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.
I agree with your last sentence. I often tell people where I live now that "Missouri is the nation in microcosm."
And maybe I get a little oversensitive when people call the state Southern. It was a migrant from Memphis, after all, that planted the seeds of Kansas City's now-iconic barbecue scene, and, of course, jazz migrated to it from New Orleans.
But I guess it's that conflation with the Deep South that produces that reaction in me. Only southeast Missouri has that cultural feel to me. Memphis is an Upper South city.
I now live in a city much of whose black population consists of the children and grandchildren of the Second Great Migration. Kansas City's had blacks living there all along, thanks to Missouri's slave-state heritage, and those migrants who ended up there are largely (a) not from the Cotton Belt or the Carolinas (b) the great-grandchildren of the Exodusters and the first Great Migrants. The speech patterns and accents of my cousins, all native Kansas Citians like me, in no way resemble those of the ex-Carolinians' descendants.
And while I have heard a twang in the talk of many Kansas Citians, the dominant accent there is Central Plains, not Mid-South. Recall that in the golden days of radio, the networks called the accent they wanted in their announcers "Kansas City American"? That was because the Central Plains accent was the least objectionable to those who spoke with other accents and because it's the most neutral-sounding.
Oh, and: Fort Worth aside, there are no cowtowns in the South. (And Texas is a world unto itself anyway.) Kansas City was a cowtown almost from the get-go.
And I certainly wouldn't confuse Kansas City or Boonville for Cairo.
However: the point I was making was this: the way we have divided the country into regions, regional boundaries follow state lines rather than lines of latitude or longitude. Cincinnati in many ways is as Southern as the part of Kentucky that lies across the Ohio from it, but Ohio is a Midwestern state. Pittsburgh feels more Appalachian and Midwestern than it does Eastern, yet Pennsylvania is an East Coast state. Missouri's culture has plenty of Southern influence, and it borders several Southern states, but since the region-definers don't split states in two, it's geographically Midwestern. In toto.
As a native St. Louisan, I'm the first to admit that the city has many Southern influences and nuances, which leads many true Northerners to categorize it as a city of Dixie. On the other hand, the city has many Northern attributes that are undeniable and would seem foreign to any true Southerner. It's the definition of a border city. I would put Baltimore in the same category.
The same can be said for Illinois' southern third, and Cairo, at the state's southern tip, is as Southern as any town in any slave state.
So I guess that makes Illinois geographically Southern in toto.
In toto, Missouri has been placed in the "West North Central" group of states for as long as that grouping has existed. That's Midwest, not South.
If we measure from their northernmost points as you did, my hometown of Kansas City would be "geographically Southern." That's absurd.
So would placing any part of Kansas in the geographic South. Draw that line across the Sunflower State and Wichita becomes a Southern city.
Wichita is indeed at a very low latitude, has a climate much more like the South compared to the Midwest, and certainly has significant amounts of southern cultural influences overall. It has overall influences from the Midwest and the South, but lies in the Great Plains near the transition zone by 100 degrees west longitude, the demarcation between the eastern and western US.
As a native St. Louisan, I'm the first to admit that the city has many Southern influences and nuances, which leads many true Northerners to categorize it as a city of Dixie. On the other hand, the city has many Northern attributes that are undeniable and would seem foreign to any true Southerner. It's the definition of a border city. I would put Baltimore in the same category.
I can't say I like border cities much at all. Pick a city that is solidly in a defined geographical region, not one that has constant cultural collisions and mismatches everywhere. The lack of four well defined seasons and terrible heat and humidity is a huge negative to border cities east of the Rockies in the US.
I can't say I like border cities much at all. Pick a city that is solidly in a defined geographical region, not one that has constant cultural collisions and mismatches everywhere. The lack of four well defined seasons and terrible heat and humidity is a huge negative to border cities east of the Rockies in the US.
St. Louis has four well defined seasons, is solidly in a region, and it has its own culture. It does have pretty hot and humid summers though (wouldn't this play into your 4 seasons comment though?). Glad to help clear things up!
St. Louis has four well defined seasons, is solidly in a region, and it has its own culture. It does have pretty hot and humid summers though (wouldn't this play into your 4 seasons comment though?). Glad to help clear things up!
It doesn’t really have four well defined seasons, meaning winter is often non-existent for longer periods of time. Also, at 38.5N latitude, it doesn’t really have strong changes in daylight between summer and winter compared to areas to the north. To get evenly distributed distinct seasons you have to go well north of I-80 in the Midwest.
It doesn’t really have four well defined seasons, meaning winter is often non-existent for longer periods of time. Also, at 38.5N latitude, it doesn’t really have strong changes in daylight between summer and winter compared to areas to the north. To get evenly distributed distinct seasons you have to go well north of I-80 in the Midwest.
Where are you getting this information? Yes, it does... you already alluded to one when you complained about the summers. Have you seen fall in St. Louis? It's gorgeous and is nothing like summer, winter or spring... "winter is non-existent for longer periods of time" ? Can you elaborate on this odd phrase; winter, and weather as a whole has gotten pretty sporadic lately. I was just in Chicago, and St. Louis, in January and February and both saw various days of snow and 50-60 degree weather over the several week span I was there (and snow again just recently). "it doesn’t really have strong changes in daylight between summer and winter" huh? First of all, the sun setting a bit after 9 at night in summer and a bit before 5 in winter is a pretty big difference, but this also is a terrible gauge for "well defined seasons". Paris's seasons (where I've been living for more than 8 years now) are way, way less defined than St. Louis's, yet it's quite a bit farther north and exhibits a larger change in sunlight between summer and winter. You sure like to try really hard to pretend like anything south of you is "deep south" or something...
