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.
They both went for Obama last election. NC and VA (especially NOVA) have a heavy amount of transplants- probably more than any other Southern states. They are fast becoming "Mid-Atlantic"
50 years ago Northern Virginia was a pretty Southern area. Now it is Mid-Atlantic bordering on Yankee.
Richmond is still holding on to its Southern fort, but now its only mildly Southern. Years ago it was like Savannah!
NC which was Southern too, is now more "Southern-Lite".
Chapel Hill , Raleigh, and "The Triangle" has all gotton very very liberalized. You are more likely to find places that sell tree hugging kits than sweet tea.
Asheville is very Yuppy, and not in the Southern way.
What do Y'all think? I hate to see them go. They are in danger of loseing their membership in the Southern Club.
The American South
Georgia
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Tennessee
North Carolina
Louisiana
Arkansas (including Missouri south of U.S. Route 60)
Kentucky (minus Cincinnati suburbs, including Missouri Bootheel))
North Florida (north of Orlando)
South Virginia (from just north of Charlottesville on southward, including most of Shenandoah Valley and the part of West Virginia south of Charleston)
I personally agree with that line, but it cuts out the vast majority of Texas, which many on here adamantly argue is the South.
Personally I think Texas is the south but with a lower case 'S'. It's certainly southern by latitude and in the sense that it definitely isn't the North or Midwest. But is it a continuation of the "sweet tea" culture of the southeast? No, not in my opinion. I see most of Texas being more southwestern then southeastern, though ultimately it's a transitional area that doesn't completely fit in either bucket.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by whereiend
I personally agree with that line, but it cuts out the vast majority of Texas, which many on here adamantly argue is the South.
Personally I think Texas is the south but with a lower case 'S'. It's certainly southern by latitude and in the sense that it definitely isn't the North or Midwest. But is it a continuation of the "sweet tea" culture of the southeast? No, not in my opinion. I see most of Texas being more southwestern then southeastern, though ultimately it's a transitional area that doesn't completely fit in either bucket.
that's intentional, the south ends at the Balcones Escarpment/the Hill Country, the panhandle and west Texas are not southern, east Texas certainly is though
Dallas and Houston are the western extreme of what I consider the south
The south a lot different from the 'Old South'. The Old South was mostly people who voted for FDR type of politicians. FDR is considered the father of modern liberalism.
The south back in the day had a very small middle class compared to today. The south moved to the right because of transplants as it became more affluent.
The south a lot different from the 'Old South'. The Old South was mostly people who voted for FDR type of politicians. FDR is considered the father of modern liberalism.
The south back in the day had a very small middle class compared to today. The south moved to the right because of transplants as it became more affluent.
Politics aside, what else do you consider to be characteristics or hallmarks of the South?
The south a lot different from the 'Old South'. The Old South was mostly people who voted for FDR type of politicians. FDR is considered the father of modern liberalism.
The south back in the day had a very small middle class compared to today. The south moved to the right because of transplants as it became more affluent.
Admittedly this is not my area of expertise, but I don't think that this is accurate at all. Political parties are coalitions, and they periodically reorganize themselves. One such example was the aftermath of Nixon's southern strategy. That had nothing to do with the south "moving right" and everything to do with the Democrats embracing civil rights and the Republicans successfully capitalizing on that.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,473,841 times
Reputation: 12187
I think the main difference between the South vs rest of USA is people are more friendly towards strangers and often have more traditional attitudes. Beyond that the differences are exaggerated.
Admittedly this is not my area of expertise, but I don't think that this is accurate at all. Political parties are coalitions, and they periodically reorganize themselves. One such example was the aftermath of Nixon's southern strategy. That had nothing to do with the south "moving right" and everything to do with the Democrats embracing civil rights and the Republicans successfully capitalizing on that.
This theory is conveniently endorsed and pushed by Democrats. you don't mention that GOP doesn't push slavery, segregation policies....it wins the south with non race issues like lower taxes that FDR Democrats were not pushing back in the day. they wanted bigger government because they were more poor.
why would a party adopt the racist policies of another party if that party finally gave it up b/c popular support dwindled. this is never explained. for the party of slavery and segregation and lynching to drop segregation, that stance had to be a loser.
If they flipped, then GOP people would be fan of FDR politics.
I agree the Democrat party has changed significantly since then but there was no flip based on segregation type policies.
THe reality is segregation would have gone away earlier if the party had adopted some of the positions it has since the 1960s or so because it would force those voters to accept things they don't like only for segregation policy. Imagine if they had tried to combine segregation policies with gun control policies, the party would have fractured quickly and the gun rights people would have been more open minded to getting rid of segregation.
It seems like everybody who posts on topics like this imply 'Southern' is conservative but the south flipped from FDR to Reagan conservative and now some areas of south are shifting to liberal arts liberalism, not the blue collar variety of the past.
It doesn't make any sense to use a geographic term like Southern to describe always changing political trends. The south had a lot less people back in the day today so if we are going to use a period of time to define 'Southern' , it seems like using a period of time with the most people and growth is the best choice.
Last edited by ClemVegas; 04-29-2020 at 07:32 PM..
This theory is conveniently endorsed and pushed by Democrats. you don't mention that GOP doesn't push slavery, segregation policies....it wins the south with non race issues like lower taxes that FDR Democrats were not pushing back in the day. they wanted bigger government because they were more poor.
why would a party adopt the racist policies of another party if that party finally gave it up b/c popular support dwindled. this is never explained. for the party of slavery and segregation and lynching to drop segregation, that stance had to be a loser.
If they flipped, then GOP people would be fan of FDR politics.
I agree the Democrat party has changed significantly since then but there was no flip based on segregation type policies.
THe reality is segregation would have gone away earlier if the party had adopted some of the positions it has since the 1960s or so because it would force those voters to accept things they don't like only for segregation policy. Imagine if they had tried to combine segregation policies with gun control policies, the party would have fractured quickly and the gun rights people would have been more open minded to getting rid of segregation.
It seems like everybody who posts on topics like this imply 'Southern' is conservative but the south flipped from FDR to Reagan conservative and now some areas of south are shifting to liberal arts liberalism, not the blue collar variety of the past.
It doesn't make any sense to use a geographic term like Southern to describe always changing political trends.
As I said political parties are coalitions, and "conservative" means different things in different contexts.
I agree that South was more open to socialism in the FDR era, but that was true everywhere in the USA. We were coming off of the great depression and had not yet entered the cold war. In 1944 the top tax rate was 94%! Imagine that?
But does that mean the south was "progressive"? Hell no. The new deal was not seen in that lens whatsoever. It was more akin to the recent Coronavirus stimulus packages, ie: people are in serious trouble and need help NOW.
Even now Trump has shown that the "economically conservative" republic voters were not nearly as married to the 90's style laissez-faire capitalism as previously thought. Political parties are much less monolithic than they are portrayed.
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.
