Missouri...Southern or Midwestern? (St. Louis, Springfield: architectural, rating, baptist)

[Northwoods Voyager]

OK...My paternal great-grandparents are from the Southern states. They settled in St. Louis in the Late 1800's. They migrated from Virginia, through Kentucky and Tennessee.

Many of the residents of St. Louis at that point in time, did come from the 'south'. They brought with them speech patterns, manners, social customs, and so much more that identified them as being 'southern'. Granted, as many came from the upper eastern states also. North -South? I choose neither, I am what I am..a Midwestern Southerner or a Southern Midesterner. Take your pick.

A person cannot nor should not base their 'arguments' on slavery as a defining factor. Slavery did in fact exist in many states that are considered Northern. So, in all honesty, I cannot look upon this as a reasonable definition of North or South.

History books have changed in their content over the last 50 - 60 years to the point of either eliminating or 'changing' facts to better suit the modern scholar/reader. And, I believe, to appease the reader and not risk offending anyone, by eliminating factual accounts or somewhat shading events. Therefore, even history cannot be looked upon as a final source in some debates.

Your opening post asked for opinions. You have emphatically stated yours and others, including myself, have responded with our personal viewpoints, either based on our own interpretaion of 'facts' or on our upbringing and family history. There is NO one definite 'answer' to this thread. Nor can there ever be!. Opinions were asked for and received. And so shall they remain: opinions. Y'all have to excuse for now, as I have to get back to work for awhile. Y'all come back now, ya hear? And have a good day. Bye fer now

[florida southerner 3]

Originally Posted by Northwoods Voyager

OK...My paternal great-grandparents are from the Southern states. They settled in St. Louis in the Late 1800's. They migrated from Virginia, through Kentucky and Tennessee.

Many of the residents of St. Louis at that point in time, did come from the 'south'. They brought with them speech patterns, manners, social customs, and so much more that identified them as being 'southern'. Granted, as many came from the upper eastern states also. North -South? I choose neither, I am what I am..a Midwestern Southerner or a Southern Midesterner. Take your pick.

A person cannot nor should not base their 'arguments' on slavery as a defining factor. Slavery did in fact exist in many states that are considered Northern. So, in all honesty, I cannot look upon this as a reasonable definition of North or South.

History books have changed in their content over the last 50 - 60 years to the point of either eliminating or 'changing' facts to better suit the modern scholar/reader. And, I believe, to appease the reader and not risk offending anyone, by eliminating factual accounts or somewhat shading events. Therefore, even history cannot be looked upon as a final source in some debates.

Your opening post asked for opinions. You have emphatically stated yours and others, including myself, have responded with our personal viewpoints, either based on our own interpretaion of 'facts' or on our upbringing and family history. There is NO one definite 'answer' to this thread. Nor can there ever be!. Opinions were asked for and received. And so shall they remain: opinions. Y'all have to excuse for now, as I have to get back to work for awhile. Y'all come back now, ya hear? And have a good day. Bye fer now

I realize that slavery did indeed exist in Northern states. It wasn't just a Southern thing. However, slavery started to die down the more north you went. I was using slave vs. free states to explain a pattern, not to free the North of any historical connection with slavery. My point was that in the states deemed slave states as opposed to the free states, was that Missouri's extent of slavery, though less than states further South, was still a lot higher than in Northern states. The slave vs. free was more of an officiality or a claim than a true account.

[florida southerner 3]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Missouri is not below the Mason-Dixon line. The Ohio River is the Mason-Dixon line, and Missouri is almost completely north of where the Ohio touches it. More or less sided with the South? Really? Explain why twice as many people supported the Union in this state then if it supported the South. You cannot minimize the Northern culture in Missouri at all. It more less completely dominates the Northern half of the state and exists in most of Southern Missouri. Southern culture, on the other hand, is generally confined to the extreme southern portions of the state, like Sikeston, Poplar Bluff, Cape Girardeau, and Springfield.

Actually, yes it is below the Mason-Dixon. If you want the real truth of the Mason-Dixon it was an imaginary line surveyed by Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon in the mid 1700s to settle a property dispute on the Pennsylvania-Maryland border. It originally had nothing to do with North vs. South, slave vs. free, or Yankee vs. Rebel. It was a simple property dispute solution. However, as time went on, this imaginary line grew in length until it became "the official" boundary between the North and South, the slave and free states. I know the North had slaves as well, but it was dying out there due to developing industry while becoming more entrenched in the South due to growing agriculture. Missouri, an official slave state was below this Mason-Dixon Line. The Ohio River is not the complete Line and cannont be used as such in it's entirety. There's other factors that have to be taken into consideration as well. I'm willing to agree that Missouri is not a total Southern state, but neither is it a total Northern state. It's a Border state. It can swing both ways depending on the circumstances. Missouri, along with Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware are all below the Mason-Dixon. They are all Border states, neither Southern nor Northern, yet clearly both. Maybe that clarifies it a bit.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by florida southerner 3

Actually, yes it is below the Mason-Dixon. If you want the real truth of the Mason-Dixon it was an imaginary line surveyed by Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon in the mid 1700s to settle a property dispute on the Pennsylvania-Maryland border. It originally had nothing to do with North vs. South, slave vs. free, or Yankee vs. Rebel. It was a simple property dispute solution. However, as time went on, this imaginary line grew in length until it became "the official" boundary between the North and South, the slave and free states. I know the North had slaves as well, but it was dying out there due to developing industry while becoming more entrenched in the South due to growing agriculture. Missouri, an official slave state was below this Mason-Dixon Line. The Ohio River is not the complete Line and cannont be used as such in it's entirety. There's other factors that have to be taken into consideration as well. I'm willing to agree that Missouri is not a total Southern state, but neither is it a total Northern state. It's a Border state. It can swing both ways depending on the circumstances. Missouri, along with Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware are all below the Mason-Dixon. They are all Border states, neither Southern nor Northern, yet clearly both. Maybe that clarifies it a bit.

