This is an archive of past discussions about Southern United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
How do most Southerners treat Muslims that live in the South?
I'm a Muslim living in the South, and I'm treated just fine. Stereotypical interpretations would be that Muslim Southerners aren't treated right, but that's the farthest thing from the truth. Stallions201023:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Baltimore
Although south of the Mason-Dixon line, that catagorizing of "The South" is not widely accepted anymore. Having grown up in South Carolina and traveled extensively throughout the southern states, when asked, most will not accept Baltimore or Maryland as being culturally southern.
On the other hand you have Kentucky a state that had over 80% of it's residence identify as Southerners on the Southern Focus Study (tied with Virginia) yet it is a striped state on the Map and Louisville has a star by it (indicating it may or may not be Southern). This map is based solely on Civil War alliances and nothing else, I mean it would be more logical to pur CSA in the captions am I wrong. Why not make a map that goes by the Southern focus study, every state that had over 50% of it's residents identify as Southerns should be labeled Solid red. Really the only changes to be made by this suggestion is to make Kentucky (had 86% of residences identify as Southern same percentage as Virginia) and Oklahoma (about 69% of residence identify as Southerns) solid red. Oh and take that rediculous star from beside Louisville.
If this is to much work or something then can someone at least put in the captions Confederate states of America. I have a hard time beleiving that in this day in age Kentucky if not more is just as Southern as Virginia.
>>The Southern Focus Poll mentioned above was a good one. If I have it down right, it consisted of 14 seperate surveys between 1992 and 1999, attempting to find "The South" by where people SAID they lived in the South. In 1999, sociologist John Shelton Reed (who is undoubtably the premier Southern culture expert in the country) did a study "consolidating" the findings inthe individual states over those years (which varied some from poll to poll). Again, altough I don't have the actual article, but going by some reviews of it, the OVERALL finding was that over 90% of residents in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina's, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Florida said they were in the South. Texas came in with 84%, Virginia at 82% and Kentucky at 79%. In Oklahoma it was 69%, and the above states constituted all in which a majority believed their state in the South. That corresponded perfectly with the 13 state South as defined by Gallup polls and certain political concerns (such as the Southern Republican Convention). Of the states included in the South by the U.S. Census Bureau, just 14 percent of Delaware residents said they lived there, with Missourians at 23 percent, Maryland with 40 and West Virginians with 45 percent.
>>Although I don't have the particulars (but will try to post them when I can locate them), there was ANOTHER part of the question that asked the respondents if they, personally, considered THEMSELVES to be Southernerns. This query has a lot of interesting ramifications in itself when figured into the whole equasion. For instance, although an overwhelming majority of those surveyed in Florida said they lived in the South, only 51 percent considered themselves Southerners. I am sure this is because of the influx of yankee migrants, and would guess that states like Texas, Viriginia, even North Carolina, would reflect the same discrepancy between the two questions. Seems like that even in Mississippi and Alabama, a noteably smaller number of respondents considered themselves to be Southerners than actually living in the South. TexasReb00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's a map, redrawn from scratch but copying a map of D.W. Meinig, who himself drew on a wide variety of regional studies to come up with this generalized map of the regions of the US. It is supposed to represent US in 1950, but should holld up to today's US pretty well I think. The strongest divides and regions he notes with grey shading (for "The Core") and the thickest black line-- for the "Primary Cultural Divide", between the north and the south, east of the Mississippi River. It is interesting to see how his line diverges from the state lines along the Ohio River-- sometimes curving northward, sometimes south. It starts at Washington DC in the east, putting Baltimore north of the "primary divide" (of course such lines are inherently somewhat arbitrary and subject to dispute). If I ever find enough time (unlikely!), I wouldn't mind making new maps for the regions of the US, perhaps with fuzzy colored borders and not so strongest based on state lines. But time lacks. Anyway here's the redrawn Meinig map: http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpgPfly16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
ROFL "Mormondom"
Below is an interesting article by John Shelton Reed (Southern culture expert and originator of the Southern Focus Poll so often mentioned in the discussion).
WHERE IS THE SOUTH?
The South has been defined by a great many characteristics, but one of the most interesting definitions is where people believe that they are in the South. A related definition is where the residents consider themselves to be southerners, although this is obviously affected by the presence of non-southern migrants.
Until recently we did not have the data to answer the question of where either of those conditions is met. Since 1992, however, 14 twice-yearly Southern Focus Polls conducted by the Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have asked respondents from the 11 former Confederate states, Kentucky, and Oklahoma "Just for the record, would you say that your community is in the South, or not?" Starting with the third of the series, the same question was asked of smaller samples of respondents from West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Missouri (all except Missouri included in the Bureau of the Census's "South"). Respondents from the 13 southern states were also asked "Do you consider yourself a Southerner, or not?," while starting with the second survey those from other states were asked "Do you consider yourself or anyone in your family a Southerner?," and if so, whether they considered themselves to be Southerners.
It is clear from these data that if the point is to isolate southerners for study or to compare them to other Americans the definition of the South employed by the Southern Focus Poll (and, incidentally, by the Gallup Organization) makes sense, while the Bureau of the Census definiton does not. We already knew that, of course, but it's good to be able to document it.
--John Shelton Reed
Percent who say their community is in the South
(percentage base in parentheses)
I think this article just got a heavily partisan rewrite by a proud Southerner who believes his political views are definitive:
The scars left by the total war against Southern civilians may never fully heal. Before the war, the South was the wealthiest part of the USA with a dynamic culture that supplied many of the American Founding Fathers, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Sometime after World War II, the Northern economy expanded south, shaping a "New South" into a manufacturing region and colony of Northern capitalism.
But as many mills are being shut down all over the USA, while their multinational corporate owners relocate to "Communist" China and to India, Southern nationalist and cultural groups, such as the League of the South, attack the inhumanity of modern capitalism. Such groups advocate a return to a more peaceful, humane and self-sufficient agrarian society. The League is made up of university scholars and other Southern intellectuals who also teach loyalty to Southern tradition and hope that secession from the imperialist USA will be realized once again — just as Norway won her independence from Sweden.
The region is blessed with plentiful rainfall and a mild to warm climate. Many kinds of crops grow easily in its soils and can be grown without frost for at least six months of the year. The South is blessed with fragrant Magnolia trees, fragrant Jessamine vines, beautiful flowering Dogwoods, and many and sundry other natural delights.
The vast majority of Southerners never owned slaves and they were independent yeoman farmers just as in the North. Political tensions arose for a number reasons, especially slavery, and in 1860, 11 southern states left the Union and formed a separate nation, the Confederate States of America. Immediately, President Abraham Lincoln sent armed warships down to Fort Sumter, South Carolina, on the pretext to keep it from reverting to the Confederacy. War broke out, officially called in the North, the American Civil War, and called in the South, the "War for Southern Independence." n
Since 1965, Texas has been flooded with tens of millions the poorest inhabitants of Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America.
I agree, this is SERIOUSLY not NPOV. The author tried to portray the Confederacy in the best possible light. While it is true that most white southerners did not own slaves, the vast majority of white southerners were VOCIFEROUSLY defensive of the institution, and a more NPOV author would have noted that. That's not the only problem here. Maybe this article should be tagged?
The stuff that you are looking at is old. The current article is very different. Would anyone object to this section being removed? This discussion sections needs a little cleaning.
I removed much of the discussion and quotation of the disputed NPOV section since most of the material under discussion has been replaced or rewritten (and the cleaning/removal request was made 3 months ago without any subsequent challenge or disagreement). Poroubalous 26 March 2005
"for its Calvinist religion called 'fundamentalism'" -- aren't most Southerners (stereotypically speaking) Baptist? jengod 22:42, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
Baptists may be the largest single demonination, but I don't know that they're the majority. (I have no figures at hand, just my impression.) "Calvinist" may not be the best term here. -- Infrogmation 23:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that they're the largest in number, but I would not say that they're the majority. Just like anywhere in the country, I'm sure they get competition from rival Protestant sects as well as Catholicism. Mike H 03:22, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that Baptists are anywhere a "majority" in the South, athough there might be a few counties where this is the case, especially if one were to lump all of the various Baptist sects together (something that they themselves are either unwilling or unable to do). They are certainly a "plurality" in much of the South, though, and quite often bigger than the next two or three religious groupings put together. That having been said, while the South certainly has more than its share, the idea that a majority of Southerners, or even a majority of Southern religionists, are a bunch of Bible-totin', Scripture quotin' "fundamentalists" is an oversimiplification at best and an unfair stereotype at worst. Such do exist, and in abudance, but are far from all that there is to the Southern culture. They probably exert influence beyond their numbers because of the willingness of so many of them to be "in your face" and hence loud in both the literal and the political/social sense (although many others express a quiet humility). As to Calvinism, there is a certain amount of Calvinist influence in many Baptists, particularly conservative ones, and in fact Calvinism in the 21st century probably has more influence among Baptists today than it does among modern Presbyterians. Many fundamentalists also believe in free will, so that is probably another unfair stereotype. The number of Catholics in the South is now rising rapidly due to immigration from Latin America, which is making another huge religious change and in someplaces is overwhelming the Catholic infastructure, which for many years primarily catered to small communitites of Irish, Italians, and Germans.
The Gulf Coast (including parts of Alabama and Mississippi) was originally settled by the French and the Spanish. Moreover, the port cities on the Gulf Coast have received a large number of Irish and Italian immigrants during the last two hundred years. Catholicism was once the predominant religion of these areas and still has a very strong presence.
I think it might be interesting to note that traditionally it was the North, not the South that was associated with Calvinism. The Puritans were in Massachussetts, not Virginia, after all. My understanding was that the North used to be the more stridently Calvinist region in colonial times while the South was more Anglican, contrary to the current religious demography.
A previous writer seems to say that the average southerner identifies with only Republicans, but this is true only in federal elections. States like AL, MS, TN, LA, and AR have both houses controlled by Democrats. In many of these, the Democrat:Republican ratio is 2:1. Other southern states are likely to have at least one house of the legislature controlled by Democrats. To say these voters are simply voting based on evangelical beliefs is inaccurate. Many southerners are motivated by their opposition to a large federal government, preferring local/state authority. The dislike of "bureaucracy" is strong in the South.
Native America
Again, as with many US-centric articles, there is no mention of Native Americans at all. How can the History of an American region be represented without some reference to its original inhabitants? Shame shame. Quinobi 18:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just playing devils advocate here: Maybe because all the Natives who lived here are covered by other articles about the Native Americans of America. The South as a cultural region never really coexisted with Natives, so there wouldn't need to be any mention of them. Anyways, a sentence or two and some links might be nice.-
To futher advocate the aformentioned devil: Georgia Cherokees were so assimilative of the Southern culture that at the time of the Trail of Tears, many of the wealthier ones (such as Chief Vann) owned numerous black slaves which worked their plantations. Some Mississippi Choctaws also owned slaves. This assimilation attempt might merit mention, even though the attempt at coexistence (represented in part by the above, which was partially a move for assimilation and white acceptance) was a failure due to Jackson's insistance on Removal.
I strongly agree with Quinobi. A cultural history of any region of the world should first address the indigenous peoples. In the History section of the article, there is a very casual and misleading reference to the Creeks and Cherokees. If there is intended to be a serious discussion of racial injustice, then there must also be an acknowledgement of the very deliberate efforts made by the U.S. Government to wipe out and/or remove from their traditional lands the native North American peoples. In addition, of course, entire tribal groups were extinguished early on by exposure to European diseases, against which they had no immunity.
In Florida there were two 19th century Wars against the Seminole Tribe. The only reason that a small group survived in the state is that the country turned its resources to fighting the Civil War and gave up hunting down the last of the Seminoles, who had taken refuge in the Everglades. (They remain the only "undefeated" indigenous group.) And what about the violation, on the part of the U.S., of virtually every agreement or treaty that was ever made with the native tribes --- even agreements with the most peaceful and "civilized" ones such as the Georgia Cherokees, who adopted a constitution modeled on the U.S. Constitution, if my memory serves me correctly. Their reward was a "death march" to Oklahoma.
When I was in the 3rd grade in New Orleans, circa 1960, we had a unit on the Choctaw Indians. As far as I knew, they were all in the past. As a young adult, I got an administrative job in the Southeast Regional Office of a Federal Govt. agency in Atlanta and learned that there is a Choctaw Tribal Organization in Mississippi! It is really shameful how invisible these people and their cultures have been to the typical American and to many Southerners! Floridasand10:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The War Between the States; Atlanta vs. The South
That term was still in very wide use forty years ago during the centennial of the event, but is dying out raidly even among Southerners; I edited the article slightly in an attempt to reflect this. Almost none outside of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and fringe groups like the League of the South still speak of "The War for Southern Independence" or "The War of Northern Agression", most call it, like the rest of the country, The Civil War, even though there was very little civility involved for the most part. That having been said, the South has tens of thousands of Civil War buffs, ranging from intellectuals who want every detail throughly researched and authenticated, through a vast mainstream group which is interested in the history of the period, to those whose only interest in it whatever is the fact that it was a period of unquestioned white supremacy.
It is true in the main that, "In the South, the past is ever present. In fact, it's never even passed." The resentment that many rural Georgians and other Southerners as well feel toward Atlanta goes so far beyond the traditional rural/urban rivalry, or even racism, that it is surprising to outsiders (and probably most Atlantans, especially white ones, are largely unaware of it or knowingly ingnore it) and is in part caused by the fact that modern Atlanta has so little connection to its own past in particular, the Southern past in general, or to its region. Those who go to Atlanta to experience "the South" are apt to be disappointed, as in many ways they find a modern large city that fits anywhere in North America, only governed by blacks and with a black majority.
Rlquall 14:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, having spent the first 25 years of my life in the South, I have never heard it called anything but the Civil War. This reminds me of an entry in the American Heritage Dictionary, saying that in the South, people call soft drinks dope (probably from the original recipe of Coca-Cola). Maybe in Atlanta, but I have never heard that in Alabama. News to me.
I've got a feeling the term "dope" in reference to soft drinks may have have been a product of the original formula, but I've never heard it said in Atlanta, but in the mountains of East Tennessee and hills of Middle Tennessee and only by older people, never anyone even middle-aged.
"For what it's worth, having spent the first 25 years of my life in the South, I have never heard it called anything but the Civil War."
The size of this page was about 32KB so I decided to remove the discussion of title. I think there is an agreement that Southern, etc. is capitalized because it refers to a distinct region. Both NYT and Chicago say South is capitalized. I don't think there is agreement on whether is proper to include initials (U.S.) in title. It was noted, however, that U.S. is technically not an acronym, because it does not form a word that is pronounced (like scuba, etc.) However, the meaning of acronym can be debated elsewhere.
About MD and DE being "blue states" and therefore different from the South
[I've snipped the long discussion by me about red and blue states, which was hogging up a lot of space here; see History file. I basically explained that a sentence about red states and blue states needed deleting from the article. I also questioned a comment in the article about MD and DE having legal slavery till the end of the war.] -Bebop
I agree. In addition, the "red" and "blue" are NOT universally accepted. They are also counterintuitive. Unless "red" somehow connotes "rednecked", then it is usually reserved for the left-most party. I also wonder if magnolias are that fragrant. I've been around them all of my life, but I don't think I've ever associated them with a smell. Are dogwoods "beautiful"? The tree language is a little flowery (no pun intended, really), and it leaves out the live-oak, which is (objectively speaking) the best tree in the whole wide world. Mauvila 01:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The only problem I had was with calling the South all Republican when it isn't. Check the online election return results by county for the cities I mentioned in the South. Also there are online election returns for past elections. The South didn't vote Republican in many of those, while many northern states did. Anyway I only put all that on this page because I didn't want to remove a sentence without explaining myself. I have not added or removed anything else, just one sentence about red and blue states. Live Oaks are cool, by the way. Especially the ones with moss on them seen in the deep South, although you don't see much of that except in MS, LA and FL. I'll probably remove my long comments in here after a while so as not to clutter up this page. -Bebop
The comment about states in "the North" where slavery was "legal before, during, and after the Civil War" was / is patently ridiculous, unless one means well before the war, as in decades before, not during and after, or unless one means that Delaware and Maryland (and perhaps also Missouri and Kentucky, which were counted by both sides as being both "Union" and "Confederate") as northern, it is untrue. And slavery was legal in no state after the Civil War for very long at all, as it ended in April, 1865 and the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted prior to the end of that year. While not one to say that the Civil War was all about slavery, it was a very important issue, in fact the most important issue, since the main "states' right" to be defended was the right of a state to have legal slavery. Rlquall 03:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are right about the article's sentence on slavery, since the "free states" v. "slave states" issues caused the Civil War, and therefore there wasn't slavery except in the Confederacy during the Civil War, so the sentence needs changing, unless there's something I don't understand about the history of slavery. (There were racism, segregation, and lynchings in the North, but there was not slavery in the North after the mid 1800s, right?) Why don't you or someone else change it to get the errant comment about slavery removed? -Bebop
[I've snipped a very long reply comment here by me that took up a lot of space, in which I went into a lot of discussion about the presidential election voting history of the South since 1952, which has often been Democratic whereas the northern states were sometimes voting Republican. See History file. Also a discussion of national history of racism and segregation outside the South including the armed forces was snipped here.] -Bebop
Don't forget about state governments. Mauvila
I thought about that briefly but couldn't remember what party affiliations dominate most state governments in the South and North these days. Oh, yes, and I removed the flowery language you mentioned (adding "live oak" too), as well as removed the ridiculous reference someone had in the article to northern slavery "during and after the civil war" per the suggestions in the discussion above. I'm sure there are more types of regional landscaping we haven't mentioned, particularly in Texas. I never intended to do anything to this article but couldn't sit there quietly and allow "fragrant magnolias" and references to non-existent slavery in the North during the Civil War to stay in the article any longer. -Bebop
Gosh, I just read the first part of the article and see why people complained. I wonder what the supposed "unique historical perspective" is that is mentioned in the first paragraph? Doesn't that depend on who you talk to in the South? I don't think there is one "historical perspective" and I have misgivings about the first paragraph talking about that and "customs" -- what customs does this person mean? I already removed the part about it being "the most distinctive" region in the country. That's bull. I'd say New England is just as if not more distinctive, and I am from the South, not the North. The South is a melting pot of many things comparatively. Early architecture in New England is quite distinctive too. -Bebop
Missing History
We go from Civil war 1865 to The South Today(2004). Are there distinctly 'Southern' events occuring in the post Civil War (1864 - 1990s) that deserve mention? MPS 23:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There definitely needs to be some stuff about reconstruction, and a few sentences on the early 20th century wouldn't hurt either.-LtNOWIS 04:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... Civil Rights was largely in the South, Reconstruction, Red Summer (i think), that flood along the Mississippi in 1927, Great Migration, basic stuff on the development of the South economically through this period. The South is a region not a time period.
-Eurytus
I recently undertook a pretty major reorganization of the History section, sorry I forgot to sign in--either way, much of the information needs expansion and fleshing out, but it flows better now (IMHO). Poroubalous 10 March 2005
Poroubalous, you did a great job, but Atlanta and Charlotte didn't really make it big until the 1970s/1980s. That's outside the time bracket of pre-1954. So what happened in "Southern Culture" in the Early 20th Century?
MPS 24.125.42.74 01:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I ended up copying much of the old material and resorting it, especially toward the end. Currently I'm working on the antebellum Southern history, but eventually I'll make it down to Southern culture. Definitely any input/help would be appreciated. Poroubalous 01:04, 24 March 2005
Bias in the Southern Culture in the 21st Century
This article is all subjective and doesn't belong in this article.
Eurytus
Your article doesn't make any sense and doesn't deserve response in this article. 24.125.42.74 01:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Move history into new page?
I noticed that the size of the entire page is approaching 80kb, but that the History of the American South section is only nearly half completed (basically lacking in post-1877 history). As much as I'd like to keep the history section focused on Southern affairs, I also think it might be beneficial to move the history section to a History of the U.S. Southern States page. I think it'd help focus the U.S. Southern states page more on the actual present situation of the South, while allowing readers to further delve into its history if desired. Any objections/thoughts?
Again I'd appreciate any contributions to the post-Civil War Southern history (esp. the 20th century South).
Poroubalous March 25, 2005
That's fine wiht me, but it's important to have some history in the article. Why not leave an abriged history in the article and leave a link to History of the American South under the history section title. That was one of the original ideas of WikiProject: U.S. Regions. It has a precedent in the country, state, and city articles. -JCarriker 04:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
I was looking over the United States main page and actually had that in mind for the U.S. Southern states article, but would the name of the page be better named History of the U.S. Southern states to coincide with the name of the main page? Just a thought, of course redirects could be used, as well.
Yes, that would be best. I was only copying the prosoective title you used in the first paragraph of your post. -JCarriker 05:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Dixie
I don't like the opening sentence. It implies that the South was known as "Dixie" only during the American Civil War, which is hardly the case. Recommendations for improvement?
Rlquall 01:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Important cities"
Isn't this list getting a little lengthy? It is almost by definition subjective, but still and all, it seems to be on the way to becoming a little too extensive. I hate to single people out, but I would like to see what makes Corpus an "important" city compared to other cities in the South its size (the Whataburger home office, perhaps?), or what makes Montgomery important aside from being the capital of Alabama -- other than that, it's barely more than a small town.
