Kentucky.... specifically Louisville...south or midwest? (Richmond, Berea: apartment, purchase, construction)

[Evlevo]

I voted southern, but I am certainly not the most informed on the issue.

I always considered Kentucky to be sort of in between (I think the "official" designation is how they split on the war, and Kentucky was 50-50). I guess I consider it "Southern" because everyone has a southern accent (in my opinion, I know that others will disagree).

[Louisvilleslugger]

Originally Posted by missymomof3

I origianally posted this on the USA forum and when it was there the majority said Southern. Now that it has been moved, it's the other way around. Interesting.

Funny thing is up until around about 5 this afternoon this poll has shown the vast majority (85%) of people who voted said it was Southern and that margine had been increasing steadily for days. No it wasn't just a small 3 people say it was Southern and 1 say it was Midwestern, It was 23 (84.1%) say it is Southern while 4 (14.9%) say it was Midwestern and suddenly within less than 5 hours, over twice as many voters suddenly pour in and vote Midwestern?.....CAN SOMEONE SAY RIGGED. I think a certain MOD had something to do with the sudden major shift.

LOL crap like this is just sad!

[jeremeyk482]

I'm from Connecticut and people here think anything Maryland down is south and west of Pennsylvania is midwestern.

Kentucky? Definitely south.

[ECoast77]

Originally Posted by Louisvilleslugger

Well the reason I use this method, is because cities like Birmingham, New Orleans, Savanah, Ect. are often thought of as the definition of Southern cities, and if Louisville had nothing in common with the cities that more times than not define the region, then their would be no point in arguing that Louisville has any connection to the region people are claiming it's included in.

Your point is lost on most of us, because you will have a very difficult time finding people who will say that Louisville has no Southern elements. It is only logical to compare a city to its nearest neighbors - in the case of Louisville, those would be Cinci, Indianapolis, Nashville, and Memphis. Contrary to what you may think, there ARE a few things in common between Louisville and Minneapolis, just as there are a few things in common between Louisville and Jackson, MS. Regardless, it's still incredibly pointless to make such comparisons for the sake of rhetoric and argumentation.

Well the Kentucky Derby is the largest cultural event in this city and state. During the derby the Southern Belle, Mint Julep is protrayed, I wouldn't think people in Indianapolis, or even Cincinnati would play such a role to protray their city's culture on national T.V.

A year has 365 days, and the Derby occupies one of them. And yet, this events pours untold millions into Louisville's coffers - what city WOULDN'T play on regional stereotypes in such a manner? It's a great tradition, but hardly one that defines the city. A great article on that very subject - how Louisville "attempts to flaunt Southern-ness for a day", and how much of a comical, superficial joke it really is compared to the real nature of the city - was written by a Louisville native in a NC newspaper. I can't find the link at the moment, but will post it as soon as I do.

This is a title I see very commonly attached to Louisville, But I can find an example of the "Southern most Northern city" part being dropped.

Fair enough - just as I found an example, from a prominent company, with the "northernmost Southern city" part dropped off. As I said, those monikers - Gateway to the South, etc. - are nothing more than marketing methods, anyhow.

Passages from the Article....

That source (The North American Midwest: A Regional Geography) does not include TN in the Midwest per se, and a listing from very early in the book makes that very clear (defining the Midwest as the Northwest Ordinance states + the Great Plains states (not OK, though) plus Kentucky. Louisville is mentioned specifically well over a dozen times in that reference in the context of other Midwestern cities from Peoria to Detroit, whereas no cities in Tennessee are. And I have plenty of other similar sources that include part or all of Kentucky, and the city of Louisville, in socio-cultural, economic, or demographic analyses of the Midwest.

AHHH I see you've been reading the Wikipedia Article. The Southern Focus Study has been conducted for over a decade and is still being conducted at to this very day by a UNC. Here are it's findings

Uhmm...I played a very large role in the Wikipedia debate, so I'm well-aware of the Southern Focus Survey and how it serves as the "Bible of the South" to some people. Sorry to inform you that I'm not one of them. I do not believe that ONE UNCOLLABORATED STUDY holds all of the answers about this country's cultural delineations, and ...

