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.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,096,533 times
Reputation: 1028
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyman11
Agreed but it should be noted all major battles were more eastern and states like FL and TX had very small populations leading into the civil war
Ok fine...combine that with what Texas is today, and you're hard pressed to call Texas a borderline case. Texas is definitively southern in at least 4/5 of the state. The southern influences extend into Eastern New Mexico..this is provable by the fact that New Mexico was racially segregated, accent patterns, and demographics. Florida also up until about 40-50 years was basically part of the Deep South. Florida has lost a lot of those characteristics with the vast tourist industry, retirees, and Latino immigrants, but underneath it all I would still group it in with the south. I have friends in Austin, and that city is as much a part of the New South as Atlanta. As are dallas, houston, and most of oklahoma. And as far as Texas having a small population, explain why it was the biggest supplier of Confederate troops. Florida and Texas were southern prior to the Civil War, and remained staunchly southern after the Civil War (Florida until around the mid-20th century.)
Ok fine...combine that with what Texas is today, and you're hard pressed to call Texas a borderline case. Texas is definitively southern in at least 4/5 of the state. The southern influences extend into Eastern New Mexico..this is provable by the fact that New Mexico was racially segregated, accent patterns, and demographics. Florida also up until about 40-50 years was basically part of the Deep South. Florida has lost a lot of those characteristics with the vast tourist industry, retirees, and Latino immigrants, but underneath it all I would still group it in with the south. I have friends in Austin, and that city is as much a part of the New South as Atlanta. As are dallas, houston, and most of oklahoma. And as far as Texas having a small population, explain why it was the biggest supplier of Confederate troops. Florida and Texas were southern prior to the Civil War, and remained staunchly southern after the Civil War (Florida until around the mid-20th century.)
First off drop the attitude, especially the grammar quest you have over one extra letter 'c'. Secondly point, copy, and paste where I stated FL or TX are not southern? You must have me confused with someone else as I have always stood as those two states being nothing but southern.
Instead of telling me TX had the most troops sent to the confederacy why not show me a link to it and if you are doubting the populations of TX and FL in this time period then I have given you a link up above where it states each states population, number of those living in slavery, number of those living free, etc. Needless to say I anticipate a more civil response but perhaps just getting my hopes up
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,096,533 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyman11
First off drop the attitude, especially the grammar quest you have over one extra letter 'c'. Secondly point, copy, and paste where I stated FL or TX are not southern? You must have me confused with someone else as I have always stood as those two states being nothing but southern.
Instead of telling me TX had the most troops sent to the confederacy why not show me a link to it and if you are doubting the populations of TX and FL in this time period then I have given you a link up above where it states each states population, number of those living in slavery, number of those living free, etc. Needless to say I anticipate a more civil response but perhaps just getting my hopes up
Ok, fine...forgive my manners then. I actually came up with a surprise...it turns out my book, "Texas in the Civil War" may have possibly misstated how many troops texas sent to the confederacy. I've been looking it up, and instead of the 140,000 plus, I'm getting half that amount from other sources...70,000, vs. the 2,000 fighting for the Union, mostly Germans. So if I am wrong, it's not entirely my fault. Nonetheless, every link I'm coming across states Texas was a major supply state for the Confederacy. Here are two links backing up the number fighting for the Union and Confederacy. Keep in mind, my book may have double-counted, because every other source confirms 70,000. I had no reason to doubt this as it was published and stocked by both Borders and Barns 'N Noble. Interestingly, 2500 Mexican Texans, many from San Antonio, fought for the Confederacy as well. And as I recall, the Oklahoma territory, which was mostly native americans, was pro-confederate, but i'm not 100% certain. Your requested links are below. Each states the amount of Union support and Confederate support. Texas furnished at least 70,000 troops in the Civil War and was perhaps the most major supply state. Texans also fought in every major Civil War battle.
Ok, fine...forgive my manners then. I actually came up with a surprise...it turns out my book, "Texas in the Civil War" may have possibly misstated how many troops texas sent to the confederacy. I've been looking it up, and instead of the 140,000 plus, I'm getting half that amount from other sources...70,000, vs. the 2,000 fighting for the Union, mostly Germans. So if I am wrong, it's not entirely my fault. Nonetheless, every link I'm coming across states Texas was a major supply state for the Confederacy. Here are two links backing up the number fighting for the Union and Confederacy. Keep in mind, my book may have double-counted, because every other source confirms 70,000. I had no reason to doubt this as it was published and stocked by both Borders and Barns 'N Noble. Interestingly, 2500 Mexican Texans, many from San Antonio, fought for the Confederacy as well. And as I recall, the Oklahoma territory, which was mostly native americans, was pro-confederate, but i'm not 100% certain. Your requested links are below. Each states the amount of Union support and Confederate support. Texas furnished at least 70,000 troops in the Civil War and was perhaps the most major supply state. Texans also fought in every major Civil War battle.
I dont doubt that at all, Texas was apart of the Confederacy and had a previous history of experience in war shortly before. I can certainly see a large amount as 70,000 represented by Texas.
