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 5,064,143 times
Reputation: 1028
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbored198824
Sorry but metro areas aren't the CITY themselves. I live 45 minutes south of Springfield in Branson, yet I don't claim to be from Springfield.
Sorry, but you still lose. Metro areas represent the most critical spheres of influence, and to hell with city limits...you choose to define cities by their political city limits...they remain urban and very continuous far outside of those. I grew up very close to the city limits in St. Louis County...if you think St. Louis stops being urban at its city limits, or that its sphere of influence ends there, you are badly mistaken.
St. Charles County, St. Louis County, Franklin County, and JEfferson County are all HEAVILY influenced by St. Louis. And technically including more counties in its metro area expands that list to Warren County and Clinton County.
Jackson County, Clay County, Ray County, Platte County, Lafayette County, Cass County, Clinton County, and Johnson County are all heavily influenced by Kansas City. All of these counties together comprise at 3 million people.
You are now down to your last line of defense. I suggest you surrender. Southern Missouri just cannot put up the numbers to match the counties that St. Louis and Kansas City have influence over. And good god...St. Louis and Kansas City are MUCH larger than Springfield. Metro areas define cities, not city limits. You guys in Southern Missouri are just SOOOOO conservative that you think city limits define cities.
Last edited by stlouisan; 05-29-2013 at 08:49 PM..
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,064,143 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbored198824
I agree with you. I am NOT fighting saying that Missouri is completely southern. It just seems many posters on here are so against the southern culture that we have. It is annoying that they try to completely disregard the part of the state that I am from, and say that Stl and KC ARE Missouri. They don't seem to understand that large portions of Missouri in no way identify with those two cities.
I wouldn't call it large portions...only a quarter of the state is not a large portion. It's not being disregarded. It is simply being looked at as being a minority of the state. And it doesn't mean Missouri shouldn't still be grouped in the Midwest. Missouri is more Midwestern than it is Southern. Therefore, it should be included in the Midwest. Whatever...you think city limits are all that matter. You're trying to shrink KC and STL to be on similar sizes to Springfield so your argument sticks better.
I wouldn't call it large portions...only a quarter of the state is not a large portion. It's not being disregarded. It is simply being looked at as being a minority of the state. And it doesn't mean Missouri shouldn't still be grouped in the Midwest. Missouri is more Midwestern than it is Southern. Therefore, it should be included in the Midwest. Whatever...you think city limits are all that matter. You're trying to shrink KC and STL to be on similar sizes to Springfield so your argument sticks better.
I personally think Missouri should give Kansas City to Kansas, and St. Louis to Illinois. Both of the cities are on the border, anyways. They don't represent Missouri very well. Missouri is a southern state You will never be able to remove our star from the confederate flag, you can cry all you want....but at the end of the day we have the star on that flag.
I personally think Missouri should give Kansas City to Kansas, and St. Louis to Illinois. Both of the cities are on the border, anyways. They don't represent Missouri very well. Missouri is a southern state You will never be able to remove our star from the confederate flag, you can cry all you want....but at the end of the day we have the star on that flag.
Give Stl City limits to IL is fine with me. MO can keep KC. KC seems a bit more cleaner and modernized than St. Louis.
St. Louis city sucks up tax money. Most of the people who live in Stl county don't want the city to ever merge with the county and know it's a money pit if that happened as it would drag the entire county down with it.
The city limits the infrastructure is falling apart and crime ridden.
When I drive into the city I see many sections with the brick buildings falling apart, windows broken and boarded up. Some parts of the city remind me of the aftermath of the Battle or Berlin.
Obviously you haven't been in STL lately. It is coming up in spite of the economic collapse, it is a life sciences powerhouse, building major cred in the tech startup world, and with every building rehab and every neighborhood that is transformed from derilict to destination, an increasingly great city.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,064,143 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbored198824
I personally think Missouri should give Kansas City to Kansas, and St. Louis to Illinois. Both of the cities are on the border, anyways. They don't represent Missouri very well. Missouri is a southern state You will never be able to remove our star from the confederate flag, you can cry all you want....but at the end of the day we have the star on that flag.
I think you just personally want those cities out of the way so your region can be a better representative. Your part of Missouri is no more like the rest of outstate Missouri than St. Louis or KAnsas City. Missouri is not a Southern state, and it's not just because of St. Louis and Kansas City. The northern half of the state is the Midwest. The upper quarter of the southern half of the state is transition. Then there is your quarter, which is Southern. This is really getting redundant and I'm tired of your games. Have fun playing it with someone else. Missouri is a Midwestern state with Southern influences. And that so-called star Missouri has on that flag was as a result of a rump secession...we still sent far more men to the Union than to the Confederacy. You can cry all you want in protest but it's true. And I'm done.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,064,143 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSouthernMan
Give Stl City limits to IL is fine with me. MO can keep KC. KC seems a bit more cleaner and modernized than St. Louis.
St. Louis city sucks up tax money. Most of the people who live in Stl county don't want the city to ever merge with the county and know it's a money pit if that happened as it would drag the entire county down with it.
The city limits the infrastructure is falling apart and crime ridden.
When I drive into the city I see many sections with the brick buildings falling apart, windows broken and boarded up. Some parts of the city remind me of the aftermath of the Battle or Berlin.
But STL city limits are not in Illinois. They are in Missouri.