This study was also conducted for one year, in 1987 and is dated by the more recent and accurate Southern Focus Study. One thing that one person felled to relized about these finding were that the 47% that identified with the South were the largest chunk of the pie. Something interesting about this study is that it gave people choices of the South, Southeast, West, Midwest,

If you'd rather take the word of a study conducted for only a year at the most (1986), over another more recent one that was conducted for over a decade, has much more accuracy, and is stillbeing conducted than go right ahead.

...I never said that. You, on the other hand, want to completely dismiss peer-reviewed scholarly research because it disagrees with your perceptions of things. Fine with me, but you do not hold more authority in these matters than a university professor of geography.

My entire point in introducing that study into the Wikipedia debate was to bring about some balance. Far, far too much emphasis was being placed on the numbers from one study, conducted by one university. I have studied statistics at a university level and am well-aware of how the structure and format of a question can greatly affect the types of responses generated. In the case of the Southern Focus study, no alternatives are provided to participants - it is simply "Are you Southern, yes or no?" "Is your state Southern, yes or no?" This precludes the possibility that something could be considered BOTH Southern and something else - quite a real possibility in a border state like Kentucky - and it forcefully pigeonholes people in places like Pikeville into the same boxes as people in Mobile, AL - even though their culture may share little in common. So yes, I am not bowing down before your one study - when in another peer-reviewed work, less than half of Kentuckians chose the term "South" to describe the state, and a full third opted for a Midwestern label.

I wouldn't be to sure that it was just Louisville and Northern Kentucky opting for another region. We both know that Eastern Kentucky, and West Viriginia have almost synonymous cultures (appalachain). West Virginia also had a minority of it's population identify with the South, so couldn't Eastern Kentucky just as easily been a contributor to those findings

I said that it was almost exclusively people in Louisville and Northern Kentucky opting for the Midwest label. People in Eastern Kentucky may not label themselves as Southerners, but I somehow doubt that they view themselves as Midwesterners to any extent. But yes, that's another problem I have with the Southern Focus Study - as I said about, it makes NO distinction whatsoever between subregions of the South.

True that, but with 98% accuracy I think the Southern Focus Study comes darn close.
I think it's just common sense to see that the Southern Focus Study has more merrit then a predated study conducted for one year in (1987)

I don't, as explained above. Professors of geography don't get published in peer-reviewed works by presenting spurious, fallacious, or poorly documented research. The Southern Focus Survey, on the other hand, is not peer-reviewed to my knowledge, and it is non-collaborated.

Here we can see the actual migration pattern of German when they came to America. As I acknowledged Louisville had a few migrational patterns unique to the South. We can see from this map that Louisville was no where near as heavily settled by Germans than say Cincinnati or St. Louis, But was none the less a Midwestern trait. We can also see that parts of Texas, namely present day Austin, Galveston, and San Antonio had signifigant migration to Germans in the area But it was above all else a Midwestern trait.

Early on, no. In modern times, however, in terms of immigration patterns Louisville is largely identical to Lower Midwestern cities - the only "odd" part would be slightly higher percentages of self-reported "American" ancestry. That's a Midwestern trait, not a Southern one. On a Nashville-Cincinnati scale, Louisville leans far, far closer to Cinci in regard to its demographics. You can't look at the numbers and say otherwise truthfully. This is not to say that there aren't some characteristics of Upper South cities present in the demographics, but Catholicized, German and Irish-heavy cities are not Upper Southern cities. Yes, the plurality ancestry in the STATE of Kentucky is "American", but I'm speaking about Louisville here. You cannot judge a city by the state in which it is located.

I honestly don't think that you can tie alot of today's demographics to the migration patterns of the 19th century...

Nor was I trying to. I'm looking at where the cities stand now. However, cities in Texas with significant Hispanic populations today - Austin, San Antonio, El Paso - are often included in the Southwest culturally, not the South. This is largely due to the fact that those levels of Mexican immigration cannot be written off as a "clasically Southern" trait. Likewise, you can't write off Louisville's immigration patterns as "clasically Southern" when they are clearly not.

St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columubus, and just about any Midwestern city could not have hoped to be as black as Louisville or nashville until the great migration occurred.