How about changing it to largest cities with a population qualification of at least 250,000 in the city proper and a metro population of at least a million. Only the four largest cities of a state that meet the criteria will be included. Under the proposed criteria and acording to the info at Largest metropolitan areas in the Americas the cities that would qualify are: Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Tampa, San Antonio, Raleigh, Virginia Beach, and Washington. This criteria almost cuts the list in half. -JCarriker 06:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I like it, but want it to be pleasing to more than just me. Rlquall 00:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think Richmond, Virginia belongs since it was the Capital of the Confederacy and the home of countless 'southerners' including R.E. Lee and E.A. Poe ... however, it is right on the cutoff line for both of your metrics. Another counter-example: Charleston, South Carolina only has 100,000 in the city and ~500,000 in the area. What is big now and what was big a hundred years ago may be different. Also, don't confuse BIG with IMPORTANT, especially when it comes to the historic south, where the economy was arguably based more in plantations than in the urban core. Where were the centers of power? That's what's important. State Capitals and Major shipping ports. MPS16:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion was to eliminate the Important cities section and replace it with a Largest cities section. An imprtant citeis section is doomed to failure as it automatically implies that any city not on the list is unimportant.- JCarriker 11:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Missouri as Southern
Should Missouri be added on as a Southern state? Though it was a border state sticking with the Union during the Civil War, there's still a good deal of Southern culture in S. Missouri and I think it'd be remiss to exclude them. Haverton 00:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What is being considered as part of the south in this article is simply what the U.S. Census beaurea considers to be part of the south. Culturally Delaware, Maryland, and Norther Virginia are much more closely related to the Mid-Atlantic than the South, however they are listed as Southern here due to their status with the beaurea. --68.77.160.10514:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
As far as cultural ID goes, Missourians themselves are more likely to identify as Northerners if they're from St. Louis or Kansas City, but rather opposite elsewhere. I can only state this anecdotally, though eight years in Boone County counts for an awful lot of anecdotes. 24.124.123.10020:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Missouri is generally recoginized as a Midwestern state by the rest of the country and by the people who live there. It certainly resembles the Midwest far more than the South, with the exception of the far southeat portion of the state. St.Louis and Kansas City are classic Midwestern Cities. I also have difficulty with Oklahoma being considered part of the South. To me Oklahoma is much more like Kansas than it is like Texas, Arkansas, or Louisiana but it has never been considered part of the Midwest and it certainly does not fit into the Southwestern region with Arizona and New Mexico. --142.161.188.9208:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Much of southern Missouri reflects the Southern culture, not just the southeast portion of the state. The problem is that Missouri really is the shifting ground from South to Mid-west. The South does not end at the Arkansas border. Though, people from Northern Missouri tend to think little of the people form Southern Missouri. What it really boils down to is if the Missourian pronounces the name of the state "Missourah" or "Missouree". Thats the dividing line between Southern and Northern/Midwest culture.~ The Rebel At ~11:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, I live in Missouri and I have yet to hear anyone who lives near, or north of the line between Kansas City and Saint Louis say "Missourah," except as a joke.--65.16.61.3514:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The move has already taken place. Thanks for your help anyway. -JCarriker 20:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
overall tone of this entry
I reccomend finding a replacement for the History article for the Southern United States. Instead of just reporting that facts about the history of the region, it uses euphamisms to hide the truth, and put a positive instead of neutral light on the regions' history. Talking about the white settlers' relations with Native Americans and Africans as 'cultural influences' sugarcoats the facts of genocide and racial enslavement.
The article is constantly taking pains to point out facts like the high slave population in New York City, disregarding the fact that aside from major trading cities like New York, African slavery was already much more dominant and culturally engrained in the southern region. Furthermore, an entire paragraph is added to advance the position that many black people fought in the Confederate army, particularly in adding non-combat slaves, forced to serve their masters at the battle lines to the ranks. Without mentioning all the southern blacks who fought in brigades for the Union, the article is plainly trying to convince us that more blacks actually preferred slavery to freedom than what one would think (almost none).
We don't need an article condemning the South, but we don't need one trying to repaint it with a positive spin either. When other history articles on the site address controversial facts or ideas, they first announce that there is a controversy, then they present the differing views and any other pertinent facts that might hlep resolve the issue.
The overall tone of this entry is chauvinistic towards Southerners and is marked by an overwhelming emphasis on the negative aspects of the South. Particularly offensive is that the authors not only see the South first and foremost as a hotbed of racism, but apparently as the very well from which racism itself springs. ("Southern Indiana is strongly influenced by Kentucky. Indiana was also a center of the Copperhead movement during the Civil War. Racism in the mid-west has been blamed on Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois sharing a border with the South.") While it is true that there are many persons in the South who have racist beliefs and practices, the same is true of, say, Boston, MA or Los Angeles, CA.
An encyclopedia entry should do more than propogate a social hierarchy in which one group (non-Southerners) claims superiority over another (Southerners), and justifies it by dwelling on the faults of the latter while neglecting to subject themselves to a similar degree of scrutiny. Indeed the smug superiority underlying this Wikipedia entry mirrors the attitudes of avowed racists, who after all are reassured by their belief that they are superior to somebody no matter how low their own position in society.
While no entry on the South could be complete without exploring racism, the Civil War, slavery, or the civil rights movement, a scholarly entry -- one that might edify a reader from another country for example -- would maintain a neutral and fair tone, and make a serious effort to give a more comprehensive view of a region's culture.
--12.203.233.12501:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah and despite the fact that those topics have their own articles. Though I notice that huge emphasis is from the work of one person a few days ago so its definately not a concensus result yet. keith03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I added these sections because previously there was almost nothing on black people or race issues in the south. In fact, the absence of this info was glaring--and the few comments that did touch on racial issues were very POV in trying to downplay the past issues with race. The problem is that this article still needs a lot of work--for example, the section on the Civil War is only covered in one short paragraph. I believe we need to expand the other history and culture sections, along with adding an in-depth look at the current south's economy and growth. Doing so will give a better view of the south. I also disagree that mentioning the racial aspects of the south "propogate a social hierarchy in which one group (non-Southerners) claims superiority over another (Southerners), and justifies it by dwelling on the faults of the latter while neglecting to subject themselves to a similar degree of scrutiny." As the article states, the south has made more progress on racial issues than anywhere else in the country. That said, a NPOV article can not avoid mentioning both the negative and positive aspects of the south. Before, this article was all positive and as such read like propaganda. People around the world are familiar with the Civil Rights Movement in the south and not to mention it caused people to not believe the other parts of the article, such as the beforementioned fact about the south making the most progress on racial issues of anywhere in the U.S.--Alabamaboy12:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Your rebuttal itself seems to be coming from a point of view that the South is primarily a "bad" place, to put it into very simple terms. ("Before, this article was all positive and as such read like propaganda.") By focusing on racism, the article dwells on the negative aspects of a group of people, itself a widely-practiced form of propaganda. Other nations, for example, may frequently point out the negative aspects of the U.S. (crime, gun violence, waste of resources, pollution, materialism, etc) while making no mention of its positive aspects, in an ongoing effort to convince their citizens that the U.S. is a bad place full of bad people doing bad things.
The article on Southern United States contains about 3740 words, excluding external links and whatnot. Over 1020 words are devoted to issues of race relations, more than 25% of the content. Indeed, "Race Relations" is the first subheading under the heading "Culture," and there is a link to a separate article on Southern Race Relations. (There is no corresponding article on northern race relations, and the article here implies that African-Americans were received with open arms into a loving community of Northerners upon arrival. Racism existed and continues to exist in the North as well, and African Americans were marginialized in other ways in areas outside the South.) In contrast, the Wikipedia entry on Germany puts the Third Reich into a context of other aspects of Germany's history, and the section on culture in Germany ([[1]]) begins with a positive reference to Germany as "the land of poets and thinkers," rather than some Basil Fawlty-inspired tirade on Nazism.
My point is not to downplay the shameful history of slavery and racism in the South. My point is that there is a pervasive phenomenon in American culture that depicts Southerners as stupid, racist, uneducated savages. Selective reporting of facts is one aspect of this trend, and when Northerners are on the receiving end of it, such as they were when baseball player John Rocker made notoriously unfavorable comments about New York City, they take great offense. Were John Rocker to submit an entry on New York City, it would probably dwell on negative aspects of the city rather than carefully refuting misconceptions about the city as does this existing article. ("The prominence devoted to New York's crime is unusual, and is largely a reflection of the misconceptions of out-of-towners than of the current state of affairs in New York City, for, since 1991, New York City has seen a continuous fifteen-year trend of decreasing crime and is now the safest large city in America.")
Specifically on the topic of racism one has to suspect that those who are falsely reassured that racism is something that only happens "down South" are less likely to recognize unfair racial attitudes and practices in their own lives.
Perhaps rather than flogging this dead horse any further I should simply write an article on "anti-Southern bias" and submit it to Wikipedia.--128.163.110.7214:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I was born and raised in Alabama and love the south. It's my home. As I originally said in my post above, the other sections of the article need to be expanded. Once this is done, the article will be more ballanced. Since I haven't had the time to expand the entire article, I focused initially on expanding the racial section of this article (I also added the southern lit section a while back). Feel free to expand and edit the article as you see fit, along with writing your anti-southern bias article. --Alabamaboy15:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
As for your comment about me being against a propaganda article on the south, you are correct. I adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. While I love the south, this is not a tourism piece about the region. It is a factual, encylopedia article that still needs a lot of work. You are correct, though, that many people consider the south to be backward, racist, and so on. We should create a section of the article that covers these stereotypes about the south and why they are not true. There is amble research on this subject. --Alabamaboy15:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
An article trying to summarize everything about the south must necessarily be very brief on everything. But you are pushing an agenda by claiming certain things arent covered enough, and in typical wikipedia fashion making the article into a book in order to ram one aspect of a subject--criticisms, as usual--down the reader's throat. These issues have their own articles. State the fact that the issue existed, point to the article where its elaborated on, and you have a NPOV. Why would the reader need a paragraph of quatations from one guy's autobiography regarding a single issue? And by the way the entire population of Alabama is undoubtedly less than the metro populations of the major cities in the south. keith19:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I have no agenda. The article was missing info on racial issues and this has now been addressed. I also liked how you edited the info I added to make it more NPOV. That said, I think the quotes from Richard Wright's bio help illuminate the issue at that time in the South (there is also far less than a whole paragraph of his quotes). The racial section of the article also shows the transition in the South over the years from the South's past racial discord to the present day situation with the South being ahead of the rest of the country in solving racial problems. Anyway, as I said, I merely expanded one section of the article and, as I also said, there are several other sections that also need serious expansion. (Such as the history section, which has only one sentence on the Civil War. We also need more in the Today's South section, which I just started this afternoon.) As for Alabama's population (which is 4.5 million), what does this have to do with anything? I'm afraid I miss your point.--Alabamaboy20:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we should all not assume that Alabamaboy has any more of an agenda than any of the rest of us. The article was lacking on race relations, and expanding that information does improve the article. I believe that articles should be thorough but brief, e.g. Marshall, Texas, and that sections should be expanded into their own more detailed articles, e.g. Politics of Marshall, Texas, rather than bog down the main article. That said I think a few quotes of Wright's work are acceptable; but over all we need to remeber that Black Boy is a bitter and negative piece that had few good things to say about anyone. Perhaps I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings could also be used? Whatever consensus is reached these insinuations about Alabamaboy's intentions must stop, he's a fellow Wikipedian and Southerner, in other words he's one of us— quit treating him like he's an enemy.-JCarriker 21:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'm fine also using something from Caged Bird. I started editing this article b/c I felt it was lacking in a number of areas. Perhaps I should have started with expanding another section first instead of a contentious section like racial issues, but from my recent work on African American literature I had a lot of info that made it easier to expand this section first. My intention is to expand all of the sections over the coming weeks (see above for previous points on this). I'd love any help from anyone else who gives it.--Alabamaboy21:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi JCarriker. we don't need an admin telling us when to start and stop arguing about things, unless there's some rule applicable here I don't know about. At any rate I'd suggest you look at the stuff that was removed before making those judgements. The discussion is being used for exactly what it is intended for. There is nothing insiduous being "insinuated" about anyone's motives. Nor is it an argument about whether the prior version was NPOV, it is an argument about what amount of additional information is sufficient. I could add another twelve paragraphs focussing on the Lewinsky sex scandal to Clinton's page, it would be undoubtedly illuminating. Would folks consider that neutral? keith23:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I came to this article as a peer, seeking good faith on a page I've had on my page for years, but since you brought up policy, please see: Wikipedia:Civility. The gudielines of Wikipedia:WikiquetteWikipedia:Assume good faith should also be helpful. I'd also like to point out that I did offer criticism in my post. Alabamaboy has said that he is expanding the article, and choose this topic first because he had already done some of the research on it—I have no reason not to believe him. Likewise, I have no reason to doubt your good intentions. Since you are relativley new, I'd strongly advise you to review the three policies I provided links to above. Debate and conflict are common at Wikipedia, you need to learn those policies so you don't violate them, most Wikipedians unintentionally violate the polcies eventually and acknowledge the mistake, repent, and move on. -JCarriker 08:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I for one am not accusing Alabamaboy of an agenda. It is more a matter of a stereotype so deeply ingrained and so often unaddressed in this country that it continues to be freely propagated long after other offensive stereotypes have become taboo. (And a Southerner is capable of propagating said stereotype.) I don't believe that pointing out the ratio of words devoted to race relations vs the overall number of words in the article, or the fact that "race relations" was the first thing under "Culture" was uncivil. If I came across as uncivil then I do apologize, but I stand by my original criticisms of the article, while at the same time appreciating the ongoing efforts and changes in the article. --12.203.233.12504:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Eric Foner
Considering how this guy is a communist, all references to his work should be removed.
Didn't know that. While that isn't the only issue to consider about the reliability of a reference, after reading up on the guy he doesn't seem credible to me, so I removed the reference. Besides, his books was a reference to a minor point in the article that is now gone.--Alabamaboy15:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Spurious statements
What on earth is this statement all about: "Where the hell is the agriculture of the south on this thing?". Surely a question for the discussion.
Colours and appearance
Would it be okay to change the colour of that map box to something more agreeable to the eye and more in line with wikipedia appearance? Something like #ccf, as seen to the right? And, if that change would be okay, are there other pages like this one with that table in it? (I just happened to stumble over here near-randomly, don't know much about this page). If there are, I'm happy to change the other articles too, if people are happy for me to change 'em. --Qirex 12:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Edited --Qirex05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have copied and pasted this discussion to the WikiProject U.S. regions discussion page as I've found that this box, with these colours, is at approx 20 other pages similar to this one. I suggest new comments go there from now (and please do come and comment, I don't want to do this if it proves unpopular). I will leave quick notes at those other pages about this discussion. --Qirex05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Cross Burning
I recently read that the cross burning of the original KKK was a fictional glorification by the author of the book "The Klansman" meant to conjour a romanticism for the Klan. This was a tradition done in Scotland to summon various family clans together, though their crosses were X shaped for their nation's patron saint and was a benign ritual having nothing to do with war and bloodshed. This fiction found its way into the highly popular movie "Birth of a Nation" based on that novel, which the director used for dramatic effect performed to Wagner's "Ride of the Valkeries". This imagery entered into pop culture via the movie and caused the second KKK decades later (which was unrelated to the short-lived first KKK other than their name and mission) to immitate it. But the point is I believe it is not historically accurate to claim cross burning was used as a tool of the first KKK that existed shortly after the war; I believe that is only historically accurate to claim of the more well known second KKK that existed in the 20th centure. I am not changing the article because I am not enough of a subject expert to claim authority on that, but I figured I could post here to see if anyone else is able to verify the correctness of this claim.
Metro populations
Why were these added as MSAs only? Several of these cities have significantly different populations in the CSAs, which are better representations of what most people would view as the "metro area". Anyone object if I pull those #s instead? -Jcbarr16:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Abortion
I notice that there is nothing about the abortion issue and the culture wars to explain the Southern defection from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Surely that needs to be included as well. Joey189821:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
SPLC and League of the South
Of the text below, I'm moving the bolded text here, because as it stands now it seems POV to me:
Groups including the League of the South continue to promote secession from the United States, citing a desire to protect and defend the heritage of the South. On the other side of this issue are groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which believes that the League of the South is a hate group.
It is worth noting that most people in the South do not believe in either of these extremes. They instead value their heritage while also recognizing the need to continue improving race relations and embrace the changing nature of the South.
This second paragraph implies that the SPLC is extreme, and the word "instead" suggests that the SPLC is against valuing southern heritage. I don't think the SPLC would agree with either of those characterizations.
Rjensen, you need to provide references to your historical analysis edits and clean up some POV issues with your edits before we go with them. For example, where in the pre-Civil Rights south were there small cities with integrated neighborhoods? Even if there were a few, these were not the norm and to state it as is makes it sound like the norm. Second, your political history analysis is good but needs references (especially since it is more analysis than mere stating of historical fact). Your sentence "First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominated such Southerners" makes it sound like this was a deliberate choice by National Democrats when it was instead the outgrowth of the South's political power. In addition, the statement "Georgia was the last state to fall" is very POV, making the Democrat loss of the South sound like a dictatorship falling. I have left in your politics edits but made a few changes to blatent POV issues. The stuff like the comment about presidental elections above I hope you can clean up. You still need references, though, and I hope you will provide them. Best, --Alabamaboy14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Talking pre 1960, neighborhoods in towns and small cities were usually integrated. As for political history I was mostly following Black, Earl and Merle Black. The Rise of Southern Republicans (2002) Rjensen14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I'd still want to see a good reference on that neighborhood thing. BTW, I didn't mean to initially delete your politics edits. I'd just noticed that some vandal a month or so back had deleted a number of stuff from the article and I was just trying to reinsert it. Got carried away when I hit your stuff. My bad.--Alabamaboy15:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
==GDP==link title
I suggest if there's to be a section on the GDP of the South, there should be at least a paragraph talking about it or it should be deleted. I've chosen to write here instead of removing it in its current state, but a headline of "GDP" and then an uncited number outside of a sentence looks silly. Rufusgriffin08:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, someone please clean up the section on Film. Gone with the Wind is about the South, but it was filmed in California. Either make it about films 'about' the South, or films made in the South. Or both, but its current state is confusing. Rufusgriffin08:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree; I changed the wording of the sentence claiming that "all" (the two films & one TV series) were "filmed in Georgia" to say that they were "set in Georgia." Actually, it seems rather incongruous to lump "GWTW" and its 19th century subject matter with the more low-brow, contemporary Burt Reynolds movie & a similar(?) TV show. Floridasand09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
GENERAL COMMENT:
I would recommend to anyone who is rewriting major sections of this article the book, 1001 Things Everyone Should Know About the South. I learned a lot reading the chapter on religion, for example. The author is a distinguished professor at the Univ. of North Carolina, where there is a Center for the Study of the American South.
The Univ. of Mississippi (Ole Miss) has a Center for the Study of Southern Culture which has published an Encyclopedia of Southern Culture (1989). This work is presently in the process of being updated and gradually reissued in multiple volumes as the New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. Floridasand09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
TV
I suppose there are more important errors to fix, but I found it funny that someone suggested that the Dukes of Hazard was filmed in Georgia. Anyone who has ever driven through Georgia knows that it looks nothing like Hazard County, since the TV show was filmed in California.
--Skeenbr002:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Charlotte
The article points out that North Carolina is moving away from it's southern heritage. As a native of North Carolina I do not believe this is accurate. It is true that there are certain leaders in Charlotte, most of them native N. Carolinians, who are attempting to erase the cities connections to the Confederacy, renaming streets for example, in the spirit of making Charlotte a "world class city". However, for every person who opposes southern culture in the Charlotte Meto Area there are probably three more who approve of it. Even those who seek to down-play Confederate sympathy have attempted to build on other aspects of southern culture, the NASCAR hall of fame is a good example of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.19 (talk • contribs)
I think the biggest problem is that the paragraph contains opinions that aren't attributed to anyone. Rather than trying to figure out whether NC is really moving away from its heritage, we should figure out who thinks it is and who disagrees, and say so. --Allen01:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Beach Music Mention...
Under the "Music" section I noticed that any mention of Southern (particuarly in carolinas) "Beach Music" was missing. Thus, noting its widespread cultural influence (especially in South Carolina) I added it to the list. Feel free to agree/disagree.
It has been noted in many music documentaries that the strong drum beat in rock/blues comes from the Native Americans and African Americans. Both used drums in their tribal ceremonies and rites. --Bookofsecrets18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The Celtic descent peoples (Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and some English) used the Bodhrán and other drums. However, many of them got away from the Bodhrán and drums after coming to the Colonies and future United States of America. Bluegrass is a strongly based Scotch/Irish music. Traditional bluegrass does not use drums of any kind. --Bookofsecrets18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If we consider Electronica to be "major" American, then no rap music is not the only of non-Southern orgin. That form of music (Electronic) is Disco by the 80s/90s. I'm a proud Louisianian Southerner myself and hip-hopper, but I don't think that's true, man.--J. Daily03:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Florida
I would like to add into the discussion the possibility of Florida being a striped state. While it is undeniably geographically southern, there is often much debate on to what degree Florida is "The South".
the "pan handle" area of western Florida, or warmly referred to as "Florabama", is usually considered southern.
Miami is not "Southern".
Celtic?
Just because someone comes from the British Isles doesn't mean they are 'Celtic', ever heard of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions (just to name a few)? --Cameron Nedland23:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If Atlanta is considered the economic powerhouse of the Southern States, why is Texas then dark red and not striped? Either the Atlanta article needs to change (to note that Dallas and Houston are at least equally as important), or this one needs to (to make Texas striped and not solid). Consistency is key, I think. Tomwithanh00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Texas undoubtedly Southern?
As a native Houstonian, I vote Texas is uniquely its own region that blends both cultures and regions. Houston is definitely a blend of both regions, with a large African American population, Piney Woods being closeby, and with a very large Hispanic population, many first-generation. It's very easy to find authentic Southwestern cuisine and Southern cuisine here, although I have never heard of some foods listed in the Southern cuisine article. As you travel north and east of Houston to the Arklatex area, southern influence is dominant. Many southwestern style foods you find there are not authentic. As you travel northwest, west and southwest of Houston, Southwestern influence is dominant, and the only culture you can find if you travel far enough.
The representation on this map should be consistent with the Southwestern US article, which puts Texas in stripes. According to the Texas article, the state is in both regions. This subject is debatable and always seems to be a matter of opinion. Therefore I believe the two articles should be consistent -- either list Texas as both Southwestern and Southern (solid), or sometimes considered both (striped).
I've never considered Texas to be Southern. I think it's more Southwestern. Plus it covers such a large area, and there's lots of different cultures represented. Dubc072412:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Texas is Southern
I am a fourth generation Texan and have always considered myself a Southerner as well. However, as the poster above said, there are a lot of varying opinions -- among Texans as well -- as to the "answer" to that enduring question: Is Texas a Southern state?
