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 really don't want to stir up ajf131 again, but . . . I was always taught in school that MO. is a southern state, slavery, et. all, the Missouri Compromise, etc. But I thought, give ajf the benefit of the doubt. I went to school years ago in Pennsylvania; we there is a different perspective there than in the midwest. So I asked my daughter, 2005 high school graduate, AP history taker, Coloradan; "were you taught that Missouri is/was a southern state?" Her answer: "Yes". If anyone is an expert on the Civil War, it is the teacher she had for that AP history course. So ajf, many historians think MO is southern. FWIW
Kentucky is an exception here because Confederates took control of the state after the Civil War...other than Kentucky's stance towards the Confederacy, it's not lacking anything else that could classify it as being a Southern state. Its economy, industry, manner of speech, demographics, basically everything classifies it as Southern. Also don't like the term "Border South''...if they can be called "Border South," they can also be called "Border North"...they were border states during the Civil War, plain and simple. Kentucky sided with the Union only because the Confederacy aggressively tried to take it. And almost all of its soldiers were pro-slavery...abolitionism in KEntucky was practically unheard of. While Maryland may have been pro-secessionist at the time, it has since changed drastically. It is unquestionably part of the Mid-Atlantic today. Delaware and Missouri I don't think were ever definitively Southern. Missouri did a lot of controversial actions as a whole state prior to the Civil War....number one, it voted for Douglas...it should be noted that the only other state to do this was a Northern state, New Jersey. It had the typical slavery laws of a slave state, ,but it freed Dred Scott. Also, St. Louis was ultimately a pro-Union city. Missouri's economy and industry was also always pretty much Midwestern or unique to itself...no Southern crops of any kind grew here except in the far southern parts of the state. And the fact that the majority of its citizens fought for the Union despite the St. Louis Massacre speaks volumes. The bottom-line is that I don't think what a state was 150 years ago dictates what it is today unless it is still Southern. For that reason, Missouri belongs in the Midwest, Delaware and Maryland in the Northeast, Kentucky, the majority of West Virginia, and Virginia in the south.
Just noting that I wasn't really arguing one way or another in my post as to the bearing the Confederate experience (or lack of it) has on the definition of the South today (although I personally count it for QUITE a bit!). But rather, just agreeing with Bobilee, by using some broad examples, that each sub-section, and further, each individual state WITHIN each sub-region, was different, and that there was no en masse secession wave. I guess what I was doing was straying off topic!
Personally, I have always noted Kentucky as well in my own defintion of the South as the Old Confederacy states (and Bobilee has given me a lot of reason to think hard on West Virginia for its contributions!)
Just noting that I wasn't really arguing one way or another in my post as to the bearing the Confederate experience (or lack of it) has on the definition of the South today (although I personally count it for QUITE a bit!). But rather, just agreeing with Bobilee, by using some broad examples, that each sub-section, and further, each individual state WITHIN each sub-region, was different, and that there was no en masse secession wave. I guess what I was doing was straying off topic!
Personally, I have always noted Kentucky as well in my own defintion of the South as the Old Confederacy states (and Bobilee has given me a lot of reason to think hard on West Virginia for its contributions!)
btw, from what you've given about Texas, I'm more or less accepting of it as being pretty much a Southern state. Oklahoma I think of as a border state today. I think that the Eastern and Northern Panhandles of West Virginia are not Southern, but I guess Bobilee knows his home-state better than I do, and you know Texas better than me...been to both states, but i guess you don't know much about a state unless you've lived there awhile.
I really don't want to stir up ajf131 again, but . . . I was always taught in school that MO. is a southern state, slavery, et. all, the Missouri Compromise, etc. But I thought, give ajf the benefit of the doubt. I went to school years ago in Pennsylvania; we there is a different perspective there than in the midwest. So I asked my daughter, 2005 high school graduate, AP history taker, Coloradan; "were you taught that Missouri is/was a southern state?" Her answer: "Yes". If anyone is an expert on the Civil War, it is the teacher she had for that AP history course. So ajf, many historians think MO is southern. FWIW
I really don't want to make you have to try and stir me up again, but I have no choice. I was never taught that Missouri was a Southern state in all eighteen years of my education, and I took A.P. U.S. History as well as a junior in high school, I am not joking at all about that. We were taught that Missouri was a border state, not a Southern one. I was always taught that it was a border state during and before the Civil War, and an overall Midwestern state afterwards. And there is enough evidence to suggest that post-civil war Missouri was definitely more Midwestern. I never heard even one of my teachers call Missouri a Southern state. Plus, a lot of teachers that I had throughout my whole high school career indicate that it became much more Midwestern after the Civil War. When you can give me overwhelming evidence of Southerness, then I'll listen. If Missouri is southern, then most of Illinois is too. So for what it's worth, a lot of historians don't consider Missouri to be Southern as well. Now if you want to tell me I didn't have a good teacher, the high school I went to is nationally recognized for academic excellence among all of its staff. Also, if you think that Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio and Pennsylvania are immune to southern culture, think again. A LOT of people will tell you otherwise. Unlike your daughter, I actually got educated in the state of Missouri, by a history teacher who had at one time focused his entire studies on the history of Missouri. The History Channel on a show called "The States" considers Missouri to be part of the Midwest, even after reviewing its history, and referred to it as a historic border state. Now if you want to question them, fine. If you want to consider Missouri Southern, fine. Just know that a lot of historians don't consider Missouri to be Southern...in fact I can't even think of one historian I've ever encountered who says Missouri is Southern, and I have seen many on TV and even met a few in person. I've almost always either heard border state or a Midwestern state with Southern elements. I can give you as many facts as you want to prove that Missouri isn't Southern. I have done probably all the research there is out there. I am almost positive that I am as well-educated about Missouri as any historian out there you can throw at me. I've only done 4 years worth of research on it
btw, from what you've given about Texas, I'm more or less accepting of it as being pretty much a Southern state. Oklahoma I think of as a border state today. I think that the Eastern and Northern Panhandles of West Virginia are not Southern, but I guess Bobilee knows his home-state better than I do, and you know Texas better than me...been to both states, but i guess you don't know much about a state unless you've lived there awhile.