BTW while I dont agree with you on MD being northern, you are correct about where MD sent its troops, MD sent more troops to the union but that was under a 'compromise' as MD was a border state near the capital. The north allowed MD to maintain slave plantations if it sided with the union, the north also did the same thing with WV and DE. MD is transitional, neither northern or southern but characteristics of both. For me I still think of MD as southern but to each their own IMO
Cincinnati is one of the southernmost northern cities. The difference betwee it and Louisville is night and day. I will agree though that the transition zone lies between the two.
I think St. Louis gets that title because it's the southernmost major city that is considered Northern. Next would be D.C. then Cincinnati and KC (which have about the exact same latitude)
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,096,533 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyman11
I dont doubt that at all, Texas was apart of the Confederacy and had a previous history of experience in war shortly before. I can certainly see a large amount as 70,000 represented by Texas.
BTW while I dont agree with you on MD being northern, you are correct about where MD sent its troops, MD sent more troops to the union but that was under a 'compromise' as MD was a border state near the capital. The north allowed MD to maintain slave plantations if it sided with the union, the north also did the same thing with WV and DE. MD is transitional, neither northern or southern but characteristics of both. For me I still think of MD as southern but to each their own IMO
The plantation owners were a minority of Maryland's population, and a minority in all slave states generally, so that doesn't come close to telling the fully story. I also don't think Maryland sending 60,000 men to fight for the Union vs. only 20,000 for the Confederacy was a compromise...if Maryland was really ardently Southern, my belief is it would have sent more than it sent to the Confederacy. A compromise is a promise for something equal in return. From what I understood, much of the Maryland population was heavily divided anyway. Yes, it was placed under martial law, but there is considerable debate about whether or not it would have seceded on its own. From a historical standpoint, Maryland once was part of the south. I don't deny that before the Civil War, calling Maryland anything other than southern would've been difficult to do. However, after the Civil War, it dramatically changed much of its stance. During the Great Migration, it's African American population increased dramatically. Industrially, its cities resembled the Northeast (Baltimore did at least). Southern cuisine, politics, culture, dialects, and for the most part demographics are all relatively absent in Maryland. The transition zone in my mind lies between Washington and Richmond...two polar opposites of each other...the Bos-Wash corridor ends in southern Maryland. Today, Maryland has more in common with Pennsylvania. Prior to the Civil War, it had more in common with Virginia. It's just how it is. So if you look at Maryland throughout its whole history, yes, it's transitional...it represents both Northern and Southern elements...however, it leaned decisively toward the former after the Civil War, whereas before it was the latter.
Last edited by stlouisan; 12-25-2011 at 07:41 PM..
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,096,533 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smtchll
I think St. Louis gets that title because it's the southernmost major city that is considered Northern. Next would be D.C. then Cincinnati and KC (which have about the exact same latitude)
What I've never understood is how Louisville can be on similar latitudes to Indy, Columbus, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and St. Louis, yet be a polar opposite of them. It is counter-intuitive, yet that is certainly how it is. Same thing between Washington and Richmond. Only a mere 100 miles, yet it makes all the difference. Also, latitude does not really establish everything..southern and northern in my opinion is a cultural thing. Springfield, Joplin, and Cape Girardeau, Carbondale, and Evansville are all further south than Louisville and Richmond, but are borderline cases compared to them. In short, I will use latitude a lot, but only up to a certain point, because go far enough east or west, the culture and weather won't respect it. Longitude is just as important as latitude when trying to define boundaries between regions.
The plantation owners were a minority of Maryland's population, and a minority in all slave states generally, so that doesn't come close to telling the fully story. I also don't think Maryland sending 60,000 men to fight for the Union vs. only 20,000 for the Confederacy was a compromise...if Maryland was really ardently Southern, my belief is it would have sent more than it sent to the Confederacy. A compromise is a promise for something equal in return. From what I understood, much of the Maryland population was heavily divided anyway. Yes, it was placed under martial law, but there is considerable debate about whether or not it would have seceded on its own. From a historical standpoint, Maryland once was part of the south. I don't deny that before the Civil War, calling Maryland anything other than southern would've been difficult to do. However, after the Civil War, it dramatically changed much of its stance. During the Great Migration, it's African American population increased dramatically. Industrially, its cities resembled the Northeast (Baltimore did at least). Southern cuisine, politics, culture, dialects, and for the most part demographics are all relatively absent in Maryland. The transition zone in my mind lies between Washington and Richmond...two polar opposites of each other...the Bos-Wash corridor ends in southern Maryland. Today, Maryland has more in common with Pennsylvania. Prior to the Civil War, it had more in common with Virginia. It's just how it is. So if you look at Maryland throughout its whole history, yes, it's transitional...it represents both Northern and Southern elements...however, it leaned decisively toward the former after the Civil War, whereas before it was the latter.
I've always said that the south starts at Fredericksburg, VA
Richmond isn't as far north as Louisville, but I would consider it to be the northernmost southern city on the eastern seaboard.
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.
. Florida and Texas were southern prior to the Civil War, and remained staunchly southern after the Civil War (Florida until around the mid-20th century.)
