Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Houston influence outside of Texas basically is southwestern Louisiana and west central Louisiana. In Texas, it does each south towards Corpus. It starts to overlap when it comes to Southeastern LA and southern Mississippi. I would say NO is the influence as it’s a skip and a hop but Houston out of the four major cities has an influence more than the other four on the Mississippi and perhaps maybe the Alabama Gulf Coast due to similar Gulf Coast culture. Really Mississippi is where the spheres of Atlanta, Dallas, Memphis, Houston, and New Orleans meets. Northern Mississippi is probably influenced more by Memphis as it has always been for the last century. But Vicksburg I can see a bit of Dallas in there.
I wouldn’t be quick to say all of Arkansas looks to Dallas. Memphis, St Louis, and to a smaller extent, Chicago, are probably seen as the big city for NE Arkansas. As far as Miami, once you get north of Orlando and Vero Beach, the influence rapidly wanes. It’s pretty much gone once you get to Gainesville. Atlanta or Tampa influences more here.
But going by your designation of what is and what is not the American South, Virginia is part of this. Yet you include most of Virginia with it. Richmond doesn’t look to Atlanta as the big city as DC is 90 miles from it.
Murksiderock: Miami's sphere of influence in Florida is quite small. Atlanta dominates North Florida down to around Gainesville. I'm relying on O&D demand with flights again, but Atlanta is #1 for all of North Florida and Tampa, and #2 behind the Metro NY airports for Orlando, West Palm, Sarasota, Fort Myers and Ft. Lauderdale. The last time I checked Miami, I think Atlanta was #3.
You and others repeatedly say how Atlanta is at the "center" of what many people consider to be the classical South (the Southeast). Atlanta itself may not have yet been founded, but Atlanta is practically synonymous with Georgia, which is steeped in British colonial southern history and culture.
Atlanta is synonymous with Georgia because of its sheer size (just like Chicago is virtually synonymous with Illinois), but Savannah, the capital of colonial Georgia, is the Georgian city truly steeped in British colonial southern history and culture. I realize that you are largely approaching this subject from a historical perspective, which is why I'm not sure of the relevance of the tenuous connection you're making between present-day Atlanta and colonial Georgia.
Quote:
I had no control over the changing borders of the South throughout history What I'm saying is that during the days of the Confederate South, New Orleans was the premier city. No other city in question has ever dominated the entire region like it once did. It's interesting that that same city is also the nearest to the geographical center of what we officially consider the South today. Maybe my points were a bit muddled earlier
It's very true that New Orleans was the premier city of the Confederate South and although the overall most important Confederate state, Virginia, was pretty far removed from its dominating influence, the city served as the gateway for the lower southern cotton states that the region's wealth was largely built upon in the three decades or so leading up to the Civil War.
I never stated you had any control over the changing borders of the South throughout history, but using the Census-designated South seems to be somewhat arbitrary and even works against your point somewhat. Doing so brings Baltimore and DC into the picture as far as region's biggest cities go (first and third respectively with New Orleans second) and skews the regional population center--which is arguably a more relevant point of reference in a region that became defined by dynamic migration patterns in the 20th century--significantly eastward.
Anyway, I think history has settled the issue for a bygone era. In the second decade of the 21st century, there are a few other cities for which better arguments can be made as the capital of the South.
Miami's sphere of influence in the US is sort of like an iceberg in that if you look at it from just a US perspective it looks small only really encompassing South and Central Florida. However if looked at from a broader view outside of the US it encompasses a much larger geographic region throughout the Caribbean. Miami is more the capital of the Caribbean than it is in the running for capital of the American south.
Technically, there is no capital of the South. Just a group of cities, spanning a whole lot of miles, many of whom think they're the capital of the South. It's not like the North - NYC, the Midwest - Chicago, or the West - LA or SF. There is not a dominant city in the South, that can compare to the dominance of the cities in the other regions, so why is it a necessary thing (for some), to keep hashing this over. I don't get the South thing, and then, there's Texas. From what I read here, Texas is it's own entity, and doesn't belong anywhere, other than where the person discussing it, wants it to be. Although Texas couldn't be farther South, as it would be in Mexico, it's not considered to be in the South? If I look at a map, it sure looks like it's in the South, to me. If it's not in the South, surely neither Dallas or Houston could be considered to be the capital of the South, but yet Houston is to be considered in the poll. Pretty convoluted, if you ask me.
No it isn’t. You put Southside Virginia on there. Nowhere in VA does it look up to Atlanta as the major city over DC unless you’re talking about the extreme southern tip of SW Virginia. You didn’t even link Virginia either.
Atlanta is synonymous with Georgia because of its sheer size (just like Chicago is virtually synonymous with Illinois), but Savannah, the capital of colonial Georgia, is the Georgian city truly steeped in British colonial southern history and culture. I realize that you are largely approaching this subject from a historical perspective, which is why I'm not sure of the relevance of the tenuous connection you're making between present-day Atlanta and colonial Georgia.
Augusta has some too, and I know this well, but I can assure you the average person makes no such distinction. Even here in the forums Atlanta is purported as being a far more stereotypically southern city than I remember it being. Because what most people think of as the South is tied mostly to the Southeast, Atlanta has an edge here
Quote:
It's very true that New Orleans was the premier city of the Confederate South and although the overall most important Confederate state, Virginia, was pretty far removed from its dominating influence, the city served as the gateway for the lower southern cotton states that the region's wealth was largely built upon in the three decades or so leading up to the Civil War.
I never stated you had any control over the changing borders of the South throughout history, but using the Census-designated South seems to be somewhat arbitrary and even works against your point somewhat. Doing so brings Baltimore and DC into the picture as far as region's biggest cities go (first and third respectively with New Orleans second) and skews the regional population center--which is arguably a more relevant point of reference in a region that became defined by dynamic migration patterns in the 20th century--significantly eastward.
Anyway, I think history has settled the issue for a bygone era. In the second decade of the 21st century, there are a few other cities for which better arguments can be made as the capital of the South.
Arguably, and it's the hair splitting I'm not really interested in, sorry. How it is in anyway arbitrary to use the most official definition of the current South that exists is beyond me, but I guess it's not as fun as coming up with my own definition like Mr. Aries
...yes, you and everyone else here has "better" arguments for the capital of the South. I guess that's why this topic has been created for the umpteenth time with no consensus ever being reached
I thought it would be interesting to offer a different perspective, but if we're all just supposed to say "aTLAnTa" then I don't see the point in beating this dead horse any further. Why is there even a poll? With New Orleans as an option no less
Edit: Now I see that you seem to think I'm trying to combine these two different definitions of the South and I'm not. I'm making two independent points actually, just pointing out New Orleans relevance in different ways at two separate times in history. I thought that was clear.
Last edited by Frustratedintelligence; 01-15-2021 at 07:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I'm saying is that during the days of the Confederate South, New Orleans was the premier city. No other city in question has ever dominated the entire region like it once did. It's interesting that that same city is also the nearest to the geographical center of what we officially consider the South today. Maybe my points were a bit muddled earlier
