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 don't consider it completely south, but the U.S. Census Bureau does! I think once you get below Louisville and LExington it becomes predominantly Southern, but even Louisville and Lexington as well as most of Kentucky seem to me to be far more Southern than most of Southern Missouri. you really cannot compare Kentucky to Missouri at all...the states are very different from one another and I have to been to both many times. They are different in almost every way you can describe. The climate is different, the culture is different, the speech is different, the political attitudes are far more conservative in Kentucky than missouri, and the landscape is entirely different altogether. Surprisingly you actually hear predominantly Southern speech patterns in areas of Kentucky further north in latitude than those of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, or Ohio which do not show Southern speech patterns. Cultural division is not in a straight line of latitude at all. The Southern half of Missouri and the Southern half of Kentucky are very different culturally and speech-pattern wise from each other. Most of Southern Missouri feels to me at least very Midwestern compared to all of Kentucky. But I'm just one person.
The southern speech patterns, culture, and poltical attitudes have gradually spread north out of Kentucky into areas of Indiana and Ohio over time. I think part of the reason is that Indiana and Ohio traditionally had more jobs overall than most areas of Kentucky. Therefore, their has been a gradual out-migration of many former residents of Kentucky into Indiana and Ohio in search of good paying jobs. I think that is part of the reason why a city like Indianapolis might have more of a southern INFLUENCE than most people realize. Also, many families from eastern Kentucky and West Virginia migrated north in the early to mid 20th century becasue of the jobs related to auto manufacturing in Michigan at that time.
The southern speech patterns, culture, and poltical attitudes have gradually spread north out of Kentucky into areas of Indiana and Ohio over time. I think part of the reason is that Indiana and Ohio traditionally had more jobs overall than most areas of Kentucky. Therefore, their has been a gradual out-migration of many former residents of Kentucky into Indiana and Ohio in search of good paying jobs. I think that is part of the reason why a city like Indianapolis might have more of a southern INFLUENCE than most people realize. Also, many families from eastern Kentucky and West Virginia migrated north in the early to mid 20th century becasue of the jobs related to auto manufacturing in Michigan at that time.
Agreed. Illinois has also been influenced by Kentucky to a degree, as has Missouri...hell the state was settled by many Kentuckians initially. Kentucky has an influence on virtually any state that touches it, and the reverse is also true I think. Kentucky definitely has Midwestern influence from Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Cultural tradeoff perhaps? hehe.
It is interesting you consider all of Kentucky as being part of the south when the large metro areas of Lexington and Louisville are all located along and north of 38N latitude.
Ask anyone from Louisville or Lexington if they live in the South, North or Midwest. I can't imagine anyone from Kentucky saying they lived in the Midwest or the North.
Ask anyone from Louisville or Lexington if they live in the South, North or Midwest. I can't imagine anyone from Kentucky saying they lived in the Midwest or the North.
That is the big difference between Kentucky and Missouri. In general most Missourians will say they are from the Midwest. I've never heard pretty much any Missourian say they are from the South unless they are from extreme Southeast Missouri or extreme Southern South Central Missouri. My father came from Joplin, Missouri and he never considered it Southern and neither do I for the most part. I say let the area's citizens decide if they belong in the Midwest or whatever region they're in because they know it best.
Good point. But I am sure the original poster is looking for the best place, and places like Chicago, St. Louis, and Detriot can't compare to some of the smaller cities that have similar stats like that of Madison. The most dangerouslocations in the country are around the cities of Chicago, and St. Louis, and Detriot just speaks for itself. No amount of nightlife or so called 'class' could ever make me move to those cities. Madison is dozens of times more safe than these cities, and there is always things to do in town. People come here from Chicago looking for stuff to do! That speaks volumes at what Chicago must really offer. It isn't a steryotype to associate crime with these cities. These cities combined have millions of people, there is going to be crime. Unlike New York, San Fransico, or Houston, the bigger midwest cities have not as of yet proven themselves worthy of raising a family in. Sure, there are people that do it, but I think that the poster would be far more pleased with Madison than the other three that I mentioned
I thought we had already established, ben around, that the Mason-Dixon line starts as the MAryland-Pennsylvania border and becomes the Ohio River? By the time the MAson-Dixon line reaches Missouri it is defined as the 36 degree latitude line established by the Missouri Compromise. This definition places Missouri almost completely north of the Mason-Dixon, and it's cultural patterns far more reflect a state above the line than one below it.
