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.
Louisville and the tri-county northern Kentucky region are lower Midwestern locales with Southern overtones.
The rest of Kentucky, definitively Southern. Even the suburban areas around Louisville, such as La Grange, Simpsonville, and Mount Washington, feel and are Southern.
Grant and Bracken Counties, still rural northern Kentucky but not part of the tri-county region across the river from Cincinnati, feel and are Southern.
Henderson County, immediately across the river from Evansville, IN, feels and is quite a bit different from Evansville. You could argue that Evansville, like Louisville and NKY, is a lower Midwestern city with Southern overtones; while that generally is accurate, it also functions more Midwestern culturally than Louisville and NKY.
I have always found that a lot of native Southern residents tend to not like WV and Kentucky very much. Appalachian culture is sort of a different sub set of Southern culture, it is really nothing like the mid south and the Deep South. East TN is sort of Appalachian as well and Western NC.
I have always found that a lot of native Southern residents tend to not like WV and Kentucky very much. Appalachian culture is sort of a different sub set of Southern culture, it is really nothing like the mid south and the Deep South. East TN is sort of Appalachian as well and Western NC.
I've found that, too.
Many in Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia tend to fancy themselves quite differently from east Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and even Virginia. And, I kind of agree with their general premise. The historical development of the eastern 1/3 of Tennessee, the eastern 2/3 of Kentucky, the state of West Virginia, and the western 1/3 of Virginia is different from places deeper in the South.
What I don't like is the elitist, passive-aggressive snark that often comes from middle- to upper-middle class white Southerners in the deep South, indicative of their being "real" or the most "authentic" Southerners. Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, sans Metro Atlanta, are, for the most part, still as as$-backwards as most places in Kentucky and West Virginia.
Many in Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia tend to fancy themselves quite differently from east Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and even Virginia. And, I kind of agree with their general premise. The historical development of the eastern 1/3 of Tennessee, the eastern 2/3 of Kentucky, the state of West Virginia, and the western 1/3 of Virginia is different from places deeper in the South.
What I don't like is the elitist, passive-aggressive snark that often comes from middle- to upper-middle class white Southerners in the deep South, indicative of their being "real" or the most "authentic" Southerners. Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, sans Metro Atlanta, are, for the most part, still as as$-backwards as most places in Kentucky and West Virginia.
While I do enjoy living in the South, the Southern states need to get their public education K-12 standards up. I like SEC universities but a lot of them are falling behind as well, not that selective. You can still be successful going to an Ole Miss or Alabama but people still see higher education as liberals trying to take over society. I have actually heard people in the South use the phrase "college boy" as an insult I kid you not.
While I do enjoy living in the South, the Southern states need to get their public education K-12 standards up. I like SEC universities but a lot of them are falling behind as well, not that selective. You can still be successful going to an Ole Miss or Alabama but people still see higher education as liberals trying to take over society. I have actually heard people in the South use the phrase "college boy" as an insult I kid you not.
Agree with all points.
As a Southern conservative/libertarian myself, I actually completed post-baccalaureate education in the University of California system. UC is not known for its bastion of conservative campuses; in fact, some campuses are known for their open sponsorship of hostility toward conservatives. Yet the quality of education I received, stemming from the analytical rigors and intellectual challenges present in my classes and even among my classmates, resulted in a holistic educational experience that I just couldn't have found even in most universities, especially public universities, in the South. I came away a more analytical and thoughtful sociopolitical mind, as I had been exposed to far more cultural and academic, and as much economic, diversity relative to what I would likely have experienced in the South.
The obvious exceptions in the South are Rice (private), UT-Austin (public), Vanderbilt (private), Emory (private), Georgia Tech (public), UVA (public), UNC-Chapel Hill (public), and Duke (private). You could also make a respectable case for Texas A&M (public), Virginia Tech (public), Tulane (private), and even UGA (public) and Florida (public), as these universities also rank highly at the national level. However, these universities are spread throughout the entire Southeastern quadrant of the country.
The Ivies/MIT/Georgetown/Johns Hopkins of the Northeast (as well as George Washington, Villanova, Temple, Fordham, Tufts, BU, BC), and the University of California system/Stanford/Caltech/USC in California (as well as the Claremont University Consortium, Santa Clara, Cal Poly campuses, USD, USF), are the unparalleled powerhouses of higher education internationally.
I certainly wouldn't count some SEC schools like UK, UT-Knoxville, Ole Miss, and 'Bama among the best of the South, let alone among the Ivies or the University of California. This isn't to say that a wonderful education can't be earned at UK, UTK, Ole Miss, and 'Bama, but, you're right, the admissions standards aren't high to begin with.
Louisville and the tri-county northern Kentucky region are lower Midwestern locales with Southern overtones.
The rest of Kentucky, definitively Southern. Even the suburban areas around Louisville, such as La Grange, Simpsonville, and Mount Washington, feel and are Southern.
Grant and Bracken Counties, still rural northern Kentucky but not part of the tri-county region across the river from Cincinnati, feel and are Southern.
