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.
I can say that my friend that lives in New York says that I sound like a "southern belle", but no one else has ever said that I have an accent. Funny thing is, I think he has an accent. He says "mum" (with a nasal tone) instead of mom and "qwuata" for quarter....among other things.
I do think it's interesting that certain parts of one state can be so different from another within the same state.
Once again, most of Missouri doesn't have the same climate as the southern 1/5th of the State. And the ice storms here are rough, don't kid yourself. The last two shut everything down for a week and while they are rare, they do happen.
Here in St. Louis we dont get bad ice storms or the mega 20 in snow storms that seem to hit OK, Southern MO, Northern AR once in a blue moon.
Last winter we had a lot of snow, but that doomsday blizzard back in Feb never happend due to too much sleet and the rest of the winters snow came in moderation like 3-5 in storms and were pretty boring.
Except for Nov 2006 we got that big ice storm that shutdown the entire area and left most of the Stl area without power. That was a bad one.
Otherwise lately winters in St. Louis are pretty boring. Like I said last years were multiple 3-5 inch storms that made the totals add up. Just cool temps with sunny, dry days, or rainy cool days. Heck winters like in 2005, 2006, and in 2009 we had hardly ANY snow the entire winter while places like OK, southern MO, northern AR, TN, and northern AL got pounded last winter.
That is one thing while southern MO, and other parts of the south might not get tons of snow, but when they do get a snowstorm they're massive ones. Same with the ice. IMO its due to being more moist air being closer to the Gulf. HEre in eastern MO the snow always has to fight drier air.
I noticed the average snowfall for St. Louis has went down for the new 1981-2010 averages.
Here is a post I came across on another forum. This person was right about Pea Ridge. If the Confederates under Sterling Price were able to demolish the union army there, they could have attempted to reclaim occupied St. Louis and possibly reinstalled the properly elected lawmakers in Jefferson City as well. Same with Camp Jackson if the state militia was able to obtained all those weapons. They could have fought off the invaders.
What would St. Louis be like today if it was a Confederate controlled city and the state under Confederate control? Would it have retained some of its southern elements at least in St. Louis? Actually "Prices Raid" in 1864 was the last attempt to rescue Missouri, but General Price made a mistake at Ft. Davidson instead of going straight to St. Louis or Jefferson City.
Quote:
Early in the war MO was very much in play until March 1862, when a massive confederate force of nearly 20,000 was defeated at Pea Ridge AR by a much smaller union army, in what was the most unique battle of the civil war. As far as I know, MO was never seriously threatened after that. Had that battle not been lost, that same Confederate force having attained such great amounts of war material, would have easily marched on St. Louis, and secured MO for the confederacy.
Here is a post I came across on another forum. This person was right about Pea Ridge. If the Confederates under Sterling Price were able to demolish the union army there, they could have attempted to reclaim occupied St. Louis and possibly reinstalled the properly elected lawmakers in Jefferson City as well. Same with Camp Jackson if the state militia was able to obtained all those weapons. They could have fought off the invaders.
What would St. Louis be like today if it was a Confederate controlled city and the state under Confederate control? Would it have retained some of its southern elements at least in St. Louis? Actually "Prices Raid" in 1864 was the last attempt to rescue Missouri, but General Price made a mistake at Ft. Davidson instead of going straight to St. Louis or Jefferson City.
It only took you a couple of days to try to stir this conversation back to your initial 'cause'. The author of the above remark is correct when it comes to the historical content of his remark. Pea Ridge was the final coffin in the Confederacy's hope to gain control of Missouri. But like you constantly do on this thread, the author then errors by throwing on personal conjecture onto his statement by assuming that had the Southern troops won the Battle at Pea Ridge, they could have marched on St Louis and have taken it. I remind you that a mere seven months prior the South had defeated the main Union force at Wilson's Creek and were unable to capitalize on this victory. Much like your statement in regards to Price's raid in 64, there are simply no facts to base these remarks upon except one's own personal bias.
St Louis never fell into Confederate hands during the war. Neither did Kansas City. Neither did Jefferson City. And Springfield for only a short time. Period! This would-a, could-a, should-a nonsense will never change those facts. Nor will it change the fact that the South lost the war. While most readers may just roll their eyes at your constant harping on this matter, it greatly annoys me because I have spent my life researching this conflict and much like politics, I tire of those who can not look at history without preconceived bias' guiding their every thought.
If you want to truly honor 'the South' and their 'cause', quit whining about what they weren't able to do, and honor them for what they did.
It only took you a couple of days to try to stir this conversation back to your initial 'cause'. The author of the above remark is correct when it comes to the historical content of his remark. Pea Ridge was the final coffin in the Confederacy's hope to gain control of Missouri. But like you constantly do on this thread, the author then errors by throwing on personal conjecture onto his statement by assuming that had the Southern troops won the Battle at Pea Ridge, they could have marched on St Louis and have taken it. I remind you that a mere seven months prior the South had defeated the main Union force at Wilson's Creek and were unable to capitalize on this victory. Much like your statement in regards to Price's raid in 64, there are simply no facts to base these remarks upon except one's own personal bias.