East Texas is truly the Deep South…its western most extension. Trans-Pecos Texas (out around El Paso) is probably not culturally even part of Texas, much less the South. But what about in between?
Well, THAT subject could be one of a full-length book, but fact is, that most of the things that make Texas TEXAS, are basically Southern in origin. The dialect, the folkways and customs, the Confederacy, the religion (the Southern Baptist church is easily the largest in the state), the food (black-eyed peas on New Years Day),and etc.
Texas is also often considered "Southwestern" and that is a puzzler in the sense that it depends on what one MEANS by the "Southwest.” Sure, Texas is "southwestern"...but does it really share deep and historical and political and cultural characteristics with New Mexico and Arizona (the true Southwest states)? In other words, Texas is southwestern in the sense it is both Southern and Western, whereas nothing about New Mexico or Arizona can be considered Southern at all. Texas might better be described as Western South.
The truth is, a lot of the popular image of Texas among Americans who have never visited the state is formed by those old westerns (which in reality were filmed in Arizona and Southern California). Taken at face value, that is certainly good reason to think of Texas as the "Wild West" rather than "Old South.” But...get out of the Metroplex, Austin, and suburban Houston and one will find that most natives (there arent a whole lot of them in the above areas anymore, anyway! LOL) have family roots that are much more like that portrayed in the movie "Places in the Heart" than "Lonesome Dove."
And on a lighter note, how can "Southerness" be denied to ANY state where "y'all" is practically the "state word"?
One final relevant, yet somewhat funny, observation, concerns those humorous lists we have all run across online at one time or another. To wit: "25 Tips for Northerners moving to the South.” Ever notice that when the heading reads "25 Tips for Northerners moving to Texas" the particulars read almost the same way? A coincidence?
Anyway, to wind it up, it is just my own humble opinion that Texas IS a Southern state--just not a TYPICAL Southern state.
Amen. Texas is definitely part of the South. I live in Texas and have lived here in the Dallas area all my life, and everyone I know considers themselves to be Southerners. El Paso and West Texas is a different story. Personally, I still believe that that area is part of the South, but with slightly different customs. I'm proud to call myself a Texan, an American, and a Southerner. Stallions201021:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If you need to refer to the South excluding Texas, there is the perfectly usable, if colorless, term Southeast, so there's no reason to make the South exclude Texas.
What makes Texas and Florida different today from most of the South is not only that they, as you mentioned, extend over more varied cultural areas, some of which are very typically Southern, some less so, but also that they are big states which have their own big cities and universities . Most of the rest of the Southeast, even though it sprawls over many states, is in some ways a cohesive region whose metropolis is Atlanta, and whose elite flies via Hartsfield International Airport and holds degrees from UNC Chapel Hill. --JWB02:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Texas isn't Southern. Dallas is souther. Houston is southern. El Paso isn't. San Antonio isn't. You move from north to south and from east to west and it slowly changes much more into a southwestern state. I don't consider any of the area I live in southern (northwest San Antonio). Most people here have hispanic or generic american accents, voting isn't ultra skewed, ect. South Texas and Alabama look's as foreign as compaing New Jersey and Georgia. But the article already touches on this subject. I think the Texas map should be stripped though.
Texas
I travel the entire state, including the backroads, in connection with my work. There is little doubt that Anglo and African American Texas is solidly Southern in its culture. West Texas certainly has landscapes and habits that seem curious to those of us from the east of Interstate 35, but I find that the essential manners and mores of that region have little in common with western states such as Arizona or Colorado. East of Interstate 35 and north of San Antonio is where the vast population of the state is located. That regions accents, manners, race relations, food, dress, religion, history and folkways bind us solidly with our cousins to the east. South Texas is another matter. The population down there is majority hispanic and the question for the future will be how the immigrants down there assimilate with the rest of us and how much of their culture we adopt. For better or worse.
Regions like "The South" or "The Midwest" don't have strict definitions that everyone agrees to; they are naturally vague, but useful. I agree that The South often/usually includes Texas, but not always. And I often hear of Texas as a region of its own, an idea that makes some sense given its size and history (Lone Star, etc). Also, if one is using environmental factors as part of the way they think about regions, in addition to human cultural stuff, then a lot of Texas doesn't seem much like The South at all. Anyway, just adding the idea that regional terms like "The South" are often about more than human culture, and that Texas, while Southern, seems to often be described as its own region. A common regionalization of the US I see is: New England, Mid-Atlantic, South, Midwest, Texas, Southwest, California, Mountain, Northwest. But the point is, trying to define general regions strictly, especially using state borders only, is likely to be an exercise in frustration. Pfly19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The map
The previous map, the one showing the Old Confederacy as the true Southern states (solid) needs to be re-inserted. The one now, showing the South as the U.S. Census Bureau South plus Missouri as states "usually included" just doesn't make sense. Not even in the minds of residents of those particular states, if polling is any indication. A Southern Focus Poll spanning quite a few years, measured "the South" by where a majority of persons residing within a particular state CONSIDERED themselves as being in the South....which is probably as good a gauge as any. Those questioned within states of the Old Confederacy, plus Kentucky (and to a lesser extent, Oklahoma) gave a decided yea.
So far as the particulars go, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas and North Carolina repondents answered affirmatively over 90% of the time. Texas came in with 86%, while Kentucky and Virginia went around 82%. Some 68% of Oklahomans said they were in the South, and that was the extent of those states answering yes a majority of the time. Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia, and Delaware (states which to some varying and limited degree have loose claims to being Southern) answered no most of the time, with the expected smallest percent being in Delaware (only around 15%).
All in all then, wouldn't it make better sense to reflect such in the map...to correspond not only historically, but to the mindset of those who live in the said states? And "stripe" the others? In other words, the previous map! LOL
Exactly !!!!!! I know exactly what study you're talking about and I use it to get my point across also. Kentucky should be shaded completely red as is Virginia. Kentucky is just as Southern if not more Southern than Virginia. As far as Missori goes I think it's an insult to lump Kentucky as having the same level of Southerness as Missouri. Kentuckians are proud Southerners not closet cases (Missouri and Maryland). Kentucky had the 3rd largest slave owning population and has the 4th largest Southern Baptist population.
To end my rambling Kentucky is a Southern state that proudly displays it's Southern heritage from the Kentucky Derby and Bourbon producing to having over 70 Confederate monuments and only 2 Union monuments. Kentucky deserves to be shaded completely Red on the map.
Man I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels this map is flawed. If and when this map is edited can someone please map Kentucky apart of the definant South and not like some half and half state.
Well, after a few days of the return of the previous map, it appears the Census Bureau plus Missouri as the "usually defined" South has returned. HOPEFULLY though, this is just temporary while a better one is being put together. Yes, I 100% agree with the poster above. A map that reflects the "Solid South" (pun intended! LOL) should be the 11 Old Confederate States plus Kentucky. That is, historically, and where over 80% of residents consider themselves as living in the South (the Southern Focus Poll survey). Oklahoma, Maryland, Missouri and Delaware (the last ONLY because the Census Bureau includes it) should be striped as "sometimes". Please consider doing a map which reflects such.
Please cite the studies if you want us to be able to use them to discuss here. However, from what I’m hearing re the study, it does seem flawed. Ask a Barcelonian if they consider themselves “European”, and I’d imagine you’d see 80+% of them agreeing. Now ask them if they consider themselves “Spanish”. Same result. Ask them if they feel “Catalonian”. Same result. Now ask which they feel more like. Now the results go in vastly different directions. Somehow, the impression I get of this study is it simply asked “Do you consider yourself Southern?”. I’m quite sure that a similar question, “Do you consider Texas to be Southwestern?” would have an almost identically high proportion of the population in agreement. Barring a study using the question “Do you consider Texas to be more Southwestern or Southern?” would be far more useful. That said, speaking as someone from the Deep South, a mere 40 minutes from the former CSA capital, I can most definitely tell you that no one around here remotely considers Texas part of the South, at best, those that claim to be Southern are seen to be as posers, or wanna-bes. Historically speaking, yes, they were part of the Confederate States, but some how I think there would have still been a substantial Spanish speaking population that was not involved with the politics or the war still in Texas at the time (as in the case of my ancestors in New Mexico, who knew nothing of the politics of the area until the early-mid-20th century because of isolation). I vote for at the absolute minimum putting Texas in stripes since obviously there is a decent enough perceived Southern identity, although because I believe Texas is sufficiently its own culture and way of life, it should be blanked out entirely and listed as its own region.
Wow. You try that and see what the reactions from Texans will be. Did you not just read the above statement? 86% of Texans consider themselves Southerners. If we are "wannabes" to those who live near the former CSA capital, so be it. It doesn't matter, because Texas is more Southern than Southwestern. Also, many Hispanics did fight in the Civil War 1. Most fought for the Confederacy, and were from Texas. This article 2 is a good defending site about Texas being Southern. If you say that the large number of Hispanics makes Texas not Southern, then obviously you are being racist. So is the South only meant for whites? It is this type of attitude that makes people think we are backward and racist. We are not. Having a large Hispanic population does not make Texas not part of the South. Heck, over 75% of Texas was for secession 3. Take a look at the map in the link. Even El Paso was for secession! Maybe there should be a survey if Texans consider themselves more Southern or Southwestern; however, what the results will be is rather obvious. --Stallions201021:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoa. Slow down. Read what I said a little bit more carefully. First off, I find it hard for me to be racist against Hispanics given that I am Hispanic, and find it even more harrowing that you would represent me as saying the South is for whites only (when in fact it has one of the highest concentrations of blacks in the US). I merely pointed out that the survey simply indicates how many consider Texas a "Southern" state when ASKED if they consider it as such. It did not, however, pose a similar question re its status as a Southwestern or independent region. My point was that if someone asks any random person in Texas if they're in the Southwest, they'll likely respond in the affirmative. Ask the same person a day or two later if they're in the South, they'll also respond in the affirmative. Such an an identity is not mutually exclusive for a state such as Texas, for this reason, I think striping Texas is necessary at a minimum. Please, please consider the source of and basis of statistics before presuming what they mean. Your page showing 75% of Texas supported secession also notes that very small numbers of people voted in some other-wise large towns. Remember, not everyone was allowed to vote at the time: to what extent were Hispanics privileged to vote at that time? Sure, Hispanics fought in the war for the Confederacy ... so did blacks, and I'm absolutely sure they were all in support of secession too. (That was sarcasm before you attack me for it).
Speaking as a native Texan with Deep South roots, the poster above makes some good points, although I want to quibble a bit with a few of them and introduce a few of m y own. A survey apart from the one mentioned (where 86% of Texans said they considered themselves as Southern) asked a more direct question of whether they considered the state being Western or Southern. About 75% of the respondents said Southern. There was an east/west gradient when broken down by counties, with those in trans-pecos Texas (ala' El Paso) tending to go with western, while in East Texas the answer was almost exclusively Southern. The broad middle Central, North and South) went decidedly Southern as well. An interesting thing was that even the west Texas areas between Midland and Amarillo leaned Southern, in spite of the fact the landscape of the state in that vicinity has nothing in common with the moonlight and magnolia's image. I expect a lot of the reason is that most Texans trace their family roots to the Old South and, along with the Confederate experience, retain a lot of their Southern identity. Topographically that area might be "western" but the mannerisms, drawl, and general outlook is Southern in nature.
So far as the noteable point that if a study was done that asked if the state was "Southwestern" that most Texans would probably say yes, is very likely true. However, this needs to be qualified, as it depends on what other states are included within this historically ever changing and loosely defined "region." In other words, the southwestern states of New Mexico and Arizona residents tend to shun any sense of commonality with Texas...and vice-versa. A book titled "Cultural Regions of the United States" by Raymond Gastil once put most of Texas into a sub-region of the "Greater South" that he called the "Western South." Which makes very good sense (far East Texas was put in with the Deep South), as a goodly part of the Lone Star State is a place where Southern speech, folkways, traditions, history and culture are flavored with cowboy and cattle icons (even though cotton is still the biggest agricultural money maker) and the "look" of the west. Perhaps this is a reason too why Texas is often is a classification by itself. A Southern state, yet not completely in or of the South.
Finally, so far as the Confederate and War Between the States history goes, at that time Texas was considered part of the Lower "Cotton" South (as opposed to the Upper South states of Arkansas, Tennesee, Virginia and North Carolina, or Border South states of Kentucky and Missouri). After South Carolina seceeded, the other states of the sub-region quickly followed, and the only reason Texas had not been perhaps the second or third state to do so was because Gov. Sam Houston (from Tennessee and sharing the general opposition at the time of his native state to secede) refused to call the Texas Legislature into special session to consider the topic, knowing full well what the outcome would be, relenting only when Texas citizens made it clear they were prepared to act without him, electing representatives to a "peoples convention" whose legality was later upheld by the Texas legislature. When all was said and done, the vote was a thundering 167-8 for secession. This was a higher percentage than in any other state of the Lower South except South Carolina (where the vote was unanimous). Later, as Stallion noted, the question was put to a vote of citizens and 76% were in favor. So far as hispanics go, there was not at the time a huge hispanic population, strange as that might seem today (the demographics of the state very much resembled those to the east, with 30% black), but when the War broke out, hispanics within heavily supported the Confederacy.
Anyway, the bottom line is that Texas is essentially a Southern state. If one could remove the Southern influences from within, it would likely be unrecognizable as the Texas most of us who live here are familiar with. And just as a side note, if someone from Mississippi or Alabama (arguable the "most Southern" states of all) were blindfolded, driven in circles, and placed in some region of East Texas, they would probably not know if they had ever left home. I don't say that so much personal opinion as what I have actually been told by residents of those states that I have met when visiting that neck of the woods. Many have said their whole idea of Texas came from TV western movies and to see antebellum "plantation" type homes and thick piney woods and native growing magnolias was a real surprise.
It's too bad that while the north east to middle of the US has 3 traditional regions, New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest, the south east to middle gets just 1 big region and lumps it all together. I wish there was a southern equivalent of the Midwest. Norfolk, Miami, New Orleans, and Dallas seem at least as different as Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Wichita, if not more so.. much more so! Why does the north get all the regional distinctions? Oh well. Pfly17:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Good question...and I think at least part of the reason is that, while Mississipi and Alabama and Georiga and perhaps South Carolina and Louisiana tend to to (with admitedly good reasons) think of themselves as the standard by which "Southerness" can be measured, when it comes down to brass tacks, the states of the Old Confederacy sort of feel a special kinship with each other...even if those within define "The South" differently.
Folks in, say, Alabama or Georgia may not or may not include Texas (or Virginia, Arkansas, etc) in the South...but yet?..how to say it?...we all fight on the same side of the creek when it comes right down to it. I can't really explain it...maybe only another Southerner really knows what I mean.
Speaking of Texas and the South/Southwest thing, I don't know how "scientfic" this suvey is but it indicates that of those whose "primary identity" is "Texas", the "second level" of identification shows "South USA" easily ahead of "Southwest USA"....with "West" hardly qualifying. http://www.commoncensus.org/identity_stats.php?rank=1&pkey=142
Considering Oneself
Funny, I don't know any Missouri types who think of themselves as Southern....they are all Germanic-style Midwesterners in beliefs and speech patterns....yet Delaware types I know are as Southern as Southern can be. WillC20:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
an interesting question. Does being born in the south make you southern? definitely. Does relocating to the south and living there for years make you southern? Possibly. The South is an interesting phenomenom. While it is a geographic location of origin, it can also be an aquired cultural acceptance.
El Paso
Why is El Paso, Texas listed as one of the cities not considered part of the South? The map clearly shows that all of Texas is Southern, including West Texas. So why is there a dispute? The same thing I note with Louisville, Kentucky and Baltimore, Maryland. Could someone resolve this issue? I'll put discussion up on the El Paso discussion page as well. Thanks. Stallions201005:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The map is generic and does not deal with specific exceptions. El Paso has always been Hispanic and Western. On the other hand Louisville and Baltimore were long considered "southern -- well into 20th century. I think Louisville is still a southern city. Rjensen06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what was said to a certain extent. I do agree that El Paso is both Hispanic and Western. But I also believe that it's Southern. Early pioneers to El Paso were Southerners moving there from North and East Texas, Alabama, and Georgia. The following was taken from the Handbook of Texas Online:
"During the Civil War most of the El Paso pioneers were overwhelmingly sympathetic to the South. Although Confederate forces occupied Fort Bliss in 1861, the tide began to turn in favor of the Union cause the following year, and in August the Stars and Stripes was raised once again over Fort Bliss. The local Southern sympathizers eventually received presidential pardons, but some, such as Simeon Hart, battled for years before they recovered their properties."
In addition, the area was part of the Confederate States of America. The region of Texas bordering Mexico in far South Texas is undisputedly Southern, but it is Hispanic as well. There is an overlapping of cultures in Texas, but that isn't a reason one of those cultures can't be Southern. Let's see what the response is from the El Paso page is itself. Thanks. Stallions201007:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Texas may be more southern than not, in a lot of ways it is distinctive in itself. Texas not only as a large hispanic population, but also took in many more German and Eastern European immigrants than any other place in the mostly Anglo/ Celtic South. Second, 'Southerness' can't be judged on loyallty to the CSA alone, since nearly all areas of the Southern Appalacians, like Eastern TN or KY were pro union, but are today def. considered Southern. El Paso is more of a western than southern town, my opinion. 65.138.71.6017:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Just as Switzerland is both French and German in aspects, so too is Texas Southern and Western. An even better comparison is actually with Florida. The more Northern parts of the state have fairly strong southern elements in places, but on the flip side, Miami and Orlando don't strike one as particularly Southern. However I would like to say that I find Texas far more Southern than Florida, at least culturally. :) Anyway, Texas is quite geographically different than the rest of the south which is generally characterized as being primarily woods, mountains/hills, or swamps, excepting coasts and farmland. Geography significantly affects lifestyle, which in turn affects culture. By the way, Texas accents tend to sound like a South/Midwest hybrid. ;)
Speaking of hybrids, Texas is very much a hybrid. Texas is Southeastern, Texas is Southwestern. Since y'all are so big, maybe you should just go call Texas its own region. --Anivron02:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The map--please pick your favorite!
There is a disagreement over which map to use on this (and other Southern) articles. Let's see which people prefer.--Alabamaboy19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Map 1
Southern United States. Exact definitions of the South vary from source to source. The states shown in dark red are usually included, while all or portions of the striped states may or may not be considered part of the Southern United States.
Map 2
Southern United States. The States shown in dark red are usually considered part of the Southern United States; however, it is important to note that while all Confederate States of America were Southern States, not all Southern States were Confederate States.
The vote
Map 1 I vote for Map one because it is more information-dense (letting the reader know at a glance which states are usually considered part of the south and which are only sometimes considered part of the South). Tha map is also simple to understand. In my opinion, Map 2 actually provides less useful information that Map 1.--Alabamaboy19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Map 2 is more historically and factually accurate. Those who vote Map 1 have a liberal Yankee agenda; map 2 is npov. WillC20:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Map 1 has more information, but the article needs more than by-state maps. How about some dialect maps [2][3][4] or even food preference maps? --JWB21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Map 1 without question. The Old Confederacy (and perhaps consider including Kentucky) makes sense from every possible aspect. Historical, popular mind-set...and in the minds of the residents of those states.
I have rarely, if ever, been more offended in all my life. Kentucky is the South, has always been the South, and, so help me God, will always be the South. As Southern as Georgia, as someone said! I’m offended as a Kentuckian, as an historian, and as someone who has spent his entire life studying the history and culture of the South. Red-faced angry offended! There shouldn’t even be an argument, though, God help me, I know that there is. When someone can prove to me that the Ohio River has been moved south of Kentucky, as well as the Mason-Dixon line, I might entertain the argument. Until then, I am inclined to believe that anyone who would call Kentucky “Midwestern,” which is offensive to every fiber of my being (did I mention that?), is misinformed and doesn’t know much of what they speak. Truly, you don’t know the South if you don’t find it in Kentucky, and I don’t really care where you claim to be from or know. You can’t pigeon-hole the South! It’s much more than anything you might be inclined to believe. People want to judge every state in the South by the Deep South, I’ve come to believe. Well, the South exists in two (maybe, three) parts: The Deep South and the Upper South (some might add Mid-South, as I note a few of you have). The accents aren’t all identical, but the culture is--or is very well close.
Now, about Louisville. I do see why you’d think it has a Midwestern under-culture, but it is a major city. The same argument, I assure you, can be made of New Orleans, Atlanta, Charleston. Major cities have major immigration, and people from all over the country--and the world--make their homes there. Sad as it is, it has shown its effects on the cities, but I assure you, at Louisville’s core, is the South. It has even been said that during the darkest days of the war, Louisville had more “Johnny Rebs” and “Southern Belles” than the entire state of Mississippi. As an historian, I might be inclined to believe that. Having mentioned Southern Belles, you’d be well advised to note Sallie Ward was a Louisvillian. Her portrait is often named “The Southern Belle.” That is because she was THE Southern Belle in the ante-bellum days. More Scarlett O’Hara than Scarlett herself! Literally, she was considered THE belle of the South! None of that is even mentioning that, as someone else noted, Louisville is a river city, giving it all the more reason to intermingle cultures. Nonetheless, to the trained ear, one can hear the traces of Southern accents in downtown Louisville, and thick as molasses accents among some of the older residence. Step outside the city limits--you can no longer judge the South by its cities. Anyone who lives in a Southern city will note the changes over the years. They’ve become melting pots, good or bad! Oh, and what is Louisville’s nickname? You don’t know? Let me tell you, “Gateway to the South!” That’s a take on its old days as a river port, and its being a Southern city, noted for two great Southern pastimes, horseracing and bourbon!
The Ohio river is a true divider of North and South. Just imagine how it held in cultures before the days of advanced transportation!