Henderson County, immediately across the river from Evansville, IN, feels and is quite a bit different from Evansville. You could argue that Evansville, like Louisville and NKY, is a lower Midwestern city with Southern overtones; while that generally is accurate, it also functions more Midwestern culturally than Louisville and NKY.
I actually agree with you here. Louisville is a midwest and southern hybrid. Those that say otherwise have never lived there.
Louisville and the tri-county northern Kentucky region are lower Midwestern locales with Southern overtones.
The rest of Kentucky, definitively Southern. Even the suburban areas around Louisville, such as La Grange, Simpsonville, and Mount Washington, feel and are Southern.
Grant and Bracken Counties, still rural northern Kentucky but not part of the tri-county region across the river from Cincinnati, feel and are Southern.
Henderson County, immediately across the river from Evansville, IN, feels and is quite a bit different from Evansville. You could argue that Evansville, like Louisville and NKY, is a lower Midwestern city with Southern overtones; while that generally is accurate, it also functions more Midwestern culturally than Louisville and NKY.
Evansville somewhat reminds me of Cape Girardeau Mo. Both cities are classical examples of Lower Midwest and they both border very culturally southern areas. There is a sharp divide in dialect between Evansville and Henderson along with points east in Southern Indiana which is similar to the divide between Cape Girardeau and Sikeston MO. It is very similar to the divide between the the three N KY counties and the immediate counties south. Cincinnati is simply a northern city in my book, there is really nothing southern about it other than it borders KY. You don't have that sharp dialect divide in Louisville, immediate Southern Indiana is really just a cultural extension of KY and the dialect fades as you head towards Indianapolis. Louisville itself is IMO an actual hybrid but most people don't really understand the nuances of the area. The transient upper middle class areas of Jefferson County are more or less neutral as with many other metropolitan areas north and south. In some ways Louisville does resemble an old rust belt city and really the most midwestern characteristic is it has a history of being a heavy labor town, it was known as strike city in the 70's. But with that said the further you go back in Louisville's history the more southern it gets, it was totally immersed in the "Lost Cause" movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries which explains the recently removed confederate monument. Those cultural aspects never left the city.
Evansville somewhat reminds me of Cape Girardeau Mo. Both cities are classical examples of Lower Midwest and they both border very culturally southern areas. There is a sharp divide in dialect between Evansville and Henderson along with points east in Southern Indiana which is similar to the divide between Cape Girardeau and Sikeston MO. It is very similar to the divide between the the three N KY counties and the immediate counties south. Cincinnati is simply a northern city in my book, there is really nothing southern about it other than it borders KY. You don't have that sharp dialect divide in Louisville, immediate Southern Indiana is really just a cultural extension of KY and the dialect fades as you head towards Indianapolis. Louisville itself is IMO an actual hybrid but most people don't really understand the nuances of the area. The transient upper middle class areas of Jefferson County are more or less neutral as with many other metropolitan areas north and south. In some ways Louisville does resemble an old rust belt city and really the most midwestern characteristic is it has a history of being a heavy labor town, it was known as strike city in the 70's. But with that said the further you go back in Louisville's history the more southern it gets, it was totally immersed in the "Lost Cause" movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries which explains the recently removed confederate monument. Those cultural aspects never left the city.
That is not true. Louisville was always a Union city and KY never left the union:
Louisville, if anything, became more "southern" in the antebellum period as there were no major battles fought there so it was one of the few cities that prospered post war. This is why Louisville was easily the most important city (and largest) south (well, after New Orleans) of the mason Dixon line until well into the 20th century. By the 1930s, cities like Dallas, Atlanta, even Houston, and later, Miami, passed it. Louisville had to play its southern role to the farmers in the south so it could get goods like cotton or tobacco and sell that am markets on the coast or Midwest. Louisville has always been a logistics/distribution center in that capacity and it continues to this day with UPS.
But Louisville has never been a firmly southern city and never will be. My biggest case for this is no one argues if Indianapolis is Midwest, and no one argues that Nashville is anything but southern.
It only makes sense the transition occurs in between, and that transition is in Louisville. In fact, the metro is very divided. The south side is EXTREMELY southern while the east, northeast, and even inner ring parts of S. Indiana like downtown New Albany and Jeffersonville are barely southern.
Louisville, if anything, became more "southern" in the antebellum period as there were no major battles fought there so it was one of the few cities that prospered post war. This is why Louisville was easily the most important city (and largest) south (well, after New Orleans) of the mason Dixon line until well into the 20th century. By the 1930s, cities like Dallas, Atlanta, even Houston, and later, Miami, passed it. Louisville had to play its southern role to the farmers in the south so it could get goods like cotton or tobacco and sell that am markets on the coast or Midwest. Louisville has always been a logistics/distribution center in that capacity and it continues to this day with UPS.
But Louisville has never been a firmly southern city and never will be. My biggest case for this is no one argues if Indianapolis is Midwest, and no one argues that Nashville is anything but southern.
