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.
Good post. Ky also had an albeit very small and conservative abolitionist movement. Nothing compared to the northern states but this was unheard of in the deep south.
I do disagree that KY was never in real danger of leaving the union, this is true at the outset of the war but what is overlooked is what happened to KY during the war. One of the primary reasons Kentuckians supported the Union was to preserve...yes preserve the institution of slavery. Kentuckians viewed the Confederacy as being unstable and risky and as pointed out, they had Union Guns pointed at them from three northern states, Louisville would have been reduced to rubble had they seceded and they knew that. But they believed the best way to preserve their conservative Victorian slave holding society that had a very rigid racial and social hierarchy was to stay with the Union. It was the slave holders that made the argument to stay in the Union. When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation all of that changed, even though it did not impact loyal states they saw the writing on the wall. In Louisville and Lexington people began openly supporting the Confederacy in public which drew the ire of the Union troops stationed in KY. Union recruitment from the native population went to about zero, so the Union made up the deficit by freeing and enlisting the slaves which further infuriated the white Kentuckians. KY had the second largest African American Union enlistment only behind Louisiana. Basically what happened is that the Union lost KY but by that time it was of no material consequence given the military presence. By the end of the war there was virtually no support for the Union, with the exception of immigrants. After the war KY was the most reactionary southern state and experienced the most violence similar to the partisan violence in MO. This was a function of not being under Reconstruction, the lynchings, the klan, all of that happened in KY first.
Missouri had reconstruction at the state level basically forced on it by the feds and it was pretty brutal too expelling most confederates from power and professions and was probably stricter than most of the other southern states. A lot of confederate veterans left the state never to return after it. One theory is a lot of them settled in OK. Read about the Drake Constitution to learn more about this. I think this also was a factor why Missouri didn't retain some of it's southerness. A lot of those guys never returned to Missouri when the Drake Constitution was made. Some even fled to Mexico with Sterling Price after the civil war.
In 1876 the former confederate and Democrats got control back in Missouri and repealed this and made a new constitution. That is how that wording against concealed firearms made it into the state constitution was because of the democrat ex confederates in Missouri didn't want blacks and certain people carrying firearms. Other southern states have similar wording in their constitutions just like this for this very reason.
If the Drake Constitution wasn't formed by the puppet government, I think Missouri would have retained more southern influence today as not as much southerners would have left Missouri to never return. I'm not saying it would be as southern as Kentucky today but it certainly would have a lot more southern influrnce today than it currently does.
Outside of St. Louis and Jeff City even after the civil war Missouri was lawless and had a lot of problems still. Parts of southern Missouri had a klan problem too especially places around Ripley, Oregon counties. Those areas were also very pro south too.
Missouri had reconstruction at the state level basically forced on it by the feds and it was pretty brutal too expelling most confederates from power and professions and was probably stricter than most of the other southern states. A lot of confederate veterans left the state never to return after it. One theory is a lot of them settled in OK. Read about the Drake Constitution to learn more about this. I think this also was a factor why Missouri didn't retain some of it's southerness. A lot of those guys never returned to Missouri when the Drake Constitution was made. Some even fled to Mexico with Sterling Price after the civil war.
In 1876 the former confederate and Democrats got control back in Missouri and repealed this and made a new constitution. That is how that wording against concealed firearms made it into the state constitution was because of the democrat ex confederates in Missouri didn't want blacks and certain people carrying firearms. Other southern states have similar wording in their constitutions just like this for this very reason.
If the Drake Constitution wasn't formed by the puppet government, I think Missouri would have retained more southern influence today as not as much southerners would have left Missouri to never return. I'm not saying it would be as southern as Kentucky today but it certainly would have a lot more southern influrnce today than it currently does.
Outside of St. Louis and Jeff City even after the civil war Missouri was lawless and had a lot of problems still. Parts of southern Missouri had a klan problem too especially places around Ripley, Oregon counties. Those areas were also very pro south too.
