Missouri...Southern or Midwestern? (St. Louis, Columbia: transplants, living, airport)

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by DefaultAlias

I beg to differ here. I wouldn't call all of Missoura southern. Sure, the southern half of Missouri begins to take on a Dixie feel but the northern half is unquestionably Midwestern.

Most important thing to remember here is that Missoura is one of those states doesn't really "have" a distinct region because honestly--it's a little bit of both. Like Texas, Oklahoma, Maryland, Florida, etc.

And as far as Florida is concerned I don't care how many New Yorkers settle down there--it's still Dixie. Not as Dixie as Alabama per say, but still Dixie nonetheless.

Agreed. the southern half of Missouri, Ozarks 21, is 50% a transition zone between the Midwest and the South, and 50% truly Dixie, as many dialect maps, in addition to ones shown to me by DefaultAlias tend to verify. Dixie dominates the Southern quarter of the state. This makes the Dixie element dominant in about 25% of Missouri, and that's pretty close to the truth I'd say. After that, the further north you go, the less Dixie and the more Midwestern the state feels. By the time you are at St. Louis or KC or areas immediately south of there the argument for Dixie essentially is very hard to make, there's no question you've entered the Midwest. I also agree regarding Missouri's multiple feels. This state really kind of is a chameleon.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by DefaultAlias

I beg to differ here. I wouldn't call all of Missoura southern. Sure, the southern half of Missouri begins to take on a Dixie feel but the northern half is unquestionably Midwestern.

Most important thing to remember here is that Missoura is one of those states doesn't really "have" a distinct region because honestly--it's a little bit of both. Like Texas, Oklahoma, Maryland, Florida, etc.

And as far as Florida is concerned I don't care how many New Yorkers settle down there--it's still Dixie. Not as Dixie as Alabama per say, but still Dixie nonetheless.

Florida is Dixie. In Orlando outside of Disney World is a laid-back town dominated by the Bible with plenty of Dixieness to it. You certainly couldn't call Florida Northern ROFL! i've heard plenty of Southern accents down there...the houses there are mostly one-story and have no basements...that is a CLASSIC characteristic of the South. You can find sweet tea in many restaurants. Before New Yorkers came down Florida was already a well-established Dixie state and I think it still is...it's just had a lot of Northerners come down there.

[Ozarks21]

Originally Posted by ajf131

I'm not going to say anything except that great barbecue is found elsewhere besides the South and Missouri, and that culturally this state is never dominated by the South until the Southern quarter. THat does not just have to do with geography. It has to do with culture, speech patterns, etc. There is the Old South, and the new South. Missouri was never listed in either, especially not The New South. When you can give me evidence that the northern half of modern Missouri is far more Southern than Midwestern, including KC and St. Louis, then maybe I'll listen. Until then...I think I'll go with what is the accepted definition of the Midwest and South by pretty much every modern source I can find. the transition from Northern to Southern does not even begin until below all of Central Missouri, roughly DefaultAlias' definition. My family is also from Missouri way back before the Civil War, and they were from MExico, Missouri. They fought for the Union as did many they knew. So yes, you may have more of a Southern background, but obviously looking at the numbers who fought for the Union and Confederacy that obviously can't be used as a way to say Missouri was 100% Southern, which I don't think it ever was. Guerilla warfare was common in this state, it was neighbor against neighbor....something found only in border states.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. This isn't really a question that can be answered with certainty like a mathematical equation. I'm a Southern Boy from Missouri. Therefore, Missouri must be Southern. How's that for proof and logic?

I am aware of Missouri's divided Civil War history and her geography. In fact, I consider Missouri to be midwestern. As between northern and southern, I consider Missouri southern.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Ozarks21

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. This isn't really a question that can be answered with certainty like a mathematical equation. I'm a Southern Boy from Missouri. Therefore, Missouri must be Southern. How's that for proof and logic?

I am aware of Missouri's divided Civil War history and her geography. In fact, I consider Missouri to be midwestern. As between northern and southern, I consider Missouri southern.

I guess that's reasonable, although my father, who comes from Joplin, I'm guessing near to where you are, since your residence is SW Missouri, considers Missouri as a whole state to be more Northern, as do I, being from the St. Louis area. According to my father, when he was growing up in Joplin he said that sweet tea didn't exist around there...and he has no Southern accent. Considering he is over 50 and perhaps one of the more senior Missourians, I'm more compelled to agree. I guess it depends on your upbringing, what part of the state you're from, etc. The SE part of Missouri is definitely Southern...if that's not Southern what the hell is? Hell I even know some people from Carbondale, Illinois who consider themselves Southern and therefore all of Illinois to be Southern. Now, I can see why they'd qualify as Southern but all of Illinois? ROFL.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Ozarks21

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. This isn't really a question that can be answered with certainty like a mathematical equation. I'm a Southern Boy from Missouri. Therefore, Missouri must be Southern. How's that for proof and logic?

