Why is Missouri so southern? (Kansas City, St. Louis: area, cities, required)

[m.melcher09]

Originally Posted by MimzyMusic

Is it because it was a slave state?

two words it's NOT absolutely NOT dont insult the south like that

[stl4man]

Originally Posted by Arundel

Is Mo. considered southern?
I was surprised to see an article in the "Southern Living" magazine recently, in which they listed Missouri as being 'southern.'
Arundel

Southern Living likes to include any state that was ever even slightly southern historically...they pay no attention to accuracy. Missouri may have some Southern leanings in several areas, but culturally, in speech patterns, in economy, Missouri is overall not a Southern state. Granted, the Ozarks may have a landscape that somewhat resembles Kentucky and Tennessee, but they are mere hills compared to the mountains in Kentucky and Tennessee, and for the most part, the culture and speech patterns are noticeably different from that of Kentucky and Tennessee. You will hear a slight Southern twang in these areas, but you can tell it's not a Southern accent. Missouri is definitely a Midwestern state, only as southern as Southern in most areas as Southern Illinois and Southern Indiana, which lean as Midwestern as they do Southern. The only truly Southern parts of Missouri are the far south central and southeastern parts (Sikeston west to Poplar Bluff). Springfield, Joplin, and Rolla are cultural mixtures, having an even mixture of Midwestern and Southern culture. St. Louis, Columbia, Jefferson City, and Kansas City, on the other hand, are solidly Midwestern cities.

[Hillman]

Originally Posted by Arundel

Missouri has a lot of southern genes.
I live in northeast Missouri, and have done a great deal of research. I learned that even this far north there were many southerners with slaves. Most of the slave owners had migrated from Kentucky. There was a great deal of trouble between the southern sympathizers and the Union sympathizers. There were even murders committed because of this.
One family, father and three sons joined the confederacy, the father was captured and imprisoned in St. Louis. After the war he was afraid to come back to Clark County, and settled in a nearby county. We had one township that had many slave owners in it, that had come from Jessamine Co., Ky.
I found it interesting that when researching the slave census for this county, I saw that one man listed a young negro woman slave, and her 8 (mulatto) children. No black men were listed. The question is who was the father of the mulatto children, it wasn't a black man obviously.
I believe my speech patterns are slightly southern.

Yes my family came from Kentucky settled in Moniteau County with their Slaves.Where several of their Family lives in that area and carries our name.

Several of my Family fought for the Confederacy under the Missouri Battle Flag along with 60,000 others.

I figure knowing so many from Missouri fought for a Southern way of life that people now days should have the courtesy to consider Missouri a part of the South as much as their ancesstors did along with Kentucky at the time.

I'm sorry but nothing gets the Hackels up anymore on the back of my Neck more than insulting my Southern Pride!

hillman

[kshe95girl]

My own people were divided, one of my direct ancestors fought for the Union, the other for the Confederacy.
I am sure that there are scores of families in Missouri with the same story, with many tragic consequences.
BTW, I have portraits of them both in uniform, hanging on the same wall........its a wonder they dont haunt me!

[stl4man]

Originally Posted by Hillman

Yes my family came from Kentucky settled in Moniteau County with their Slaves.Where several of their Family lives in that area and carries our name.

Several of my Family fought for the Confederacy under the Missouri Battle Flag along with 60,000 others.

I figure knowing so many from Missouri fought for a Southern way of life that people now days should have the courtesy to consider Missouri a part of the South as much as their ancesstors did along with Kentucky at the time.

I'm sorry but nothing gets the Hackels up anymore on the back of my Neck more than insulting my Southern Pride!

hillman

Missouri had over twice as many people fighting for the Union as for the Confederacy. Kentucky, unlike Missouri, actually economically required slavery in most of the state. While the extreme Southern parts of Missouri may legitimately be Southern, the rest of the state is not, with the Northern half being solidly Midwestern. Missouri is an overall state is more Midwestern than Southern, and not in the same category as Kentucky. St. Louis and Kansas City are solidly Midwestern cities, and in no way like any city in Kentucky. Even Joplin and Springfield I would say have too many Midwestern leanings to be considered part of the South. That said, I would not call them Midwestern either.

[stl4man]

Originally Posted by plowman

I agree with Arundel's post. My family and my wife's both came by way of MO before coming to SD. In both her family and mine we have a mixing of ancestors that came from the "midwest" i.e. Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio, and also from "southern" states, i.e. Virginia, North Carolina, Ky, and then MO.
We're three generations removed from MO, and yet my mother has a slight Missouri accent and she was born in SD. My wife's mother and aunts had very heavy MO accents. In fact, much of Gregory County SD have Missouri accents as a lot of people from northwestern MO moved to SD when the Rosebud strip was opened to settlement.