By the end of the war most of Missouri was very pro Union especially its cities. Republicans had a stronghold in the state which probably explains the enforcement of its state level reconstruction and expelling confederates from the state. It was also probably a reaction to the very bitter partisan fighting that lingered in the state after the war. I agree it would have retained more of its southerness without these actions but Missouri had different migration patterns out of Pennsylvania and New York and St Louis was about 75% foreign born so the power base in the state was very different. KY was the complete opposite, Confederates took over the state covertly during the war and vocally after the war. It's a very odd history, the returning Confederate soldiers were greeted with open arms and the returning union veterans kind of disappeared into the background. You could not get elected to office in KY unless you served or supported the Confederacy or renounced your Union allegiance. KY literally took on a Confederate identity after the war and everyone seemed to go along.
I've never lived in Springfield, but would you say the city is growing due to the presence of the university bringing in people who are not local to the area?
I can't argue Missouri has trended more Midwestern, at least in the urban areas.
I've lived in Joplin, which is quite similar. Springfield is growing due to its economic and quality-of-life benefits.
Economic: I'd agree: the universities really boost the economy. Springfield also has a strong medical industry and is a major trucking hub.
Quality-of-life: Low-crime, cheap housing, good schools, no traffic, offers big-city conveniences without the big-city hassles.
I'm not sure if the growth can continue. The city's biggest industries are all at risk of major cuts. MO continues to cut higher education funding, Obamacare cuts could hurt the medical industry, and the trucking industry will soon be automated. Springfield does have a lot of low-wage manufacturing, but those jobs will not sustain a regional economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin
Another state you forgot to mention is Texas! I think we are beginning to see a culture shift there with the influx of Hispanics and others. Notice this election Hillary did better there than she did in Missouri! Republicans in their house and senate don't hold the huge super majorities like they do in Missouri.
It's slow, but yes, Texas is transforming. Dallas and Houston used to be solidly Republican cities, but are now Democratic strongholds. Hispanics don't vote unanimously Democratic, so the transition isn't going to be quick. Perhaps in 20 years, the electoral map could look radically different.
By the end of the war most of Missouri was very pro Union especially its cities. Republicans had a stronghold in the state which probably explains the enforcement of its state level reconstruction and expelling confederates from the state. It was also probably a reaction to the very bitter partisan fighting that lingered in the state after the war. I agree it would have retained more of its southerness without these actions but Missouri had different migration patterns out of Pennsylvania and New York and St Louis was about 75% foreign born so the power base in the state was very different. KY was the complete opposite, Confederates took over the state covertly during the war and vocally after the war. It's a very odd history, the returning Confederate soldiers were greeted with open arms and the returning union veterans kind of disappeared into the background. You could not get elected to office in KY unless you served or supported the Confederacy or renounced your Union allegiance. KY literally took on a Confederate identity after the war and everyone seemed to go along.
Actually after the drake constitution was dismantled, Missouri did elect a number of governors from southern stock, many of them born in Kentucky and Missouri native and Confederate General John Marmaduke became governor after the Drake Constitution was abolished and Democrats won a number of governorships after the drake constitution. Lincoln only won St. Louis area in the 1860 elections. There are a number of reasons the 1864 election results in MO were different, but a few years after the civil war and reconstruction ended, Missouri went back to voting Democrat and electing a number of governors who were born in either KY, TN, or southern areas of MO such as Marmaduke (Little Dixie area)
Wikipedia has a list of Mo governors and as you can see from when the Drake Constitution was dismantled to 1920 all but one governor was Democrat and nearly all of them were born in Kentucky, one in Tennessee and a few from Missouri.
At the state level after reconstruction in Missouri southern democrats were able to get back into power to an extent and get candidates of southern stock elected. Overall though Missouri was a changing state especially in St. Louis region and Kansas City for example, but in the rest of the state it still had a lot of southern influence overall remaining, a lot more so than today.
