Missouri...Southern or Midwestern? (Springfield, Joplin: demographics, top, hot)

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by RangerDuke08

Great post, the thread is overwhelmingly long, but I had to intrude for a bit as there are seperate categories of classification that many seem to comix together - geographical, social and historical. Historically Missouri and Kentucky did not secede from the Union although they both did fight several battles for and against the Union including that of the Governor of Missouri then who was pro-Southern. As the context is of Missouri today we no longer speak historically but that of geographical and social. Socially with population concentrated in that of KC/STL and it's suburbs it is more midwestern as even geographically and socially speaking Southern Missouri plays a smaller part than that of the Central Missouri. It is the case of Kentucky as well, there is a good influence of the midwest and the Rust Belt runs into Lex

THe difference is that Kentucky is culturally Southern, while Missouri is not. Missouri is by all accounts a Midwestern state today. Kentucky is by all accounts a Southern one.

[RangerDuke08]

Originally Posted by ajf131

THe difference is that Kentucky is culturally Southern, while Missouri is not. Missouri is by all accounts a Midwestern state today. Kentucky is by all accounts a Southern one.

I guess you posted as I was editing, but I agree, although historically Missouri and Kentucky were both border states the overwhelming consensus is what the people in MO or KY thinks and if KY folks think they are Southern then they are and if MO folks think they are midwestern then they are. The question shouldn't be of if MO is Midwestern or Southern to me having travelled throughout the country, there is no question about it. The question to me though is MO part of the plains/food belt or uppermidwest/rust belt?

[GetmeoutofAR]

there is no way its even remotely part of the rust belt

[RangerDuke08]

Originally Posted by GetmeoutofAR

there is no way its even remotely part of the rust belt

Maybe not today, but in 20 years? Notice the Rust Belt was classified heavily by the motor and industrial industries in cities such as Detroit and Indianapolis which has shifted today further South to Lexinton, KY and even that of middle Tennessee in a hurry. MO does have a geographic central location in the U.S. with some of the busiest transportation hubs and isn't Missouri known for it's brew as much as Milwaukee is? Although MO does produce much produce and livestock such as the Plain states with it's population heavily centered in cities, I would assume as long as the economy rebounds that these cities would grow attracting businesses and industries in the next 20 years shifting it's politics and economies more similar to that of the Rust Belt than the Food Belt.

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by RangerDuke08

Maybe not today, but in 20 years? Notice the Rust Belt was classified heavily by the motor and industrial industries in cities such as Detroit and Indianapolis which has shifted today further South to Lexinton, KY and even that of middle Tennessee in a hurry. MO does have a geographic central location in the U.S. with some of the busiest transportation hubs and isn't Missouri known for it's brew as much as Milwaukee is? Although MO does produce much produce and livestock such as the Plain states with it's population heavily centered in cities, I would assume as long as the economy rebounds that these cities would grow attracting businesses and industries in the next 20 years shifting it's politics and economies more similar to that of the Rust Belt than the Food Belt.

St. Louis does have a lot in common with the other Rust Belt cities (Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Baltimore...maybe a few more I'm forgetting). Loss of manufacturing jobs and white flight starting in the 50's, a large decline in population of the actual city, and many old abandoned industrial sites and neighborhoods to this day. From what I've seen of Baltimore it reminded me of STL to some degree (and New Orleans, although a Southern city, kind of reminds me of STL, being a very old river city with a strong Catholic influence, and a lot of buildings built around the same time). The main difference between STL and the other rust belt cities is that its warmer (except for Baltimore) and is farther west than any of the others. Other than that, the rest of MO has little in common with the Rust Belt. Kansas City is a Midwestern city, plain and simple.

I would not put Missouri in with the Upper Midwest, at all. Much warmer, different landscape, totally different accent, and nowhere near as flat as large portions of Michigan and Minnesota. Missouri is also too forested and hilly (for the most part) to be a plains state, and gets too much rainfall. The Ozarks resemble neither the plains or the Upper Midwest (too hilly, too warm, no planted agriculture, totally different accent, etc) and have a fair amount of Southern influence.

[ajf131]

I wouldn't put Missouri in the rust belt either, although St. Louis is unquestionably part of the Rust Belt. Any Midwestern state west of the Mississippi River is not part of the Rust Belt. Missouri is definitely part of the Farm Belt however, and the Corn Belt, and the Grain Belt. Missouri is not part of the Upper Midwest. It is part of the Lower Midwest. The Ozarks in my opinion actually resemble the Lower Midwest...same trees, same tall grass prairie, etc., although they are much more hilly and rough than the rest of the Midwest. New Orleans is different from St. Louis because it is culturally Southern...St. Louis is culturally Midwestern...New Orleans was never a manufacturing city like St. Louis was. The bottom line is that Missouri is Midwestern, and it's not just because of what its citizens think...Missouri and Kentucky are NOT comparable to each other. And if Lexington and Louisville are part of the Rust Belt, that's something I refuse to believe because they were never manufacturing cities that gained in population during the Great Migration. NONE of Kentucky is the rust belt. Kentucky is a culturally Southern state, and that is not just an opinion of its citizens, it's FACTS.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by RangerDuke08

Maybe not today, but in 20 years? Notice the Rust Belt was classified heavily by the motor and industrial industries in cities such as Detroit and Indianapolis which has shifted today further South to Lexinton, KY and even that of middle Tennessee in a hurry. MO does have a geographic central location in the U.S. with some of the busiest transportation hubs and isn't Missouri known for it's brew as much as Milwaukee is? Although MO does produce much produce and livestock such as the Plain states with it's population heavily centered in cities, I would assume as long as the economy rebounds that these cities would grow attracting businesses and industries in the next 20 years shifting it's politics and economies more similar to that of the Rust Belt than the Food Belt.

That is a backwards definition. St. Louis has ALWAYS been part of the Rust Belt, and Missouri while certainly not a manufacturing state like Michigan believe it or not has been a manufacturing state for quite a long time, much more so than a place like Kentucky. Stop trying to group Missouri in with the Upper South, plain and simple. It has more in common with Illinois than it does Kentucky.

[GetmeoutofAR]

Branson, MO is southern, Doniphan, MO is southern, Anderson, MO is southern, Cape G is probably southern, Hwy 60 is the boundary

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by GetmeoutofAR

Branson, MO is southern, Doniphan, MO is southern, Anderson, MO is southern, Cape G is probably southern, Hwy 60 is the boundary

Yes I definitely agree that Highway 60 is the boundary. Not sure if I agree that Cape G is Southern, as it is a good distance north of Highway 60. Sikeston, Missouri is definitely southern however, and the bootheel is definitely the South.

[GetmeoutofAR]

I live 5.2 miles north of Hwy 60 therefore I am in the midwest lol