

This guy U is from St Louis and jealous of Louisville's growth and success. So he trolls against it. You cannot reason with him, even with insurmountable data

[jayhawkfan96]

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. You can argue all you want whether Louisville is southern or not (It is. With a decided Midwest flavor as well). But it was part of the confederacy. And as such that is a major part of the history. And while the policies of the leaders of the Confederacy were abhorrent, hundreds of thousands of men lost their lives. The overwhelming majority could have cared less about protecting slavery. They were doing what they thought was best to protect their homes and families.

The monument, and others like it, should be kept. Much like those in Germany and Austria at the sites of the Concentration camps, they should be kept to remember those who lost their lives. And to remind us to never let it happen again.

[CraigCreek]

Originally Posted by jayhawkfan96

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. You can argue all you want whether Louisville is southern or not (It is. With a decided Midwest flavor as well). But it was part of the confederacy. And as such that is a major part of the history. And while the policies of the leaders of the Confederacy were abhorrent, hundreds of thousands of men lost their lives. The overwhelming majority could have cared less about protecting slavery. They were doing what they thought was best to protect their homes and families.

The monument, and others like it, should be kept. Much like those in Germany and Austria at the sites of the Concentration camps, they should be kept to remember those who lost their lives. And to remind us to never let it happen again.

Louisville was and is undeniably Southern, but it, like Kentucky, was never "part of the Confederacy", as Kentucky never seceded from the Union. That said, Kentucky was and remains a border state located on the South side of that particular border, and its citizens had very mixed loyalties during the Civil War, as you note.

[CraigCreek]

Originally Posted by Peter1948

Great analysis. Heres the skinny: There are lots of folks, mainly from declining rust belt cities, who feel threatened by Louisville and cities like it. Specifically, they hate my enthusiasm and promoting the city. So they try their best to make Louisville loom like a "small southern town." Well, it is not working as Louisville keeps developing at record pace. Just look at a suburb like New Albany.

This guy U is from St Louis and jealous of Louisville's growth and success. So he trolls against it. You cannot reason with him, even with insurmountable data

Peter, I am a Louisville native and a long-time Lexington resident. I think the problem you note originates not with others' feeling threatened by Louisville's success, or by your enthusiasm for Louisville, but that you very frequently voice that enthusiasm by unnecessarily putting down other cities and their citizens, as you just did in this quote, terming other places "declining rust belt cities" and their citizens "jealous...and...threatened', etc.".

It should be possible to note, support, and promote Louisville's many fine qualities and economic successes without continually putting down and negatively comparing other cities and their people to Louisville, or by ascribing any differences of opinion re. Louisville to jealousy and feelings of inferiority in non-Louisvillians. Doing this only irritates others and does not win anyone over to your viewpoint.

One more thing: "small" is not a synonym for "Southern", when it comes to cities and/or towns...

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Louisville feels and sounds more like Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Indianapolis than it feels and sounds like Birmingham, Memphis, Jackson and New Orleans.

[Bass&Catfish2008]

Most of ya'll have not been on CityData long enough to remember MissyMom, but she was a great Southern apologist from Kentucky.

You need her to get in the middle of this thread and straighten the Yankee transplants out.