It only makes sense the transition occurs in between, and that transition is in Louisville. In fact, the metro is very divided. The south side is EXTREMELY southern while the east, northeast, and even inner ring parts of S. Indiana like downtown New Albany and Jeffersonville are barely southern.
Kentucky was neutral in the Civil War and did in fact have a Confederate Government in Bowling Green, KY even though it was short lived. Kentucky is represented by the 13th star on the CSA Battle Flag, so to say that Kentucky was a Union State is false. In addition, Kentucky and Louisville became very sympathetic to the Confederate cause after the War. I am so tired of people pretending Kentucky is something it is not. Kentucky was not ever and is not today Midwestern, AT ALL. There is some Midwestern influences, but minimal and mostly confined to extreme Northern Kentucky counties (Boone, Kenton, Campbell). I will not deny that there are some Midwestern influences in Louisville, but to classify Kentucky and Louisville as anything but Southern is laughable to me. Come to Milwaukee, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Seattle, Cincinnati, Rochester, DC, New York City and ask them what region Louisville and Kentucky belong in...I bet most would say the South, because that is what it is. There is nothing to be ashamed about with being in the South, in fact, the South is the fastest growing region in our nation today. But please, quit trying to portray Louisville as Midwestern, it is not at all.
Louisville, if anything, became more "southern" in the antebellum period as there were no major battles fought there so it was one of the few cities that prospered post war. This is why Louisville was easily the most important city (and largest) south (well, after New Orleans) of the mason Dixon line until well into the 20th century. By the 1930s, cities like Dallas, Atlanta, even Houston, and later, Miami, passed it. Louisville had to play its southern role to the farmers in the south so it could get goods like cotton or tobacco and sell that am markets on the coast or Midwest. Louisville has always been a logistics/distribution center in that capacity and it continues to this day with UPS.
But Louisville has never been a firmly southern city and never will be. My biggest case for this is no one argues if Indianapolis is Midwest, and no one argues that Nashville is anything but southern.
It only makes sense the transition occurs in between, and that transition is in Louisville. In fact, the metro is very divided. The south side is EXTREMELY southern while the east, northeast, and even inner ring parts of S. Indiana like downtown New Albany and Jeffersonville are barely southern.
Sorry, but Louisville was a stronghold of the Union because it was occupied by them. Sure they were a Union stronghold after thousands of Union Soldiers took control of the city. It wasn't very difficult to do. Do you think they would have packed up and left Louisville if asked to?
"On April 15, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln sent a telegram to Kentucky governor Beriah Magoffin requesting that the Commonwealth supply part of the initial 75,000 troops to put down the rebellion.[14] Magoffin, a Southern sympathizer, replied "President Lincoln, Washington, D.C. I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister Southern states. B. Magoffin"[15] Instead, most Kentuckians favored John J. Crittenden's position that the Commonwealth should act as a mediator between the two sides.[14] To that end, both houses of the General Assembly passed declarations of neutrality, a position officially declared by Governor Magoffin on May 20, 1861.[14]"
Kentucky tried to remain neutral but with both sides trying to occupy that soil, it became impossible. Of course, the Northern army prevailed as it did throughout the South, one state at a time.
As soon as Indiana annexes Louisville and Ohio annexes the northern tip of KY, then you can talk about how parts of KY are now Midwestern. Until then, they firmly are not part of the Midwest as much as you'd like them to be.
Last edited by marino760; 06-26-2017 at 05:11 PM..
Louisville, if anything, became more "southern" in the antebellum period as there were no major battles fought there so it was one of the few cities that prospered post war. This is why Louisville was easily the most important city (and largest) south (well, after New Orleans) of the mason Dixon line until well into the 20th century. By the 1930s, cities like Dallas, Atlanta, even Houston, and later, Miami, passed it. Louisville had to play its southern role to the farmers in the south so it could get goods like cotton or tobacco and sell that am markets on the coast or Midwest. Louisville has always been a logistics/distribution center in that capacity and it continues to this day with UPS.
But Louisville has never been a firmly southern city and never will be. My biggest case for this is no one argues if Indianapolis is Midwest, and no one argues that Nashville is anything but southern.
It only makes sense the transition occurs in between, and that transition is in Louisville. In fact, the metro is very divided. The south side is EXTREMELY southern while the east, northeast, and even inner ring parts of S. Indiana like downtown New Albany and Jeffersonville are barely southern.
This is actually a pretty decent post...much improved. I don't think you can put too much emphasis on Louisville being Union or Not Union regarding regional identity though. With the exception of South Carolina every southern state sent at least one regiment to the Union. The most defining characteristic of southern society during the antebellum years was the peculiar institution of slavery. That is something that Louisville cannot escape, it was by most accounts the largest slave trading city in the country and slave ownership in the city was pervasive. More importantly though even during the civil war Louisvillians never identified themselves with the midwest or being northern. When you read through the memoirs, speeches and newspaper clippings throughout its history its view point is that of being southern. There are countless examples of this.
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.