I have no desire to get into specifics of “Civil War” loyalties, other than to say a few things, beginning with no state, country, or person, in my opinion, has been more egregiously misrepresented in history than has Kentucky. Kentucky was no more divided than was most of the South, and certainly no more divided than Tennessee and Virginia. History is recorded inaccurate folks. That’s one of the first things one learns as a historian. Part of “to the victor go the spoils” is writing the history, and there’s a very strong argument that Kentucky was a Confederate state, not only because it was considered the Confederacy by the Confederacy following a secession, but also because that secession was reported in Northern newspapers.
If Kentucky had all the soldiers they claim, every man, woman, and child--maybe even horses and cattle--would have had to enlist in one cause of another. Historically, the South’s influences were so strong in Southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio than Lincoln feared he was going to have to fight them too. It was also a Kentuckian who defended Atlanta from Sherman!
I would also say that Kentucky’s accent and culture are identical--as is the climate--to Tennessee. That’s been stated time and again by people who are far more qualified than I. The accent is considered predominantly “Mountain South,” moving westward into “Plantation South,” and often a “Delta South” accent along the Mississippi. That goes for both states, though Rand McNally, I believe, published a book of maps aimed at Middle School aged kids, where the states were broken into regions (Kentucky and Tennessee were South), and they called Tennessee the Southern state most similar to the North. By the way, if I were from Tennessee, that would offend me too.
Map 1 is more inforamative, but what is it going by. What is neccesary for a state to be shaded dark red,and hat do the striped states lack to be considered split states. I'll tell ya Kentucky is just as Southern as Virginia and should be shaded dark red.
I agree with a lot of what is said by the Kentucky partisans, but I have to make a notation about the remark that "It was also a Kentuckian who defended Atlanta from Sherman!" While it IS true that John Bell Hood was a Kentuckian by birth, the other fact is that when Kentucky failed to wholeheartedly support the Confederacy, he was so irritated by it that he declared himself henseforth a Texan. But the most relevant point is that no matter how it is sliced, Kentucky was just not a true Confederate state. It is true that factions within unofficially formed a seperate secesionist state government whose legitimacy was recognized by the CSA and they were "admitted"...but it did not have the backing of a decided majority of citizens...and the number of Kentuckians who wore blue outnumbered a bit those who wore gray. BUT..with that said, and as someone else noted earlier, sometimes loyalty to the Confederate Cause is not the only criteria for being "Southern." And as was also said, Kentucky DID seem to "join the Confederacy" after the War ended. For instance, it is the ONLY one of the "border states" which today officially recognizes a Confederate holiday. And it is famous for mint-julips and Southern fried chicken, and the dialect is for sure of the South. And perhaps more important, a definite majority of Kentuckians perceived themselves as part of the South (the Southern Focus Poll study). To wind up my own long-winded post, I would suggest that maybe a THIRD map be done? One which includes Kentucky along with the Old Confederacy? I think it is safe to say that Kentucky is at least generally accepted as Southern in a way that the other border states are not.
The Above Rant
I agree wholeheartedly with it. Have the rest of you ever lived in Kentucky? Been there? It did not secede because it wanted to remain neutral and help work out a peace in the tradition of native son Henry Clay. They were incensed by the 13th Amendment; they thought they could have their cake and eat it too by legally remaining a slave state in the Union. When that was no longer a possibility, they wished they had seceded. WillC11:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
While I can understand the issue with Kentucky, not everyone considers it part of the South percisely b/c it didn't secede. That is what Map 1 attempts to do, show where there is disagreement about which states are considered part of the South.--Alabamaboy13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Kentucky historians agree the state joined the Confederacy after 1865.[Coulter 1926] Even Louisville (an important Union stronghold) switched its sympathies. Rjensen14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Please clarify your comments....you mean that KY gravitates more towards the South after 1865? WillC15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice the map has been reverted to stripe Florida, which may be ambiguously Southern, but is certainly not a Border State.--JWB20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If a third map including Kentucky as solid isn't an option, I would agree with y'all that "Border states" might be a good definition of those striped. And I do have to agree with something I think Alabamaboy said. That yes, the states that were all-out or at least decidedly Confederate DO have a certain claim to being singularly offset.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasreb (talk • contribs)
For what my opinion is worth, I am from Louisiana and I can tell you that no matter what Kentuckians think, no (or almost no) Louisianians would consider Kentucky part of The South. However, I certainly understand Kentucky's desire to join the team, of course... :) More seriously, I think something like "Kentucky is a Border State", or "some people think of Kentucky as part of the South", or "Kentucky is sometimes considered part of the South and sometimes not" is acceptable, but it would be extremely misleading to have a map in which Louisian, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, etc. were the same color as Kentucky. The states of the Confederacy have a higher level of Southerness than Kentucky does, and I daresay any citizen of a (former) Confederate state would agree. Obviously, secession and Reconstruction are big parts of this. -- Deville (Talk) 23:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It is worth noting that many places in the Southern Appalachians (such as E. Tennessee) were pro union had very few (if any) slaves. As for Kentucky, a large reason for the state oiffically not joining the CSA is that the state's largest and 3rd largest urban centers, Louisville and Northern Kentucky, were pro union while Lexington was very divided. The Western and South Central parts of Kentucky were and have always been very southern. Had the population centers been located here, the state would have swung the other way. 65.138.71.17102:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I have replaced Image:US map-South-rev.png with Image:US map-South.PNG. The map used on this page is part of a map series maintained by WikiProject US regions. The display of these maps has reached there present display through years of discussion, such as the ones above on this page. It is not fair that one person can unilaterally without discussion overturn such consensus—as a result I have replaced the map created by CubanBaseball with the map maintained by the WikiProject. This was not a judgement on the merit of the changes made, but rather the manner in which they were done. The maps are changed after discussion and consensus is reached on a one of the wiki-project pages or the talk page of the region in question. If there is consenus that Southern Florida be made striped, the changes will be made, but their must be a request and consensus for the change to take place. Thanks. -JCarriker05:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think southern Florida should be striped. It's too arbitrary a distinction; I know plenty of people from Tampa, Ft. Meyers, etc. who consider their city to be Southern, and a lot of the people who wouldn't consider Miami part of the "real" South also wouldn't consider places like Jacksonville or Gainesville. Maybe the whole state should be striped, but I think it's better to just leave it all solid, and explain the rest in the article.--Cúchullaint/c17:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This map has been a by-state map. The article would benefit from more detailed maps of the geography of Southern culture, but that would be a separate and bigger effort than simply striping South Florida, which opens up the question of all the other ambiguous regions. --JWB23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that this page should get a map that details how the dialects vary around the country. Really hen one thinks of the South the first thing that comes to mind is the accent, followed by food and hospitality.
There are quite a few dialect maps out on the web and if I have enough time later I will post one up on this site. Might I add that the entire state of Kentucky is also included along with the rest of the South in Southern dialect.
There is also a neat map on the web that breaks down each county in the country, by how the pronouce soda. The South is alomost completely red in the study with a few acceptions (every state has them). May I also add that Kentucky is a majority Red state in that study ( and yes that includes Louisville).
PS Can someone please delete that rediculous star next to Louisville on the South's largest cities list (the star meaning that Louisville may not be the South), Louisville is a Southern city and I will give one hell of a rant to those who say different. Louisville was the South's second largest city around the Civil War era and it shows in the city's first suburb Old Louisville with it's huge fountains, Victorian style architecture, and magnolias lingering over the streetscape comes straight out of Anne Rice's books.
Also about this map you guys have on the page. I mean is it based solely on the Civil War and which states joined the Confederacy and which were boarder states. I mean my goodness some of you act as if the only way to judge a state's Southerness is by which side the state took during a war that happened over a hundred years ago. True enough it does hold some historical signifigance in the debate, but there are other Southern characteristics that could just as easily judge a states Southerness. For example the Southern focus study in which Kentucky a "boarder state" has over 80% (unlike any of the other border states who had less than half of their residence identifying with the South) of it's residents identifying with the South which tied with Virginia (at 86%) and the rest of the South was at 90%. Wouldn't this be a more relevant map for the page instead of creating a map that belongs on the CSA (Confederate states of America page).
Then some of you make it seem as if Kentucky was really having difficulty with picking sides because of split loyalites. The situatuion was more like Kentucky has the 3rd largest slave owning population in the nation (after Virginia and Georgia) in which accounted for a quarter of the states total population. When the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Kentucky had a choice to make stand with your sister Southern states who are shielded by you and have your largest city and the South's second largest city (Louisville) in which also had one of the largest slave owning population in the South burned to ashes as it is across the river from the North. Or stay neutral to save your economy and preserve the well being of the Commonwealth. True enough it might not be the most heroic tale on Kentucky's part, But look at Tennessee a state shielded by Kentucky and was the last state to join the Confederacy and the first to be recaptured by the Union. Tennessee wasn't even in a Military district during reconstruction unlike the rest of the Confederacy. Can you guys honestly imagine how mangled Kentucky would have been if it put up a completely Confederate fight.
To end my rant; I think that it's just rediculous to still judge a state's Southerness solely on it's Civil War alliance, which is what that little map is based solely on. Mabe you guys could be a little more creative when designing these maps like a map that is broken down into Mid/Upper South, Deep South, Delta South, Cajun/Creole, ECT. There is so much more to South and this whole obsession with Civil War alliances is what the Yankees would expect to see on the Southern page.
Caption
I support JCarriker's map revision b/c one editor should not make an arbitrary change like that, especially when many editors are trying to come to consensus on the map on this very talk page. For now I have also reverted the map's caption. I do not support the statement that the South is based on slavery OR that South Florida is not considered part of the South. I would also like to propose that we are splitting too many hairs here with the different versions of the map's caption.
How about we see which of these options people can support:
Option 1 (the map's original caption: "Exact definitions of the South vary from source to source. The states shown in dark red are usually included, while all or portions of the striped states may or may not be considered part of the Southern United States." That caption gives all views wiggle room for whether or not a certain area was considered part of the South.
Option 2: If people don't want to go with the original caption, then how about "Geographical definitions of the South focus on the 11 deep-red states which seceded to form the Confederacy in 1861. The Border slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia, shown striped, did not secede. Oklahoma was Indian Territory and not a state in 1861, but it did have slavery."
What do people think? Personally, I lean toward Option 1 b/c once we start nickpicking what exactly makes the South then the caption ceases to be useful and becomes as long as the Georgraphy section of this article. best,--Alabamaboy13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just an amazing coincidence that the South = slave states of 1860? Hardly. Actually there was even a war on the slavery issue. Denial of that basic fact looks pretty silly. Rjensen13:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an idiot and I'm aware of Southern history. However, the fact is that slavery existed in every colony of what became the United States (even New York!) and existed in some Nothern states well into the 1800s. To say that "Geographical definitions of the South focus on slavery" is as misleading as other definitions people have give since that would mean Northern states which allowed slavery must be Southern :-). However, the way you've rewritten the caption ("All the red and striped states were slave states in 1860, when the Civil War decisively shaped the Southern image.") works for me.--Alabamaboy15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We're agreed...but slavery was abolished in North by 1799 (NY) and 1805 (New Jersey). so the slave distinction dates to about 1800 (hence the popularity of "Mason Dixon Line" after 1800) Rjensen15:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The relation between the Civil War and slavery is complex enough to deserve paragraphs and whole articles. A single caption should not attempt to take it on. The caption should be as simple and direct as possible. As little as "Confederate States solid; Border States striped" would suffice. --JWB23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Metropolitan areas
I am changing the major metropolitan areas to match the map. All cities that are located within the solid Southern states will not be starred; however, the cities within the striped states will be. Please note that cities such as Baltimore, Tulsa, and Louisville will have stars, but cities such as El Paso will not. This is in compliance with the map, which shows Maryland, Oklahoma, and Kentucky striped, but Texas (obviously) solid. Thanks. --Stallions201022:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a suggestion why not just put in the caption the official Confederate States of America (sarcasim) as Solid Red and the boarder states as striped. Those map proposals were silly. It was basically say every state listed is 100% Southern (including Maryland and Delaware), or keep the same old CSA map. Why not just make a map that goes along with the Southern focus study (or the percentage of a states residence who identified with the South) and every states with 50% or more would be labled solid red and the rest would be striped and the only edits you would have to make to the map is to make Kentucky (86% of residences identified as Southern same as Virginia) and Oklahoma (over 60%) solid red states. The other states Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, and Delaware should be striped. Would it hurt yall to show that a states Southerness is shown through more than the Civil War?
At least someone agrees, But I truely beleive that the only map that will be on this page to show what defines the South will be based solely on the Civil War alliances and nothing else. I would like to be proven wrong on this, But I would LOVE to see a map on here based on the Southern Focus study.
Unique Region
I reverted the words "it's willfully prolonged" in the following bit from the article because it oversimplifies too much, and anyway, "it's" is misspelled. But in reading the paragraph more closely, the whole thing seems silly:
"The Southern United States or the South constitutes a distinctive region covering a large portion of the United States. Because of the region's unique cultural and historic heritage, including the doctrine of states' rights, it's willfully prolonged institution of slavery, and the legacy of the American Civil War, the South has developed its own customs, literature, musical styles (such as country music and jazz, rock 'n' roll and blues), and cuisine."
It implies that the South's historic involvement with states' rights, slavery, and the Civil War are unique to the South and what made the South what it is. None of those things were unique to the South. The legacy of the Civil War shaped the whole country. States' rights have been an issue in many parts of the country not in the South. And slavery was important in the North as well as the South; even after the North abolished slavery, Northerners continued to participate in the slave trade and had enormous interest in slave-run cotton production.
Every region is distinctive in some way or other, and every one can be said to be unique. There's got to be a better way to put it. Pfly05:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Maryland & Virginia
MY Opinion:
I clearly belive that Maryland/Virginia are southern states!
Many People object to the idea of Virginia and Maryland being southern.
Im from Maryland so I know. I hate it when people that don't know me come in my face with all that "yankee" crap...i aint no yankee...im myself! And I absolutly HATE when people say that VA an MD are rude, inconciterate, uneducated, boring, bad drivers. Im fun, nice, and filled with GREAT hospitality.
Next Subject: Civil war/M&D line.
MD/VA/DC
I clearly belive that Maryland/Virginia are southern states!
Many People object to the idea of Virginia and Maryland being southern. Im from Maryland so I know. I hate it when people that don't know me come in my face with all that "yankee" crap...i aint no yankee...im myself! And I absolutly HATE when people say that VA an MD are rude, inconciterate, uneducated, boring, bad drivers. Im fun, nice, and filled with GREAT hospitality.
Next Subject: Civil war/M&D line.
If everyone knows that MD and VA are BELOW the Mason Dixon Line... why do some people feel the need to say that MD and VA are Northern????
It's quite -how can i say- IDIOTIC! Yes, folks, I know that the MDL was not made to divide the north and the south, but It's pretty usefull to divide the two. Doncha think???...About the civil war...VA was apart of the confeds...i can't lie, BUT MD was FORSED to become apart of the union and most of the people wanted to be with the feds.(yuddah im sayin)...So anyways, like i was sayin, VA & MD are natrually South.
Subject 3: MD.
Everyone knows that MD is not like the rest of the southern states-no accent(mostly), not many confed. flags, has northern-like cities, bad traffic etc.- but it is still SOUTHERN.
I mean dang, like many other southern states, we take pride in are lil southerness, we sometimes act a lil country, and we still TALK diffrent from the north...esspecially Dc/B-more area. CUT US SOME SLACK!
Over all, Maryland and Virginia are southern!
They have many southern charms too. Infact, we have great hospitaliy too! Don't worry, be happy. Even if your mad, you HAVE TO admit that maryland and virginia are atleast a TAD BIT southern. YEs, YEs, YEs, we do have many qualities like the north(aka bad traffic...lol), But you must admit(if youve been too maryland and virginia...NOT B-MORE or DC)that it is southern in some areas!
ps. dont post nasty negitive comments about Virginia or Maryland..okedoke allipokey...lolz
ps no 2. IF you ask a man at a gas station in Southern, MD.... you'll know that chu in the south. - Footballchik
ps3.... HOw can we be mid atlantic??? Dont gimme dat stuff...there are only 4 directions. "MId Atlantic" isnt one.
Virginia is most definantly is Southern, However like Kentucky alot people say the Northern tip of it is more Northern (mainly due to Washington DC). This kind of putsa MAryland in a bad position to defend it's Southerness as Maryland is above Washington DC. Maryland in my opion was once a culturally Southern state and still has retained a somewhat Southern culture however this state has been so affected by the melting pot known as DC that most of it's culture is not Southern. I personally beleive that Maryland most definantly deserves to be striped on the map. Kentucky and Oklahoma should be Solid Southern states though, as they have most of their residences identying as Southerners.
Also on the Southern Focus study I KEntucky and Virginia I could swear were at a dead lock at over 80%.
Funny on the cultural variations map you guys can justify Texas's Southerness by refering to the SOuthern Focus study, yet totally reject Kentucky's stace in the survey. This section is downright hypotcritcal in regaruds to Texas. Texas has sections of their state considered Western, yet is shaded solid red on the map. Hypocricy I think so.
--—the preceding comment is by74.128.200.135 (talk • contribs) 04:32, December 12, 2006: Please sign your posts!.
>> I don't think it is hypocricy, but the fact Texas was a true Confederate state that might tend to give it a higher degree of "Southerness" than Kentucky...even though, yes, the state has a "western" influence as well. However, it is important to remember that west Texas was very much predominantly settled by folks from the older South states after "the War," looking to get a new start, so that while the landscape doesn't fit the image of the moonlight and magnolia's, the Southern influence was and is considerable. For instance, while the "cowboy" is an icon associated with Texas and the West, the original breed were directly decended from the cattle drovers of the Old South. Many of them were ex-Confederate soldiers. The John Wayne movie "Red River" makes reference to this fact.
Anyway, I would be the first to say that, of all the "border states" Kentucky is generally more accepted as Southern. But, at the same time there is some truth that the 11 undeniably Confederate states have at least some greater claim in the historical context to being the true solid red South.
TexasReb
Yes sir I agree that a Confederate state would have more Prominace in Southern History, But Texas is a huge state and diverse culture that is often lumped in with the Southwest. However all I'm saying is Kentucky is a Southern State I really wasn't trying to debunk Texas's Southerness as I was trying to prove Kentucky's. What I Ultimately would love to see done is the Editors of this page make a map based on the Southern Focus study. The only changes one would have to make is make Kentucky(over80%) and Oklahoma (69%)solid red Southern states on the map.
Ya know I just noticed that the changes on the map (striping Southern Florida and for whatever reason coloring certain states white), and I must ask I mean WHAT'S THE POINT? I mean it seems like the Editor of this page is trying so hard to duck and dodge labeling Kentucky ( a definate Southern states) as Southern or Solid Red on the map. I mean can I just please get some sort of respanse as to why you refuse to label Kentucky as a Definate Southern state other than it's Civil War alliance.
--—the preceding comment is by74.128.200.135 (talk • contribs) 19:21, December 19, 2006: Please sign your posts!.
The only reason Kentucky did not secede is that they thought they could have their cake and eat it too....slavery was legal in the USA, so why leave? WillC21:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes MD should at the very least have stripes. You cannont compare MD to Colorado! The map contradicts itself. Slavery was legal in MD during the war. MD was and is a Southern State. People are just trying to re-write history.
South Florida and Border States
I would like to speak out in favor of the recently added map, which shades the southern portions of Florida and maintains all of the border states as shaded. My thoughts on each:
South Florida
Only geographically and technically would most people consider Southern Florida - and most certainly the South Florida metro area - to be Southern. The region's history is intricately tied to wealthy Northerners who frequented the region as vacationers and tourists before settling the region en masse from post-WWII forward; remember, the Central and Southern portions of the Floridian Peninsula were sparsely populated until well after the Civil War. Today, the region's demographics, manners of parlance, and general culture is almost never considered Southern, though some parts of very sparsely populated inland Southern Florida maintain a largely agricultural, agrarian character. Regardless, the population centers of Central and Southern Florida - Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Miami - are no longer Southern cities culturally, and numerous self-identification polls have shown this.
Border States
The border states were shaded for the very simple reason that they have composite cultures - cultures that are forged of multiple regions. I have been engaged in a rather rigorous defense of this idea on the Midwestern region page, during which it has become clear that there are many people who want to (for what reasons other than pure historical ignorance I cannot imagine) pigeonhole these states exclusively into one region. The Wikipedia regional articles and maps try to approximate regions, not pinpoint them with precision accuracy (that is what the Census articles are for, rigid technical definitions.) There are certainly many non-Southern, Midwestern elements present in Kentuckian culture (many residents in the KY side of Kentuckiana, N. Kentucky, and other KY cities would self-identify as Midwestern, not Southern) just as there are clearly some Southern elements present in the culture of Missouri - hence, the shaded nature of these states on the maps. However, it does seem very odd to me that Texas and Virginia are solid and not striped (both of them have regions that are clearly not predominantly Southern, i.e. West Texas and North Virginia) and that MD and DE are not even striped at all, as they are both below the Mason-Dixon line (even though nearly everyone agrees that their cultures are no longer Southern for the most part.)
--—the preceding comment is by70.168.88.158 (talk • contribs) 02:20, December 20, 2006: Please sign your posts!.
I have to say, I have rarely, if ever, been more offended in all my life. Kentucky is the South, has always been the South, and, so help me God, will always be the South. As Southern as Georgia, as someone said! I’m offended as a Kentuckian, as an historian, and as someone who has spent his entire life studying the history and culture of the South. Red-faced angry offended! There shouldn’t even be an argument, though, God help me, I know that there is. When someone can prove to me that the Ohio River has been moved south of Kentucky, as well as the Mason-Dixon line, I might entertain the argument. Until then, I am inclined to believe that anyone who would call Kentucky “Midwestern,” which is offensive to every fiber of my being (did I mention that?), is misinformed and doesn’t know much of what they speak. Truly, you don’t know the South if you don’t find it in Kentucky, and I don’t really care where you claim to be from or know. You can’t pigeon-hole the South! It’s much more than anything you might be inclined to believe. People want to judge every state in the South by the Deep South, I’ve come to believe. Well, the South exists in two (maybe, three) parts: The Deep South and the Upper South (some might add Mid-South, as I note a few of you have). The accents aren’t all identical, but the culture is--or is very well close.