I read a few years back in a book about MO state history that in the early 1900s when the lawmakers were debating on the state flag they almost picked a design that would have had the Roman Cross (Missouri Confederate Battle Flag) incorporated into the new Missouri State Flag, but then they chose another design by another person and they agreed on the current Missouri flag. This also was around the same time Missouri nearly passed stricter segregation laws also for transit but St. Louis area Republicans were able to get the bill killed.
I think Missouri became a more Midwestern state than Southern state somewhere around 1920 I think. Before then it was losing its southerness, but leaned more southern than Midwestern still up until then. After that it took on more Midwestern characteristics than southern.
I don't think Missouri will become any more Midwestern than it is already. I think it will always stay around 25 percent southern and 25 percent Midwestern and 50 percent all Midwestern.
Same as I don't think Kentucky will become a lot more northern as well. Both states are not seeing gigantic population shifts. While the St. Louis area is getting immigrants from places like Asia, Middle East, and more latinoes as well, the rest of the state is not seeing a huge boom in population from places like the northeast for example like here in Florida is.
I think Kentucky and Missouri are pretty much leveled out on any large shifts. Certainly won't end up like FLorida, Texas and Virginia. My guess with Virginia is because of northern VA and people moving there for the jobs related to government, federal government and contractors. Those people like to vote democrat as well.
I've lived in Joplin, which is quite similar. Springfield is growing due to its economic and quality-of-life benefits.
Economic: I'd agree: the universities really boost the economy. Springfield also has a strong medical industry and is a major trucking hub.
Quality-of-life: Low-crime, cheap housing, good schools, no traffic, offers big-city conveniences without the big-city hassles.
I'm not sure if the growth can continue. The city's biggest industries are all at risk of major cuts. MO continues to cut higher education funding, Obamacare cuts could hurt the medical industry, and the trucking industry will soon be automated. Springfield does have a lot of low-wage manufacturing, but those jobs will not sustain a regional economy.
It's slow, but yes, Texas is transforming. Dallas and Houston used to be solidly Republican cities, but are now Democratic strongholds. Hispanics don't vote unanimously Democratic, so the transition isn't going to be quick. Perhaps in 20 years, the electoral map could look radically different.
Most of the counties along the TX border of MX are all deep blue but luckily don't have huge populations.
I was shocked Hillary lost MO by 19 points. I figured she'd lose Missouri but by 13-15 points. I knew she would lose Jefferson County for example by a good amount but didn't expect her to get just under 30 percent of the votes there. My thinking is because of her rabid anti gun stance is why she did so bad in Missouri as well because she's too far left. Democrats the last 4 years have lost election badly in Jefferson County. It is a very pro gun county. I certainly think Nixon's veto of SB656 also hurt Chris Koster in the election as well. The reps and senators from Jefferson County were getting large volumes of emaisl and calls they said in support of the bill and Ryan Silvey, a Republican Senator from the Kansas City area and a moderate district said emails and calls to his office were about 3-1 in support of permit less carry from his residents and Silvey doesn't believe the Demanding Mom's poll of 86 percent don't want permit less carry. I certainly think things like gun control played a role in the elections at least in Missouri. From what I've heard from the capital, during the end of the Leg session the senators and reps were getting bombarded from their districts people calling and emailing them in favor of SB656.
I think Ferguson played a roll too. There has been very high demand for ccw permits since then.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
The citizen population of the US is getting older with a nearly stable population so there is going to be less state to state migration that could change the culture of a place. Population growth has really slowed nationally. Louisville's 10% growth rate in the 2Ks decade would rank 25th best among all metros now but wasn't even top half a back then.
The citizen population of the US is getting older with a nearly stable population so there is going to be less state to state migration that could change the culture of a place. Population growth has really slowed nationally. Louisville's 10% growth rate in the 2Ks decade would rank 25th best among all metros now but wasn't even top half a back then.
A lot of that growth was artificial due to the county consolidation.
Also the consolidation made Louisville more culturally Southern if you ask me because the suburbs are culturally more Southern than anything within 264. A place like Bonnycastle (Highlands district) is so diluted and has so many yuppies that it is a generic neighborhood. It could be Midwestern but heck it could be Northeastern if it was fast paced (which apparently doesn't matter since Pittsburgh is Northeastern and slow paced). The Highlands could even fit in Pittsburgh honestly.
