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.
For those interested in a very good book on Kentucky's regional identity from the Civil War to the mid 20th Century I would suggest "Creating a Confederate Kentucky" by Anne E Marshall. It is very well written and thoroughly documented. She makes the case that Kentucky was a southern state before, during and after the Civil War. I have always considered Kentucky a southern state but after reading this book even I didn't realize Kentucky is "that" southern. it sheds a lot of light on this subject.
Kentucky di hgave a "defacto" Confederate gov't. Also, much of the area around where my family was from was very heavily sympathetic to southern greivances, as really was much of Kentucky.
Most kentuckians weren't in favor of secession or breaking up the union, but were HORRIFIED and even more angered at the quick invasion and agression by northern states towards their southern neighbors...Kentucky "almost" ended up officially secceeding over it.
So the idea that Kentucky was a true union state in many ways is really false....more "neutrality" than union...would be even more correct.
Do you really think Morgans raids into Kentucky could've been so successful and far flung without help in Kentucky? Besides, he picked up some 400 recruits, including horses, guns and ammo by the time he'd reached central Kentucky from Tennessee. There was ALOT of southern sentiment and sympathies in Kentucky ALOT, most of the population to be exact. They just didn't want succession... you can be against succession and STILL be a southern sympathizer....their were alot of them. Eespecially in Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri.
Think about it, the confederates approached to within a few miles of Covington in northern Kentucky to threaten Cinnciannati. Now, all those supplies, logistics, troops....an entire army? Theires no way they could've gotten that far north without helps and provisions all along the way, especially from the rural areas and small towns. The confederates even held Frankfort for a while. These things don't just happen, they had alot of local HELP LOL! Why was Frankfort initially so badly defended? Because nobody wanted to take up arms against the confederate army....they wre in FAVOR alot of them of a confederate take over.
Agreed Kentucky was never a true union state, it was an awkward arrangement at best. The union states looked at Kentucky with a great deal of distrust. Ironically Kentuckians supported the Union to preserve their Victorian slave holding social order. To the majority, the Union represented stability verses an untried and risky Confederacy plus they were looking down the barrel of Union guns from three sizable midwestern states. If the issue of emancipation had come any earlier Kentucky would have seceded in earnest. Basically what happened is that the union lost Kentucky during the war but had such a strong military presence in the state that it was of no material consequence. Abraham Lincoln was very shrewd in his handling of Kentucky. The Federal Govt told Kentuckians what they wanted to hear as long as they could.
Along with Emancipation Kentucky's slave population ran away wholesale to join the Union regiments and brought their families with them. This further infuriated white Kentuckians during this period. This fed on itself because white Kentuckians dodged the draft almost completely after emancipation or found replacements, so the federal govt made up the shortfall with African American regiments. Kentucky had the second largest African American enlistment only behind Louisiana. Plus the union troops stationed in Kentucky viewed and treated it as a rebel state which alienated even the strongest union supporters. This was exacerbated by a brutal martial law implemented in 1864. By the end of the war Kentuckians showed virtually no loyalty to the Union...at all. It's citizens sentiments resembled all the other southern states. The returning Confederate soldiers were welcomed back with open arms and the returning union soldiers literally disappeared into the background, many recanted their service to the union especially if they were running for office. So no, in reality this was not a union state during the war. I don't think many people understand this history and that should be no surprise given its complexity.
[quote=JohnBoy64;39242900]Agreed Kentucky was never a true union state, it was an awkward arrangement at best. The union states looked at Kentucky with a great deal of distrust - Well even more so, it was simply militarily strategically important, being bordered on virtually all sides by the Ohio, Mississippi rivers. Who ever controlled the mouth of Ohio and Mississippi rivers where they meet, could in effect, cut the confederacy in two ( which they did ) Besides, Kentucky was the gateway through Nashville down to Atlanta. It was too difficult to thrust into Georgia from Virginia and NC with the mountains. Much easier to head south through Tennessee into northern Georgia. Lincoln said "I have to have Kentucky" because he understood it was key to breaking the confederacy
Ironically Kentuckians supported the Union to preserve their Victorian slave holding social order. To the majority, the Union represented stability verses an untried and risky Confederacy plus they were looking down the barrel of Union guns from three sizable midwestern states - Totally, also, Kentucky was tied economically to the north as well as the south due once again to it's location. However, the majority of Kentuckians sympathies were with southern "grievances" as they called it. And Kentucky gave ALOT of supplies and logistics support to confederate manuevers throughout the state, even picking up thousands of recruits in their travels
If the issue of emancipation had come any earlier Kentucky would have seceded in earnest - It almost did...in fact, the gov't of Kentucky was actuallyt split, why do you think the Union army seized Frankfort so quickly? However, some of them broke away and formed a confederate gov't in Russellville, even adopting a new state seal, flag and hymn. It was officially recognized by the confederacy, although it existed mostly on paper after the north invaded and the confederate armies were eventually pushed back into Tennessee. The Kentucky gov't of "secession" basically existed in exile throughout the rest of the war.
Basically what happened is that the union lost Kentucky during the war but had such a strong military presence in the state that it was of no material consequence. Abraham Lincoln was very shrewd in his handling of Kentucky. The Federal Govt told Kentuckians what they wanted to hear as long as they could - Well part of the promise was that Lincoln wouldn't emancipate and when he did, he almost lost the state in a big way then. Even so Kentucky didn't officially ratify the 13th(?) until long after the war LONG after.
I'm curious about the poster that said black culture is an urban culture. One of the things unique to the South, including the Maryland and Virginia Eastern Shores, is the large rural black population. In the Northeast, Midwest, and West, there are almost no black people in rural areas and small towns. Small towns in places like Pennsylvania, New England, and Michigan are exclusively white while in some parts of the Midwest you do have a large Hispanic population especially in agricultural areas. However in the South you have a lot of black country people.
