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.
If you had included WV, TN would be #2. TN has the Cumberland plateau which in itself is rather boring, but makes for some great scenery and waterfalls as it drops off to the edges.
Surprising, too, that NC ranked so high for flatness.
VA has the Shenandoah valley which might give it an edge over NC. Much less flat topography, as well.
If you had included WV, TN would be #2. TN has the Cumberland plateau which in itself is rather boring, but makes for some great scenery and waterfalls as it drops off to the edges.
Surprising, too, that NC ranked so high for flatness.
VA has the Shenandoah valley which might give it an edge over NC. Much less flat topography, as well.
Texas, Mississippi, and North Carolina were the surprising ones. I'm not sure they realize that the map posted doesn't correspond with the listed rankings. In the article they say Kansas is #7, but the map shows it as #9.
I didn't find Missisippi a surprise, it's right there next to GA (on the rankings). My recollection is a lot of rolling hills around Meridian. The rankings focused on % of flat areas - rolling hills would have as much effect as the N GA mountains.
That said, SC at #4 was a surprise until I read the methodology.
I found NC on that map pretty surprising, considering the fact that our mountains here in the Tar Heel state are the highest in the south (or east of the Mississippi for that matter). The Piedmont region in NC is also hilly, some areas more than others but overall not too flat. The only region in NC that is really flat is the Coastal Plain in the eastern part of the state. These areas are right near the ocean so they are understandably flat.
I was considering adding Texas, but then I felt an urge to add Oklahoma if I added Texas. I don't want to cause a storm of debate that has already been discussed WAY too many times, but I personally don't see Texas or Oklahoma as "southern" states. Yes, they have some southern aspects but overall, they shouldn't be considered southern IMO. Too much "western" culture that overshadows any sort of southern aspects those two states contain.
You just had to get 'ole TReb goin' didn't you. Culture aside, from a complete landscape and climate point of view both Texas and Oklahoma have large chunks of the great plains with Texas having some southwestern landscape in the transpecos area.
You just had to get 'ole TReb goin' didn't you. Culture aside, from a complete landscape and climate point of view both Texas and Oklahoma have large chunks of the great plains with Texas having some southwestern landscape in the transpecos area.
Good shot, EddieG.
So could it be equally said that North Carolina and Delaware, or Tennessee and Ohio have similar landscape/climatic features...? You know the answer as well as I do, and exactly what I mean by the point...you ain't dense, ed! Hmmmmm.
However, I agree that the "trans-pecos" is the one part of Texas that truly does resemble the interior Southwest in almost all aspects (sans remnants of the early Southern state settlement and history).
So could it be equally said that North Carolina and Delaware, or Tennessee and Ohio have similar landscape/climatic features...? You know the answer as well as I do, and exactly what I mean by the point...you ain't dense, ed! Hmmmmm.
However, I agree that the "trans-pecos" is the one part of Texas that truly does resemble the interior Southwest in almost all aspects (sans remnants of the early Southern state settlement and history).
I think the difference between the plains and the difference between the examples you cite are in the amount of real estate. The great plains cover about half of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, South and North Dakota as well as Montana and up into Canada. The fact that much of this area constituted the dust bowl region supports my argument even further. The southern plains and northern plains and have a lot in common. I am not going to argue with you on the "culture" differences that you are staunch about, but climate and terrain in the panhandle of Texas shares much with the rest of the plains region and not so much the south.
NC hands down. Virginia is really pretty and I think Tennessee is too. not sure who'd I'd give the 2nd place nod to out of those two.
Texas? You've gotta be kidding me. You'd have to be a native to think that state is pretty. Come on. What's so pretty about that state? The barren ugly landscape of Midland Odessa? The flat boring North Texas area of DFW and it's man made lakes? El Paso and it's mini-Mountains and what is easily the ugliest of the deserts in the western US? The plain generic panhandle area? The ugly polluted beaches down in Galveston? That eyesore of Houston? Is it the lack of natural lakes and rivers? I couldn't get out of that state fast enough.
=Ankhharu;33952014] Texas? You've gotta be kidding me.
I couldn't get out of that state fast enough.
Ohhh, PLEEZE come back, ANK!
In fact, I was talking to this ol' boy the other day and he asked me, somewhat wistful, said "Reb, where has ol' Ank been lately?" I just replied "I think he moved out west somewhere..."
We continued spittin' and whittlin'...but agreed we all miss you quite a bit; and was wondering how the state could improve to the point of you honoring us back with your presence...?
=eddie gein;33940544]I think the difference between the plains and the difference between the examples you cite are in the amount of real estate. The great plains cover about half of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, South and North Dakota as well as Montana and up into Canada.
Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough and/or you might have misunderstood...or else we are talking past each other (which happens quite a bit on this forum! LOL).
What I meant was, when it comes to what really defines a region in the basic ways, is that which are of historical/cultural essence, not physical topography....and the reply to you was really just sort of a light rejoinder, which alluded to what I said to JJ's post. Hope that clarifies somewhat!
[quote] The fact that much of this area constituted the dust bowl region supports my argument even further. The southern plains and northern plains and have a lot in common.
There is no argument you make that needs supporting within the realm of your interpretation. See below...
Quote:
I am not going to argue with you on the "culture" differences that you are staunch about, but climate and terrain in the panhandle of Texas shares much with the rest of the plains region and not so much the south.
I am staunch about it for the reasons mentioned above and before. That is, to repeat, when United States regions are grouped, then there are literally hundreds of different ways to do it. If it can be said -- and it can -- that the plains of Texas more resemble the plains of Kansas than they do any part of Mississippi? Then I agree. Never said different.
But on the flip side? It can equally be said that the mountains of north Alabama or Georgia more resemble the Appalachians of Pennsylvania than they do that of south Alabama or Georgia, and etc.
So I am really not sure of your point here as to the thrust of the thread topic of application to what I originally replied to. Hell, I AGREE with you -- and said so much earlier -- that when it comes to which state in the South might be fairly considered -- at least in parts -- to have the "ugliest" landscape? I said so. But where the whole item comes into play was that JJ disputedTexas being part of the South to begin with (with no basis at all)...so that was the spark of it all... somehow after that, you and I just seemed to have "gone off course" LOL
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.
Culture aside, from a complete landscape and climate point of view both Texas and Oklahoma have large chunks of the great plains with Texas having some southwestern landscape in the transpecos area.
Hmmmmm. 
