If Maryland had been above the Mason-Dixon Line? (Baltimore, Berlin: plantation, beach)

[Infinite_heights77]

Historically, let's just imagine if the state of Maryland, and the city of Baltimore, had been positioned "above" the Mason-Dixon Line. How do you think the dynamics of the state would be "now" in comparison to a few hundred years ago? Would the political, economic, social and cultural landscape of Baltimore, Maryland be different "today" if this were the case?

[rudy_d]

What's up with all the words in "quotes"?

[jonjj]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

Historically, let's just imagine if the state of Maryland, and the city of Baltimore, had been positioned "above" the Mason-Dixon Line. How do you think the dynamics of the state would be "now" in comparison to a few hundred years ago? Would the political, economic, social and cultural landscape of Baltimore, Maryland be different "today" if this were the case?

The Mason-Dixon line was a solution to the border dispute with Pennsylvania and Delaware. Simple as that.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by jonjj

The Mason-Dixon line was a solution to the border dispute with Pennsylvania and Delaware. Simple as that.

But it later became the rough demarcation between slave and free states.

I'll play with this, though. The plantation system would have still been in place because of tobacco.

[jonjj]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

But it later became the rough demarcation between slave and free states.

I'll play with this, though. The plantation system would have still been in place because of tobacco.

Not necesarily. Delaware was considered a "slave state" above the line. You do realize that all of the states north of the Mason-Dixon line were also one-time slave-states.

Again, the Mason-Dixon line was a way to solve the border dispute between Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland.

I guess what I am getting at is the original poster's misinformation. Perhaps this: Would the dynamics of Baltimore and Maryland be different if Maryland was not still a slave state at the time of the Civil War?

[The Notorious DGD]

The only noticeable modern-day difference I've seen that I'm willing to attribute to an arbitrary latitudinal coordinate is the attitude toward snow and its removal. Maryland is very much a Southern state in that regard -- poor planning and poor preparedness. A snowstorm that might inconvenience people in southern PA for a day or two is a week-long crippling death blow in MD, especially in Baltimore and the DC suburbs.

[KLynch10]

Maryland doesn't care that much about the civil war, and I don't think our stance on it has really effected much of anything because I've never met anyone that really cares.

Go to Richmond if you want to see a town that still cares about North and South.

[Infinite_heights77]

Good Point!!

Have you ever read Ira Berlin's Slavery In New York?

Originally Posted by jonjj

Not necesarily. Delaware was considered a "slave state" above the line. You do realize that all of the states north of the Mason-Dixon line were also one-time slave-states.

Again, the Mason-Dixon line was a way to solve the border dispute between Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland.

I guess what I am getting at is the original poster's misinformation. Perhaps this: Would the dynamics of Baltimore and Maryland be different if Maryland was not still a slave state at the time of the Civil War?

[jonjj]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

Good Point!!

Have you ever read Ira Berlin's Slavery In New York?

No I haven't but I love Ric Burn's documentary on the history of NYC. Great for references about slavery in the north.

[Infinite_heights77]

I'll check for it! Thanks..