Again, Louisville's population was 11% slave at the time of 1860 - not what I would call "heavily black." You're making the same mistake again - using absolute numbers when instead you should use percentages. A county of 300 people is "heavily black" if it has 200 black people. A county of 150,000 people could have 2,000 black people - ten times 200 - and not be considered heavily black. Please don't continue to ignore this basic fact as you did in the Wikipedia discussion, it's 6th grade level math. The fact that Kentucky was NOT heavily black and thus had less to lose in terms of implications to the slave system is one of the most fundamental reasons why the state remained in the Union.

So can you explain why Pittsburgh only speacializes in Steel? Obviously it's not the only place where the three elements are found.

I'd suggest that you read a bit about the history of Birmingham and the role location played in its industrial development, this is a good link:

Birmingham Regional Chamber of Commerce - Visiting & Living - Birmingham "Quick Facts"

To quote the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce from that site - "Birmingham is the only place in the world where all the ingredients for making iron is present: coal, iron ore, limestone and dolomite."

[ECoast77]

True Louisville did have a few abnormalities from the South in terms of racial views such as it had more blacks on the police force than any other Southern city, But it was none the less regaurded as a Southern city in these terms during this time in History. This was a major factor in why Louisville and Kentucky had overall losses in their black populations like the rest of the South during the first Great Migrations. Again Louisville attempted to pass regulations resticting blacks to certain neighborhoods, This was only done in Southern cities at this time.

I'am also black and the myth that Kentucky was some safe haven for blacks in the South is crap. Alot of the Older Members of my family are form Columbia, Kentucky and they can't even bring themselves to talk about the way they were treated back then. Here is a map of number of lynchings by each Southern state. kentucky had more lychings than Virginia, and Both Carolina. however it couldn't hold a candle to the Deep South and I say so gladly.

Nobody has stated that Kentucky was a "safe haven" for blacks. However, if a black was asked to rank preferentially the former slave states in 1950, Kentucky would have been near the top of that list. Jim Crow came about because of fears in the Deep South - where slaves often constituted a majority or plurality of the population - that newly emancipated and enfranchised blacks would "Africanize" the states, as they would have formed a voting bloc that couldn't be defeated under normal means. Obviously, this was not nearly as much of an issue in the border states, which were never dependent on a plantation economy and therefore had relatively little reason to fear black enfranchisement. That Kentucky's blacks have largely been enfranchised since the 1870's and enjoyed a mostly peaceful, rapid desegregation in the mid 20th Century is hardly some small "anomaly" - it's the direct bi-product of a social structure in the middle, not Alabama, nor Michigan. Ever heard of Berea College? The same could be said of the other border states as well, all of which had Jim Crow but were "in the middle" in terms of their treatment of blacks.

A great reference on Jim Crow can be found at The History of Jim Crow - in which you'll notice that ALL of the border states, including Maryland and Delaware, had some form of Jim Crow on the books up until the 1950's.

You forget one thing though the city proper of Kansas city extends across four counties Jackson, Clay, Platte, and Cass county (I know it's wierd)

Giving it a population of over 444,965. Making it's Catholic population around 138,528 and it's Baptist population of 122,759

Actually no Kansas city has more Catholics per capita than Louisville, you just forgot to add the rest of the city proper into account.

Regardless of KC spanning multiple counties, Jackson County, MO is the largest core county in the metro area by far - accounting for about a third of the metro's total population - and it is heavier in Baptists per capita than Kentuckiana's principal county. But just for the sake of clarity, let's also look at the other counties that hold chunks of KC:

Clay Couty, MO - 26,597 SBC members, only 23,507 Catholics
Cass County, MO - 14,642 SBC members, only 4,762 Catholics
Platte County, MO - 8,952 Catholics, 6,399 SBC members

So we still have a problem, because Midwestern Kansas City is indeed heavily Baptist - and Southern Baptist, for that matter. Of course, so is the entire state of Missouri, right up to the borders with Iowa and Kansas and excluding the St. Louis area. So are many counties in lower parts of Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. So no, Louisville's sizable SBC population is not "unheard of" among areas in the Midwest. Baptists do not dominate this city, however, in the manner that they do cities like Birmingham. They are a minority, albeit a sizable one. Notice also that other than LA, most "Southern" counties - principally in Florida and Texas - with Baptists as a minority to Catholics have seen tremendous population growth, have large Hispanic populations, or both. Jefferson County has neither of those elements as the explanation for its Catholic population.