In fact, I sometimes get accused of having a Missouri accent myself. I think MO was kind of the crossroads of the old south and the "old " midwest.

Historically, that might be true. Nowadays, Missouri's Southern characteristics have been reduced to mere influences. Once you've visited all of the South, you will know that Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware are no longer a part of it. Missouri leans more Midwestern, Maryland and Delaware more Northeastern, and Kentucky more Southern. As far as a Missouri accent goes, there is no such thing. Looking at a dialect map will confirm this, although most of the state falls outside of the Southern dialect range.

[stl4man]

Originally Posted by rxpwas

Whoever this ajf31 is sounds like some pseudo-intellectual "know it all". Big boy, where do you get Missouri as being a "praire state"? To me, a praire area is like the plains to the west of Missouri, like Kansas or Nebraska, that is a sea of largely treeless grass, and, with the possible exception of the far western border areas of Missouri, sure don't look like no "Little House on the Prairie" to me (even Mansfiled, Mo., the home of Laura Ingalls Wilder, looks more like a place you would see in the Pennyroyal section of western or even south-central Kentucky or southern Indiana or some areas I've seen in Tennessee than places in Kansas that are closer to Mansfield than afore mentioned places are).

Yes, to you....isn't that saying something? Wow. To you...that must mean you have the accuracy of God. Have you ever heard of something called highland prairie? I think that is what ajf131 means when he is talking about the Ozarks. The Ozarks possess tallgrass prairie and dolomite glades, something common to most of the prairies. And the northern half of the state is DEFINITELY prairie. Illinois is considered a prairie state, and has a considerable amount of trees. I would say that you need to stop going with stereotypes as to what prairie is and isn't. Prairie exists in far greater variety than the kinds in Kansas and Nebraska. Highland prairie is a term you need to familiarize yourself with before passing judgment on others.

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by stl4man

Missouri had over twice as many people fighting for the Union as for the Confederacy.

Can you provide stats for that?
Because I do not think it is accurate.
Being a 12th generation Missourian (1699), with a lot of acquaintances, family and friends that have been in Missouri just as long that have kept meticulous family records, I have to cast doubt on that claim, as quite a lot of men traveled to other states to fight for the Rebs.
In my own family, it was pretty equally divided, and in other family genealogies also that I have read.
BTW....... rolls that were kept were NOT accurate.

[stl4man]

Originally Posted by kshe95girl

Can you provide stats for that?
Because I do not think it is accurate.
Being a 12th generation Missourian (1699), with a lot of acquaintances, family and friends that have been in Missouri just as long that have kept meticulous family records, I have to cast doubt on that claim, as quite a lot of men traveled to other states to fight for the Rebs.
In my own family, it was pretty equally divided, and in other family genealogies also that I have read.
BTW....... rolls that were kept were NOT accurate.

-
http://www.millersparanormalresearch..._Civil_War.htm

I can give you many more sources that will give similar statistics. It has been consistently estimated that the amount of men that fought for the Union was at least 100,000, and for the Confederacy around 50,000. If there was more than 50,000, there is no direct evidence to support it. Now, there was guerilla warfare all over the state, so I still give it credit for being significantly divided. However, most of the state was not interested in secession. The state convention was solidly pro-Union. What is also not spoken about is that Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio had many Southern sympathizers. These states, while not as divided as Missouri, had many of their citizens sympathize on both sides.

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by stl4man

-
Missouri and the Civil War

I can give you many more sources that will give similar statistics. It has been consistently estimated that the amount of men that fought for the Union was at least 100,000, and for the Confederacy around 50,000. If there was more than 50,000, there is no direct evidence to support it. Now, there was guerilla warfare all over the state, so I still give it credit for being significantly divided. However, most of the state was not interested in secession. The state convention was solidly pro-Union. What is also not spoken about is that Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio had many Southern sympathizers. These states, while not as divided as Missouri, had many of their citizens sympathize on both sides.

Thanks for the link.....I know too well about the guerrillas, as over a dozen of my family rode with Quantrill.
What I was getting at was the fact that some of those figures may be inaccurate, per the fact that soooooo many recruits went to Tn, Ky, and other states to enlist in the Confederacy.
Its a story that fascinates me, and I suppose we will never know the true answer.