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.
On which planet? Those who have moved on from the importance of the Mason-Dixon Line would agree DC-Baltimore is part of the Northeast. If DC is "the South", so is Cincinnati and St Louis.
It's a question that's been open to debate... Certainly, modern DC and Baltimore (esp DC) feel like they have more in common with the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Corridor. But historically, certainly during the Civil War and well past Reconstruction, most would consider these 2 cities much more Southern than Northern.
And Cincinnati and St. Louis have many historical southern attributes as well. Cincy is right across the river from Kentucky, but at least resides in a Union state. Missouri and Maryland, home to St. Louis and Balto, were so-called "border" states but had strong pro-South leanings during and after the War. The fact that both states had legally-segregated public universities until the 1950s and 60s when the US Supreme Court's Brown v. Bd. of Education put a stop to this, says a lot about the mentality of these 'border' states.
It's a question that's been open to debate... Certainly, modern DC and Baltimore (esp DC) feel like they have more in common with the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Corridor. But historically, certainly during the Civil War and well past Reconstruction, most would consider these 2 cities much more Southern than Northern.
And Cincinnati and St. Louis have many historical southern attributes as well. Cincy is right across the river from Kentucky, but at least resides in a Union state. Missouri and Maryland, home to St. Louis and Balto, were so-called "border" states but had strong pro-South leanings during and after the War. The fact that both states had legally-segregated public universities until the 1950s and 60s when the US Supreme Court's Brown v. Bd. of Education put a stop to this, says a lot about the mentality of these 'border' states.
Don't put too much weight on the segregated schools there.
Don't forget that the Board of Education the Browns sued was that of Topeka, in neighboring Kansas.
Now, to be fair, Kansas did not have segregated higher education the way Missouri did*, but it did allow local-option K-12 school segregation. Horton, the town in northeast Kansas where my mother went to high school, didn't segregate its schools, but Topeka to its southwest did, and the rest is history.
*One of the cases on the road to Brown was Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, in which a Black Missourian who wanted to study at Mizzou's law school sued its registrar to admit him on the grounds that segregated Lincoln University (in Jefferson City) had none; the Supreme Court ordered that either the University of Missouri admit Gaines or that it establish an equivalent law school at Lincoln.
Pro-slavery Missourians were responsible for much of the "bleeding" in "Bleeding Kansas," the dress rehearsal for the Civil War. And the war itself tore the state in two. For one year, it had two state governments, one pro-Union, one pro-Confederate.
Don't put too much weight on the segregated schools there.
Don't forget that the Board of Education the Browns sued was that of Topeka, in neighboring Kansas.
Now, to be fair, Kansas did not have segregated higher education the way Missouri did*, but it did allow local-option K-12 school segregation. Horton, the town in northeast Kansas where my mother went to high school, didn't segregate its schools, but Topeka to its southwest did, and the rest is history.
*One of the cases on the road to Brown was Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, in which a Black Missourian who wanted to study at Mizzou's law school sued its registrar to admit him on the grounds that segregated Lincoln University (in Jefferson City) had none; the Supreme Court ordered that either the University of Missouri admit Gaines or that it establish an equivalent law school at Lincoln.
Pro-slavery Missourians were responsible for much of the "bleeding" in "Bleeding Kansas," the dress rehearsal for the Civil War. And the war itself tore the state in two. For one year, it had two state governments, one pro-Union, one pro-Confederate.
Good points. Yes, Brown was a primary/secondary ed case of segregation in Kansas, a state admitted to the Union as a "free" state aligned with the North. If memory serves, and as you are alluding to, Kansas and Nebraska, in the run-up to the Civil War in the 1850s, were still territories whereby it was an open question as to whether they would enter the Union as pro or anti-slavery states; and Lincoln's key campaign stance, which goaded Confederates to fire upon Ft. Sumpter following his election, was slavery would be allowed to exist only in states where the hideous institution was already in practice and that no new states would be allowed to adopt it (of course Lincoln evolved, esp after the War commenced and in talks with Frederick Douglass, to believe slavery should be destroyed, principally to 'save the Union.').
That said, I think there's no question there was, and in some cases still is, some pro-Confederacy mentality/influences in 'border states' which, in other instances, rubbed off on nearby "free" states' areas, esp below, and even above the Mason-Dixon line, in nearby regions. Greater Philadelphia, whose core city is just 25 miles north of the M-D line, certainly has some examples of this (historically, not currently, at least to my knowledge). That's not a put-down, just a matter of fact which can be documented.