Where are you getting this information? Yes, it does... you already alluded to one when you complained about the summers. Have you seen fall in St. Louis? It's gorgeous and is nothing like summer, winter or spring... "winter is non-existent for longer periods of time" ? Can you elaborate on this odd phrase; winter, and weather as a whole has gotten pretty sporadic lately. I was just in Chicago, and St. Louis, in January and February and both saw various days of snow and 50-60 degree weather over the several week span I was there (and snow again just recently). "it doesn’t really have strong changes in daylight between summer and winter" huh? First of all, the sun setting a bit after 9 at night in summer and a bit before 5 in winter is a pretty big difference, but this also is a terrible gauge for "well defined seasons". Paris's seasons (where I've been living for more than 8 years now) are way, way less defined than St. Louis's, yet it's quite a bit farther north and exhibits a larger change in sunlight between summer and winter. You sure like to try really hard to pretend like anything south of you is "deep south" or something...
I'm going by average temperatures. St. Louis is warmer than anywhere in the Midwest, with an average July high temperature of 91F to go along with an average January high temperature of 40F. This is similar to many areas of the South. Yes, average temperatures are certainly warming over time as well. In terms of winter, St. Louis very rarely has any lasting snow cover compared to areas of the Midwest north of I-80. In Wisconsin, for example, you can have 2-4 months of continuous snow cover on the ground. Regarding seasonal changes in daylight, research solar declination angle. There are more pronounced changes in daylight at northerly latitudes, but also a lower overall sun angle. Paris and all of western Europe is more northerly than many areas of the US but is moderated substantially by the Gulf Stream current. I posted on another thread that Tromso, Norway has their coldest low temperature of record at -2F at 69N latitude, and Eagle River, Wisconsin at 46N latitude has a coldest recorded reading of -33F. The Gulf Stream is at work- giving Norway a ridiculously temperate climate for being at a high latitude location. Leeds, UK is also incredibly mild for its latitude at 53N, having an average July high temperature of 67F and an average January high temperature of 40F.
I'm going by average temperatures. St. Louis is warmer than anywhere in the Midwest Are you sure? There are places several hours further south that are still in the Midwest, with an average July high temperature of 91F to go along with an average January high temperature of 40F. This is similar to many areas of the South. Similar to many places? It's also ver disimilar to many places,
you know the South and the Midwest are pretty big right? Yes, average temperatures are certainly warming over time as well. In terms of winter, St. Louis very rarely has any lasting snow cover compared to areas of the Midwest north of I-80 Wait, what? What does I-80 have to do with this discussion??? You just eliminated half of the Midwest! STL, KC, Cincy, Indy, Columbus, etc. Not to mention others on I-80 like Cleveland, Omaha, Des Moines, Toledo, Quad cities, parts of Chicagoland, etc... . In Wisconsin, for example, you can have 2-4 months of continuous snow cover on the ground. I've been to Wisconsin several dozen times due to family being there, I'm aware, and...? Regarding seasonal changes in daylight, research solar declination angle. Research it? I know what it is, I just used it to make a counter point to you, and now you'r just supporting it more... There are more pronounced changes in daylight at northerly latitudes, but also a lower overall sun angle. Paris and all of western Europe is more northerly than many areas of the US but is moderated substantially by the Gulf Stream current.Yeah, no kidding, that's why I said you using it to try and prove your argument on STL was "a terrible gauge for "well defined seasons"".... I posted on another thread that Tromso, Norway has their coldest low temperature of record at -2F at 69N latitude, and Eagle River, Wisconsin at 46N latitude has a coldest recorded reading of -33F. The Gulf Stream is at work- giving Norway a ridiculously temperate climate for being at a high latitude location. Leeds, UK is also incredibly mild for its latitude at 53N, having an average July high temperature of 67F and an average January high temperature of 40F. I'm honestly getting confused by what you think you're arguing, I gave an example like this in the post you're responding to...
Ok, I was hitting the sauce a lil last night when I posted, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe my post didn't make sense and that's how we ended up with your post, but... nope. Went back and read it, all fine. You just seem to have issues separating "south of you" from "the South," they aren't the same.
The same can be said for Illinois' southern third, and Cairo, at the state's southern tip, is as Southern as any town in any slave state.
So I guess that makes Illinois geographically Southern in toto.
In toto, Missouri has been placed in the "West North Central" group of states for as long as that grouping has existed. That's Midwest, not South.
If we measure from their northernmost points as you did, my hometown of Kansas City would be "geographically Southern." That's absurd.
So would placing any part of Kansas in the geographic South. Draw that line across the Sunflower State and Wichita becomes a Southern city.
Yes southern Illinois is geographically southern but that's just a small part of IL. HALF of Missouri (probably more) is southern geographically and climate wise. MO goes further south than the actual southern states of VA and KY.
Bad analogy. I guess Southern California, which has a latitude that extends past much of the Deep South should be considered part of the Deep South??????
Did I say that?
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.