I am aware of Missouri's divided Civil War history and her geography. In fact, I consider Missouri to be midwestern. As between northern and southern, I consider Missouri southern.

You can't consider a southern state Midwestern....it just doesn't make sense. In terms of Northern and Southern, that depends on what you mean by Northern or Southern. If you are talking about geography, if you use the Mason-Dixon line as the definition of Northern or Southern, Missouri is much more Northern. If you're talking about the climate, Missouri is something in between. if you're talking about culture, I'd have to argue for Missouri being more Northern because the Midwest solidly dominates 50% of the state and Dixie solidly dominates about 25%. the transition zone I'd consider evenly split...overall you still wind up with a state that is more Midwestern than Southern. if you're talking about its pre-Civil War history, there is the one case I would agree for it being more Southern, but it's economy didn't depend on slavery except the extreme Southern portions of the state, and it was a heavily divided state from the beginning. Overall, I'd say this was never a predominately Southern state. Especially today. SW MO, SE MO and the areas in between the two in latitude are worlds removed from the rest of the state. i'll be damned if St. Louis or Kansas City are Southern and not Midwestern, I have no idea how they are. THe part of Missouri you're from, yes i would say is more Southern. But the northern half is definitely more Northern in just about every possible way i can name. It should be noted Missouri's history was never that of a predominantly southern state....it was of a state divided in almost every way, shape, and form initially and then a state that became less Southern and more Midwestern. For me, if I were forced to choose between Northern and Southern without any type of compromises being made, I'd say the state is more Northern.

[Bobster]

One of the cool things about Missouri is that it depends upon which part of the state you are in. St. Louis is kind of an eastern type city, more similar to NYC than to LA. KC is more similar to LA than to NYC. Northern MO is more northern and southern MO is more southern. Oh and Columbia is like Brigadoon, a mythical town that decided to stick around!

Bob Mitchell

[ajf131]

The only thing I have to say is that I think Columbia, Kansas City, and St. Louis and Jefferson City qualify as Midwestern...they are part of the Midwest core unquestionably. How one could group these present-day cities in with the South to me makes no sense.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by ajf131

The only thing I have to say is that I think Columbia, Kansas City, and St. Louis and Jefferson City qualify as Midwestern...they are part of the Midwest core unquestionably. How one could group these present-day cities in with the South to me makes no sense.

I disagree. I would not classify Columbia, KC, STL, and Jefferson City as being in the Midwest core. The midwest core to me reperesents central and northern Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, northern Missouri, southern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin, and central and northern Ohio. The cities in Missouri are at the far south and southwest edge of the midwest zone. Northern Missouri is more solidly in the Midwest core. All of those cities in Missouri have more southern influences than any area that I mentioned that is part of the midwest core.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Plains10

I disagree. I would not classify Columbia, KC, STL, and Jefferson City as being in the Midwest core. The midwest core to me reperesents central and northern Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, northern Missouri, southern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin, and central and northern Ohio. The cities in Missouri are at the far south and southwest edge of the midwest zone. Northern Missouri is more solidly in the Midwest core. All of those cities in Missouri have more southern influences than any area that I mentioned that is part of the midwest core.

Well according to maps they are part of the Midwest core. They are still in the midwest zone, so why can't they be included? They may have some southern elements but they still seem pretty Midwestern to me. The Midwest core to me represent major cities of the Midwest. And you're not in Dixie once south of these cities, you're in a transition zone. If St. Louis and KC can't be included, neither can Cincinnati. these cities while they may have some southern characteristics are predominantly Midwestern. they have twice as much in common with cities of the "Midwest" core like indy and columbus than cities like Louisville. I've never found these 3 cities to be much different from Indianapolis or Columbus...there are a few southern characteristics there too, but they are definitively Midwestern. These 5 are generally typical of Lower Midwest cities...in fact they are the lower midwest cities...I think these 5 have more in common with each other than Upper Midwest cities. Cleveland and Chicago are Upper Midwest. Would you exclude Louisville and Lexington from the South because it has some Midwestern influences even though it is predominantly Southern? To me it makes no sense. The industry of St. Louis, KC, and Cincy are not southern at all, definitely midwestern. Louisville's industry is distinctly Southern.

[Ozarks21]

Originally Posted by ajf131

You can't consider a southern state Midwestern....it just doesn't make sense.

I can consider it whatever I please. You cannot make me make sense.

Missouri is Southern. Missouri is Midwestern. AND... Missouri is Western (The Gateway Arch is the Gateway to the West!).

What really doesn't make sense is why anyone would get so exercised over a mostly meaningless label.