No, "we" never established that at all. The Mason-Dixon Line was surveyed east/west along the boundary between PA and MD. It doesn't run down the Ohio River. Traditionally, the surveyed line was used to distinguish north from south. West of there there was no surveyed line, and the assignment of north vs. south has been more arbitrary and open to debate. There is no definitive answer as to whether MO is north or south because there is no agreed upon line, as there is further east. I think may would forgive you if you want to consider MO Midwest (and most would agree), but a minority would rightly disagree with you. You are all correct!
No, "we" never established that at all. The Mason-Dixon Line was surveyed east/west along the boundary between PA and MD. It doesn't run down the Ohio River. Traditionally, the surveyed line was used to distinguish north from south. West of there there was no surveyed line, and the assignment of north vs. south has been more arbitrary and open to debate. There is no definitive answer as to whether MO is north or south because there is no agreed upon line, as there is further east. I think may would forgive you if you want to consider MO Midwest (and most would agree), but a minority would rightly disagree with you. You are all correct!
THE MASON-DIXON LINE IS THE OHIO RIVER, THE MARYLAND-PENNSYLVANIA BORDER, AND THE 36 DEGREE LATITUDE LINE STARTING FROM WHERE THE OHIO ENDS AT MISSOURI AND EXTENDING DUE WEST. THE OHIO RIVER HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL WAY TO DIVIDE THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH AND STILL VERY ACCURATELY DIVIDES IT. THE MASON-DIXON LINE ACROSS MISSOURI IS THE ONE CREATED BY THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. FACT!!!! IF YOU CAN'T ACCEPT IT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MASON-DIXON LINE IS!!! I KNOW MISSOURI BETTER THAN ANYBODY IN THIS FORUM!!! IF IT IS NOT MIDWESTERN, THAN MOST OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, OHIO AND KANSAS ARE NOT EITHER. BECAUSE MISSOURI IS FAR MORE LIKE THESE STATES THAN ANY SOUTHERN STATE. NO TRUE SOUTHERN CULTURE EXISTS HERE UNLESS YOU ARE AROUND AREAS WHERE MISSOURI TOUCHES OTHER SOUTHERN STATES.
The most dangerouslocations in the country are around the cities of Chicago, and St. Louis, and Detriot just speaks for itself.
I call that the Chicago vacuum. Chicago sucks the best and brightest and the thunder out of other Midwestern cities into itself. But no one knows why Chicago has a vacuum.
I call that the Chicago vacuum. Chicago sucks the best and brightest and the thunder out of other Midwestern cities into itself. But no one knows why Chicago has a vacuum.
The sad thing is St. Louis had a big chance to be what Chicago is now 100 years ago and we blew it. First obstacle was we were running behind in getting a bridge put over the Mississippi to help our economy flow, and second the political fathers of the city didn't want to let it get big. And ever since then I think there has been a kind of snobbish attitude between Chicagoans and St. Louisans, kind of like between Milwaukee and Chicago. lol...Chicago may have gotten big but it didn't make too many friends along the way lol. I think people from St. Louis will always resent Chicago and people from Chicago will always look down on St. Louis. I dunno...that's the attitude I've notice the two cities have towards each other. Not to be stereotypical...just speaking from experience. I'm not one of these people by the way I am more than accomodating of both cities. My favorite two Midwestern cities: St. Louis and Chicago.
The sad thing is St. Louis had a big chance to be what Chicago is now 100 years ago and we blew it. First obstacle was we were running behind in getting a bridge put over the Mississippi to help our economy flow, and second the political fathers of the city didn't want to let it get big. And ever since then I think there has been a kind of snobbish attitude between Chicagoans and St. Louisans, kind of like between Milwaukee and Chicago. lol...Chicago may have gotten big but it didn't make too many friends along the way lol. I think people from St. Louis will always resent Chicago and people from Chicago will always look down on St. Louis. I dunno...that's the attitude I've notice the two cities have towards each other. Not to be stereotypical...just speaking from experience. I'm not one of these people by the way I am more than accomodating of both cities. My favorite two Midwestern cities: St. Louis and Chicago.
I hope Houston does not repeat St. Louis' mistake by giving it to Dallas-Fort Worth. Now where does Chicago gets its vacuum so Houston can suck the hell0 out of DFW, Atlanta, Miami, and Austin? I'm afraid Houston is slowly turning into St. Louis. They were the 4th largest cities in the U.S. at one time; St. Louis at the beginning of the 20th century, Houston at the end of the 20th century. Just replace the bridge with contempt from some conservatives, including a U.S. congressman, of rail projects and public transport in general. But at least in Houston's case, its not too late.
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.
