Missouri...Southern or Midwestern? (Independence, Dixon: home, rent, lease)

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by rcvonbargen

I think the Mason-Dixon line where the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware border is concerned is incorrect today. I think that Delaware and Maryland belong in the Northeast and that the Mason-Dixon line should be modified

Novel idea, while you're at it maybe you would want to move the equator too.

I'm not moving the Mason-Dixon line at all as far as where the Ohio River is concerned. You're moving the equator by suggesting it is anything other than that. I was simply stating for the purposes that Maryland and Delaware certainly are not Southern states today that the Mason-Dixon should be moved. Now please....get a clue.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by rcvonbargen

I was saying "the east-west Mason-Dixon line is not a true line in the geometric sense, but is instead a series of many adjoining lines, following a path between latitude N 39º 43' 15" and N 39º 43' 23".....Cincinnati, St. Louis and Kansas City are SOUTH of that line. The latitude of that line is about the same latitude as Hannibal and St Jo...one of my points is that the Mason-Dixon Line is not the only determinant of what is North or South...but if it were, most of Missouri is SOUTH of that latitude. Yes, the boundary between North and South west of Pennsylvania was the Ohio River as far west as the Mississippi River. Then Missouri was admitted as a slave state...ALL of Missouri, and Missouri was a part of the Old South...slavery was common in the hemp growing areas along the Missouri River...St Louis was one of the largest slave markets in the United States. The 36 30 latitude only applied to future states admitted to the Union after Missouri...the abolitionists won the argument and were able to prohibit slavery north of the southern boundary of Missouri (not including the bootheel)...Have you read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn? Of course you will remember them going across the river from Hannibal where the people owned slaves to the free state of Illinois...Then you'll remember the Compromise of 1850 that declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional opening the territory of Kansas to slavery..."bleeding Kansas"... and all Missourians know what a Jayhawker is...they were abolitionists in Kansas who came over the Missouri line and burned Missouri slaveowners' property...then there was Dred Scott a Missouri slave who was ruled still a slave by the Supreme Court because even though he had lived in Illinois he was from the slave state Missouri...George Washington Carver was born a slave in Diamond Missouri...etc. etc. etc...so again, my point is, the Mason-Dixon divided North from South in the east...the division between North and South further west is another story and doesn't really have anything to do with the Mason-Dixon line, but just for the sake of the argument for those who think of Missouri as being north of the Southern states, Missouri is mostly in the same latitude as Virginia and Maryland, and whether somebody thinks of Maryland as northeast of Middle Atlantic (the Weather Channel calls Virginia the northeast!) it was part of the Old South and was just as segregated as the rest of the South until the 1950's etc...

Missouri is also at the same latitude as most of Indiana and Ohio and over 2/3 of Illinois, and around half of Missouri is north of Virginia. Most of Missouri was not as segregated as the rest of the South actually...you are very misinformed if you believe that . You seem determined to place Missouri in the South. Also, human beings were never sold again in St. Louis in 1861 I believe when a large antislavery mob drove the slave auctioneers away. Missouri is actually never listed as being a part of the Old South, only by you. And actually, when I read Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, Missouri was actually described as being a safer place than Arkansas or any place like that...it seemed like a state torn between two ideals. And Diamond, Missouri was where the Missouri Compromise line actually applied, that is located extremely far south in the state. Missouri also freed Dred Scott. A slave state is not a good argument for a state being Southern today or I think even then. The Mason-Dixon line from what I recall is the 36 degree 30 north latitude across Missouri, and it did prohibit slavery in Missouri north of that line. You are bending facts and grasping onto little things to prove your points. if you want to continue arguing i'm more than happy to. And the reason St. Louis was such a large slave market in the United States at that time was one...it was one of the largest cities in the United States at that time...and B....it was also in a slave state. Yes slavery was common in the hemp areas along the Missouri River, however it was not necessary...Missouri was not a state economically dependent on slavery...that is what groups it apart from the South. And slaves in Missouri were treated far more humanely than in other slave states. You can make these as arguments for being Southern or not Southern...I guess there are two ways to look at everything. Regardless, I don't think Missouri was ever a truly Southern state, and it CERTAINLY is not Southern today. I don't necessarily see being a slave state as being a Southern state. Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland are not Southern today. I finished this debate in my own mind a long time ago, so this discussion can be left to other people. I'm merely going to just play the role of topic-starter now.

[rcvonbargen]

There is a thing called a compass with cardinal points...east west north south....there is nothing in middle western that refers to north and south...Missouri is both middle western and southern...but that is not my point...I don't care what Missouri is...but the Ohio River is the Ohio River, it isn't the Mason-Dixon line...that is my point!!! Diamond Missouri is not south of 36 30 There were slaves all over Missouri...read the 1850 U.S. Census slave schedules...yes, you have more or less proved my point...latitude is not the real question of whether Missouri is northern or southern... much of Ohio Illinois and Indiana are in the same latitude as Virginia and Missouri...the Ohio River was the division between north and south there because slavery was prohibited in the Northwest Territiories...north of the Ohio River...again...the 36 30 ruling did not apply to Missouri...it was part of the Missouri Compromise that allowed slavery in all of Missouri but only south of Missouri's southern border for new states...

I don't care if Missouri is northern or southern but I do care about historical fact.

This is silly...goodbye...