Now, about Louisville. I do see why you’d think it has a Midwestern under-culture, but it is a major city. The same argument, I assure you, can be made of New Orleans, Atlanta, Charleston. Major cities have major immigration, and people from all over the country--and the world--make their homes there. Sad as it is, it has shown its effects on the cities, but I assure you, at Louisville’s core, is the South. It has even been said that during the darkest days of the war, Louisville had more “Johnny Rebs” and “Southern Belles” than the entire state of Mississippi. As an historian, I might be inclined to believe that. Having mentioned Southern Belles, you’d be well advised to note Sallie Ward was a Louisvillian. Her portrait is often named “The Southern Belle.” That is because she was THE Southern Belle in the ante-bellum days. More Scarlett O’Hara than Scarlett herself! Literally, she was considered THE belle of the South! None of that is even mentioning that, as someone else noted, Louisville is a river city, giving it all the more reason to intermingle cultures. Nonetheless, to the trained ear, one can hear the traces of Southern accents in downtown Louisville, and thick as molasses accents among some of the older residence. Step outside the city limits--you can no longer judge the South by its cities. Anyone who lives in a Southern city will note the changes over the years. They’ve become melting pots, good or bad! Oh, and what is Louisville’s nickname? You don’t know? Let me tell you, “Gateway to the South!” That’s a take on its old days as a river port, and its being a Southern city, noted for two great Southern pastimes, horseracing and bourbon!
The Ohio river is a true divider of North and South. Just imagine how it held in cultures before the days of advanced transportation!
I have no desire to get into specifics of “Civil War” loyalties, other than to say a few things, beginning with no state, country, or person, in my opinion, has been more egregiously misrepresented in history than has Kentucky. Kentucky was no more divided than was most of the South, and certainly no more divided than Tennessee and Virginia. History is recorded inaccurate folks. That’s one of the first things one learns as a historian. Part of “to the victor go the spoils” is writing the history, and there’s a very strong argument that Kentucky was a Confederate state, not only because it was considered the Confederacy by the Confederacy following a secession, but also because that secession was reported in Northern newspapers. As for solider numbers, I would greatly request more research being done than a website, as you’d be surprised just how inaccurate that is. If Kentucky had all the soldiers they claim, every man, woman, and child--maybe even horses and cattle--would have had to enlist in one cause of another. Historically, the South’s influences were so strong in Southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio than Lincoln feared he was going to have to fight them too. It was also a Kentuckian who defended Atlanta from Sherman!
I would agree also that Kentucky’s accent and culture are identical--as is the climate--to Tennessee. That’s been stated time and again by people who are far more qualified than I. The accent is considered predominantly “Mountain South,” moving westward into “Plantation South,” and often a “Delta South” accent along the Mississippi. That goes for both states, though Rand McNally, I believe, published a book of maps aimed at Middle School aged kids, where the states were broken into regions (Kentucky and Tennessee were South), and they called Tennessee the Southern state most similar to the North. By the way, if I were from Tennessee, that would offend me too.
Ignorant of Kentucky History sir I think not. I'am completely aware that Kentucky has Midwestern influence, But WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IT CANNOT STACK UP TO THE SOUTHERN CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Texas has Western and Midwestern influence PLEASE DO NOT DENY THIS!! Yet it is Solid Red on the Map, why?????? I have no idea. Virgnia is labeled as a 100% Southern state yet according to the Northeastern map it's sometimes considered Northeastern...Again hypocricy between the pages. According to a thread on Urbanplanet.org over wheather or not North Carolina is Mid Atlantic or Southern the Concensus was Mid Atlantic. Again man I'm not saying that Kentucky is 100% Southern but it's between the range of 100%-77% PLAIN AND SIMPLE. As for Missouri maybe that'll be a bit trickier to "Pigeonhole", But The Bluegrass state is one with the South my friend.
Lastly, I want to thank those of you who have defended Kentucky. I do appreciate you efforts, and, without question, I feel I can speak for the whole of the commonwealth. I agree with Indy, in that I am insulted! Geographically, cultureally, historically,. Kentucky IS Southern. This argument would have gotten you shot 100 years ago!
According to these maps Louisville a city said to be split in regional loyalty at the time (the South's second largest city at the Time after New Orleans) has a large slave population just like any other Southern city (one of the largest). May I also note that at this time blacks accounted for a quarter of the States population.
Here's map just to entertain the argument
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.128.200.135 (talk • contribs) 06:07, December 20, 2006.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. The states were called border states for a reason - why is it so incredibly difficult for some people to grasp this patent, simple fact? Why is it so hard for some people to understand that a river, or arbitrary lines on a map, cannot and never have acted as impermeable, impenetrable barriers between cultures? How have historical facts "misrepresented" Kentucky? Of the men from Kentucky who served in the Civil War, more than 70 percent served for the Union. Regardless of WHY they served, the fact is that they FOUGHT AGAINST the Confederate South and RISKED THEIR LIVES for the preservation of the Union - it is hard to imagine how exactly one can make a stronger testament against identification with a region than by fighting against it.
The demographics and cultures of the border states also reveal clearly that they are NOT as solidly Southern, Midwestern etc. as the non-bordering states of those regions. Consider, for example, the fact that Baptists are the strongest religious group in the South, and the extent of Baptists is generally used a measure of the extent of the South (some areas in LA, reflecting their French heritage, clearly don't fit this mold but they are the exception.) Missouri, for example, is a solidly Baptist state (with the exception of areas around Kansas City and St. Louis) - no other "Midwestern" state shares this heritage. Baptists, likewise, are not the largest religious groups in several Kentucky counties - Jefferson, Boone, Kenton, and Campbell being the most conspicuous ones. And these are among the counties in KY that are most often labeled as having a strong Midwestern preference. Consider union membership, for example - KY has a higher percentage of its workforce unionized than any other "Southern" state, but a lower percentage than the "pure" states of the industrial Midwest - once again, there is a lesson here. Ever heard of Little Dixie, Missouri? Though MO overall rarely had slave percentages greater than 15%, this region had slave populations over one-third of the county populations in many cases. And as far as slave percentages go, KY's percentages were far, far below those of the cotton-heavy states of the Deep South.
Dozens upon dozens of points like this can be made just by looking at various aspects of life in states like KY and MO. The point is, and always has been, that the border states have elements present from different cultures. To say that "Missouri is as Midwestern as Wisconsin" or that "Kentucky is as Southern as Mississippi" is blatantly false and cannot be substantiated by the facts. The self-identification percentages in that survey clearly show this beyond any possibility of refutation - while a full 90 percent of people in Mississippi and 88 percent of people in Alabama self-identify as Southern, only 68 percent of those in KY do; likewise, in MO a full 15 percent identify as Southern. What more proof should be required to show that we call these states "border states" for a reason?
The Ohio River is indeed one of the borders between North and South. But to argue that this river is some sort of a magical buffer between the regions - i.e., that crossing on I-65 from Jefferson County, KY into Clark County, IN constitutes instantaneously a huge shift in culture - is nothing less than ludicrous, and I don't think many people give that argument much credit. Regarding Southern accents, they are also heard, in some variant, throughout parts of lower Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio - so saying that one can hear a Southern accent in a place doesn't necessarily pigeonhole its culture into or out of one region.
If I could recommend one change to the map, it would be shading MD and DE in addition to all of the other border states - they're border states too, after all. Shading TX and VA also seems to be logical, because they too have different cultural regions.
—
Please tell me these other points PLEASE!!!!!!!! Yes Kentucky did fight for the Union, But as one poster said did it with the intent of keeping their slaves. At the time Kentuckians thought they had it made they saw it asif they were going to keep their slaves reguardless of what side they fought for. The Confederacy was obviously Pro slavery, while the North promised that the boarder states would be allowed to keep their slaves as Long as the fought for the Union. After the tides turned on the South the Union then took back it's promise of constituting slaves in the boarder states, and Kentucky being a Southern state at heart, was said to have suceeded after the war ended. Heck to this bery day there are only 2 monuments honoring Union soliders in Kentucky while there are 72 monuments (including one in Louisville, every Southern city has one) honoring the Confederacy. I guarantee that if you were to magically replace the residence of Tennesse or North Carolina with those Kentuckians they would have made that same choice in the best interest in their state.
As for the slave population percentage or Kentucky yeah it was relatively low compared to Deep Southern states, But as I stated Kentucky is the "UPPER SOUTH" (you know where Tobacco was grown where they did not rely on plantations as the Deep South) If you look at Arkansas, Tennessee (Central and Western), and even Texas, Kentucky (on par with Tennesee's) has a higher percentage than those states. However can you anwser me this, What Northern state or terriotry even came remotely to having a black population of that size at that time. Little Dixie Yes a region of Missouri that had an above normal (for that state) slave percentage. Yes this rural region in Missouri had the same percentage of slaves as Kentucky's premiere Urbancenter Louisville, But could not compare to the Bluegrass region, nor even Oldham or Shelby counties of Kentucky. Not to mention that Kentucky ranked after Georgia and Virgnia in the largest slave owning population. Again dude Kentucky is the Upper/Mid/Upland South Tobacco was king there were no less than ten slaves to every slave owner(unlike the plantation/Deep South). So tell me this what does this have to do with Minnesota or Wisconsin.
I have engaged in these debates a quite few times before and the Unionization of Kentucky and Louisville along with their German population was always the premeire arguments for this city's and states so called "Midwestern identity." Again I have said the Louisville is a culturally mixed city though the Southern identity sticks out more. Okay you got the Baptist population downpact, However obviously Louisville/Jefferson county has a signifigant Baptist population unlike any other Midwestern city outside of Missouri; may I also note that it's in the same percentage range as Memphis, Atlanta, Houston, and Richmond. Also note that Kentucky has the 4th hightest percentage and I of Southern Baptist in the Nation. Depsite Louisville's Catholic precense it still has the title Gateway city to the South and for a city with such an identity crisis allowed some Rusty Old sign proclaiming it as the "Gateway city to the South" hang above the Second street bridge for decades.
According to these sources Louisville's dialect also doesn't seem to be affected by the Cathlicism (New Orleans Catholicism doesn't stop it from being labeled a Southern city either), or Unionized population. They all speak with the Southern twang found in Memphis, Richmond, or Nashville or any Mid-Southern city for that matter.
Kentucky is not as Southern as say Mississippi nor Alabama (in my earlier post "Southern as Georgia" was someone's opinion about Kentucky), But obviously has more in common with those states than again Wisconsin or Minessota PLEASE DON'T DENY THIS. Other than Labor statistics or the diversity in religous groups in it's largest city, What makes Kentucky such a independent state I would love to know. If a profound presence of slavery doesn't make a state's History Southern than what does? If a state has one of the highest percentage of Southern Baptist amongst Southern states than how Midwestern can it be. If a "particular" state is boardered by Northern states and those areas of the Northern states that touch this "paticular" are labeled Southern by residence of the Upper regions of those states than what would say about that one state????
The theory of The Mason Dixon Line did not exist until the turn of the 18th Century as the North gave up slavery and the South retained their slaves. This is when most states below this line began to develope a sort of Southern identity that since they had slaves they were Southern (I'm not saying that this is how Southern culture was founded) as opposed to their Nothern neighbors, who gave up Slavery. In this the South was a defined region (that did include Missouri).
Now I'm not saying that there is some profound difference between Southern Indiana and Louisville, I say that they are both Southern areas as Southern Indiana is tied to Louisville Culturally and Economically. Also if you notice "Sir" I said that the Mason Dixon Line held it's prominance before advanced Transportation.
Here some guy drew a map of what he considered the North and South (and in between) it has some flaws but work with it.
Also dude I think you read the Southern focus study wrong; NC,SC,GA,AL.TN,AR,LA,FL, and MS all had over 90% of their residence identify with the South. TX had over 85% of their residence identify with the South while Kentucky and Virgnia tied at over 80%. You got Kentucky's numbers mixed with Oklahoma which had 69% of their residence identify as Southerners. I don't have time to find the real source now, So I'll use to source used by this article (which ironically explains why Texas is Southern and not Kentucky).
Now dude I understand what your saying by Kentucky has Midwestern influence (It obviously does), But again using 2 reasons (which are the only 2 reasons I have ever heard during my debates and there is always claim to more Checks and Balances of Southern and Midwestern culture in both Louisville and Kentucky)as claims to Midwesterness don't stack up to it's Southern deck. Or in simple terms I don't by the whole we're unique to any region or we're 50/50 BS, THAT SIR IS CRAP. I will say this however, back I beleive it was a year ago when this article first used the map to define what was the definant South and the "sometimey" South in the Red and Pink color scale I wasn't that shocked that Kentucky was considered sometimely as I was that Texas and Virginia were Solid Red states. Even after they put a star by the Elpaso metro area saying it's sometimes considered Western they refused to lable Texas Pink. I found this appauling and biased towards the only one source of history ( the Civil War) when there are many more things that can lable a states Southerness. Now I personally think that the only choices that can produce an accurate map of the South is to color Kentucky and Oklahoma Southern or make Texas and Virginia striped states along with Kentucky, Oklahoma, Missouri, West Virginia, and Maryland. Louisvillian17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
>>I don't have a dog in the fight regarding Kentucky being a Southern solid or striped state although, as a native Texan, a state which is sometimes regarded as "different" in its own right, I can empathize with what motivates the Blue Grass partisans! LOL
In any event, a few things have come up in the above posts that I just thought I would comment on. For one, the slave population in the various states in 1860:
>>One can calculate the percentage of slaves to the free population by dividing the former by the latter (except in South Carolina and Mississippi where the former actually EXCEEDED the latter! LOL). In any event, in a few randomly selected states, the ratio in Kentucky was 24% while Texas was 43%. Virginia was 44%, Arkansas was 34% and Alabama was 83%.
>>Regarding the Southern Focus Poll, while I wouldn't presume in the slightest to speak for Dr. Reed, the data I posted way up above was the "average" in each of the states to both questions (i.e. Is your community in the South? and "Do you consider yourself a Southerner") compiled from 14 years of surveys. In any event, what I found a bit noteworthy was the percentage difference between respondent answers as to whether they considered themselves LIVING in the South as to whether or not they considered THEMSELVES to be Southerners! The most extreme example was Florida, with 90 and 51 percent, respectively. But even in Alabama, there was a chasm of almost 10%. In my home state of Texas, it was 84% believing the state is Southern, and 68% describing themselves as Southerners.
>>As Reed said in his opening paragraph, at least to some extent this "gap" is traceable to the migration of non-Southerners (and hispanic immigrants) into the region. That is, while many "outsiders" acknowlege they LIVE in the South, they don't see themselves as one with it. While I can't speak for the "divide" in Kentucky, this is almost unquestionably the case in Florida and -- I think I can say with confidence born of first-hand experience and research -- true of Texas as well. I remember reading somewhere that the percentage of non-native Texas residents who come from non-Southern states is roughly a fourth -- if not higher -- of the total. Interestingly enough, that fact cooresponds somewhat to the "do you live in the South" and "are you a Southerner" question!
TexasReb18:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I think all that talk about South Florida not being part of the South is bull. Honestly, open up your eyes. A state is either part of one region completely or not part of the region at all. You can't divide Florida and have a sign at the border between the northern and southern halves that says "Now leaving the South". Southern culture is not exceptionally strong in South Florida, but there are cultural variations throughout the entire region. You can't say that just because the area doesn't have typically Southern culture it isn't Southern. If South Florida isn't Southern, then what is it? I believe that all of Florida is Southern. Also, Texas is a Southern state, and I am a strong supporter of that statement. All states that were part of the Confederacy are Southern; I'm sorry if anyone can't get that through their head, but it's true. Most people who consider Texas a Western state haven't been here. They just get the idea from the old Texas Wild West movies. Go to East Texas, Central Texas, or North Texas, and almost all of the population will say they are Southerners. Go to South Texas, West Texas, and the Panhandle, and the percentage will decrease, but not by much. It is interesting to note that even out in El Paso, the majority of the population considers themselves Southerners. I think the map should be reverted. And why are there some states in white? --Stallions201016:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
>> First of all, just in passing, I noticed a post of mine was deleted. If the reason it was eliminated is because it contained something truthful concerning why some states are striped and some are solid, and/or offended someone or refuted an arugment, then *shrug* no problem. It can always be reposted and hard stats don't change just because someone objects to them being published.
>>Ok, but I have a sense of humor and don't take myself very seriously, soooo, with that said...and since it has come up before that the "Solid South" (pun intended) is best defined on the map (and I agree)as the 11 undeniably Confederate States, then here are a few figures that might back up the point. To wit, in each Southern or border state, the percentage of those who served the Union. Before pasting them though, let me qualify by saying I have a few reservations with them, myself. For one, they are based on the soldier records available in each state archive, and might not be accurate so far as true numbers are concerned, either way. In any event though, here is the actual link, and below that are the percentages I calculated based on that provided:
>> Percent of records indicating Union Service in the Southern/Border states
Alabama - 1.4
Arkansas - 10.1
Florida - 6.2
Georgia - .001
Kentucky - 63%
Louisiana - 1.1
Maryland - 89%
Mississippi - .005
Missouri - 64%
North Carolina - 2.7
Oklahoma (Indian Territory) -- no records available, although a noteable majority of the "Five Civilized Tribes" allied with the Confederacy.
South Carolina - .006
Tennessee -- 27%
Texas - 2.7
Virginia (includes later day West Virginia) -- 17% TexasReb00:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Those figures are very compelling and do seem to support the current map.
>>If "The South" can be defined by those states that outright, were members of, and totally supported, the Confederacy, then the map of solid vs. striped states as is makes perfectly good sense.TexasReb00:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah dude I don't know who is disabling any further post, (I'm the one who says that Kentucky is a Southern state just for the record), But obviously if my response to mr Kentucky is half and half's post got deleted than it certainly isn't me.
To the whole Confederacy thing I GET IT kentucky didn't suceed "During the war" But according to the Southern Focus Study (ya know a recent survey to measure how one feels about the inclusion of their states in the South) over 3/4's of Kentuckians say they live in the South (82%)which is tied with Virginia (Ironically Kentucky measured the exact same percent of Southerness as a state that acutally suceeded go figure). According to the survey conducted to see the percentage of people in Southern states considered themsevles Southerners Kentucky had 68% tieng with Texas (a Confederate state) and ranking above Virginia (a Confederate state), despite this recent survey some still think that SOuthern pride is not as apparent in Kentucky as in other Southern states, WHAT A JOKE!! Louisvillian17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
A state can indeed be part of multiple regions in terms of culture - and many in the US are.
That is what this debate is about - it is not about labeling states as exclusively "one or another" - hence the striped/solid distinction. And for the record, I did not delete anybody's posts and have no idea who did. When things can easily be reposted, that makes little sense and was probably done by a random vandal.
Is Kentucky "primarily" Southern? Absolutely.
Is Missouri "primarily" Midwestern? Absolutely.
Are either of these states ONLY part of that region, respectively? Absolutely not!
The Midwestern regional map as commissioned by the Wikipedia regions project does include both KY and WV as striped states in the Midwestern region, and only very recently has there been a "debate" regarding their inclusion on the Midwestern page - and if you check the page history, you'll see this "debate" has been motivated by one user, likely a Midwesterner who - as many of them do - maintains some irrational belligerence regarding placing portions of either of them in the Midwest.
My objections were never specific to any state - clearly, if any of the border states merits being considered as its own subregion, it would be West Virginia. But none of the border states are exclusively in one region - Kentucky, for example, is on several Wikipedia pages: the Upland South, the Midwest, the Southern United States, and the Northern United States. Missouri is mentioned in all of the same articles. Clearly, the Southern culture in KY is the MOST DOMINANT element - quite frankly, I never said otherwise if you would check your information before posting - but it is not AS DOMINANT as the states of the Deep South, and there are strong Midwestern elements in the culture. This is universally accepted; many Kentuckians - more so than any other "Southern" state - self-identify out of the South, and elements in the state's economy, history, agriculture, parlance, climate patterns, and location reflect the multiple elements present in the culture. Other than anecdotal stories and raw emotions - of which there are always plenty in this matter - I don't see what hard proof there is to justify a pigeonhole treatment of ANY of the border states. Maintaining them as striped states makes common sense and reflects their histories, which is why it would be great if somebody with software to edit PNG files could also shade MD and DE, along with TX and VA, for consistency- and in the name of all things decent, nobody is trying to insult anybody by the placement of these states!
I did not misread the Southern Focus study - I was citing how many people referred to themselves as Southerners (in demographics, this is referred to as regional self-identification), NOT where they considered their community to be situated geographically. This seems much more important than agreed upon geographic boundaries in defining culture, because a culture reflects the habits, values, traditions, and attitudes of the residents of a state. Consider Florida, where only half of the residents consider themselves Southern - clearly, nobody would even attempt to argue that Florida is not geographically a part of the South, but a percentage this low clearly shows that the CULTURE is not Southern throughout many parts of the state. Geography is relatively unimportant - the Census Bureau considers both Maryland and Delaware as part of the South geographically even though they have largely been consumed by Northern BosWash and only a tiny, miniscule minority of their citizens consider themselves as Southerners. South Florida provides an excellent example of this - paradoxically, it is the southernmost of the southernmost metropolitan areas in the US, but it has virtually no cultural, historical, political, or linguistic elements of the South. Sixty-eight percent Southern - the percentage of self-identification in KY - is still clearly "Southern", but clearly, clearly not nearly as Southern as 90 percent and 88 percent, the percentages in non-border states such as Louisiana and Alabama. The even lower percentages for WV and MO are clear proof that THERE ARE TRANSITIONAL AREAS FOR CULTURES IN THIS COUNTRY - CULTURAL INFLUENCE DOES NOT END ABRUPTLY AT RIVERS OR LINES ON MAPS.