Very nice map, But if you notice Louisville and Nashville are still with in the same region according to your dialect map. Nashville dialect is unquestionably Southern and is still grouped, while Cincinnati is according your logic more so a transition zone between the regions

South Midland is grouped together in that map, placing Louisville in the same area as Cincinnati, but also with Tennessee. The sub-regional boundaries aren't declared - likely because, as the web site for your own sources acknowledge, there is ALWAYS some flex room around linguistic boundaries. And in linguistic maps, Louisville is generally always directly on the border - hardly "safely tucked under" any barriers of importance. In my opinion, the reason that the Southern accent is still so widely heard in parts of this city is because of in-migration from other rural parts of Kentucky, not because it is something common among old-time Louisvillians.

According to Wikipedia

"Louisville is located on the northern limit of the humid subtropical climate. Summers are typically hot and humid with mildly warm evenings."

According to highly popular weather site Weatherbase (Weatherbase, Louisville receives more snow annually on average than Cinci -

Well Louisville average 16. inches compared to Indianapolis's 23 in, St.Louis's 19.6, Columus, 28 in /Nashville's 10, Richmond's 13.8 in, Knoxville's, 11.5, Norfolk's 7. http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762183.html

I contribute to Wikipedia, but I certainly don't use it as a primary source. And according to the experts at Weatherbase, Louisville still receives, on a long-term average, more snow annually than Cinci - even though recently, it hasn't gotten much snow at all. The links that I posted also show that the city is situated, from an ecological and botanical perspective, in the same climate/hardiness zone as areas in lower Illinois, Indiana, etc. But then again, even Philadelphia is sometimes included in the humid subtropical cliamte zone, due to its much closer proximity to the Atlantic and the associated moderating effects on its climate.

according this Louisville pronouces it coke along with the rest of the South.

That map does not use valid statistical samples, and according to it, people in Central Indiana - even north of and including Indianapolis - use "coke" and not "pop", something I know to be false. But while we're on specific cultural words, what could be more Southern than the use of "y'all"? And we do have data on where use of the Southern contraction "y'all" is most prevalent. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee did a comprehensive dialect survey across the US, asking randomly selected participants to answer 122 questions about certain linguistic habits. The chief coordinator of the study was Dr. Bert Vaux, Associate Professor of Linguistics, Harvard University. Question 50 of that survey asked “What word(s) do you use to address a group of two or more people?” The available choices were: a. you all b. yous, youse c. you lot d. you guys e. you 'uns f. yins g. you h. other i. y'all. There was an extremely strong correlation between states of the South and usage of the word y’all; no state outside of the South had more than 8% or so of residents report using the word “y’all”, while that word was used by a majority or plurality in most of the South. I ranked the results here and broke them into two groups – more than half, and less than half using “y’all.”

More than half using “y’all”: 1. Mississippi – 85.47% 2. Louisiana – 79.30% 3. Texas – 73.09% 4. Alabama – 72.81% 5. South Carolina – 71.83% 6. Georgia – 71.15% 7. Arkansas – 69.17% 8. North Carolina – 66.13% 9. Tennessee – 62.15%

Less than half using “y’all”: 1. Oklahoma – 46.35% 2. Virginia – 44.03% 3. Florida – 41.49% 4. Kentucky – 39.00% 5. West Virginia – 28.35% 6. Delaware – 20.93% 7. Maryland – 20.52% 8. Missouri – 13.44%

And, as a sort of “control group”, four non-Southern states: 1. California – 6.8% 2. Illinois – 6.05% 3. Colorado – 6.78% 4. Pennsylvania – 4.08%

This same study also asked the perennial soft drink question. Though it is true that more people in Kentucky say "coke" than true Midwestern states, more people in Kentucky say "pop" than in all but 2 other Southern states - West Virginia and Oklahoma, also marginal ones:

Percent saying "pop" for generic soft drink term:
1. WV 49.17%
2. OK 32.91%
3. KY 16.16%
4. MS 6.14%
5. AR 6.02%
6. VA 4.91%
7. NC 3.87%
8. FL 3.76%
9. LA 3.48%
10. TN 3.37%
11. TX 2.43%
12. GA 1.98%
13. AL 1.75%
14. SC 1.47%

Notice the magnitude of the gap between Kentucky and Tennesee in terms of use of "pop" and "y'all." There are definitely some linguistic differences there, as others have attested to.

