Maryland a southern state (Sharpsburg: real estate, compensation, disposing)

[Borntoolate85]

I feel that the Jim Crow era is just as important as the slavery and Civil War periods. MD did have some JC laws, but not as many as states further south did. Now, is Maryland and the Jim Crow era more about being "northern" or "southern"? Because during this era, Baltimore was really booming and became a large, modern city; my ancestors arrived from Europe, one of my great grandparents passing through Ellis Island, another through Philly, and a couple more at Baltimore, which is usually associated with the Northeast. Even DC was increasingly becoming important. But the Sons of Confederate Veterans of MD came about during this era and still exists today. Two thoguhts:

1)What places (or older MDers) do you recall had Jim Crow laws?
2) Do you consider any part of MD as "the New South"?

[Dotty19]

Originally Posted by Borntoolate85

1)What places (or older MDers) do you recall had Jim Crow laws?
2) Do you consider any part of MD as "the New South"?

Listening to my Grandmother (who is black) and my old History teacher (who is white), The Eastern shore was a very segregated and prejudice. I read a book about these same issues happening in places like Boston also, but I fill like due to history and geography it made Maryland seem a little bit more southern. My grandmother talks about the back road to Salisbury all the time and how they knew better than go back there back in the day due to racism. She also use to tell me about how she couldn't go to the local high school up here and that she and her siblings had to walk down to a little place near Snow Hill, MD to go to school. I couldn't imagine having to walk down there. My history teacher told us about how in the town of Berlin (where we live) they had everything the deep south had. Separate bathrooms, water fountains, you name it. He even told us about how they built the private school and communities like Ocean Pines to further segregate blacks.

I would definitely draw the line for the south at mid Delaware and diagonally down past the bottom of DC and so-on. That makes the most sense to me, but that's just my opinion.

[CamaroGuy]

It could be said that Maryland is both a bit Southern and Yankee.

[heather3]

Has anyone read CHESAPEAKE by James Michener? He tackles this issue of MD being North or South head on. Very well written, detailed, historical fiction! I say we are neither north nor south. We are the Old Line State. However, if I had to pick, I agree with Michener. The Eastern Shore seems more of a southern-like state then the western shore...

[MDguy99]

Originally Posted by Borntoolate85

I feel that the Jim Crow era is just as important as the slavery and Civil War periods. MD did have some JC laws, but not as many as states further south did. Now, is Maryland and the Jim Crow era more about being "northern" or "southern"? Because during this era, Baltimore was really booming and became a large, modern city; my ancestors arrived from Europe, one of my great grandparents passing through Ellis Island, another through Philly, and a couple more at Baltimore, which is usually associated with the Northeast. Even DC was increasingly becoming important. But the Sons of Confederate Veterans of MD came about during this era and still exists today. Two thoguhts:

1)What places (or older MDers) do you recall had Jim Crow laws?
2) Do you consider any part of MD as "the New South"?

How do people not know this history? I feel our schools have failed in this regard if this young man or lady doesn't know this. Baltimore itself had Jim Crow laws. Another HUGELY important event associated with this (not just for Maryland, but the entire country) were the race riots of Cambridge (Maryland). Please look into this- it will give some important perspective and you'll think twice about whether or not this state had a Southern mentality on race well into the 1960s. Maryland was a SOLID part of the "solid South", politically speaking. When the Southern states were all Democratic, Maryland was, too. Before the late 1960s, Democratic meant conservative as Republican is now. The only difference is, when the parties' philosophies switched, Maryland never switched parties. I believe this was due to the suburban boom experienced by Baltimore and, mostly, Washington, in these later decades - bringing plenty of Northerners to the state. This has never stopped and the trend is stronger now more than ever. The suburbs have a stanglehold on the policies of the rest of the state - and give perceptions to outsiders of what Maryland culture and political leanings are (be them true or not) - so, no, I would not consider Maryland part of the New South. Durham, NC, southward is where you will find "the New South". Maryland has its roots in the Old South, but it's slowly being erased.

[Borntoolate85]

I found the link to the mdgreyrider.com website that was active for a few years in the early-mid 2000s decade. It changed my notion on whether MD was North or South forever:

Maryland South: Southern Heritage News and Opinion

Try this link if it doesn't work, and click on one of the buttons as the site was updated a few times over the course of its history.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/htt...om/mdgreyrider

Yes, Virginia, I'm going on a two-week trek across the Deep South and show them this to prove that MD is still southern in its heart.

[Dotty19]

I find the whole confederate thing intriguing. I have accepted the idea that (most) people who believe in the confederate flag see it as a badge of southern heritage, but I could never fully understood why people are prideful of confederate soldiers and generals who, if had succeeded, would have continued driving this country to its end as it was known of, thus changing our country as we know it today. Just a thought of mine.

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by Dotty19

I find the whole confederate thing intriguing. I have accepted the idea that (most) people who believe in the confederate flag see it as a badge of southern heritage, but I could never fully understood why people are prideful of confederate soldiers and generals who, if had succeeded, would have continued driving this country to its end as it was known of, thus changing our country as we know it today. Just a thought of mine.

Since we are playing counter-factual history, here is my 2 cents. If the North had just let the South go, and fought only to keep the Western Territories, the remaining USA would have gone on to become the world superpower it is today. The USA would have continued to attract new immigrants, would have continued to industrialize, and would have soon dwarfed the Confederacy in population and economy even more so than it did in 1860.

The South would have been left to its own devices and become a poor agarian state with a huge race problem. The North, with its small black population would have been in a much better position to grant equality to all citizens, the South would have soon imploded internally as the industrial revolution, and dropping world cottom prices would have left its slave based cotton economy worthless.

More than likely the USA would have reabsorbed the Confederacy politically, or at least economically.....if they even wanted to mess with the imploding hornets nest at all, and been in a great position to force the social change towards equality that it failed miserably at during Reconstruction after the Civil War since they would not being trying to mend the wounds of a horrific war, but bailing out a failed state desperate for a share of the weath the USA would have possessed.

[Dotty19]

That's actually a good point, but hey if that happened we probably wouldn't be here theorizing right now :P

[westsideboy]

I think I would be. All my ancestors except except one pair of Scots were already in Allegany County doing their thing in 1860. The Scots would have still probably come over in the 1880s to work in the mines and barring the "butterfly flapping its wings in the rainforest" effect, my personal history would be probably the same.