As far as specific areas in KY, it seems that most people accept that Northern Kentucky is a border region, but Louisville always, always stirs up fierce debate. For some people, Louisville is ONLY Southern, and saying anything other than that is a direct attack on their families and histories. For other people, Louisville is a smaller Kansas City. And they're both quite wrong. This debate is odd because Louisville, the epitome of a border city, sits directly on the Ohio River, directly on the border of North and South. It just so happens to be on the Southern side of the river, both this really doesn't mean anything - if Louisville sat in Southern Indiana, it may have lacked the slave history and some other elements, but it would probably still be largely the same city. Several counties in Southern Indiana have the Baptist element of the South, Southern accents can be heard in these counties, etc. etc. Regardless, its culture is still hotly debated, and emotions tend to take precedence over logic when identifying it as such. Let's go through a list:
1. It is predominantly Catholic and has a large population of German immigrants: Midwestern
2. Southern Baptists are the largest minority group; Southern
3. Industrial economy, unionization rates; Midwestern
4. Slave history, treason suspects during Civil War; Southern
5. Linguistic influence - both Southern and Midwestern. Many families in Louisville speak with a Southern accent, and many don't at all. However, as in most of Kentucky, the Southern accent tends to watered down relative to the states of the Deep South. Louisville sits directly on the border of Southern and Midland accents - if both Southern and Midland accents are heard in the Little Egypt region of Illinois - which is to the SOUTH OF LOUISVILLE - then it is only logical that they will both be heard across Kentuckiana. In fact, a type of dipthongization of vowels common to the Southern accent is often not heard in Louisville speakers, making Louisville more linguistically a city of the Midland than of the South in this regard - Refer to http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NationalMap.html.
6. Hundreds upon hundreds of companies and other organizations use Louisville as the base for Midwestern operations, and the city is frequently identified as being in the Midwest by these groups. The Medical Library Association chapter at the University of Louisville held a conference and identified Louisville as a "great Midwestern city." A simple search via any search engine will reveal many, many organizations that consider Louisville "Midwestern."
7. The cultural elements of Louisville - things such as Kentucky Fried Chicken, country music - are usually distinctly Southern. "Southern Hospitality" is frequently cited when referring to Louisville, and a search engine will reveal many, many organizations that consider Louisville "Southern."
8. Sitting at the same latitude as St. Louis, the climate of Louisville is generally more Midwestern than Southern and is located in the transition area between humid continental and humid subtropical; plants from both climate areas thrive in the region, as in Northern Kentucky.
9. The city's segregated past - and the current controversy over school busing - reflects a Southern past and heritage in these regards.
10. Politicians - people who certainly do not wish to offend anyone - have often referred to Louisville as Midwestern - both John Yarmuth and Barack Obama have labeled Louisvillians as "great Midwestern people" and such.
11. The architecture of Louisville - shotgun houses, gracious Victorian mansions - is distinctly Southern in many ways.
As I said in a previous post, points like this can be continued ad nauseum. My point on here has always been to label Louisville as a border city, not exclusively in one region or out of another (i.e., it is NOT exclusively Southern, nor Midwestern.) The Gateway to the South is also, by its own definition, the Gateway to the North - Louisville is commonly referred to as "the southernmost Northern city and the northernmost Southern city" in the US, just check sites like City-Data.com, emporis.com - and this is commonly used by natives in the region. As for me personally, I spent a large portion of my youth in both KY and Louisville and tend to consider Louisville more Midwestern, as its industrial, river-town character differs greatly from that of rural areas in the state, but considerations of Louisville as predominantly Southern are certainly valid and just as easily substantiated. But what can never be substantiated by the facts is this horrible practice of trying to stick these areas into ONLY one region. Louisville and Kentucky ARE UNIQUE, they are NOT 50/50 or nonsense like that, but they are not places that can be pigeonholed into one region, and nor can any of the other border states. To call a state that remained in the Union, a state with among the lowest slave percentages of the slave states, with an economy that is both Midwestern and Southern, a state where the centers of population are closer in proximity to Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Indianapolis than Atlanta and Charleston, a state that sits on borders between linguistic and climate regions, a state where around a third of residents don't identify themselves as Southerners, a state where Catholics form a far larger percentage than in Deep South states such as GA, AL, MS, SC, a state that produced both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis - to call this state "as Southern as Georgia", some bastion of undiluted Southern culture where Midwestern/Northern cultural elements are present but almost impossible to distinguish - this is sheer nonsense, plain and simple, and an attack on this state's rich, diverse history (it's more like a rewrite of history than anything else!!) A Kentucky Colonel wrote an interesting article on this very subject; http://www.blacktable.com/thomas040527.htm.
Referring to the culture, here a few maps that reflect the transitional nature of the state's culture - regarding the overall culture:
The extent of Baptism map was posted earlier; however, the number of counties in Kentucky with Catholics as a substantial minority is the largest in traditional Southern states behind only Florida, Texas, and Louisiana - http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/catholic.gif . In Texas, the high Catholic percentages are mostly due to Hispanic immigration, and in Louisiana they reflect the Creole/French heritage of many of the counties. In the Upland South, Kentucky and Missouri are unique in this regard. Jefferson, Oldham, Boone, Kenton, and Campbell counties - the counties in KY that are the most Midwestern - are border counties and have Catholics as the largest religious group, just like the majority of Midwestern counties - http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif . It is true that these are only 5 counties out of over 100, but just these 5 counties contain about 27 percent of Kentucky's population. County-by-county data can be obtained at epodunk.com - many of the border counties in KY have a significantly diluted percentage of Baptists (Owensboro being noticeable) - as well as Lexington.
And just for fun, a map that shows the areas of the South where sweet tea is most popular - http://www.unc.edu/~aesexton/images/tea-usa.jpg . Most of KY is not included, and from personal experience tea is likely to be served without sweeteners in Louisville without asking for it.
Regarding South and Central Florida, I just don't think there is much, if any, proof that this region is Southern in character. This seems to depend on the argument that a state is either entirely part of one region, or not in that region at all. It is true that the inland, rural regions in the Southern parts of Florida - places such as Hardee, DeSoto, and Highlands counties - have not (yet) experienced the same influx of residents as coastal regions of Florida. There's also still a rather strong Southern element in Polk County. But in the urbanized and suburban regions of South Florida - and most especially, in the three counties of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade (which are usually considered "South Florida" when referring to the metro) - Southern culture is virtually nonexistent. Referring back to the Baptist argument, which is widely accepted, in all three of these counties the Baptist proportion is about as low as it is in the Northeast - in fact, the Jewish population outnumbers members of the SBC in all three counties. In Dade County, Catholics, at 542,984 members, outnumber Baptists - 81,495 - in a 7 to 1 margin; in Broward County the margin (341,773 Catholics, 57,974 Baptists) is 6 to 1, and it is also about 7 to 1 in Palm Beach County (for comparison, the ratio of Catholics to Evangelicals in Philadelphia is 8 to 1, in Chicago it is 9 to 1, and in Cleveland it's about 5 to 1.) None of the regional Southern accents - not a single one - extends to Southern Florida in the linguistic studies - the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English_regional_differences touches on this under the "Central and Southern Florida" section. In advertisements targeted at tourists and convention attendees, "Southern hospitality" is frequently cited when referring to Jacksonville and cities in Northern Florida; this phrase is rarely used in reference to Orlando and/or Tampa; and practically never used in reference to South Florida (personally, I can never recall seeing or hearing any type of publicity that cites "Southern hospitality" in reference to South Florida.) Public opinion supports this hypothesis, with most not considering Central Florida Southern, and never South Florida - http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=15749&hl= Consider these numbers, regarding places of birth for US-born residents in several South Florida cities - ignorning natural-born Floridians, residents from other Southern states are not a majority - or even remotely close to it- in a single case, with Northeasterns being the largest group across the board (from City-Data.com)
--—the preceding comment is by216.227.21.180 (talk • contribs) 10:17, December 24, 2006: Please sign your posts!.
MIAMI
This state: 96406
Northeast: 17809
Midwest: 5341
South: 15409
West: 2454
(note: Miami's proportion of Southerners is not as large as it seems because the city is 40% foreign, the largest in Florida; areas in Miami-Dade County such as Aventura, Miami Beach, Pinecrest, and Richmond West have smaller foreign-born proportions and are similar demographically to Broward and Palm Beach counties)
FORT LAUDERDALE
This state: 46434
Northeast: 32816
Midwest: 17261
South: 16713
West: 3037
HOLLYWOOD
This state: 36967
Northeast: 37980
Midwest: 10190
South: 10265
West: 2345
WEST PALM BEACH
This state: 26454
Northeast: 16456
Midwest: 6514
South: 8804
West: 1364
The cultural split in Florida is nearly universally acknowledged in the state; in a poll by a major newspaper in South Florida once, self-identification as "Southern" across the South Florida region was at about 10-15 percent across the board, meaning that those cultural elements are nothing but a small minority across much of the state. Consider those numbers relative to those of a few North Florida cities:
The liberal voting record of this region - often in contrast to the rest of Florida - for the last 40 years also speaks for itself. From the very beginning with the investments of wealthy Northerners such as Henry Flagler and Julia Tuttle, South Florida has existed as a sort of colony of the North (the region literally started as a vacation resort for wealthy Northeasterners) and it remains as so to this day. For most Floridians, the only argument regarding the "cultural split" is where exactly in the state it is (and that is a rather vigorous debate.) In the central parts of the state the Southern cultural elements are definitely stronger but still a minority to the combined forces of Midwestern, Northeastern, and foreign cultural elements. For example:
TAMPA
This state: 136033
Northeast: 36728Midwest: 29148South: 44718
West: 7300
ST. PETERSBURG
This state: 89329
Northeast: 50538
Midwest: 39125
South: 36260
West: 6064
--—the preceding comment is by216.227.24.24 (talk • contribs) 08:15, December 24, 2006: Please sign your posts!.
Kentucky and Louisville
Kentucky has Midwestern influence, and as you said it has prodomiantly Southern History. Forgive me if I seemed a little agree, I was under the impression that you were trying that whole Checks and Balances BS that other's have tried to pull. However I still maintain the argument that Kentucky is by default a Southern State. Yes it's grouped in the Upland South and up till yeterday was grouped in with the Midwest on their Wiki map, However as you can see if you track this debate on the Midwestern article the inclusion of Kentuckyof the Midwest has sparked furry into many "TRUE" Midwesterners. For the most part however I've sort of leaning more towards the striping of Texas and Virgnia moreso than the solisifying of Kentucky and Oklahoma.
Reguarding Louisville again it is a mix of Southern and Midwestern culture. You brought up some excellent points and labeled the crieteria that is neccesary to label a city whatever it leans more to.
However I would like to address the Midwestern points.
1. You brought up Louisville's status as a manufacturing Center. Manufacturing and the whole rise and fall rustbelt era was not restricted to states North (or having proximity) to the Mason Dixon Line. An example of a Southern city that's went through (and is still going through) the Rust Belt or manufacturing decline is Birmingham, Alabama. This city ranked along side Louisville in population throughout it's history and was dubbed the "Pittsburg of the South", during it's porsperous years. Just like Louisville and other manufacturing centers it's population went on the decline in the 1960's falling out of the top 50 in the 90's headcount. According to that argument Birmingham, Alabama, must be classified in the Midwest in that Category. Not to mention that Louisville was refered to as the manufacturing "Capitol of the South." With the inclusion of Alabama's premiere city I wouldn't at all claissfy that as Midwestern or Northern. Not Mention New Orleans and Memphis were Southern cities with economy's that relied heavily on Manufacturing.
2. As far as the Southern Focus Study goes this is how I see it (in the percentage of self identified Southerners) Kentucky 68%, Texas 68%, Virginia 60%, Oklahoma 53%, Florida 51%, If Kentucky ties with Texas and ranks ahead of Virgnia and is not solidly then the map is flawed. I again think that since all of these states have cultural variations than all of them should be striped. If it is possisble stripe the states according to how Southern they are. If Misssouir is more Midwestern than give it more stipes, If Kentucky, Virginia, and Texas are more Southern than give them less stripes.
3. As far as climate maps go they vary as much as Texas's landscape I mean
and then all these would suggest that Louisville is more Mid-Southern
I'm no meteorologist or anything, But I don't notice a big difference in climate between Louisville, Cincinnati, St.Louis, Memphis, Nashville, and Little Rock. That's just me!
4. Louisville's Catholic population is really nothing compared to New Orleans and that enitre area of Louisana. Which has the heaviest concentration of Catholics in the Nation. Despite that fact New Orleans I've never heard New Orleans to refered to as anything other than Southern. Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio Texas unlike many Southern cities have a huge Hispanic populations contributing to their Catholism, yet despite that are generally accepted as Southern cities. According to this Richmond and Baton Rouge (which is also in Louisiana) diocece have more Catholics than Louisville. Not to mention that Raleigh is not to far behind Louisville.
5. Dialect-SOUTHERN. I've provided sources and in every one Louisville is with the range of other Southern cities. I mean these are all different sources and are the only ones I on the engine. Despite these similarities between Southern Ilinois (which according to Dr.Reed heavily influenced by Southern culture) Louisville was still grouped in by the Linguistic experts. Here they are again.
Well on Metro T.V.'s YPAL ( I beleive it was over the bridges) some one speaker trying to emphasize Louisville's great past said that," People came from all over the South for Louisville's great art seen, not Atlanta, not Dallas, But Louisville."
It's a Southern city to its bones (referring to Louisville)
http://www.daytondailynews.com/travel/content/travel/destinations/kentucky/louisville042300.html
"The once sleepy southern city "
http://www.acfnewsource.org/democracy/louisville_lure.html
6. Politians throughout Louisville's history have labeled and marketed Louisville as a Southern city. There was a program (very talked about) over an hour and a half about Louisville's history (came out in the 1970's) on KET (channel 15 locally) that showed the aftermath of the 1937 flood and the mayor at that time along with the citizens were concerned a Louisville's position as one of the South's premiere cities (in terms of population) and he promised the city wouldn't slip. May I also mention that in this footage Louisville was only regaurded as a Southern city and the Midwest was not brought up once.
When Candice Cliff (however you spell it) interviewed some Old lady about a book that was about Southern Belles, she said "Ya no we Southern Belles have to stick together"
I as well most people I've come into contact with reguard Louisville as a Southern city. I'll say it has Midwestern influence, But to say in a Tug of War Minneanapolis on one side and Birmingham on another (Louisville's the rope) Birminghams winning by a bit.
To call a state that has over 70 Confederate monuments compared to 2 Union Northern is silly. TO call a state with the second largest slave owning population Northern. To call a state that had over a quarter of it's population be accounted by slaves Northern. To call a state where Tobacco is the cash crop Midwestern, To call a state where blacks can be found throughout non majorly urbanized areas in signifigant numbers Northern, To call a city that got bypassed in the great migration Northern, To call a state that was ran by Jim crow Northern, To call a state that has the 3rd largest Southern Baptist population Northern, To call a state and city that was said to have suceeded from the Union (after the war) Northern, To call a state with over 3/4's of it's residents (80%) Northern or Midwestern (now how silly does that sound), To call a state whoose Gov. is annaully called on for the Southern Gov. convention Northern, To call a city that produced the OFFICIAL Southern Belle Midwestern, LOL how REDICULOUS does that sound.
Oh I think you forgot to include Louisiana, Texas, and Florida in that Catholic argument. Despite differenes in ancestry leading to a large (some of the largest) Catholic populations these states are still Considered the most Southern states (exaggeration of Texas and Southern Florida). Well as you can see from this map every Kentucky county boarding the Ohio River with the exception of Jefferson (the most populated) and Oldham county have over a quarter of their residence identify as Baptist. With the exception of the counties immediately boarding Cincinnati, which fun in the same range as Jefferson and Oldham at 10-25% which is also true for Shelby/Memphis, County TN, Richmond, Houston, and Jacksonville.
As far as the Tea thing UUUUHHHH where do you go in Louisville I like to take my father out to eat alot and he's big tea drinker "big" (all he drinks) I've never in my memories have heard him or anyone for that matter say they need some sugar. I frequent Cincinnati amd even there I've never seen anyone with tea have to ask for sugar NEVER. LOL I guess folks from Richmond (former Capitol of the Confederacy) and Texas's major cities have something to prove by that map.
http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif
I guess we see this different ways, I see it as a balancer and the Southern side is the heaviest, which to me makes it Southern (I round it off). You (I guessing) see it as though while it's mostly Southern, however there was still that weighing that was neccisary to determine this and you feel that the other side shouldn't be forgotten about. I don't feel that the Midwestern conponents should be ignored just as Texas's "Texmex"/Southwestern culture shouldn't be ignored, Or like Virinia's Northern Influnce from neighboring Washington shouldn't be ingnored. I feel that's what makes each of these states different in no matter how small. While you atleast acknoweledge that Louisville is a prodomiantly Southern city, as I stated I round it off and say that it's a Southern city. I acknowledge that Kentucky has Midwestern Influence and I would rightfully agree with a map that lables not only Kentucky and Oklahoma, But Texas, and Virginia as Mixed influenced states. 74.128.200.13522:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoa...just to clarify, I have NEVER said that I consider Louisville to be a predominantly Southern city because I simply don't believe that to be true, I labeled the state of Kentucky as predominantly Southern, but with enough Midwestern influence - the most of any state in "the South" with the exception of Missouri, which most people don't consider Southern anymore - to have portions included in the Midwest. I believe that it is regions such as Kentuckiana and Northern Kentucky (Northern Kentucky much more so than Louisville) that greatly stand out from and serve to dilute the Southern elements that are dominant throughout most of the rural, agrarian, and Appalachian regions of the state. I am glad that (it seems, at least) we can agree on the split nature regarding KY, with the Southern elements being most noticeable, as well as regarding Northern Kentucky, where the Midwestern elements are most noticeable. As far as Louisville, we'll probably just have to "agree to disagree" (and that's fine, it just reflects the rich and diverse history of the city and many, many similar discussions have been carried out.) If it is to be analogized to a "tug of war", grouping Louisville in with the cities of the lower Midwest - St. Louis, Cincinnati, Indianapolis - seems more logical to me than grouping it in with cities like New Orleans, Birmingham, and Atlanta, as demographically, culturally and linguistically Jefferson County has more in common with St. Louis County, MO, Marion County, IN and Hamilton County, OH than with Orleans Parish, LA, Jefferson County, AL or Fulton County, GA (just do a side-by-side comparison - sites like epodunk.com and city-data.com are excellent resources along those lines for students of urban culture.) Though, I would agree that Louisville would be closer in terms of culture to cities of the Upland South (Nashville, Richmond) than those of the UPPER Midwest, such as Minneapolis, Fargo, Des Moines, etc.; however, linking Louisville to the cities of the Deep South, such as Birmingham and New Orleans, doesn't seem logical in any event to me because it has relatively little in common with them culturally (but then again, I don't even think that it makes sense to link cities such as Bowling Green, Owensboro, and Lexington to the cities of the Deep South - their histories, economies, agriculture, climate, and linguistics are just not the same, even though those cities are certainly not Midwestern by a long shot.) As far as inclusion on regional pages go, KY is included in the pages for the Upland South and and the Southern United States, but also the pages for the Midwestern and Northern United States. Even TN is striped on the map for the Deep South; some editor argued earlier that "the cultures of TN, VA and KY are identical", and that is simply not true - not by a long shot! A simple comparison of service in the Union during the Civil War - about 25% in TN, less than 20% in VA and over 70% in KY - disproves that idea. In fact, if MO is completely excluded from the South, I would say that KY is the most diluted of the diluted Southern states. This is why I tend to compare Louisville to cities such as St. Louis and Cincinnati, which seem like a "best fit" comparison - especially St. Louis, since it also sits in a border state. Just a few points I'd like to make along those lines:
1. Regarding the discussion on the Midwestern page; for about a month this was just a debate with one user, and recently it seems like another has joined in. That map stood on the page for over a year with no controversy until this one user, Rjensen, started a "debate." There have always been and always will be some bigoted residents of states such as Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin who are sickened at the thought of the inclusion of ANY portion at all of a state such as KY in with the Midwest (I gave an example on that page of a friend that I had in Covington who, when growing up, was often treated as some Southern hick by people in Cincinnati despite the fact that she was not Southern at all, just because the city has a KY and not an OH at the end of its name - and people say that Southerners are prejudiced!!). And I don't even have to mention the odious, false stereotypes regarding people in West Virginia. As far as I can tell, those types of emotions have been motivating these users. Kentucky has always been included in the map on the page for the Northern United States and its inclusion has never come under any scrutiny there (if portions of the state are "Northern" and they're not Mid-Atlantic, Northeastern, or in New England, what does that leave?)
2. I simply don't accept the comparison of Louisville and Birmingham, stating that "since Birmingham was an industrial city, it should, by your arguments, be considered Midwestern." Louisville has many, many Midwestern elements, of which the industrial, blue-collar nature of the economy is just one. Other than the industry in Birmingham - which was largely owned by outsiders - it would be nearly impossible to think of any other elements in Birmingham that are Midwestern. And in terms of industry, Louisville's was far, far more diversified (Birmingham had steel and precious little else, one of the primary reasons why the area's economy nearly imploded when the domestic steel business went under in the 60's and 70's; Louisville has always featured a variety of different industries as in most Midwestern cities, from chemical to automobile manufacture, and as a result industry remains strong and alive and well in Louisville today, while it is virtually dead in Birmingham. Industry in cities such as Memphis never remotely approached the levels of industrialization in Louisville - just as, to be fair, the level of industry in Louisville never remotely approached cities such as Chicago and Cleveland, a principal reason why Louisville never acquired the same regional importance of these cities despite its excellent, centralized location.) The unionization rates in Louisville are also more in line with numbers in Midwestern industrial cities than with Southern cities - including Birmingham. Just in proximity, Louisville is about as close to St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati as Birmingham is to Atlanta, Nashville, and Memphis. The same goes for Memphis and the other cities that you cited. In Louisville, there is the linguistic influence (more on this below), the climate (as my map showed, more humid continental than humid subtropical - http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/geog230/usa.gif), the German immigrant population, VERY un-Southern, American ancestry is the most common across the South and going north, this ends abruptly at Jefferson County - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg - note how this is in stark contrast to the vast majority of the rest of KY, which like the South has "American" ancestry (i.e. Scotts-Irish) as most dominant, and the Catholic element.
