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.
But the southern part of VA is southern aswell with Richmond being the capital of the confederacy. The only place that is northern and matches the midatlantic is northern Virginia because of it's proximity to DC and Maryland. Most of Virginia is southern, I would know since I live in VA. Sorry but North Carolina is not the midatlantic no matter how bad you want to be apart of it.
The North and South predate the United States, and the North/South historical division was a result of migration patterns and associated economic and cultural differences.
This is actually a good response to people - often Westerners - who openly question why the North/South/Yankee/Dixie/Rebel divisions matter at all anymore. They often get annoyed at the distinction and what some call an ongoing, never-ending fight starting with the Civil War. It's because the North and South, as you say, is an idea that predates the US. North and South was distinct before this country was even an official country, when it was just a colony. Plantations were common in the south (and overall agriculture was better because of the better climate and soil) not the north, and this from the start distinguished use and prevalence of slave labor, and this difference mattered until the Civil War and even after it. This is something that has mattered since the very beginnings of this country. It may not actually matter anymore but it is something we are all still conscious of, IMO, if we've even taken a US history class ever. And as someone living in either region, I understand it. Someone from the West may not because they don't live in an eastern state, an original colony. It may sound corny, but as a historian, I can feel the history on this side of the country, in each state. It is distinct to me, but then again I am very aware of it and it is of great interest to me. You obviously don't feel this in Montana or Minnesota or Colorado or California because it didn't exist, at least not from the very beginning. It doesn't technically matter anymore but it is definitely interesting to still discuss, the matter of North and South. I see nothing wrong with discussing it.
That said, I think the South Atlantic really is SC down, geographically, but I don't think NC counts as Mid-Atlantic culturally, so I would also reluctantly include NC.
This is actually a good response to people - often Westerners - who openly question why the North/South/Yankee/Dixie/Rebel divisions matter at all anymore. They often get annoyed at the distinction and what some call an ongoing, never-ending fight starting with the Civil War. It's because the North and South, as you say, is an idea that predates the US. North and South was distinct before this country was even an official country, when it was just a colony. Plantations were common in the south (and overall agriculture was better because of the better climate and soil) not the north, and this from the start distinguished use and prevalence of slave labor, and this difference mattered until the Civil War and even after it. This is something that has mattered since the very beginnings of this country. It may not actually matter anymore but it is something we are all still conscious of, IMO, if we've even taken a US history class ever. And as someone living in either region, I understand it. Someone from the West may not because they don't live in an eastern state, an original colony. It may sound corny, but as a historian, I can feel the history on this side of the country, in each state. It is distinct to me, but then again I am very aware of it and it is of great interest to me. You obviously don't feel this in Montana or Minnesota or Colorado or California because it didn't exist, at least not from the very beginning. It doesn't technically matter anymore but it is definitely interesting to still discuss, the matter of North and South. I see nothing wrong with discussing it.
That said, I think the South Atlantic really is SC down, geographically, but I don't think NC counts as Mid-Atlantic culturally, so I would also reluctantly include NC.
It's all about pickin cotton, the rest is elementary . CA. DOES have a past and a history, it's From Spain and not England.Same for AZ. NM. Etc.
The North and South predate the United States, and the North/South historical division was a result of migration patterns and associated economic and cultural differences.
My previous response was a bit cheeky. I don't see the point in saying "These regions didn't even exist until European settlers arrived."
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYMTman
Well, regardless, the boundary between Western and Eastern Europe is obviously not static. Throughout history, it has at times referred to a dynamic line separating the Slavic and Germanic peoples, then the Iron Curtain, etc.
It hasn't been static because the borders of the "nations" and empires themselves have not been static. There was no "Poland" in 1900. There is today. There was an Austrian Empire in 1900. There isn't today. In 1945, there was a "Germany." By 1946, there was an East and West Germany, and by 1990 there was again a "Germany" with East and West Germany disappearing from the map. When I was born, there was a nation called the "Soviet Union" that no longer exists, and we now have a fragmentation of nation-states that exist in its wake, some more geopolitically aligned with NATO than others.
By contrast, the continental United States hasn't seen any change in its borders--either through internal boundary changes between the states or acquisition of foreign territory--in the last 100 years. We have fixed geography that makes it easy to drop states neatly into a "New England" or "South Atlantic" or "Midwest" category. Now if Pennsylvania were able to somehow absorb the edge of Western Pennsylvania (including Pittsburgh) by some unknown constitutional means, then yeah, we'd probably start thinking of Pittsburgh a bit differently in regional terms.
So the European analogy is a bad one. Our concepts of Western and Eastern Europe are influenced by the rise and collapse of empires and nation states and the wholesale shifting of real, geographic borders. On City-Data, we want to change regions that have been in place for ages because the people in a certain area no longer sound the way they used to. Not the same at all.
It's all about pickin cotton, the rest is elementary . CA. DOES have a past and a history, it's From Spain and not England.Same for AZ. NM. Etc.
As for pickin cotton, California is the fourth largest cotton producing state. You fan grow anything in California as you got an endless supply of water...
California's population was rather small in the Mexican / Spanish time, most of its history, as in events that affected its present structure occurred more in the post-US times.
It's all about pickin cotton, the rest is elementary . CA. DOES have a past and a history, it's From Spain and not England.Same for AZ. NM. Etc.
The East Coast has more American history than anything west of the original 13. America began over here. George Washington walked through my town, his troops stayed here and around here during the war, what Californian can say that too?... None.
Those states have history of course, everywhere does, but as for US history, the East Coast obviously has more - this is a fact. The western states came after, and their history is great and unique but it is not as lengthy as the east as far as the history of this country goes.
The East Coast has more American history than anything west of the original 13. America began over here. George Washington walked through my town, his troops stayed here and around here during the war, what Californian can say that too?... None.
Those states have history of course, everywhere does, but as for US history, the East Coast obviously has more - this is a fact. The western states came after, and their history is great and unique but it is not as lengthy as the east as far as the history of this country goes.
In all fairness , you could put all of New England inside Cal. And NM. Yes there is a lot cramed into the eastern " colonies" , that does put an exclusive on the area from 1700s on up for sure. Old ? Well let's see how old Santa Fe is ? GW was of no importance if you were from Spain. Spanish land grants remain to this day, there is a distinct difference even today between Those of Spanish decent and of Mexico where so much of the population was and is Indian / native people mix. Cal. Is an arid place, no cotton growing in its pre US days. Without irrigation , Cal. Would return to the way it was 200 or more years ago. ...I still say the west started in Cal , and NM. Then moved eastward.....after all is that not what we are talking about ?
Virginia on down. MD and DE are technically debatable although I don't consider them part of the South at all anymore. I don't see how WV can be considered South Atlantic at all, though it may be part of the South as a whole.
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida.
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.