Good points. Yes, Brown was a primary/secondary ed case of segregation in Kansas, a state admitted to the Union as a "free" state aligned with the North. If memory serves, and as you are alluding to, Kansas and Nebraska, in the run-up to the Civil War in the 1850s, were still territories whereby it was an open question as to whether they would enter the Union as pro or anti-slavery states; and Lincoln's key campaign stance, which goaded Confederates to fire upon Ft. Sumpter following his election, was slavery would be allowed to exist only in states where the hideous institution was already in practice and that no new states would be allowed to adopt it (of course Lincoln evolved, esp after the War commenced and in talks with Frederick Douglass, to believe slavery should be destroyed, principally to 'save the Union.').
That said, I think there's no question there was, and in some cases still is, some pro-Confederacy mentality/influences in 'border states' which, in other instances, rubbed off on nearby "free" states' areas, esp below, and even above the Mason-Dixon line, in nearby regions. Greater Philadelphia, whose core city is just 25 miles north of the M-D line, certainly has some examples of this (historically, not currently, at least to my knowledge). That's not a put-down, just a matter of fact which can be documented.
Re: the bolded: Specifically, the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which undid the Missouri Compromise of 1820, left the question of slavery in those two territories up to the settlers (and to the settlers of any future territory, with no obligation that a free state be admitted if a slave one entered the Union).
That's what led the Missourians to terrorize the Kansans, both before and after its admission to the Union.
I'm also aware that (for instance) most of the South's doctors in the pre-Civil War era were trained at Penn's medical school, the nation's first and oldest.
It's a question that's been open to debate... Certainly, modern DC and Baltimore (esp DC) feel like they have more in common with the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Corridor. But historically, certainly during the Civil War and well past Reconstruction, most would consider these 2 cities much more Southern than Northern.
And Cincinnati and St. Louis have many historical southern attributes as well. Cincy is right across the river from Kentucky, but at least resides in a Union state. Missouri and Maryland, home to St. Louis and Balto, were so-called "border" states but had strong pro-South leanings during and after the War. The fact that both states had legally-segregated public universities until the 1950s and 60s when the US Supreme Court's Brown v. Bd. of Education put a stop to this, says a lot about the mentality of these 'border' states.
Historically, as in 150+ years ago when many of the western states were still territories. The country has evolved considerably since then and use of "Southern" in this case is seemingly wielded these days by those who look down their noses at DC and Baltimore as lesser for whatever reason. Which is rather comical given the provincial nature of cities like Philadelphia and Boston.
Historically, as in 150+ years ago when many of the western states were still territories. The country has evolved considerably since then and use of "Southern" in this case is seemingly wielded these days by those who look down their noses at DC and Baltimore as lesser for whatever reason. Which is rather comical given the provincial nature of cities like Philadelphia and Boston.
You make a good point.
The significance of the Mason-Dixon Line remains, but culturally and politically speaking, Maryland has been annexed to the Northeast. (Northern Virginia, kinda-sorta.) And to be honest, Baltimore has long looked more like a Northern city than a Southern one — cities in the South aren't as frankly industrial in character as Baltimore is, not even port cities like Norfolk, Savannah and Charleston.
But given your username, I have long thought you lived in Philadelphia. (Which isn't to say that your remark about Philadelphia provincialism is wrong. But here's a kicker: New Yorkers' cultural arrogance can often come off sounding like provincialism as well.)
I consider DC to be part of the NE, but considering that DC’s metro opened much later (1976) only three years earlier than Atlanta’s MARTA (1979) I think it’s fair to include it, it’s definitely not a legacy rail city.
Here are the major heavy rail systems by the year they opened.
I consider DC to be part of the NE, but considering that DC’s metro opened much later (1976) only three years earlier than Atlanta’s MARTA (1979) I think it’s fair to include it, it’s definitely not a legacy rail city.
Here are the major heavy rail systems by the year they opened.
I consider DC to be part of the NE, but considering that DC’s metro opened much later (1976) only three years earlier than Atlanta’s MARTA (1979) I think it’s fair to include it, it’s definitely not a legacy rail city.
Here are the major heavy rail systems by the year they opened.
SF BART (1972): 119.1 mi, 48 stations, 7 lines
Washington Metro (1976): 129 mi, 98 stations, 6 lines
Atlanta MARTA (1979): 47.6 mi, 38 stations, 4 lines
Baltimore Metro (1983): 15.5 mi, 14 stations, 1 line
Miami Metrorail (1984): 24.4 mi, 23 stations, 2 lines
LA Metro Rail (1993): 17.4 mi, 16 stations, 2 lines
Honolulu Skyline (2023): 10.8 mi, 9 stations, 1 line
I see a lot of discussion about mileage and stations, but what about ridership?
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.