3. Continuing the argument above, I think that you are misunderstanding the Catholic argument, which is frequently used when identifying the Midwestern elements present in Louisville. You are correct that New Orleans and many areas in TX and FL also have a large Catholic presence; however, in LA this is tied to the area's French heritage, which is unique in the United States. The ancestries in the Midwest are different, and reflect a large amount of immigration from Germany, Ireland, and the Scandanavian countries - this is simply not present in the South. Immigrants from these countries arrived en masse in the Midwestern industrial cities for work opportunities starting in the later part of the 19th Century. Notice in Louisiana, on the ancestry map, that ALL of the counties are of French, African American, or "American" ancestry - not a single one is of predominantly German or another European ancestry. In Texas, most of the Catholic-heavy counties are of Hispanic heritage, and this shift has been relatively recent (within the last 40 years or so.) That combination in Louisville and Jefferson County - the German ancestry coupled with the Catholic plurality - is distinctly Midwestern and is seen in metro areas such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland - it is NOT seen in any of the areas such as as New Orleans, Birmingham, Nashville, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Memphis, and even cities that Louisville is often compared to such as Richmond and Charleston, WV don't fit that mold. (And in any event, I do most certainly agree with you that Virginia and Texas need to be striped and not solid, because they, like Kentucky, have regions that are not predominantly Southern in culture.) Louisvile certainly does have a large proportion of Baptist relative to cities such as Kansas City and Indianapolis, but again there are several counties in lower Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio that are predominantly Baptist or evangelical - remember, the ENTIRE state of Missouri, all the way up to the border with Iowa and excluding only the areas around Kansas City and St. Louis, is predominantly Baptist and this state is often included in the Bible Belt along with Kentucky, and portions of lower Illinois and Indiana - http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif. As a matter of fact, Jefferson County is in the same percentage group for Baptists (10-25 percent) as Jackson County, MO - the county that holds most of Kansas City. Numerous counties in the lower portions of Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana have higher Baptist percentages and lower Catholic percentages than Jefferson County.
Florida is probably the most valid point that you made regarding the Catholic argument - but the portions of Florida, Central and Southern, that have been heavily influenced by Northern migration over the last 60 years are now striped on the Southern region map, the same treatment as KY. In some portions of the South Florida metro, self-identification as Southern runs as low as 10 percent, and Northeasterners are the largest group out of any (even outnumbering native-born Floridians) throughout most of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. The area around Jacksonville, FL in addition to North Central Florida and the Florida Panhandle are still predominantly Baptist and most residents identify with "American ancestry" - and those portions of Florida are solid Southern on the map.
4. I cited a source from the prestigious School of Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania that shows both Louisville and Northern Kentucky being directly on the border of Southern and Midland accents - it's at http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NationalMap.html. Cities such as Birmingham and New Orleans are distinctly in the Southern region in terms of accent. One can most certainly hear Southern accents in Louisville, but one can also most certainly hear Southern accents in the lower portions of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri (and even in Central
Missouri in the Little Dixie region.) Using accents as a litmus test doesn't work very well in these regions because both Midland and Southern accents are present. Habits such as the lack of dipthongization of certain vowels in Louisville reveal that, throughout Kentuckiana, the accent is in transition - it would be kind of silly, after all, to expect that accents would shift abruptly from one county to another, just because one county is in Kentucky and another in Indiana or Ohio! In fact, probably the single most common element of the "Southern accent" - the vowel shift in which the sound "I" becomes closer to "ah" is not heard commonly in Louisville, or even throughout most of KY, except in older speakers; this is still commonly heard in Tennessee, Arkansas, the Carolinas, and the states of the Deep South. In fact, I would have to say that if there is any one overlapping element in which ALL of Kentucky seems more Midwestern than Southern in many ways, accent would likely be one. In one of the very studies that you cited (http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf) on pages 8-9, a random assortment of residents was selected from a Midwestern city and asked to rank the accent of speakers, from southernmost (1) to northernmost (9) in several cities - from south to north, those cities were Dothan, AL; Florence, AL; Nashville, TN; Bowling Green, KY; New Albany, IN (part of metro Louisville); Muncie, IN; South Bend, IN; Coldwater, MI; and Saginaw, MI. Residents of Bowling Green tested as having an accent that was "more Northern" than residents of New Albany and even of Coldwater, MI - a city hundreds of miles to the north. The researchers in that study identified two clusters - the three southernmost cities of Dothan, Florence, and Nashville (mean scores of 1.97/9, 2.56/9, and 3.26/9 respectively) and the rest of the cities, in which Bowling Green (score of 6.21/9) and New Albany (score of 5.72/9) fit. To quote the study from page 8, "There was, however, no statistical distinction between any two
of the three southernmost voices (Nashville, TN; Florence, AL, and Dothan, AL), but all
three of these were distinct from all the other voices." I even found this personally amazing because the distance between Bowling Green and Nashville is only 60 miles! Bowling Green and New Albany were actually placed in the same clustering with residents of South Bend, IN.
Accents blend gradually, and throughout Kentucky the Southern accent, when it is heard, is usually watered down relative to states of the Deep South. As far as Northern Kentucky, its accent in the upper tip of Boone, Kenton, and Campbell counties - home to the majority of its residents - is certainly Midland, but I don't think there is a substantial debate regarding the identity of this region.
4. Once again, I just find it important to state that 68 percent Southern (from the Focus study), while still Southern, is just. not as Southern as most of the states of the South. I would imagine that the percentage is lower in Louisville in both regards - self-identification and regional identification - but unfortunately I am not aware of any studies that have attempted to answer this question.
5. And also, a simple Google search of the terms "Louisville" and "Midwest" together will reveal hundreds of companies and organizations that consider Louisville to be a part of the Midwest and use Louisville as a base for Midwestern operations. In my personal experience, there are many, many people in Louisville who consider their city Midwestern, though personal experience is not a good argument in the encyclopedic community. But nearly all cultural maps identify both Louisville and to a lesser extent KY at the borders of multiple regions, and often on the Midwestern side - for example:
6. A point that I failed to mention earlier relates to population. While the Louisville metro is growing at a significant rate, the rate of growth in Jefferson County is now virtually at 0%; Jefferson County's population hit a peak in the 1970's and only in the last year has it slightly exceeded that 70's peak at around 695,000 (population now estimated to be around 699,000) by a few thousand residents - meaning, as I said, virtually no population growth for about 35 years inside Jefferson County and the actual city of Louisville. This is clearly an attribute of the demographic decline of Midwestern cities - cities such as St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, and Chicago followed roughly the same pattern, while Southern counties such as those holding Atlanta, Nashville, Memphis, Charlotte, etc. grew incredibly as part of the population shift from the industrial North to the Sunbelt over the last 40 years. In the Louisville metro, virtually all of the growth is occuring in the suburban ring of counties - the city proper is still losing population, a common trend in Midwestern cities.
The city's history in the Civil War as a Union stronghold speaks for itself, but that's relatively unimportant since it happened over 130 years ago. But as I said, there is a lesson in that.
We do seem to agree on the culture of KY, but I did want to clarify that I, and many others, do consider Louisville a city of the lower Midwest first, and one of the Upland South second - the very opposite of most of Kentucky, which is primarily Southern with a strong Midwestern undercurrent. If it looks Midwestern, is closer to the cities of the Midwest than the South, has demographics and linguistics that are more Midwestern than Southern, has a more Midwestern climate (not many cities in the South get 16 inches of snow on average per year! Atlanta gets about two, Nashville about nine, Memphis about 5, Birmingham only 1, Richmond around 13 - Louisville's 16 inches of snowfall is closer to cities such as: Cincinnati gets around 14, LESS THAN Louisville (!!!), St. Louis gets around 19, Kansas City about 20, and Indianapolis around 22 - http://www.weatherbase.com .) But we'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that point, as many others already have - it's just part of a healthy debate.
--216.227.125.17304:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that Louisville and Northern Kentucky are the areas of Kentucky have the most Midwestern influence of any other areas of Kentucky. I also agree with you that Northern Kentucky is generally more Midwestern in culture as it is tied to Cincinnati. However alot of Cincinnati residence identify that anything South of the river is the South, as you have stated obviously meaning that there is a regional split or cultural split and while the cultures do overlapp a great deal as I've heard most people say you have to draw the line somewhere.Well as far as who Louisville has more in common with the Mid - South or Lower Midwest Midwest I'd again have to say the MidSouth. When I think Mid- Southern cities cities along the line of Richmond, Nashville, and Memphis come to mind, Not Birmingham, or New Orleans. I don't think that it's very reasonable to compare Louisville to Lower Midwestern cities (which are closer to Louisville) to Deep Southern cities in this argument of where Louisville stands. Obviously Louisville's climateand to some degree it's ancestry will model after these cities closer in proximity. However again I've given linguistic maps all of which showing that Louisville is not in the Midland tier as St.Louis, KC, nor Indianapolis, you willnot come to that conclusion from not a single map on I've posted. I will however agree that Louisville is very close to Cincinnati in terms of dialect than any Midwestern city. So then answer me this will it make more since to include Louisville with Birmingham, and New Orleans or will it be more of a Minneanapolis or Milwaulkee. I will honestly think you have never met to many residence of Bowling Green or Paducah if you can stick with the argument that these cities aren't Southern to bone, I honestly do. I recall one time when my aunt from Campbellsville was visting me in Georgia (somewhat rural area), and when I took here around town I noticed her accent was such as strong if not stronger than any Georgian, not once was she asked not to be from there.
Well I compare Louisville to New Orleans as more of a historical comparison. These cities were the South's two largest cities (New Orleans being larger of course), they both river cities that did alot of regional trading and non regional trading. There architecture is very similar the most noticable comparisons in Louisville's first suburb Old Louisville with New Orelans Garden district with their Massvie Victorian style homes. There is similar style architecture in West End Louisville (towards Shawnee Park) There are are the California style Bunglaow House found in New Orleans Mid city Neighborhoods that are common in West Louisville particularly off W Garland. There are also the famous Shotgun houses that are common in both Louisville (west end) and thorughout New Orleans. These styles of archtiecture are also common in other prominant Southern cities at the time like Richmond, Savanah, and ( the other most noticable architecture similoar to Louisville) and Charleston South Carolina. These styles of architecture are more prominant in prominant Southern cities before the Civil War. I can think of no place in the Midwest than models after Old Louisville and the West in these styles of Architecture. However you have noted that Louisville early Architecure is Southern
Birmingham yes it speacialized in Steel and Iron, big whoop it was still a major manufacturing center of the Southern United States, As was Pittsburg (though Birmingham was not as big). Louisville didn't speacialize in just one export, as most manufacturing centers didn't. Reguardless of Birmingham lack of diversity in exportation, it had nothing to do with it being in the Deep South. May I also note that Cincinnati was hailed the Pork capital of the world for it's exportation of pork. Like Louisville's economy when Industry declined in the 60's it tried to diversitfy it's economy, and while manufacturing is still a strong sector in both cities, they both have become major Medical Research Centers. Oh I don't know if you read World Book Encyclopedias, when they put out the 2004 sets I noticed that they changed the opening statmement from "Louisville is a major manufacturing center for the Southeastern United States" to "Louisville is a major city of the Southeastern United States", hence industry has declined. Culturally no Louisville is not as Southern as Birmingham " A DEEP SOUTHERN CITY" , But again has much more in common with this city than Minneapolis a "UPPER MIDWESTERN CITY" Even there population trends began to rival each others before and after the decline of manufacturing. During the 1990's census Louisville was ranked 49th largest city while Birmingham was ranked 50th. Since the big drop out of the top 50 Birmingham as weel as Louisville are truely declining in the inner city (depite Louisville's merger) and Jefferson, AL I beleive is actually loosing population while we're slowly gaining (now whoose a sunbelt city just kidding) BTW on that weather map it looks like that purple is streching up to Louisville South, West and Central areas LOL.
This source breaks the area of major snowfall moreso than the States.
Well Louisville average 16. inches compared to Milwalkee's 47 in, Minnenapolis's 49 in, Indianapolis's 23 in, St.Louis's 19.6, Columus, 28 in /Nashville's 10, Richmond's 13.8 in, Knoxville's, 11.5, Norfolk's 7.8
I'd have to say Louisville has a bigger difference with Lower Midwestern cities than Upper Southern cities in snowfall averages
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762183.html
On the whole Louisville has tons of companies claiming it as the Midwest, let's not forget that this greater area is refered to as Kentuckiana (inclusion of Southern Indiana counties), with Indiana being a Midwestern state it wouldn't seem all that bizarre for the Kentuckiana area to be referred to as the Midwest. Then again there are hundreds upon hundreds of companies that have the word Southeast attached to their signs. Just look at the Direct Car innsurance commericals, in like 2003 -04 they would start the commercial off with a glittering map of the Southeast with stars representing the Direct offices across the Southeastern states (Texas and Oklahoma were not included). They showed the same commerical ion Georgia (where I live for 4 years). Kentuckiana was ment to boost all of greater Louisville and not just the side below the Mason Dixon Line, so if that would mean a company based in Southern Indiana identiying the entire Kentuckiana region as the Midwest on their commericals than I mean whatever helps boost Louisville economic growth LOL.
On the whole St.Louis and Cincinnati Lower Midwest thing. Louisville being a major Southern slave owning city "Gateway city to the South" had already had a major black population (most being slaves) before and during the Civil War unlike St.Louis which while it was in a slave holding state, unlike Louisville, St.Louis was a "True" Pro Union town thanks in part to it's huge German population. St.Louis is said to have been the only reason Missouri didn't suceed. Louisvillians on the other hand a knew that it they tried to suceed that the city would be burned to the ground as they were right across the bridge from Indiana (a true Union state). Honestly what major slave owning city would willingly give up there slaves, that they likely paid for (even Baltimore had Pro slavery riots). However I will say that Louisville being a Mid-Southern city like Richmond relied less on the slavery than say New Orleans or Savanah Like a true slave owning city and state Louisville was left with a lot of free blacks, unlike St.Louis and Cincinnati. St. Louis on the other hand gained large black populations through the Great Migrations, Louisville being a true Southern city was passed up on their journey to the North. Cincinnati however did aquire a signifigant black population through the Underground railroad and a few from the great Migration (they just built the Underground railroad museum, there). May I also note that unlike the North or Midwest while Kentucky no longer has a "large" percentage of African Americans a great percentage of our African americans live outside of major Urban areas, compared to somewhere like Indiana where you only see blacks respresented in major cities like Indy, Ft. Wayne, Evanville, Gary, you'll see blacks in the middle of nowhere Kentucky.
Shows the black population trends between 1910 and 2000
The Catholic population what I'm trying to get through is that the South is Unique you just identifed that New Orelans and Louisiana's French heritage and is found nowhere else including in the South, yet it's still Southern. Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, have large Hispanic population which is more of a Southernwestern trait then a Southeastern trait which contribute s to their Catholic population. This would also be unique to the Southeast and not the West. However may I also note that Texas cities suchas Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio also have large amounts of german ancestry that attribute to their Catholic populations.
http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US112.GIF
While the German population tends to lean more towards the Midwest the Irish population seems to be more both than as you've stated a Midwestern trait. cities such as Memphis, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Jacksonville (Northern Florida), and Virginia Beach are examples of cities with large Irish populations. As far as the percentage goes that definantlt more of a Mid-Southern trait, as this map suggest Irish ancesrty engulfs Kentucky, Tennessee, Northern Georgia, and Western Virginia, along with the Southern areas of Ohio, Indiana, and Ilinois. Louisville also lacks the Norwegian ancesrty typical of the Upper Midwest. Not to mention that Louisville unlike the rest of the Midwest did not attact alot of Southern and Eastern Europeans during the WW11 immigration period.Midwestern cities as small as Southbend and Toldeo attracted a signifigant amount of Southern and Eastern Europeans unlike Louisville.
http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US115.GIF
http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US115B.GIF
Louisville also has a signifigant amount of Scottish -Irish decent that's is typical of the Mid-South. May I also note that Louisville has a higher amount of American first ancesrty than Midwestern cities larger than itself. The percentage map of American accestry speaks for itself, compare the Mid South (particularly Kentucky and Tennessee) to the Midwest OH WOW. It's kind of in contrast with that other map on this article.
As far as Baptist goes Outside of Missouri (a state considered Southern all the way up to the 20th century) what Midwestern city has a signifigant black population. Not compared to Indiana counties numbering in 70,000, But a major Midwestern city. They are found nowhere. I cannot emphasize this enough when ranking states according to their Southern Baptist population Kentucky ranked in the top. Amongst other Southern states Kentucky ranked in the top in terms of SOUTHERN BAPTIST (recent survey) population THAT SPEAKS FOR IT'S SELF.
The Southern Focus study I don't know how else I can put during a RECENT DETERMINATION OF SOUTHERNESS KENTUCKY HAD OVER 3/4'S OF IT'S POPULATION (80%) IDENTIFY THAT THEY LIVED IN THE SOUTH. IT TIED WITH TEXAS AND RANKED AHEAD OF VIRGINIA (STATES THAT ACTUALLY SUCEEDED) WHEN ASKED DID THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES SOUTHERNERS. How is Kentucky state most torn over this issue? Metro Louisville make of 1/4 of Kentucky's population that along with Northern Kentucky (another major population center of Kentucky and is "the" most Midwestern area) are said to be the most Midwestern areas of the state. Appalachia is another area that is not to solid on where they stand, despite these major areas of Kentucky the verdict was read KENTUCKIANS FEEL THEY LIVE IN THE SOUTH.
As far as demographic for the conty go, please go into further deatail on this comparison, I don't understand if you mean growth rate, racial mixups, LOL women to men. As far as growth rate Louisville MSA has grown at a healthy 4% since 2000 which for the most part is on par with Memphis and OKC's growth. However Louisville is growing faster than Birmingham's MSA and Pre Katrina New Orleans.
On the whole Language argument I mean are you serious I've scoured the net look for every map I could find breaking the U.S. into region accordingly. Every map I've found I've posted and in every map Louisville depsite these similarities in the way we pronounce our "e" or whatever with St.Louis it's considered Southern by Linguistic mapmakers/Experts Please show me "maps" saying different. I mean if Louisville was truely mixed in terms of dialect there would be some sort of icon stating it. Or let's say Louisville does have a little Midland in it's dialect, apparently it wasn't signifigant enough to be labeled as having such.
Where's He From? Perception of American English Regional Dialects
Cynthia G. Clopper - cclopper@indiana.edu
David B. Pisoni
Speech Research Laboratory
Psychology Department
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN 47405
(812) 855 4893
Popular version of paper 1aSC10
Presented Monday morning, June 4, 2001
141st ASA Meeting, Chicago, IL
Human speech is highly variable, despite the apparent ease with which we can understand those around us. In addition to providing a means of communication of ideas through words, speech also provides us with detailed information about the speaker, such as his or her gender, emotional state, age, and dialect. Variation due to these so-called "indexical" properties of the speaker has only begun to be studied systematically in the last few years. Understanding how variation is used in human speech perception is of fundamental importance to speech recognition, natural-sounding speech synthesis, and cognitive models of speech perception. The present investigation was designed to learn about how much people know about dialect variation in their native language. We wanted to know if naive listeners can identify where an unknown speaker is from with any degree of accuracy. Results from this study provide insight into what information about a talker's dialect is processed and stored in memory during normal speech perception.
A group of eighteen Indiana University undergraduates was asked to listen to sentences spoken by sixty-six white, male talkers in their twenties. Eleven speakers came from each of six dialect regions in the United States: New England, North, North Midland, South Midland, South, and West. After hearing each sentence, the listeners were asked to select the geographical region that they thought each talker was from.
To hear a sample sentence from any of the regions, just click on the map corresponding to that region. The sentences were taken from the TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus, which is available from the Linguistics Data Consortium.
The two sentences used in this study were:
(1) She had your dark suit in greasy wash water all year.
(2) Don't ask me to carry an oily rag like that.
Overall performance on the task by the undergraduates was quite poor. Across the two different sentence conditions, accuracy was only 30 percent correct. However, analyses of the confusion matrices for the six regions revealed that the perceptual errors made by the listeners were quite systematic. Specifically, our listeners were able to reliably identify the talkers using broader perceptual categories than those used in this study. The broader categories and the regions they include are shown in Table 1. When performance was measured using these categories, accuracy for the two sentences improved to 60 percent correct. It appears that listeners are sensitive to certain phonetic and phonological properties of speech that provide useful information about where talkers are from.
Category Regions
North New England, North
South South, South Midland
West North Midland, West
Table 1. Broad dialect categories.
Acoustic analyses were also carried out on the speech samples themselves to identify and measure the dialect differences for the talkers used in this study. Results of the analyses revealed that the dialects did differ from one another on several acoustic-phonetic measures. For example, r-lessness, as in "dak" for "dark," was a characteristic feature of the New England talkers. Click here to listen to a New England talker. On the other hand, saying "greazy" for "greasy" was a characteristic feature of the Southern talkers. Click here to listen to a Southern talker
Correlations were then computed between the results of the categorization task and the acoustic analysis measures. The pattern of results suggested that listeners were in many cases relying on the characteristic features of the dialects when selecting where the talkers were from, again providing evidence that listeners are sensitive to dialect variation in speech. When we listen to speech, we not only pay attention to the words and the meanings those words convey, but we can also perceive, encode, and use indexical information in the speech signal to learn more about specific properties of the talker.
This is the common definition of the South right here, you can look on Urbanplanet.org, Skyscrapercity forums or whatever, But this is the concensus not only from fellow Louisvillian, But other Southerners.
To me any city/state that had slaves were Southern in History, as I stated earlier that's every state below the Mason Dixon Line and the areas a little further North. Even cities like Baltimore had Anti Abolishition riots which to me shows that the cities early history was Southern as is Louisville. As the war comes despite of not having suceeded during the war (we were said to have suceeded afterwards) our supposite Northern sentiments aren't that apparent when a so called "Union stronghold" has a Confederate monument in it's first suburb (as every Southern city has), but not a single Union monument is to be found within the city, would that sugguest that we were truely a boarder city? I feel that with our proximity to the North and our livelyhood on the balance our minds were made up for us. So you said we should agree to disagree that's fine, But I will still argue that Louisville is a Southern city and Mid - Southern to be precise, But I must say I love a healthy debate. Louisvillian20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Just some comments on a few points that still stick out to me:
1. You said that "I will honestly think you have never met to many residence of Bowling Green or Paducah if you can stick with the argument that these cities aren't Southern to bone."