Thanks AJ. And you are right one needs to live in a place for a while to get a real feel of the culture and etc. However, that doesn't make one an expert either, and two people can live in the same state and have different experience and perceptions (this is especially true in a large state like Texas). But a visitor can form some good valid opinions too, particularly if they have no pre-concieved notions.
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 813,645 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobilee
TexasRebTexasReb, you raise an important point here. People do not look into the mechanics and details of Secession. They look upon the South as a solid block of Secession, but every state was a totally different set of circumstances. For instance, in Louisiana, while the people were not allowed to directly vote on Secession, they were allowed to vote on anti-/pro- Secession delegates. The vote was 20,448 for Secession delegates, and 17,296 for anti-Secession delegates. And yet the Convention voted 113 to 17 in favor of Secession, despite the fact that about 45% of the voters were against Secession.
In my own part of the South, West Virginians voted slightly less than 2 to 1 against Secession, yet historians see that vote as a solid block of pro-Union votes, whereas the Louisiana vote is not. The facts are tailored to fit the results, particularly in the case of West Virginia.
I've been wanting to recommend a book to you, if you haven't read it already. It's available for free on Google Books, "Why The Solid South" by Hilary Herbert, et al, it covers Reconstruction but gives a lot of details you won't find in many histories, I was very surprised by the section on West Virginia.
I agree and I enjoy your renderings and expertise of WVA.
Was the glass half empty or half full? Such is the case of WVA, it was as Virginia as Virginia, therefore parts to the whole, it can just as well be said Virginia did not secede. Christ Lincoln was born in KY he was actually a Southerner and married to a major slave owing family until later. Va granted independence to those who wanted it in that territory of VA, they also appeased by democratic process to Northwestern Va's counties' desires (as the definition of the state today was decided after its remains) while it operated independently and undecided. There were some some threatening actions by Lincoln with the remaining union loyalists in what would be remaining VA minus its NW counties that pushed them over the edge from neutral status. It had to be brief. They had to be one or the other, and the Union already mobilized to hold Hampton Roads where Jeff Davis would eventually be imprisoned at Fort Monroe.
If it were all that simple and with all the dynamics and internal secessions going on within states of the period, we wouldn't be having these discussions today.
Having lived most of my life in Virginia I feel qualified to state the following.
Northern Virginia is in NO WAY southern. There is much more of a mid-atlantic or even northeast feel to it. I have cousins in New Jersey, and there really is very little difference in the feel of the two places.
Richmond has some southern characteristics, but is changing rapidly. Many of the newer residents in Chesterfield and Henrico are from the North as well. You won't find too many accents here.
Tidewater is more mid-atlantic as well. Many transplants from the North as well as a sizeable military presence. Definitely not too southern. Southside Virginia and Southwestern Virginia most definitely are southern. Many of the residents have strong accents and identify much more with say Tennessee or Kentucky.
All you have to do is compare the voting trends in Virginia and say Alabama or Georgia to see what I am talking about. Heck, people here are much more likely to call a carbonated drink soda than the people to the south of here who invariably call it Coke. ( Look up the Pop vs. Soda website) Virginians voted much more like their northern neighbors than their southern ones.
I never ever ever considered myself southern in the first place, and frankly I'm pretty happy that Virginia is losing a lot of it's southern culture.
I forgot one more important thing from earlier. In 2005, Virginians voted for Governor. The choice was between a man from southwestern Virginia and man born in Minnesota and raised in Kansas/ Missouri. The man from the midwest with no discernible accent trounced the man from sw Virginia who has a very strong twang. In fact, in the eastern part of the state, roughly from Loudoun and Fauquier counties south through Richmond and down to the NC border, he won by 12 points 55-43. Many of the political pundits in the state were hesitant to say it but thought a good number of these voters simply were unwilling to vote for a candidate who did not sound like they sounded. I'm not sure about that, but deep down I tend to agree. The one candidate sounded like he was from Tennessee or Alabama and the other one sounded like one of us--- suburban and mid-atlantic.
I think that says a lot right there.
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.
Virginia not very southern.
