How "southern" is Kansas City? (St. Louis, Hannibal: move, association)

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by mo guy

Yes -- Missouri is a southern state


Philadelphia ---was the second largest English speaking city after London in 1776 --- it was never in a slave state ---
St Louis and KC both are --- St Louis may have a connection to the south because of the river --- but KC has a connection to the worst part of the slave holding aggression --- that would cause the Civil War to start in Kansas 5 years before Fort Sumter was fired on --plus the Wild West of Jesse James --was the result of the Union Army's foot on the collective necks of the defeated Confederates ---which was the majority of the population of not only Jackson county ---but all of western Missouri


That you say KC is not so southern now --- well I guess that can be -- relates to the success of the Union to rehabilitate (Reconstruction) the bushwhackers that fought until everything was laid waste ---just like 20th century western allies did to rebuild defeated Nazi Germany and Japan --- I guess Lincoln did a good job --- but I would say that Out state Missouri --is really an embarrassment --- Out State METHsouri unfortunately makes this state --- North Mississippi

I understand and more or less agree with most everything you say except that very first statement.

Missouri, like Maryland, Kentucky and Delaware, never formally seceded from the Union; the Civil War split both Maryland and Missouri in two. Both states saw significant Civil War action in their pro-Confederate portions (which is why none of the Civil War battles fought in Missouri occurred in the eastern part of the state - but pro-Confederate Callaway County seceded from the state when it refused to secede).

Order No. 11 did not apply to the population of the Town of Kansas itself. Nor did it apply to any of the counties north of the Missouri River. Would you really argue that St. Joseph or Marceline are Southern in appearance or character? (Though Jesse James did hang out in Buchanan County.)

Your point about "Bleeding Kansas," however, is well taken; I refer to that period as "the dress rehearsal for the Civil War."

"Lincoln did a good job"? More about Missouri's dual nature. No state in the former Confederacy observed Lincoln's Birthday as a state holiday before the creation of Presidents' Day. Missouri did. And who is the state's historically black state university named for? For whom was the black high school in *Kansas City* named?

And there's still the cultural stuff. I wouldn't confuse Maryville for New Madrid, for instance - the line between cultural Midwest and cultural South also splits the state in two.

And, of course, the Feds put the state in the West North Central region.

[VietInKC]

Historically? Maybe somewhat?
Culturally? I'm not feeling it.

[MoNative34]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

I understand and more or less agree with most everything you say except that very first statement.

Missouri, like Maryland, Kentucky and Delaware, never formally seceded from the Union; the Civil War split both Maryland and Missouri in two. Both states saw significant Civil War action in their pro-Confederate portions (which is why none of the Civil War battles fought in Missouri occurred in the eastern part of the state - but pro-Confederate Callaway County seceded from the state when it refused to secede).

Order No. 11 did not apply to the population of the Town of Kansas itself. Nor did it apply to any of the counties north of the Missouri River. Would you really argue that St. Joseph or Marceline are Southern in appearance or character? (Though Jesse James did hang out in Buchanan County.)

Your point about "Bleeding Kansas," however, is well taken; I refer to that period as "the dress rehearsal for the Civil War."

"Lincoln did a good job"? More about Missouri's dual nature. No state in the former Confederacy observed Lincoln's Birthday as a state holiday before the creation of Presidents' Day. Missouri did. And who is the state's historically black state university named for? For whom was the black high school in *Kansas City* named?

And there's still the cultural stuff. I wouldn't confuse Maryville for New Madrid, for instance - the line between cultural Midwest and cultural South also splits the state in two.

And, of course, the Feds put the state in the West North Central region.

Don't forget the battle of Ft Davidson in eastern Missouri. Not to nitpick. You're obviously are well versed in the matter!

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

And there's still the cultural stuff. I wouldn't confuse Maryville for New Madrid, for instance - the line between cultural Midwest and cultural South also splits the state in two.