[Northwoods Voyager]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Excuse me? Midwestern Living includes us in every issue of their magazine. Missouri is not a Southern state

I am merely adding my reduced two cents to this thread. Since there does seem to be a some question about being Southern or Midwestern maybe we should just refer to Missouri as being MidSouthern Perhaps that would satisfy all of us.

I like to think of Missouri as being Southern. But then again, that is just my personal preference and it has nothing to do with lines drawn anywhere. But I do agree with those that have done their research and use the Mason Dixon line to establish Missouri as a Southern state

[Plains10]

Originally Posted by Northwoods Voyager

I am merely adding my reduced two cents to this thread. Since there does seem to be a some question about being Southern or Midwestern maybe we should just refer to Missouri as being MidSouthern Perhaps that would satisfy all of us.

I like to think of Missouri as being Southern. But then again, that is just my personal preference and it has nothing to do with lines drawn anywhere. But I do agree with those that have done their research and use the Mason Dixon line to establish Missouri as a Southern state

Maybe all locations in the US north of 45N latitude should be called Canadian as well!

[Northwoods Voyager]

Originally Posted by Plains10

Maybe all locations in the US north of 45N latitude should be called Canadian as well!

Awwww, now ya went and did it...Just when I though I had 'solved' the debate, ya go and add another dimension

Would this mean free health care if I go just a little bit NORTH?

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by rcvonbargen

There is a thing called a compass with cardinal points...east west north south....there is nothing in middle western that refers to north and south...Missouri is both middle western and southern...but that is not my point...I don't care what Missouri is...but the Ohio River is the Ohio River, it isn't the Mason-Dixon line...that is my point!!! Diamond Missouri is not south of 36 30 There were slaves all over Missouri...read the 1850 U.S. Census slave schedules...yes, you have more or less proved my point...latitude is not the real question of whether Missouri is northern or southern... much of Ohio Illinois and Indiana are in the same latitude as Virginia and Missouri...the Ohio River was the division between north and south there because slavery was prohibited in the Northwest Territiories...north of the Ohio River...again...the 36 30 ruling did not apply to Missouri...it was part of the Missouri Compromise that allowed slavery in all of Missouri but only south of Missouri's southern border for new states...

I don't care if Missouri is northern or southern but I do care about historical fact.

This is silly...goodbye...

If you think that it makes sense to place modern Missouri in the mid-South with Kentucky and Arkansas I can tell you for certain that you are wrong to do such a thing. If that in fact was the Mason-Dixon line, it seems pretty sketchy to extend it 200-300 miles due north from the Ohio River, due west 200 miles, and then due south another 300 miles and simply claim that Missouri is not the Midwest. It's pretty much taken for granted that the Southern culture would continue to be around the line where the Ohio River ended...it certainly is the case today. This should not be used as an argument to claim modern Missouri is the mid-South, which it is not according to the U.S. Census Bureau. I'm going to back my statements up with sources unlike some people.

[MOHIllbillyWoman]

OK now, be cool. We don't need to get mad at each other. Missouri has always been known as a half & half state anyway when it comes to being southern.

[Plains10]

Originally Posted by Northwoods Voyager

Awwww, now ya went and did it...Just when I though I had 'solved' the debate, ya go and add another dimension

Would this mean free health care if I go just a little bit NORTH?

Eh, Maybe Minnesota? They could go to Ontario for Health care via Thunder Bay Minnesota does have that certain Canadian element including the landscape and political leanings as well.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by MOHIllbillyWoman

OK now, be cool. We don't need to get mad at each other. Missouri has always been known as a half & half state anyway when it comes to being southern.

Maybe according to you. According to a recent survey conducted by the University of North Carolina which has been ongoing for almost two decades...23% of Missourians considered their communities Southern, while 15% identified as Southerners. 77% considered their communities Midwestern, 85% considered themselves Midwesterners. This was also out of a sampling of around 200 people from all over the state of all ages. Does this sound like a half-and-half state to you? Also, the Missouri Compromise originally did establish that slavery not be allowed in Missouri above the 36 degree 30 north line. It was later modified I believe, but regardless of when, the Mason-Dixon line nevertheless has long been accepted as being 36 degrees 30 north across missouri by many, and in fact, climatalogical patterns, culture, and dialect seem to agree with points at or near this location (37 degrees north to 36 degrees 30 is a very small difference in latitude). In fact, most of Missouri is agriculturally Midwestern and its economy never depended on slavery. Kentucky, by contrast, was and still is very agriculturally Southern and its economy did rely significantly on slavery. Normally I find most maps after the Civil War placing most or all of Missouri above the Mason-Dixon, which IMO makes MUCH more sense than placing most of it below. The real Mason-Dixon IMO is told by speech patterns, ancestry, etc....it makes a lot more sense to just place it horizontally across Missouri anyway. If Missouri is more like Kentucky than Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio I'll be damned is all I have to say. The most modern definition of the Mason Dixon line I'd have to say would generally be areas along and below U.S. Highway 60 basically starting at the Ohio River and heading due west. Missouri below this latitude always seemed to me to be like a totally foreign state compared to the areas above it. most sources generally seem to verify this as well...dialect-boundaries as well as places where the culture, agriculture, and climate become much more Southern all pretty much approximate this area as the true "mason-dixon." Anyone who would argue for the Missouri-Iowa border being the real definiton today IMO is 200 years behind. I still think of most of Missouri as the "Midwest." Midsouth is for areas around and below U.S. 60.