Louisville is NOT the south (Lexington, Union: transplants, homes, construction)

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Peter1948

Your trolling about Louisville's southernness is very disturbing.

I agree, you should stop.

How ironic.

[shinestx]

While a slave state, KY was not in the CSA. It maintained a neutral position during the Civil War. As such, the state does not have a very interesting history from that sad period, as compared to GA, LA, MS, TN or VA. Yes, it was part of the Underground Railroad, but so were two dozen other states. Acknowledging that, the mayor's actions seem more in line with recent moves by Democrats to erase their party's sordid past. Point is that many Kentuckians did join the Confederate Army and a majority had relatives on that side. So chalk this one up to another wiping of the slate to a past with no meaning.

I do notice also that the OP's point that his town is not Southern seems to run counter to his recent insistence that it is comparable to New Orleans. IIRC, OP has even touted his town's erstwhile position as one of the three largest Southern cities. Seems that many denizens of OP's hometown are confused about their cultural identity.

[Serious Conversation]

These are local issues and need to be worked out locally.

If a community feels comfortable with the monument out and feels proud of it, fine, have it out. If folks don't like it, remove the monument.

[Peter1948]

Originally Posted by shinestx

While a slave state, KY was not in the CSA. It maintained a neutral position during the Civil War. As such, the state does not have a very interesting history from that sad period, as compared to GA, LA, MS, TN or VA. Yes, it was part of the Underground Railroad, but so were two dozen other states. Acknowledging that, the mayor's actions seem more in line with recent moves by Democrats to erase their party's sordid past. Point is that many Kentuckians did join the Confederate Army and a majority had relatives on that side. So chalk this one up to another wiping of the slate to a past with no meaning.

I do notice also that the OP's point that his town is not Southern seems to run counter to his recent insistence that it is comparable to New Orleans. IIRC, OP has even touted his town's erstwhile position as one of the three largest Southern cities. Seems that many denizens of OP's hometown are confused about their cultural identity.

The city is a Midwest and Southern mix. Period. Point blank, End of story. I believe the mayors comment that "Louisville is not a southern city" is referring to the confederacy, and thus removing the monument. And he is acknowledging we are a river city, ohio valley city, and lower Midwestern city too.

[shinestx]

You might as well call it Lower Indiana.

[CurlyFries]

Originally Posted by shinestx

You might as well call it Lower Indiana.

Evansville is North Kentucky

[CraigCreek]

"Lower Midwest"?? Try "Upper South" for a far more accurate description.

Traditionally and historically, the Ohio River has been the boundary between the North (aka "Midwest", in this case) and the South.

Everyone here agrees that Louisville has traits of both the Midwest and the South. But Peter, so far you are the ONLY one insisting that Louisville is not "Southern". Posters have given very good examples and reasons why Louisville is far more Southern than Midwestern, all of which you have rejected, citing the current mayor's recent statement.

Sorry, but I don't think this is the present mayor's call to make. While possibly politically inspired, his statement denies Louisville's history, geography, and cultural heritage.

Louisville was and remains a Southern city with a strong industrial base and some Midwestern traits, located in the Upper South, not the "Lower Midwest", whatever and wherever that may be. I have rarely encountered the term "Lower Midwest" before, whereas "Upper South" is widely distributed and accepted as a valid geo/cultural descriptor. Googling the two terms reveals 67,000 references to "lower midwest" and 461,000 for "upper south". Maps can be found showing Kentucky as part of both regions - but I remember the great hubbub when "Country Living" magazine first listed Kentucky as a Midwestern state - they yielded to reader preference and changed it to a Southern state, as was and remains correct.

Once again, I question why a moderator who lacks roots in the area he moderates would start such an inflammatory thread and make such clearly inaccurate claims, claims which are easily and readily countered by others with far better knowledge, experience and roots in the area in question.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by CraigCreek

"Lower Midwest"?? Try "Upper South" for a far more accurate description.

Traditionally and historically, the Ohio River has been the boundary between the North (aka "Midwest", in this case) and the South.

Everyone here agrees that Louisville has traits of both the Midwest and the South. But Peter, so far you are the ONLY one insisting that Louisville is not "Southern". Posters have given very good examples and reasons why Louisville is far more Southern than Midwestern, all of which you have rejected, citing the current mayor's recent statement.

Sorry, but I don't think this is the present mayor's call to make. While possibly politically inspired, his statement denies Louisville's history, geography, and cultural heritage.

Louisville was and remains a Southern city with a strong industrial base and some Midwestern traits, located in the Upper South, not the "Lower Midwest", whatever and wherever that may be. I have rarely encountered the term "Lower Midwest" before, whereas "Upper South" is widely distributed and accepted as a valid geo/cultural descriptor. Googling the two terms reveals 67,000 references to "lower midwest" and 461,000 for "upper south". Maps can be found showing Kentucky as part of both regions - but I remember the great hubbub when "Country Living" magazine first listed Kentucky as a Midwestern state - they yielded to reader preference and changed it to a Southern state, as was and remains correct.

Once again, I question why a moderator who lacks roots in the area he moderates would start such an inflammatory thread and make such clearly inaccurate claims, claims which are easily and readily countered by others with far better knowledge, experience and roots in the area in question.

Excellent post, especially the last bit.

[U146]

Originally Posted by Peter1948

Your trolling about Louisville's southernness is very disturbing. That is about as stereotypical as me saying STL all of STL is the hood because of North STL and places like Ferguson. STL is most definitely very southern in parts, even with architecture that is southern in many urban neighborhoods, and plenty of south Missouri folks with accents. Realistically, I would say Louisville is 40-50% southern, and STL is probably 25-30% southern. You don't just "cross a line" and pass from south to north.

I will stick with Louisville's mayor who says the city is not southern. Once again, you NEVER see threads arguing if Birmingham or Nashville are southern. That is because they ARE southern. Louisville is a blend, I live here, and that is a FACT.

St. Louis isn't Southern at all. No Southern architecture, no Southern accents, no Southern culture, no Southern demographics and certainly no Southern politics. I'm sorry St. Louis isn't Southern at all. Your attempt to make St. Louis look Southern in order to make Louisville less Southern is laughable. I've lived in STL my whole life and I've been to Louisville. The two are nothing alike. Louisville is the South. St. Louis is the Midwest.

[U146]

Originally Posted by Peter1948

Your trolling about Louisville's southernness is very disturbing. That is about as stereotypical as me saying STL all of STL is the hood because of North STL and places like Ferguson. STL is most definitely very southern in parts, even with architecture that is southern in many urban neighborhoods, and plenty of south Missouri folks with accents. Realistically, I would say Louisville is 40-50% southern, and STL is probably 25-30% southern. You don't just "cross a line" and pass from south to north.

I will stick with Louisville's mayor who says the city is not southern. Once again, you NEVER see threads arguing if Birmingham or Nashville are southern. That is because they ARE southern. Louisville is a blend, I live here, and that is a FACT.

Originally Posted by Peter1948

The city is a Midwest and Southern mix. Period. Point blank, End of story. I believe the mayors comment that "Louisville is not a southern city" is referring to the confederacy, and thus removing the monument. And he is acknowledging we are a river city, ohio valley city, and lower Midwestern city too.

No it's not. Louisville has some Midwestern demographics. That's it. Louisville is Southern in every other way shape and form,