Are you saying there are not many black country folks who listen to country music and like to go hunting, fishing and four wheeling?
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70
I'm curious about the poster that said black culture is an urban culture. One of the things unique to the South, including the Maryland and Virginia Eastern Shores, is the large rural black population. In the Northeast, Midwest, and West, there are almost no black people in rural areas and small towns. Small towns in places like Pennsylvania, New England, and Michigan are exclusively white while in some parts of the Midwest you do have a large Hispanic population especially in agricultural areas. However in the South you have a lot of black country people.
Are you saying there are not many black country folks who listen to country music and like to go hunting, fishing and four wheeling?
Kentucky lost an enormous percent of it's rural Black population after the Civil War. Most counties around Lexington in Central KY or in SW Kentucky were 25% to 50% Black. Today all are in the single digits, other than the Mississippi River counties. There is still a few majority Black communities outside Lexington but they are tiny in population (maybe a couple dozen people). Some of the towns with the largest Black populations are actually old coal mining towns in far SE KY, some of which are still in the 15% to 30% range. I guess KY was so close to the Northern industrial cities that it was easier to leave. A large number of Louisville's Black population descends from this rural to urban migration as well.
I lived in western Kentucky for awhile and from what the locals told me, the flat section is more midwest and the mountains and forest are more south. From what I've heard, they are very distinct culturally and each side has some level of disdain for the other. Think Missouri vs. West Virginia.
What do you think of this classification based on regions:
Northern Kentucky (the area north of Lexington and part of the Cincy metro): squarely Midwest. No Southern culture is here and if it is, it is minimal. This part of Kentucky can easily be called an extension of Ohio from dialect, food, and architecture. Heck, NKY reminds me of Illinois River towns that lie along the St. Louis corridor with the beautiful bluffs and storybook looking houses on hills. Heck, if you took pics of Northern Kentucky and told me it was near St. Louis I would believe you. This area has that Pittsburgh, Rust Belt feel associated with a lot of the Northeast/ Midwest. I feel the name "Northern" Kentucky suits it well. It is also snowy by Kentucky standards and gets harsher winters than the rest of the state save the West Virginia border.
Louisville: a Midwest influenced Southern city. The small town Midwest feel is present in tiny parts of the city like the Highlands. The Southern accent is present here, even if mild. More Southern leaning areas are the East End past 264. East of 264 the attitudes, dress, accent, and politics get Southern quickly. The South End has a combination Rust Belt/country Southern feel but is very White to feel like truly country Southern. The South End has an Appalachian/Pittsburgh feel to it at times but the politics lean more Southern which makes it feel less Midwestern. The West End feels very Southern. Regions like PRP and Valley Station look Midwestern but are culturally Southern. General rule is if it is along 265, it is more Southern. Around 264 it is tricky. I would say from 65 east to the highlands it is reminiscent of a Midwest small town. But go east of the Highlands and the culture starts to become more Southern. South of the Highlands, too. Architecture is both. West of 65 anywhere in the city is Southern. Only a few pockets of the city seem Midwestern. Churchill Downs is Southern as heck and so are the surrounding neighborhoods. More Midwest leaning places are the Highlands, Germantown, and Schnitzelburg. Far East End like Prospect is Southern. Southeast like Fern Creek is Southern. The South End along Fern Valley road and south of that around Okolona and west are like a Midwest and South hybrid. The South End can also feature a lot of what is known throughout the country as "basic White girls".
Western Kentucky: People say this is the most culturally Southern area of the state. I cannot comment as I haven't been, but from meeting natives of there I am inclined to agree.
The Knobs: Southern until you get near Cincy.
Lexington: Genteel, slow, preppy, debuttante, gentlemanlike, this is the essence of Southern culture in a larger Kentucky city.
Eastern Kentucky: Appalachian which is its own thing in my opinion. I hear that Eastern Tennessee is a lot different than the rest of Tennessee as well. This leads to the question "is West Virginia Southern"
Southern Kentucky: Southern culturally with no Midwest influence.
What do you guys think?
Kentucky is kind of an odd Southern state. It is very White unlike the rest of the South. It lacks rural Black populations. In parts of KY it might as well be Ohio. Kentucky however is a border state so it will he expected to have influences of both. Geographically it is middle from north to south. But geographically it is NOT Midwest. I mean it is one state away from the Atlantic. How is that Midwest? Even Ohio is two states away from the Atlantic.
Last edited by EddieOlSkool; 08-14-2016 at 10:18 AM..
I'm curious about the poster that said black culture is an urban culture. One of the things unique to the South, including the Maryland and Virginia Eastern Shores, is the large rural black population. In the Northeast, Midwest, and West, there are almost no black people in rural areas and small towns. Small towns in places like Pennsylvania, New England, and Michigan are exclusively white while in some parts of the Midwest you do have a large Hispanic population especially in agricultural areas. However in the South you have a lot of black country people.
Are you saying there are not many black country folks who listen to country music and like to go hunting, fishing and four wheeling?
I'm from Chicago and most of the Black population there is urban by location but they talk like hicks and they love country cooking at times. In my opinion there is no uniform Black culture anyway.
But whoever said Black culture is urban knows nothing about history. There are so many Blacks in cities who still have a bit of country in them.
Heck the urban Blacks of Baltimore are super country anyway. They might as well be from the Eastern Shore. In NYC it's different because a lot of them are Caribbean and African so not "country" in an American sense.
In Louisville many Blacks are super country. They like mudding, fishing, and some even listen to country. But listening to country doesn't make you country since a lot of urban White folks are now discovering that music anyway.
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.