But once you go into the burbs the Southern culture increases. It is believed the closer you get to 265 the more Southern it gets and from personal experience I can attest to this.
Last edited by EddieOlSkool; 01-06-2017 at 08:37 AM..
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool
A lot of that growth was artificial due to the county consolidation.
10% figure is metro area wide (not to be confused with the dumb official name for the city). Nationally population growth is way down and almost all of it is due to immigration.
10% figure is metro area wide (not to be confused with the dumb official name for the city). Nationally population growth is way down and almost all of it is due to immigration.
Ah ok.
Lots of transplants internationally but what is interesting is they all befriend each other and create little immigrant enclaves that aren't a part of the mainstream metro cultural framework.
The North is where immigrants make the framework. Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and St. Louis have cultures made by immigrants. It is part of the main cultural framework. Louisville isn't that way really. The cultural framework of Louisville isn't based on the Germans or the Irish. It is still mostly a Southern culture based on ideals in place before massive immigration. Look at Cincinnati on the other hand. Why is it that Cincinnati is miles more German influenced than Louisville? Both were heavily German influenced but Louisville doesn't have a ton of German culture surviving the way Cincy does.
I think where Louisville can't honestly lay claim to Midwestern culture is that immigrants never made a significant dent in the native culture. Is Louisville really known for its German influence the way other Midwestern cities are? Hell no. It is known for Kentucky culture first and foremost.
If anyone thinks of cities to go experience German culture or any immigrant culture for that matter, Louisville is most likely not on their mind.
I think this is what places Louisville outside of the Midwestern region and more in the South is the fact that immigrant culture never made a significant impact on the city as a whole. Whereas in the Midwest it absolutely did.
By immigrant I mean anything not British Isles influenced. Basically people not here during the founding of the country.
Lots of transplants internationally but what is interesting is they all befriend each other and create little immigrant enclaves that aren't a part of the mainstream metro cultural framework.
The North is where immigrants make the framework. Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and St. Louis have cultures made by immigrants. It is part of the main cultural framework. Louisville isn't that way really. The cultural framework of Louisville isn't based on the Germans or the Irish. It is still mostly a Southern culture based on ideals in place before massive immigration. Look at Cincinnati on the other hand. Why is it that Cincinnati is miles more German influenced than Louisville? Both were heavily German influenced but Louisville doesn't have a ton of German culture surviving the way Cincy does.
I think where Louisville can't honestly lay claim to Midwestern culture is that immigrants never made a significant dent in the native culture. Is Louisville really known for its German influence the way other Midwestern cities are? Hell no. It is known for Kentucky culture first and foremost.
If anyone thinks of cities to go experience German culture or any immigrant culture for that matter, Louisville is most likely not on their mind.
I think this is what places Louisville outside of the Midwestern region and more in the South is the fact that immigrant culture never made a significant impact on the city as a whole. Whereas in the Midwest it absolutely did.
By immigrant I mean anything not British Isles influenced. Basically people not here during the founding of the country.
THIS is, in my opinion, one of the best posts that has described the cultural makeup of Louisville, KY. Louisville is first and foremost, a Southern city, no other way to spin its ties to the South and it permeates throughout the city's culture. I was in Cleveland for the Holidays and my in-laws friends asked me if we wear shoes in Louisville and have Dentists. Clearly, many outsiders think Kentucky, and its stereotypes, FIRST when hearing Louisville, not the progressive, vibrant, growing Southern city that it really is. This is why Louisville will never fit in with the Midwest, it has a Southern identity that is deeply rooted. Not deep South, but clearly South none the less.
Also, many true Midwestern Cities have large ethnic groups that shaped the culture of the city. Cleveland has a ton of Italians and Polish immigrants and families. Cincinnati is heavily German as other posters have mentioned, but Louisville, although with some German influence, is largely absent of the European ethnic groups that immigrated to Midwestern cities during the last two centuries.
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.
