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.
What are you trying to say? You have a problem with facts and with people from there? You're not even from here originally and you think you know this city better than me. It's a fact that St. Louis sent many more troops to the Union than the Confederacy. This city was a Union stronghold.
What are you trying to say? You have a problem with facts and with people from there? You're not even from here originally and you think you know this city better than me. It's a fact that St. Louis sent many more troops to the Union than the Confederacy. This city was a Union stronghold.
While it's true that St. Louis was a Union stronghold, the city was still extremely divided. It was a stronghold because the Union needed it for its geographic location and military facilities. The population remained extremely divided. I agree that STL in not a modern Southern city. That doesn't change the fact that it was divided and had many Southern sympathizers during the Civil War. Louisville was also a Union stronghold during the Civil War.
What are you trying to say? You have a problem with facts and with people from there? You're not even from here originally and you think you know this city better than me. It's a fact that St. Louis sent many more troops to the Union than the Confederacy. This city was a Union stronghold.
No, you just proved my point though. There was political division in St. Louis during the civil war. It's a fact.
No, you just proved my point though. There was political division in St. Louis during the civil war. It's a fact.
If your point is that there were political divisions and that some people in St. Louis favored the Confederacy...OK. There's not much debate on that issue. There were a lot of hot-heads on both sides which magnified the divisions and stirred things up.
While it's true that St. Louis was a Union stronghold, the city was still extremely divided. It was a stronghold because the Union needed it for its geographic location and military facilities. The population remained extremely divided. I agree that STL in not a modern Southern city. That doesn't change the fact that it was divided and had many Southern sympathizers during the Civil War. Louisville was also a Union stronghold during the Civil War.
You again huh? Louisville is in modern times a Southern city though culturally and linguistically. St. Louis is not. They are far from the twins you want them to be. FACT. And this city was not even close to being 50/50 divided. It sent far more troops to the Union than the Confederacy. Go ahead with your campaign to Midwesternize Louisville. Culturally and linguistically there is no way in hell you can argue it is Midwestern.
No, you just proved my point though. There was political division in St. Louis during the civil war. It's a fact.
And your point is? To me that seemed like a jab at the upper class in St. Louis. St. Louis sent far more troops to the Union than the Confederacy. politically divided implied 50/50. It wasn't even close to that.
You again huh? Louisville is in modern times a Southern city though culturally and linguistically. St. Louis is not. They are far from the twins you want them to be. FACT. And this city was not even close to being 50/50 divided. It sent far more troops to the Union than the Confederacy. Go ahead with your campaign to Midwesternize Louisville. Culturally and linguistically there is no way in hell you can argue it is Midwestern.
Never have I argued that present day St. Louis and Louisville are the same city. In fact, I argue AGAINST that. But in the 18th and 19th century? Yes. They're very similar cities. Do you think Louisville sent more troops to the Confederacy than the Union? They did not. Not even close. Louisville from 1861-1865 is almost a carbon copy of St. Louis during that time period. Both strategic river cities, residing in border states, full of Union AND Confederate loyalties, but firmly under Union control. It's a part of the history of both cities.
Never have I argued that present day St. Louis and Louisville are the same city. In fact, I argue AGAINST that. But in the 18th and 19th century? Yes. They're very similar cities. Do you think Louisville sent more troops to the Confederacy than the Union? They did not. Not even close. Louisville from 1861-1865 is almost a carbon copy of St. Louis during that time period. Both strategic river cities, residing in border states, full of Union AND Confederate loyalties, but firmly under Union control. It's a part of the history of both cities.
While it's true that St. Louis was a Union stronghold, the city was still extremely divided. It was a stronghold because the Union needed it for its geographic location and military facilities. The population remained extremely divided. I agree that STL in not a modern Southern city. That doesn't change the fact that it was divided and had many Southern sympathizers during the Civil War. Louisville was also a Union stronghold during the Civil War.
Totally agree. St. Louis was a major port city on the river which is one of the reasons Lincoln acted so quickly getting the union army invading Missouri which sent our lawmakers on the run. Missouri was very important to the union. If General Lyon didn't move so quickly into Missouri and the Mo State Guard had more time to organize and get Confederate army reinforcements into the state to hold the Union Army at bay, who knows how the war would have went. It certainly is possible southern IL would have attempted to break away and join the Confederacy if Missouri was under Confederate Army control. I'm not sure it would have made any difference with Kentucky though because most of their lawmakers were pro union except their governor sympathized with the south, but wasn't a full blow secessionist like Claiborne Jackson of MO was.
It's funny at the start of the Civil War Missouri was more pro confederate than KY was. KY was never really in danger of seceding like Missouri was. After the Civil War KY became more southern and more pro confederate. Remember the Drake Constitution, reconstruction at the state level forced many pro southern Missourian's out of the state.
But St. Louis today is not a southern city we can agree on that but as people are pointing out on here, there are still some slight traces of it left though but nowhere near enough to say it's in transition zone. St. Louis today is a lower Midwest city. It's south of St. Louis, US 50 in rest of Missouri that the transition zone begins. I will say from being a native of St. Louis county, just the area in general still feels different than other Midwest cities though. I'm not talking the city limits but the county and immediate metro in general.