St Louis never fell into Confederate hands during the war. Neither did Kansas City. Neither did Jefferson City. And Springfield for only a short time. Period! This would-a, could-a, should-a nonsense will never change those facts. Nor will it change the fact that the South lost the war. While most readers may just roll their eyes at your constant harping on this matter, it greatly annoys me because I have spent my life researching this conflict and much like politics, I tire of those who can not look at history without preconceived bias' guiding their every thought.
If you want to truly honor 'the South' and their 'cause', quit whining about what they weren't able to do, and honor them for what they did.
Kansas City was a very small town back then. Even if Sterling Price occupied it, it wouldn't have mattered much, unlike St. Louis. If the Confederates were able to liberate St. Louis, you might as well give the Confederate control of the state. St. Louis was a important city.
If the Confederates were able to liberate St. Louis, you might as well give the Confederate control of the state. St. Louis was a important city.
If the Chiefs could have beaten the Jets in the playoff's last year, you might as well have given the Super bowl trophy to Kansas City.
Kind of a silly statement considering we couldn't beat the Ravens in the wild card round, who lost to the Steelers, who beat the Jets, but lost to the Packers.
But hey - we can play the what if game for the next 6 years. I understand that philosophy - and it will matter - to someone - maybe
It only took you a couple of days to try to stir this conversation back to your initial 'cause'. The author of the above remark is correct when it comes to the historical content of his remark. Pea Ridge was the final coffin in the Confederacy's hope to gain control of Missouri. But like you constantly do on this thread, the author then errors by throwing on personal conjecture onto his statement by assuming that had the Southern troops won the Battle at Pea Ridge, they could have marched on St Louis and have taken it. I remind you that a mere seven months prior the South had defeated the main Union force at Wilson's Creek and were unable to capitalize on this victory. Much like your statement in regards to Price's raid in 64, there are simply no facts to base these remarks upon except one's own personal bias.
St Louis never fell into Confederate hands during the war. Neither did Kansas City. Neither did Jefferson City. And Springfield for only a short time. Period! This would-a, could-a, should-a nonsense will never change those facts. Nor will it change the fact that the South lost the war. While most readers may just roll their eyes at your constant harping on this matter, it greatly annoys me because I have spent my life researching this conflict and much like politics, I tire of those who can not look at history without preconceived bias' guiding their every thought.
If you want to truly honor 'the South' and their 'cause', quit whining about what they weren't able to do, and honor them for what they did.
GunnerTHB, down in Southeast Missouri if one were to call someone a yankee would they be offended down there to be called one? I'm talking about natives, not a transplant from IL or NY.
GunnerTHB, down in Southeast Missouri if one were to call someone a yankee would they be offended down there to be called one? I'm talking about natives, not a transplant from IL or NY.
Gunner, just make sure they aren't from Townline, New York, before you call them a damn Yankee. This town re-joined the Union 26 days AFTER Mississippi and Alabama did (in 1946).
The American Civil War was not simply blue vs. gray. Not simply North vs. south. This epic war touch everyone on different levels. Just being from the north did not mean you thought only of the Union. It did not mean you were for or against slavery or states’ rights. This was in the truest sense of the words, a Civil War. Although civil it was not.
Then there was the New York town that belonged to the Confederate States of America.
New York town that belonged to the Confederate States of America. (http://jamestown.wgrz.com/content/new-york-town-belonged-confederate-states-america - broken link)
Kansas City was a very small town back then. Even if Sterling Price occupied it, it wouldn't have mattered much, unlike St. Louis. If the Confederates were able to liberate St. Louis, you might as well give the Confederate control of the state. St. Louis was a important city.
LIBERATE St. Louis?? from WHAT??
Quote:
Originally Posted by SW Missouri Dave
It only took you a couple of days to try to stir this conversation back to your initial 'cause'. The author of the above remark is correct when it comes to the historical content of his remark. Pea Ridge was the final coffin in the Confederacy's hope to gain control of Missouri. But like you constantly do on this thread, the author then errors by throwing on personal conjecture onto his statement by assuming that had the Southern troops won the Battle at Pea Ridge, they could have marched on St Louis and have taken it. I remind you that a mere seven months prior the South had defeated the main Union force at Wilson's Creek and were unable to capitalize on this victory. Much like your statement in regards to Price's raid in 64, there are simply no facts to base these remarks upon except one's own personal bias.
St Louis never fell into Confederate hands during the war. Neither did Kansas City. Neither did Jefferson City. And Springfield for only a short time. Period! This would-a, could-a, should-a nonsense will never change those facts. Nor will it change the fact that the South lost the war. While most readers may just roll their eyes at your constant harping on this matter, it greatly annoys me because I have spent my life researching this conflict and much like politics, I tire of those who can not look at history without preconceived bias' guiding their every thought.
If you want to truly honor 'the South' and their 'cause', quit whining about what they weren't able to do, and honor them for what they did.
well said.....
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.
He says "mum" (with a nasal tone) instead of mom and "qwuata" for quarter....among other things.
