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.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,064,668 times
Reputation: 1028
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by onegoalstl
The state lawmakers were conditional unionist. Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia at first rejected secession as well. Virginia actually took some work to get it to seceede as at first there wasn't a overwhelming support for secession.
Missouri's lawmakers were the complete opposite of Kentucky's. Most of Kentucky's lawmakers were strongly pro union. Even their governor who was stubburn on the lawmakers being pro union, even he vowed to remain neutral. While Claiborne Jackson was strongly pro Confederate as we saw.
The newspapers did report there was a quorom present for both houses in Neosho but not all the records have been found.
Quit telling me stuff I don't know. None of this really matters today, because Kentucky got more Southern after the Civil War, while Missouri lost so much Southerness to the point it now identifies with the Midwest overall.
Quit telling me stuff I don't know. None of this really matters today, because Kentucky got more Southern after the Civil War, while Missouri lost so much Southerness to the point it now identifies with the Midwest overall.
The Drake constitution is a big factor in it. A lot of Missouri Confederates moved to Kentucky because of it. They couldn't practice law, vote, practice medicine ect. So they moved to KY because they did not have any reconstruction at the state level. Hency why KY became more southern.
In 1877 the Drake Constitution got thrown out and a new one made. Some ex Confederates then gained officer such as Governor Marmaduke.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,064,668 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by onegoalstl
The Drake constitution is a big factor in it. A lot of Missouri Confederates moved to Kentucky because of it. They couldn't practice law, vote, practice medicine ect. So they moved to KY because they did not have any reconstruction at the state level. Hency why KY became more southern.
In 1877 the Drake Constitution got thrown out and a new one made. Some ex Confederates then gained officer such as Governor Marmaduke.
I'd like to see an actual source saying that tons and tons of Missouri Confederates moved to Kentucky. Most of them either stayed where they were or returned to Missouri. Most of Kentucky's Confederates were native, and much of Kentucky's actual citizens were far more hostile towards the Union. Unlike most of Missouri, slavery was an economical necessity in most of the state, as the traditionally Southern crops thrived there. Little Dixie's crops went from cotton, hemp, and tobacco to corn, wheat, and soybeans. Kentucky also made sure blacks never got the right to vote. Governor Marmaduke's family also was heavily split...Marmaduke's father was staunchly pro-Union. Most of Missouri's Confederates grew up in other states, including, i might add, Claiborne Jackson, who was from Kentucky. The Russellville Convention also had 63 Kentucky counties present. So actually, to say Missouri was any more pro-Confederate than Kentucky may be stretching it. And obviously, if those Missouri Confederates (most of whom actually hailed from other states due to the state's short existence up to that time) went to Kentucky, it must have been clear to them that Kentucky clearly wanted to be a part of the South, whereas Missouri no longer identified with it.
Kentucky did NOT have a voting poll tax or literacy tests in order to vote. West Virginia, and Maryland also did not have one.
The Russelville convention was tons more unofficial than Missouri's ELECTED officials ordianance in Neosho. All it was was a bunch of pro Confederate Kentuckian's who had their own vote.
Missouri however very nearly passed a poll tax in 1908.
There is a reason why you don't hear much about West Virginia, Kentucky, or Missouri during the civil rights era and that was because blacks could vote in state and federal elections. Now I do know in MO some local elections I've seen did have their own kind of poll tax in rural areas to keep poor and negroes away.
If Missouri and Kentucky had poll taxes, their names would have came up in the civil rights movement a lot more.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,064,668 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by onegoalstl
Wrong.
Kentucky did NOT have a voting poll tax or literacy tests in order to vote. West Virginia, and Maryland also did not have one.
The Russelville convention was tons more unofficial than Missouri's ELECTED officials ordianance in Neosho. All it was was a bunch of pro Confederate Kentuckian's who had their own vote.
Missouri however very nearly passed a poll tax in 1908.
There is a reason why you don't hear much about West Virginia, Kentucky, or Missouri during the civil rights era and that was because blacks could vote in state and federal elections. Now I do know in MO some local elections I've seen did have their own kind of poll tax in rural areas to keep poor and negroes away.
If Missouri and Kentucky had poll taxes, their names would have came up in the civil rights movement a lot more.
I'd like to see your sources on that, because as I'm aware, Missouri was one of the only border states during the Civil War, if not the only, where blacks never lost the right to vote at anytime after the Civil War. The Russellville Convention, however unofficial, was very well attended. And the Missouri secession was really just a bunch of pro-Confederate Missourians, regardless if they were state government or not...they still had no right to pass a bill of secession because the state convention rejected it. What kind of local elections have you seen that passed a poll tax to keep Negroes away? It sounds pretty unbelievable that you would have seen those. Kentucky's treatment of blacks, even West Virginia's, far surpassed Missouri's in terms of cruelty. Missouri only ever legally segregated blacks in schools..and that was already beginning to go away in much of the state, especially in St. Louis, well before Brown vs. Board. Kentucky and West Virginia legally segregated blacks in schools, buses, virtually every public facility, etc. Missouri also gained black population during the Great Migration, as did Maryland and Delaware. Kentucky lost a substantial amount of black population. I'm not sure if West Virginia every really had a large black population.