Well St. Louis is definitely not a southern city and it was definitely a manufacturing center, industrial town, river city for almost all of its history.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by florida southerner 3

Actually, yes it is below the Mason-Dixon. If you want the real truth of the Mason-Dixon it was an imaginary line surveyed by Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon in the mid 1700s to settle a property dispute on the Pennsylvania-Maryland border. It originally had nothing to do with North vs. South, slave vs. free, or Yankee vs. Rebel. It was a simple property dispute solution. However, as time went on, this imaginary line grew in length until it became "the official" boundary between the North and South, the slave and free states. I know the North had slaves as well, but it was dying out there due to developing industry while becoming more entrenched in the South due to growing agriculture. Missouri, an official slave state was below this Mason-Dixon Line. The Ohio River is not the complete Line and cannont be used as such in it's entirety. There's other factors that have to be taken into consideration as well. I'm willing to agree that Missouri is not a total Southern state, but neither is it a total Northern state. It's a Border state. It can swing both ways depending on the circumstances. Missouri, along with Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware are all below the Mason-Dixon. They are all Border states, neither Southern nor Northern, yet clearly both. Maybe that clarifies it a bit.

There has never been any evidence stating that the Mason-Dixon line starts at the Maryland-Pennsylvania border and extends due west from there. And even if that were the case, you still could not argue that Missouri was completely south of the Mason-Dixon line using any supposed definition because at least a third of Missouri is north of the 40 degree line. Half of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio would lie south of the Mason-Dixon line as well using that definition of it. The Ohio River has long been the commonly accepted as the Mason-Dixon line west of the Pennsylvania-Maryland border going back well over 200 years.

[Northwoods Voyager]

Hi y'all..still like 'Southern Midwest State'...

[northbayeric]

Originally Posted by Northwoods Voyager

Hi y'all..still like 'Southern Midwest State'...

I think "Midwest Southern state" would make a good first runner-up! Seriously, I'd like to just celebrate Missouri for what it is. Good day, y'all!

[ShadowCaver]

Originally Posted by ajf131

There has never been any evidence stating that the Mason-Dixon line starts at the Maryland-Pennsylvania border and extends due west from there. And even if that were the case, you still could not argue that Missouri was completely south of the Mason-Dixon line using any supposed definition because at least a third of Missouri is north of the 40 degree line. Half of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio would lie south of the Mason-Dixon line as well using that definition of it. The Ohio River has long been the commonly accepted as the Mason-Dixon line west of the Pennsylvania-Maryland border going back well over 200 years.

ajf131 - ummm,,, may I suggest a drink? Something to soothe or at least calm the tone? Seriously, there are many refs that claim that the Mason-Dixon line (a) starts at the PA-MA border, and/or (b) extends west from there. HOWEVER! All such lines are constructed and placed at the whim of whomever is creating them, for whatever they are doing such. In other words, all are taking what was a "simple" border dispute between two states many years prior, and then trying to valiantly go umpteen hundreds of miles out of context, to then have yet another black and white border to divide peoples and places, as if those on that side are this, while those on the other are always and forever and completely something else. As to the OH river being a border, that too is just another attempt by some to create a stark division that doth not bode well with reality in this manner.

[Northwoods Voyager]

This all reminds me of having an appraisal requested for property...the appraiser will ask:'and for what purpose?'

1. Selling the property
2. Mortgage
3. Divorce
4. Estate settlement
5. Home equity
6. Buying the property

And the list goes on...There can and will be difference in all of the final figures. As to what ShadowCaver is referring to is a prime example in my books...depends on what it is you are looking for.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

ajf131 - ummm,,, may I suggest a drink? Something to soothe or at least calm the tone? Seriously, there are many refs that claim that the Mason-Dixon line (a) starts at the PA-MA border, and/or (b) extends west from there. HOWEVER! All such lines are constructed and placed at the whim of whomever is creating them, for whatever they are doing such. In other words, all are taking what was a "simple" border dispute between two states many years prior, and then trying to valiantly go umpteen hundreds of miles out of context, to then have yet another black and white border to divide peoples and places, as if those on that side are this, while those on the other are always and forever and completely something else. As to the OH river being a border, that too is just another attempt by some to create a stark division that doth not bode well with reality in this manner.

if I was sounding hostile, I wasn't being hostile. However, given that thought, none of what I said about the Mason-Dixon was false. In the end, I guess everybody will have a differing opinion. i look to my own personal experience with these definitions to tell me the answers. I guess what is Midwestern to one is Southern to another. That much more than anything else has made itself more and more evident in this thread.