I don't know how to put it but Missouri overall just feels different than all the other lower Midwest states, even areas like St. Louis metro. I had a teacher when I took a summer course in college who was from Iowa and he mentioned to us when he leaves Iowa and drives into Missouri how the state overall has a more evangelical feel to it, a lot different feel than Iowa has. As everyone agrees, Missouri is the most southern influenced state in the Midwest due to it's history, religion, and parts of the state are in the south. I certainly think it overall influences the rest of the state. While St. Louis is not a southern city, and today is Midwestern, I noticed from living there it differs from other lower Midwest places I've been in.
One of my classes when I was attending university we had a Wash U professor on cultures describe St. Louis as stuck in between the north to the north and south to the south which the term lower Midwest City would fit the description well I think. We are not southern, but we are also not upper Midwest Yankees as well. Cincinnati is another very similar city IMO. It's not northern yankee, but it's not southern and the transition zone starts a little ways south of there, just like in St. Louis. Except the south might be closer to Cincinnati as in St. Louis's case the transition zone starts just south of St. Louis but you really don't hit really southern until you get into Madison County, Missouri. The transition zone that starts south of St. Louis is larger. Cincinnati is maybe only 50 miles from where it switches to transition zone to fully southern. st. Louis about 80 miles from where the transition zone ends to nearly fully southern if you're going due south into Madison County MO.
Thinking about it though, during the civil war St. Louis was probably like Cape Girardeau is today. A lot of Southern leanings, but also has a lot of other influences as well. Cape Girardeau is a modern day border city I think. It's literally right on the line of southern. Brad Pitt also describes Springfield MO like that too how it literally sits right on the dividing line with south of it being more southern of course.
Bottom line is St. Louis isn't a southern city anymore.
Totally agree. St. Louis was a major port city on the river which is one of the reasons Lincoln acted so quickly getting the union army invading Missouri which sent our lawmakers on the run. Missouri was very important to the union. If General Lyon didn't move so quickly into Missouri and the Mo State Guard had more time to organize and get Confederate army reinforcements into the state to hold the Union Army at bay, who knows how the war would have went. It certainly is possible southern IL would have attempted to break away and join the Confederacy if Missouri was under Confederate Army control. I'm not sure it would have made any difference with Kentucky though because most of their lawmakers were pro union except their governor sympathized with the south, but wasn't a full blow secessionist like Claiborne Jackson of MO was.
It's funny at the start of the Civil War Missouri was more pro confederate than KY was. KY was never really in danger of seceding like Missouri was. After the Civil War KY became more southern and more pro confederate. Remember the Drake Constitution, reconstruction at the state level forced many pro southern Missourian's out of the state.
But St. Louis today is not a southern city we can agree on that but as people are pointing out on here, there are still some slight traces of it left though but nowhere near enough to say it's in transition zone. St. Louis today is a lower Midwest city. It's south of St. Louis, US 50 in rest of Missouri that the transition zone begins. I will say from being a native of St. Louis county, just the area in general still feels different than other Midwest cities though. I'm not talking the city limits but the county and immediate metro in general.
I don't know how to put it but Missouri overall just feels different than all the other lower Midwest states, even areas like St. Louis metro. I had a teacher when I took a summer course in college who was from Iowa and he mentioned to us when he leaves Iowa and drives into Missouri how the state overall has a more evangelical feel to it, a lot different feel than Iowa has. As everyone agrees, Missouri is the most southern influenced state in the Midwest due to it's history, religion, and parts of the state are in the south. I certainly think it overall influences the rest of the state. While St. Louis is not a southern city, and today is Midwestern, I noticed from living there it differs from other lower Midwest places I've been in.
One of my classes when I was attending university we had a Wash U professor on cultures describe St. Louis as stuck in between the north to the north and south to the south which the term lower Midwest City would fit the description well I think. We are not southern, but we are also not upper Midwest Yankees as well. Cincinnati is another very similar city IMO. It's not northern yankee, but it's not southern and the transition zone starts a little ways south of there, just like in St. Louis. Except the south might be closer to Cincinnati as in St. Louis's case the transition zone starts just south of St. Louis but you really don't hit really southern until you get into Madison County, Missouri. The transition zone that starts south of St. Louis is larger. Cincinnati is maybe only 50 miles from where it switches to transition zone to fully southern. st. Louis about 80 miles from where the transition zone ends to nearly fully southern if you're going due south into Madison County MO.
Thinking about it though, during the civil war St. Louis was probably like Cape Girardeau is today. A lot of Southern leanings, but also has a lot of other influences as well. Cape Girardeau is a modern day border city I think. It's literally right on the line of southern. Brad Pitt also describes Springfield MO like that too how it literally sits right on the dividing line with south of it being more southern of course.
Bottom line is St. Louis isn't a southern city anymore.
Ah but Cincy is not influenced by Cleveland. St. Louis is influenced by Chicago. Cincy is closer to the South in distance but also it has not much Northern influence. Probably explains why it is more conservative.
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.