I'd like to see your sources on that, because as I'm aware, Missouri was one of the only border states during the Civil War, if not the only, where blacks never lost the right to vote at anytime after the Civil War. The Russellville Convention, however unofficial, was very well attended. And the Missouri secession was really just a bunch of pro-Confederate Missourians, regardless if they were state government or not...they still had no right to pass a bill of secession because the state convention rejected it. What kind of local elections have you seen that passed a poll tax to keep Negroes away? It sounds pretty unbelievable that you would have seen those. Kentucky's treatment of blacks, even West Virginia's, far surpassed Missouri's in terms of cruelty. Missouri only ever legally segregated blacks in schools..and that was already beginning to go away in much of the state, especially in St. Louis, well before Brown vs. Board. Kentucky and West Virginia legally segregated blacks in schools, buses, virtually every public facility, etc. Missouri also gained black population during the Great Migration, as did Maryland and Delaware. Kentucky lost a substantial amount of black population. I'm not sure if West Virginia every really had a large black population.
It didn't happen a lot, but I read in the past a few of the rural counties did it. Btw came across this on Ebay from Wayne County.
FYI that voting ID thing our lawmakers passed a few years back that the court shot down, the Mo Supreme Court considered that a "poll tax" I disagree though. It only keeps dead people from voting.
FYI St. Louis Public schools were segregated. However when the Supreme Court ruled on it, the city schools desegregated without any problems. There was even a story on PBS on it. KSHE has seen it too.
Yea Stl gained population because of the factories in WWII. Actually Louisville got many blacks FYI because of their factories as well.
Southern Missouri lost many of its black population. Most of them moved north, or moved to St. Louis.
Look at Springfield MO. They lost most of their black population after lynchings in the early 1900s. Southeast MO while has a lot of blacks left over from the plantation era also lost some due to racisim and a couple lynchings.
Even to this day I see countless blacks b**ching about the Ozarks, Springfield MO claiming it's racist. Same thing with the bootheel and Kennett Missouri after that black girl was arrested for going nuts in wallmart they all claim they have been oppressed in Kennett for years.
It doesn't really have anything to do to racisim. IMO it's because people in southern Missouri are hard working, and wont don't like peopel causing trouble, or are lazy and only want gov handouts like a lot in St. Louis do.
There is a website I think its named "ozark apathy" that has tons of quotes claiming minorities are oppressed in the Ozarks, and that the state of MO government is racist. All a bunch of BS.
edit here is the link.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,064,668 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by onegoalstl
It didn't happen a lot, but I read in the past a few of the rural counties did it. Btw came across this on Ebay from Wayne County.
FYI that voting ID thing our lawmakers passed a few years back that the court shot down, the Mo Supreme Court considered that a "poll tax" I disagree though. It only keeps dead people from voting.
FYI St. Louis Public schools were segregated. However when the Supreme Court ruled on it, the city schools desegregated without any problems. There was even a story on PBS on it. KSHE has seen it too.
Yea Stl gained population because of the factories in WWII. Actually Louisville got many blacks FYI because of their factories as well.
Southern Missouri lost many of its black population. Most of them moved north, or moved to St. Louis.
Look at Springfield MO. They lost most of their black population after lynchings in the early 1900s. Southeast MO while has a lot of blacks left over from the plantation era also lost some due to racisim and a couple lynchings.
Even to this day I see countless blacks b**ching about the Ozarks, Springfield MO claiming it's racist. Same thing with the bootheel and Kennett Missouri after that black girl was arrested for going nuts in wallmart they all claim they have been oppressed in Kennett for years.
It doesn't really have anything to do to racisim. IMO it's because people in southern Missouri are hard working, and wont don't like peopel causing trouble, or are lazy and only want gov handouts like a lot in St. Louis do.
There is a website I think its named "ozark apathy" that has tons of quotes claiming minorities are oppressed in the Ozarks, and that the state of MO government is racist. All a bunch of BS.
edit here is the link.
Lynchings happened in Omaha, in Springfield, Illinois, practically everywhere. Also, all rural areas lost black population, not just Southern Missouri. Yes, St. Louis public schools were segregated, did I not just say that Missouri legally segregated their schools? However, Indiana had public school segregation. Indianapolis is a primary example of this. Louisville also lost many blacks in the Great Migration as it gained...it wasn't nearly as large, industrial, and prosperous as STL. it also gained in black population during the Reverse Migration and is a part of the New South beyond question. Not so with St. Louis. The only parts of Missouri that could be considered part of the New South might be Springfield and Branson, to a degree, definitely Branson. I'm not speaking for SEMO...I don't deny that part of the state had strong hatred towards blacks. St. Louis was already in the process of desegregating its schools before Brown vs. Board...many of the Catholic schools, including Wash U. and SLU as I recall were already admitting black students in the early 1950's.