I think you just personally want those cities out of the way so your region can be a better representative. Your part of Missouri is no more like the rest of outstate Missouri than St. Louis or KAnsas City. Missouri is not a Southern state, and it's not just because of St. Louis and Kansas City. The northern half of the state is the Midwest. The upper quarter of the southern half of the state is transition. Then there is your quarter, which is Southern. This is really getting redundant and I'm tired of your games. Have fun playing it with someone else. Missouri is a Midwestern state with Southern influences. And that so-called star Missouri has on that flag was as a result of a rump secession...we still sent far more men to the Union than to the Confederacy. You can cry all you want in protest but it's true. And I'm done.
I would like the point out a good number of soldiers that were called Missouri soldiers came from nearby states like WI, IA, IL, KS and they were put into units and labled Missouri units. However records of course are very sparse from back then so there is no way of knowing.
Missouri's overall Union force including those men brought in from other states total around 110,000 men or so. Confederate records very but the number of Missouri Confederate were near the 60,000 range. That also doesn't include the Pro Confederate Missouri state guard. Some of those men didn't go join Confederate units.
If you takeout those carpet bagger soldiers who were shipped in from other states I think the overall numbers would be fairly split around 50/50.
DURING the Civil War Missouri overall was more Pro Confederate than KY was. Missouri actually had a decent shot at seceding. KY lawmakers were all pro union and their governor while felt sorry for the south he really just wanted to state neutral unlike our Governor who was full fledge for secession.
However you need to also note that the constitutional convention had NO authority to expel our lawmakers. That was not within their authority. The "rump" session there are too many legality questions and shoddy records.
MO was very near seceding compared to KY. IF General Lyon didn't invade as fast and put our governor and lawmakers on the run I think they would have organized something and somehow officially got Missouri out of the union.
my history book in my history class two years ago even touched on this and General Lyon invading so fast that our governor was put on the run.
The largest deciding factor was probably the Battle of Pea Ridge. If Price would have won that Battle it would have opened the flood gates for the Confederates to get men into the state and secure it. Many consider the Pea Ridge battle the deciding factor in keeping MO in Union control.
The lawmakers themselves would have just voted themselves on it like Maryland's was possibly going to do.
Either way I think if events were slightly different Missouri's government would have organized somekind of secession voted and declared MO out of the Union.
HOWEVER it would have been mostly on paper. Like Tennessee for example while yes they seceded it didn't last long before the Union took the state over. One problem with TN is that eastern TN was really pro union.
I think something similar would happen in MO. Like in WV I could have seen parts of Eastern MO including the St. Louis area forming their own territory like WV since the Stl metro area was the most pro union area in MO from Perry CO up into St. Charles and westward covering the Rhineland along the MO river.
So if things ended in more favor of Missouri's Claiborne Jackson I certainly think they would have organized something to be considered a Confederate state, but it wouldn't have lasted very long.
The main thing that I could see out of it is that Missouri would have suffered under Federal Level reconstruction and after that I could see Missouri being more heavily Democrat up until the 1960s and maybe a bit more of a player during the Civil Rights era and maybe Missouri would been called a southern state more in the textbooks and by the government and that if they had a more legit secession.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,064,143 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoSouthernMan
I would like the point out a good number of soldiers that were called Missouri soldiers came from nearby states like WI, IA, IL, KS and they were put into units and labled Missouri units. However records of course are very sparse from back then so there is no way of knowing.
Missouri's overall Union force including those men brought in from other states total around 110,000 men or so. Confederate records very but the number of Missouri Confederate were near the 60,000 range. That also doesn't include the Pro Confederate Missouri state guard. Some of those men didn't go join Confederate units.
If you takeout those carpet bagger soldiers who were shipped in from other states I think the overall numbers would be fairly split around 50/50.
DURING the Civil War Missouri overall was more Pro Confederate than KY was. Missouri actually had a decent shot at seceding. KY lawmakers were all pro union and their governor while felt sorry for the south he really just wanted to state neutral unlike our Governor who was full fledge for secession.
However you need to also note that the constitutional convention had NO authority to expel our lawmakers. That was not within their authority. The "rump" session there are too many legality questions and shoddy records.
MO was very near seceding compared to KY. IF General Lyon didn't invade as fast and put our governor and lawmakers on the run I think they would have organized something and somehow officially got Missouri out of the union.
my history book in my history class two years ago even touched on this and General Lyon invading so fast that our governor was put on the run.
The largest deciding factor was probably the Battle of Pea Ridge. If Price would have won that Battle it would have opened the flood gates for the Confederates to get men into the state and secure it. Many consider the Pea Ridge battle the deciding factor in keeping MO in Union control.
The lawmakers themselves would have just voted themselves on it like Maryland's was possibly going to do.
Either way I think if events were slightly different Missouri's government would have organized somekind of secession voted and declared MO out of the Union.
HOWEVER it would have been mostly on paper. Like Tennessee for example while yes they seceded it didn't last long before the Union took the state over. One problem with TN is that eastern TN was really pro union.
I think something similar would happen in MO. Like in WV I could have seen parts of Eastern MO including the St. Louis area forming their own territory like WV since the Stl metro area was the most pro union area in MO from Perry CO up into St. Charles and westward covering the Rhineland along the MO river.
So if things ended in more favor of Missouri's Claiborne Jackson I certainly think they would have organized something to be considered a Confederate state, but it wouldn't have lasted very long.
The main thing that I could see out of it is that Missouri would have suffered under Federal Level reconstruction and after that I could see Missouri being more heavily Democrat up until the 1960s and maybe a bit more of a player during the Civil Rights era and maybe Missouri would been called a southern state more in the textbooks and by the government and that if they had a more legit secession.
alright claiborne, calm down. 100000 actual missourians volunteered for the union. And stl city is a part of missouri, so deal with it. All you hAve to go with is speculation. Missouri may have had help from outside states, but it still sent more of its own men to the union than to the confederacy.
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.