That research study is accessible at Dialect Survey Results

The problem that alot of people have in this debate, is that they only see Southern cities in one stereotypical Light. Sure Nashville is Southern, But so is the French/Cajun Culture of New Orleans and Southern Louisiana, Or the mildly Hispanic Culture of Houston and or Dallas. Look how dot com places like Richmond and Hampton Roads area Virginia have become. Look at Jacksonville. The South is a Unique place and to say that Louisville can't be Southern because it had early an influx of German Catholics during the Civil War Era is ridiculous in my book. This cultural map backs my statement

I'm sure there are some people who use those types of stereotypes in defining a region (most of them are people who've never even been to Kentucky and yet think Louisville is a monument of Dixie). There are variations within a region, but there is a fine line between "variation" and "fundamental difference", and I do believe that Louisville is on the other side of the line. There are definitely more other cultural maps, but point taken.

[native2arizona]

well ive never been there but every time kentucky comes up i say southern

[and the]

If they didn't secede from the Union before or after the South's valiant assault on Ft. Sumter, they lost the right to be considered "Southern".

What's with the "Too many Catholics to be Southern?" Are you implying that Louisiana is Northern?

I was in a bar in AZ and a cowboy called me a "Damn Yankee". I said "Come on, one side of my family came from Lynch, KY." He said "Well, it's STILL east of TEXAS. So, anything east of Texas is "Yankee", hence, "Northern".

[stx12499]

Originally Posted by Louisvilleslugger

Funny thing is up until around about 5 this afternoon this poll has shown the vast majority (85%) of people who voted said it was Southern and that margine had been increasing steadily for days. No it wasn't just a small 3 people say it was Southern and 1 say it was Midwestern, It was 23 (84.1%) say it is Southern while 4 (14.9%) say it was Midwestern and suddenly within less than 5 hours, over twice as many voters suddenly pour in and vote Midwestern?.....CAN SOMEONE SAY RIGGED. I think a certain MOD had something to do with the sudden major shift.

LOL crap like this is just sad!

Mods have no control over polls without leaving a mark that it has been edited, so nothing has occurred. We can see IP address, and control posts by flaming users. In other words, watch yourself and who you accuse, this is not a place to point fingers. I have kept this topic open because many people moving to Louisville want to know if it is South or North, and we have seen myriad opinions from both sides. Keep it civil.....

[SmerkyGrl]

Louisvilleslugger,

I'd appreciate it if you didn't spam random people like myself from the VIRGINIA forums to vote in your favor. I don't know what complex you may have with your ego but a) I really dislike being spammed in private messages on a subject I don't really give a hoot about b) if I had an opinion on this subject at all, I'd say the city was midwestern and c) your act of spamming people only shows desperation.

Really, its quite pathetic. Stop it and leave me alone.

[Davart]

Here it is in a nutshell, the folk in Lu'vul think they are in the south while the bulk of the rest of the state doesn't. But being kind REAL southerns that the rest of the state is, we just humor them up there and let them think that, even though they are not. It's lot like letting your kid think their Superman ... as long as they don't get hurt, let them.
Now for those of us in the REAL SOUTHERN part of KY we know the truth, but that's ok let them think what they want it's not hurting anybody. WE just hope some of them confront reality one day.

Note to you YANKEES on Lu'vul we still like ya'll and we claim ya, just be honest as to what you really are ... midwestern, there's no shame in it and for the record you can not get anymore south in KY than I am, I can walk backwards to TN faster than you can drive a block in Lu'vul as I live in political Siberia of the far, far, far south-western end of the state.

You have a great day now, ya hear?