Lynchings happened in Omaha, in Springfield, Illinois, practically everywhere. Also, all rural areas lost black population, not just Southern Missouri. Yes, St. Louis public schools were segregated, did I not just say that Missouri legally segregated their schools? However, Indiana had public school segregation. Indianapolis is a primary example of this. Louisville also lost many blacks in the Great Migration as it gained...it wasn't nearly as large, industrial, and prosperous as STL. it also gained in black population during the Reverse Migration and is a part of the New South beyond question. Not so with St. Louis. The only parts of Missouri that could be considered part of the New South might be Springfield and Branson, to a degree, definitely Branson. I'm not speaking for SEMO...I don't deny that part of the state had strong hatred towards blacks. St. Louis was already in the process of desegregating its schools before Brown vs. Board...many of the Catholic schools, including Wash U. and SLU as I recall were already admitting black students in the early 1950's.
That is true the Catholic Schools in many states desegregated before the Supreme Court decision.
Again you don't see a lot of African American Catholics, so segregation in Catholic School did not attact the attention like the Public Schools did.
West Virginia, Maryland, Missouri, KY, Virgina, Oklahoma for the most were able to desegregated without a lot of resistance. There is a TIME magazine article from the 1950s on it too I'll dig up sometime showing the precent of schools desegregating and resisting. It did note Missouri, SE MO schools resisting it though.
Most of the desegregation problems occured in the deep south states like MS, AL, GA, SC. Arkansas was because of Orval Faubus. He was a liberal governor, but only because he was worried by votes, at the last minute he decided to send troops in the block the black girls from attending class and put up the resistance to the federal government.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,064,668 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by onegoalstl
That is true the Catholic Schools in many states desegregated before the Supreme Court decision.
Again you don't see a lot of African American Catholics, so segregation in Catholic School did not attact the attention like the Public Schools did.
West Virginia, Maryland, Missouri, KY, Virgina, Oklahoma for the most were able to desegregated without a lot of resistance. There is a TIME magazine article from the 1950s on it too I'll dig up sometime showing the precent of schools desegregating and resisting. It did note Missouri, SE MO schools resisting it though.
Most of the desegregation problems occured in the deep south states like MS, AL, GA, SC. Arkansas was because of Orval Faubus. He was a liberal governor, but only because he was worried by votes, at the last minute he decided to send troops in the block the black girls from attending class and put up the resistance to the federal government.
I have yet to find an article that says Catholic schools in states with legally mandated segregation besides the ones in Missouri (which did not legally discriminate nearly to the extent of the rest of the states you are talking about) desegregating prior to Jim Crow. Certainly in Louisiana none of that was happening. In Maryland it's possible that that happened because that state really had more Northeastern leanings as time progressed, and Washington D.C. was there. You basically are contradicting yourself when you say Missouri is a border state today. You acknowledged 50% of it is Midwestern, 25% of it is undecided, and 25% of it was southern. That's describing a state that leans more towards the Midwest. If you want to revise that to meet the definition, I suggest killing the transition area altogether, although to do that would be to make a heavily false statement. There are definitely parts of Illinois and Indiana, Ohio and the Great Plains states that can be classified as southern (in the case of Kansas) or not being a part of thE Midwest at all. Little Egypt, especially around Carbondale and Marion, has heavy Southern leanings and is nothing like the rest of Illinois...that area was pro-secessionist. I would classify all those states, as well as Kansas, as having Southern influences of maybe 10%. Not as much as Missouri, but 25% is not substantially greater. Very few states fit perfectly into one region, but the fit is sufficient enough that we can say that if 50% of it leans one way, 25% of it is split, and 25% of it leans the other way, we've basically declared the 50% side the winner in classifications. If we had to decide presidential elections based on your criteria nobody would win.
Last edited by stlouisan; 10-18-2011 at 03:59 PM..
Lynchings happened in Omaha, in Springfield, Illinois, practically everywhere. Also, all rural areas lost black population, not just Southern Missouri. Yes, St. Louis public schools were segregated, did I not just say that Missouri legally segregated their schools? However, Indiana had public school segregation. Indianapolis is a primary example of this. Louisville also lost many blacks in the Great Migration as it gained...it wasn't nearly as large, industrial, and prosperous as STL. it also gained in black population during the Reverse Migration and is a part of the New South beyond question. Not so with St. Louis. The only parts of Missouri that could be considered part of the New South might be Springfield and Branson, to a degree, definitely Branson. I'm not speaking for SEMO...I don't deny that part of the state had strong hatred towards blacks. St. Louis was already in the process of desegregating its schools before Brown vs. Board...many of the Catholic schools, including Wash U. and SLU as I recall were already admitting black students in the early 1950's.
I can see Springfield being part of the new South because them and especially Branson have been growing.
I don't think Cape Girardeau would be considered it because it really hasn't grown than much. SE MO probably could be considered Old South still. Cotton is still King down there and just doesn't seem as modernized or vibrant.
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.
And obviously, if those Missouri Confederates (most of whom actually hailed from other states due to the state's short existence up to that time) went to Kentucky, it must have been clear to them that Kentucky clearly wanted to be a part of the South, whereas Missouri no longer identified with it.
