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.
Typical of someone who knows nothing about the state. The southern quarter not the Southern half. The upper portion of the Southern half is a transition zone. It doesn't go from being solidly Midwestern in St. Louis to purely Southern just South of there. You aren't in the true South until you reach Sikeston and Springfield.
Chill out I'm on your side. It was just an opinion
Kansas City is quite Northern as well and Those two cities aren't the only things keeping Missouri in the Midwest. The Midwest is divided into two regions the Upper and Lower Midwest. Every region has glaring differences within it culturally and linguistically just look at the Northeast. The lower Midwest has Southern influences and this area constitutes all of Missouri, all of Kansas and 2/3 of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. No region is a homogenous mixture and the extreme ends will have glaring differences. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey are glaringly different from New England culturally and linguistically. So your argument ultimately fails to make a point.
We're having different arguments: I'm talking about North vs. South, and you're talking about Midwest vs. South. I'm not denying Missouri is a Midwestern state at all, but if I had to lump it together with quintessential North/Great Lakes states or what's being dubbed the "Southern group", I'm arguing that it has as much pull to the South as it does to the NORTH, if not more. Or, in other words, that discussion is worth arguing because it's a close call.........in my opinion. Furthermore, the Great Lakes states we're talking about all (but Iowa) have one thing in common: direct access to a Great Lake. Missouri does not, but has a lot in common with states in 4 of the adjacent regions (Northwest, Great Lakes, Southwest and South).
How about we just make 6 groups, and add a title for "misfits" like MO?
We're having different arguments: I'm talking about North vs. South, and you're talking about Midwest vs. South. I'm not denying Missouri is a Midwestern state at all, but if I had to lump it together with quintessential North/Great Lakes states or what's being dubbed the "Southern group", I'm arguing that it has as much pull to the South as it does to the NORTH, if not more. Or, in other words, that discussion is worth arguing because it's a close call.........in my opinion. Furthermore, the Great Lakes states we're talking about all (but Iowa) have one thing in common: direct access to a Great Lake. Missouri does not, but has a lot in common with states in 4 of the adjacent regions (Northwest, Great Lakes, Southwest and South).
How about we just make 6 groups, and add a title for "misfits" like MO?
No it's the same argument. Midwest is the same thing as Northern. Missouri does not have a Southern pull equal to its Midwestern pull. Having lived in this state for almost three decades I think I would know that better than you.
Why would you separate Iowa and Nebraska but lump Washington state and New Mexico together?
That's why i said 6 regions makes more sense than 5, that would make the Eastern half of the "Yellow" region a different region but to answer your question... Politics.
Pennsylvania should be in a Mid-Atlantic group, unless you're going for a "Rust belt" grouping of some sort.
Minnesota could belong to a Great Lakes grouping, or a Great Plains/Upper Midwest grouping (IOwa, NEB, SD, ND), etc..
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.