One of the more fascinating things I've learned about on City-Data is the historical "little Dixie" part of Missouri. Still can't wrap my head around the fact that this area was a confederate stronghold while at the same time Columbia was a union stronghold.

Kansas City must have been a conflicted mess during the war with southern sympathizers east and south of it (order 11 counties).

[Claytonian4]

Kansas City has Southern influences but it is Midwestern to the core. Same thing for St. Louis. The rest of Missouri however has more heavy and pronounced Southern influences outside of these two cities, and while most of it isn't the true South, the southern quarter might as well be an extension of Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.

[Claytonian4]

Originally Posted by mo guy

You never saw Confederate Armies operating in the Eastern part of Missouri---because St Louis was the GREAT UNION STRONGHOLD of the West --- St Louis was the home town of both Generals Grant and Sherman -- a huge manufacturing War Machine that helped outfit the Union army and navy ---which defeated the Confederacy,

The kind of Southerners that lived in the KC --western part of the state ---were as rabid secessionist SLAVE HOLDING PROMOTING ---TRAITORS ---- as the ones in south Carolina and Mississippi ---in fact the Souths last stand was in 1864 at the Battle of Wesport --the largest battle west of the Mississippi ----just one of the facts that contribute to the complicated place Missouri is ---


So without any doubt ---master-planned Kansas City ---is certainly a more southern city---than say St Louis ---even though both cities were in a slave state --- actually St Louis was the largest city in a slave state

General Grant and General Sherman were not St. Louis natives. And as far as the original settlers of KC, what relevance does it have to what KC is today. Anybody who would call KC a Southern city today clearly doesn't understand modern culture, linguistics, politics, geography, etc. KC has far more in common with Omaha and Des Moines today than it does with Tulsa, Little Rock, Oklahoma City, or Dallas.

[Claytonian4]

Originally Posted by mo guy

Kansas City is very southern --- especially since it was in open rebellion against the Union during the Civil War --- back in 1860 Westport was the important economic hub ---with KC just being the steamboat landing for Westport --- KC didn't begin to develop until it filled up with displaced residents from the five Secessionist counties that that Union Army emptied out and left the whole western part of Missouri a smoking ruin.

You can't say what a place was 160 years ago makes it what it is today, especially with the historic border states. So you're telling me KC natives speak with southern speech patterns, politically vote to the right, religiously are conservative Christians, identify as American in terms of ancestry, etc? Because none of these are true. Calling Kansas City the south from a modern standpoint is almost like calling a place like Nashville the Midwest, because obviously Nashville has more in common with Chicago and Detroit than it does Memphis, Louisville, or Atlanta

[FalstaffBlues]

Missouri is more midwestern in many ways.

1. The largest ethnic ancestral group in Missouri is German. The Confederate South is dominated by English, Irish, Scotts and Scotts-Irish ancestry. Missouri also has large Italian, Polish, Greek and eastern european ancestry. The confederate south doesn't really have that.

2. Missouri is a staunchly pro-union state. The Confederate South is not.

3. Very little of Missouri was put to use cultivating cash crops. Obvisously, thats what the confederate south was all about.

4. Missouri industrialized like a midwestern state after the war. Most of the confederate south stuck with sharecropping and didn't industrialized till the 20th century.

There are more, but I'm tired

[moxiegal]

As a native Kansas Citian, who has also lived all over the South...I'm not seeing the "Southern" influence as much as I see the Western influence.

I will be moving back to KC the end of this month. October '19.

[MoNative34]

Originally Posted by Claytonian4

You can't say what a place was 160 years ago makes it what it is today, especially with the historic border states. So you're telling me KC natives speak with southern speech patterns, politically vote to the right, religiously are conservative Christians, identify as American in terms of ancestry, etc? Because none of these are true. Calling Kansas City the south from a modern standpoint is almost like calling a place like Nashville the Midwest, because obviously Nashville has more in common with Chicago and Detroit than it does Memphis, Louisville, or Atlanta

Hi ajf!! How have you been?