Did I mention that my entire family is from Kentucky - specifically, the cities of Louisville and Bowling Green? I do believe that Bowling Green is a city of the Upland South, however the study that YOU had actually initially cited - at http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf - groups the areas around Bowling Green and Louisville in linguistically with the Midwest, not the Southern cluster (pages 8-9.) Please address this. I did indeed acknowledge that language is highly complex, but the Southern accent is generally watered down throughout Kentucky, especially in the urbanized regions. In rural areas with little contact to the outside, and most definitely in the Appalachian regions of the state, the story is different. As I said, my sources on the language map come from Ivy League UPenn, not random sources, and this is the prestigious school that CREATED many of the dialect maps regarding American English, and they clearly show that Louisvile is directly on the border between Midland and South accents, while Boone, Kenton, and Campbell counties are Midland - see http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF . Once again, most noticeable is the lack of the "I" to "ah" vowel shift - the single most common element of the Southern accent.
2. You said "As far as demographic for the conty go, please go into further deatail on this comparison, I don't understand if you mean growth rate"
I will do so. I am taking this number from Census bureau figures at http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/cencounts.html . Jefferson County, KY reached a peak population of around 695,000 in 1970 and began to decline after that. Similar trends were seen across cities in the Midwest and Northeast - Chicago (1960), Kansas City (1970), Cincinnati (1970), St. Louis (city) (1950), etc. Marion County, IN is one of the few that has not followed this trend. Compared to cities of the Upland South that Louisville is most frequently referred to:
Davidson County, TN - population peaked in the 2000 census, still growing; Shelby County, TN - population peaked in the 2000 census, still growing. Richmond is a more difficult comparison to make because of the usage of independent cities in VA, but the counties closest to independent city of Richmond - Henrico and Chesterfield, commonly referred to as the south-side and north-side of the city - reached peaks in 2000 and continue to grow. Clearly, the stagnation of growth of Louisville is in stark contrast to most urban counties in the Deep South, but there is little Louisville has in common with these cities.
3. You said that "Kentucky tied with Texas on the Southerness survey." It absolutely did (68 percent self-identify as Southerners), and most editors agree that Texas needs to be striped on the map. Historically, TX was more Southern than it is currently, and I imagine that the creator of the map was (correctly) reticent to place a border state such as KY in with a committed Confederate state such as Texas. Once again, I don't think that where one thinks one's "region" is can be nearly as important as the self-identification of residents. Miami, FL is the southernmost of the southernmost large cities in the US, so why do most people not consider Miami to be a part of the South? And in the areas of KY such as Lousville and Northern Kentucky, the self-identification, just by sheer logic, is almost certainly lower than 68 percent Southern - probably significantly lower - but data aren't available in this area, unfortunately, that I am aware if. If in one city 90 percent of residents believe that the CITY is in the South and 90 percent of the residents believe that THEY personally are Southerners, we have a purely Southern city. But if in one city, 80 percent of the residents classify the CITY as being in the South but only 40/50 percent self-identify as Southern, the city is transitional in nature, or split.
4. You said that "May I also note that unlike the North or Midwest while Kentucky no longer has a "large" percentage of African Americans a great percentage of our African americans live outside of major Urban areas, compared to somewhere like Indiana where you only see blacks respresented in major cities like Indy, Ft. Wayne, Evanville, Gary, you'll see blacks in the middle of nowhere Kentucky." Looking at a black ancestry map, first by percentage: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/New_2000_black_percent.gif
Other than two clusters that border TN, it is clear from this map that KY has black percentages that are more in line with the North than South. Even in TN, there is a significant chunk of the state - the entire western 10th or so - that is largely black, while no such areas exist in KY. VA, MD, DE, and TX are all significantly more black than is KY according to this map. As far as the argument that "you'll see blacks in the middle of nowhere [in] Kentucky" - I was rolling on the floor regarding that one, I'm just not buying it, from personal experience and from the demographics!!!! The thought of "high black percentages" in places such as Caneyville, Lawrenceburg, and heaven forbid, Pikeville, is just not in accordance with the facts. At least, that is, no more than in Midwestern rural areas (with the exception of the Great Plains, where black percentages are under 1% in many cases, though I might add that these extremely low percentages are in line with much of Eastern/Appalachian Kentucky where blacks were scarce even before the Civil War) - looking at the density of blacks, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_2000_black_density.gif .
Here again, KY's density of blacks is highest in Lousiville and Lexington - metropolitan areas. Notice the blue chunks representing "more than 2000 black people per square mile/per census tract - NONE of those areas are outside of the major urban areas in KY, while they are common throughout every other single "Southern" state - including VA, TN, and TX. The differences between VA and KY regarding black population are remarkable, and KY is again closer to the Midwest - while VA is 20.54% black and TN is 16.81% black, KY is only 7.76% black; compare this to Missouri (11.76% black), Indiana (8.91% black), Ohio (12.18% black), and Michigan (14.92% black, due largely to Detroit.) Neither Louisville's nor Kentucky's black percentages are out of line with the Midwest, but do contrast starkly to much of the South; even in the Upland South, the region where KY is usually grouped, KY's black percentages are the 2nd lowest, behind West Virginia (KY is lower than MO, AR, TN, and VA.)
5. The Baptist percentages in MO are indeed significant, and I mentioned this because the majority consensus among scholars, researchers, and institutions/organizations is that MO is Midwestern, not Southern. This is why most people who label Louisville as Midwestern will compare it to cities such as St. Louis and Cincinnati, not cities like Minneapolis and Fargo. Indeed, many residents of Upper Midwestern cities such as Fargo would balk at the consideration of St. Louis as the "quintessential Midwestern city" because it has been heavily influenced by migration from and its proximity to the South. But regardless, I have never heard, and could find no verifiable sources at all, that label either St. Louis or Cincinnati as anything but "Midwestern." So it is not invalid to compare Louisville to St. Louis and say that they are both cities of the Lower Midwest, St. Louis more so than Louisville. And regarding the Confederate monuments, even St. Louis has them - one of them standing at an impressive 23 feet, and St. Louis has an annual Confederate memorial day. In spite of these monuments and events, nobody is calling St. Louis a "Southern" city - how many people from Louisville fought for the North, and how many fought for the South? The migration from countries such as Norway is only characteristic of the Upper Midwest, and then only in a scattered handful of counties is it the majority; notice that the vast overwhelming majority of Midwestern counties are of predominantly German ancestry, as is Jefferson County - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg . I was not attempting to compare Louisville to the cities of the Upper Midwest, nor the Deep South. Louisville's ancestry, in this regards, is indeed an anomaly to what one sees in cities of the Upland South - this pattern is not seen in Nashville, Memphis, Charleston, WV or Richmond, VA - it is seen in St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc. I'm still not buying these comparisons between Louisville and cities such as Houston and Birmingham, just because places like Houston have isolated elements that are in common with the Midwestern. If one of these cities might have one or two things in common with the Midwestern, Louisville would have three dozen. And most importantly of all, you will never, ever in a million years find a map that considers cities such as these Midwestern (try search for "Houston" and "Midwest" together, and then searching for "Louisville" and "Midwest" together and comparing the number of results.) To my knowledge, there has never been a debate regarding including Houston - or Texas - in with the Midwest, but many debates, like this one, have raged over the years regarding Louisville's Midwestern elements. Unless their families happen to be recent arrivals from outside the South, a native-born and raised Houstonian will likely consider himself a Southerner, Texan, or a Southwesterner - not a Midwesterner. But many native-born residents on the Kentucky side of Kentuckiana self-identify as Midwesterners, many people in the REST of Kentucky are quick to label Louisvillians as Midwesterners - http://www.blacktable.com/thomas040527.htm. - and hundreds upon hundreds of companies and organizations label the city as Midwestern. As I said, our debate is just one of thousands that have occurred regarding Louisville's identity.
6. And lastly, the climate. As I said and cited, under the commonly accepted Koeppen classification system, Louisville's climate is in the transition zone from humid continental to humid subtropical. Louisville is the coldest city of the Upland South and receives the most snow annually of any city in the Upland South, more than Richmond; the city even receives more snow annually than Cincinnati, and is only a few inches from seeing the snowfall levels of cities such as Kansas City, while it receives more than three times the snow of places such as Memphis, more than 50% more snow annually than Nashville, and it is much cooler than these places. Again, with the snowfall numbers you cited cities like Milwaukee (Uppper Midwest, lake effect snow) and...Minneapolis. Wow, if we had to compare climate regions based on cities like frost-covered Minneapolis, Philadelphia would probably be in the South. I was comparing Louisville (16.2 inches annually) to cities of the LOWER Midwest, such as Cincinnati (14 inches) and St. Louis (19.8 inches.) As compared to Nashville (10.2 inches), Memphis (5.1 inches) and Richmond (14 inches.) It's clearly in a transition zone - just 90 miles up the road, cities like Indianapolis start receiving 20+ inches of snow, especially when you get into the Great Lakes cities and have to deal with the lake effect.
Also, the Louisville Wiki page reflects both nicknames - "Gateway to the South", but also the "southernmost Northern city and the northernmost Southern city in the United States." As I had said earlier, if a city is the Gateway to the South, by logic it is also the Gateway to the North.
I do love that popvssoda.com page just for kicks and giggles, but I couldn't disagree with it more in some regions, and since it doesn't use valid statistical samples it can't be trusted as an accurate reflection in any event, though it is correct in many areas. A majority of residents in some counties in South Carolina and even Georgia, the bastion of Coca Cola, using the east-coast term generic "soda"? Not likely, but the map says so. Likewise, it would appear by the map that a majority of citizens across Central Indiana - including Indianapolis - don't use "pop." The thought of a majority of residents in Tampa Bay and Orlando using the distinctly Southern generic term "coke" is also a howler, and my Louisville-raised grandparents never said anything other than "pop" or "soda pop." It would be great to see a map such as this constructed using valid statistical samples from each county, but due to cost and the sheer difficulty that will probably never happen.
--216.227.22.5522:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Well if you can honestly tell the difference in cultures between rural Southerners than more power to ya. LOL if it can get more Southern than aunt pig than WOW that I have yet to see. you say pages 8 and 9 on that study groups Bowling Green in with the Midland dialect, I didn't read that in that paragraph or listing. In every linguistic map I've shown Louisville and about 80% - 85% of Kentucky is below the Southern Line. I mean http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF on this map Louisville is just below the Carver 87 Phonological Atlas line and the 1987 Carver study seems to be the Ohio River it's self. Louisville being below the Ohio River would group it as what else....SOUTHERN. Oh and please try to discredit any of the sources I've found on for this subject. I mean I guess every study that lables Louisville as Southern is some random nonsense ay LOL. These are the most commonly used maps in these debates not to mention that the linguistic map on Wiki's Southern dialect article shows that the Southern Dialect immediately stops at the Ohio River (which doies include Louisville). I mean what else is there to prove man, 100% of these sources I've shown and or refered to groups Louisville, Kentucky in with the South in terms of Dialect.Am I saying that you won't find a Midland accent in Louisville, Of course not, I'm saying that the Southern dialect is the most prominent, Point and Case Louisville dialect is Southern.
Yes the highly industrialized Midwest along with the few Industrialized Southern cities AKA Louisville/Jefferson county, Ky and Birmingham,Jefferson County followed the population trends that I've stated in my earlier post. Indianapolis is not a city that relied heavily on Industry, which is why it was an exception to the population decline of the late 60's early 70's. This is why that city is not facing the problems that Louisville, Birmingham, St.Louis, and Cincinnati are having to this very day. Notice every city I've just named was a major manufacturing center. St.Louis and Cincinnati were more industrialized which is why they are in a worse situation today than Louisville and Birmingham are in. Okay there is little in common Columbus or Indianapolis has with the rest of the Midwest as they are experiencing Sunbelt- like growth. Birmingham, New Orleans, and Memphis are all examples of Deep Southern (with the exception of Memphis) cities that aren't remotely close to their Sunbelt neighbors. As you've stated Memphis was not a major manufacutring center ( or didn't come close to Louisville's status), they aren't following the same trends as major manufacutring centers are.
Kentucky tied with Texas and ranked higher than Virginia, devoted Confederate states. In a RECENT Survey of Southerness. I mean yes Kentucky did not officailly suceed during the war, Yes it's 100% true. Over a century this "boarder state" currently has ranks among Confederate states in terms of Southern pride. What would that sugguest... That Kentucky is just as (and probably was just as Suthern back then) Southern and more than some Confederate states. I mean, I think the Civil War should stand as a Histrocial means as to how Southern a states History is however it should not be the main factor being considered during a present argument of a states current Southerness. Yeah I believe that Louisville is more so around the dead lock in terms of the Southerner identification margine, I honestly believe that it's like a good 59%. It can't be too far off from the rest of the state. Again Kentucky as well as Louisville has Midwestern influence and just as you having lived in Louisville there are boud to be a few others. However the concensus I've came across Louisville is reguarded as more Southern by the residence of the city it's self.
On the black population, again rather than look at how many blacks there are look at where they are at. In Kentucky despite where they it being a large cluster by the Tennesee boarder (which would eaily counter your German Catholic claim) Kentucky does not lack a rural African American presence in the Central and Western areas of the state. The Appalachain's at one time was heavily black, But as the mining declined so did the diversity. Notice in Indiana in every single cluster you will find a profound city on a map with selected cities. In Kentucky however can you name a major (state wide at least) city for every cluster of blacks found on that map, I know I can't and I live in Kentucky. Just by looking at that map you can see that Indiana's, Ohio's, Ilinois's blacks are only represented in major (statewise) cities. While Kentucky lacks the clusterd found in the Deep South, It at least shows that blacks were at one time well respresented in the State. This is also similar to Missouri where blacks can be represented in the rural areas once know as little dixie, along with clusters in the Bootheel area of the state. This presence of rural blacks while MUCH more represented in the Deep South along with Western Tennesse and Eastern Virginia, is virtually unreal in the Midwest particularly the Upper Midwest. Well while you're rolling around on the floor it is a noticable fact, just by looking at the map. Again you can identify almost every cluster of blacks in the Midwest as some major city while you'll find blacks in AGAIN NOWHERE KENTUCKY East of I-75.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/New_2000_black_density.gif
Again just make a few observations and you'll easily see what I'm talking about.
Yes the Great Lake areas of the Midwest have large percentage's of African Amercians, But where did they come from????Kentucky and the rest of the South. They moved to large Industrialized Midwestern cities (which BTW for some reason Louisville got passed up), not rural areas of those states. Why does Missouri have a black population that now surpasses Kentucky, The Great Migration with it's star attraction St. Louis home to over 300,000 African Americans (over half of the state's black pouplation). Illinois same thing Chicago, Indiana, Indiananpolis and the Gary steel mills (which BTW has the largest percentage of African Americans for a city of over 100,000), Ohio, Cleaveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, THE GREAT LAKES ARE ONE IN THE SAME IN THIS TAIL.. Then again Dallas and Houston were also destination for blacks looking for jobs during the Great Migration.
http://www.uic.edu/educ/bctpi/greatmigration2/dataviewer/usa/USAleftcolumn.html
EXCELLLENT SOURCE on the subject right here.
Let's not forget that Louisville/Jefferson county lacks the boxiness (in terms of shapes) of Midwestern counties, due to the Northwest Ordinance that only applied to Northern states. Which is whi Hamilton, Marion, and whatever columbus's county is are all sqaures unlike the counties South of the Mason Dixon Line.
On the Baptist thing again Missouri was generally accepted as a Southern state before the 20th century, and apparently has retained a few Southern qualities. I believe it was Mark Twain Missourian who said " I hate them damn yankees." Southern Baptist is a major Sector in that states religous diversity. However you're saying that you've never heard St.Louis reguarded as a Southern city. Well on that I think that St.Louis is also a mixed city in terms of culture. For some reason black St.Lousians speak with a Southern twang, found in Southern blacks. Maybe it's the fact that Southern blacks moved to a somewhat Southern state, which didn't change their persona or cultural aspects as much as if they were to move to Detroit. It can be seen in alot of St.Louis rappers for example, Nelly, Chingy, and Jibbs. Which BTW St.Louis rappers use the term DERRTY, Which is in reference to Dirty South or Southern Hip Hop.
Sample Nelly's music and listen for the Southern twang
http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US118.GIF
The Norwegian ancestry is dominant in the Upper Midwest as I said particularly Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Upper Iowa, Chicago, AW dang it the UPPER Midwest. While not every county may be included it's sginifigant enough to set the Upper Midwest apart from the Lower Midwest and other regions of the country. Notice on this map that Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio also have signifigant German populations along with a large Catholic population. http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US112.GIF
Well I compare Louisville to Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio because despite their Hispanic/German Catholic populations these cities are still Southern cities. Despite Birminghams manufacturing based economy it is still considered a Southern city. While Birmingham will certainly never have justify it's Southerness Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio will simply because they're in Texas a state with other regional influences. Louisville while again I have noted that it is indeed a mixed city, I still maintain that this city is prodominantly Southern, has always been, and will always be. Despite some rural Kentuckians who know nothing of an Urban Southern city most people regaurd Louisville as a Southern city. There was a poll on Skyscrapercity on this subject don't you know that Louisville received over twice as many votes as a Southern city than Midwestern. While you maintain that Louisville has so much in common with St.Louis and KC during my debates those forumers were some of my main allies in the debate for Louisville's Southerness and will be the first to pointout the Louisville did not belong in a poll with Midwestern cities. While on the Southern threads when Louisville was not included in a poll there was ALWAYS opposition to it's exclusion as it's become known to many Southerners as an alternative Southern city. In same since as New Orleans, Atlanta (due to it's Northern transplants) or Miami. What I'm saying is Louisville is generally considered a Southern city. http://www.daytondailynews.com/travel/content/travel/destinations/kentucky/louisville042300.html
On the whole Louisville has tons of companies claiming it as the Midwest, let's not forget that this greater area is refered to as Kentuckiana (inclusion of Southern Indiana counties), with Indiana being a Midwestern state it wouldn't seem all that bizarre for the Kentuckiana area to be referred to as the Midwest. Then again there are hundreds upon hundreds of companies that have the word Southeast attached to their signs. Just look at the Direct Car innsurance commericals, in like 2003 -04 they would start the commercial off with a glittering map of the Southeast with stars representing the Direct offices across the Southeastern states (Texas and Oklahoma were not included). They showed the same commerical ion Georgia (where I live for 4 years). Kentuckiana was ment to boost all of greater Louisville and not just the side below the Mason Dixon Line, so if that would mean a company based in Southern Indiana identiying the entire Kentuckiana region as the Midwest on their commericals than I mean whatever helps boost Louisville economic growth LOL.
What's the Lower Midwest to you??? I think along the lines of whole states Cleaveland's 57in to Memphis's 5in (just comparing opposite ends of Kentucky's boarding states) Louisville 16.4. St.Louis's 19.6 to Richmonds 13.8 Louisville's closer to Richmond the Mid-Southern city, by 1.4in. Indianapolis 23.9 to Nashville's 10.1 Well again Louisville leans more towards the Mid South. I mean if The Great Lake Affect was going to be an excuse as to why these Louisville is generally warmer than these Midwestern cities than it's shouldn't even be up for a Midwestern argument LOL. Let's not even go into the comparison between Upper Midwestern cities and Deep Southern cities.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762183.html
Well I mean you can't really proved that it is flawed, other than it not leaning towards your preference. Louisvillian05:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That's another point on which we'll have to "agree to disagree", because I don't think "along the lines of whole states" when it comes to regions. There is most definitely a difference between even the most rural Southerners of different regions of the South. As I said, many residents of the Upper Midwest would balk at the consideration of St. Louis as a "quintessential Midwestern city" and "Cincitucky" jokes are told by some residents of the Cleveland/Akron areas in reference to Cincinnati. Likewise, many residents of states such as Alabama and Georgia would balk in disgust at being placed in the same level of "Southerness" as border states like Kentucky that fought against the Confederacy; as a matter of fact, on the talk page for the Deep South article, one user from Arkansas said, in reference to his home state (which was striped on the map) - "Any state that borders Louisiana is not a border state. It's an insult to cast Arkansas in the same category of being as Southern as Kentucky." (emphasis mine) To many in the Deep South, people from Louisville - especially those with distinctly non-Southern habits - are in a different region. To clarify, when I say "lower Midwestern cities", I would mean places such as St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Evansville. Upper Midwestern cities are Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Fargo, Des Moines, etc. Wikipedia also has a page for the Upper Midwest, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Midwest. Just as it would be awkward to compare El Paso, TX to Arlington, VA, - calling them both "Southern" and nothing else - so is it odd to compare Louisville to Fargo, ND saying that both are "Midwestern" and nothing else. In my discussion, in the name of fairness, I have attempted to avoid, as much as possible, comparing Louisville to EITHER cities of the Upper Midwest or those of the Deep South. In equally valid definitions, some people (like me) view Louisville as a city of the Lower Midwest, while others (like you) view it as a city of the Upland South; valid points can be made for both of those definitions, but I don't think that anybody could make a convincing point that Louisville is either a city of the Upper Midwest or of the Deep South (NONE of KY is ever, ever considered to be in the Deep South - Louisville is not Milwaukee, just as it isn't New Orleans; Kentucky is not Wisconsin by any measure at all, but it's not a Deep South state of cotton plantations either by any measure at all.) Louisville could be said, I suppose, to have some isolated characteristics in common from cities in both of those groups, but still, it just makes more sense to group it in either the Upland South or Lower Midwest. The state of Kentucky is not included in the Deep South in any sources - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South. This is why I don't think that comparisons between Louisville and Houston/Dallas/San Antonio/Birmingham make sense or facilitate a debate, nor do comparisons of Louisville to Minneapolis/Milwaukee/Fargo. In all of my examples, I have compared Louisville to cities of the Upland South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upland_South) - Memphis, Nashville, and Richmond usually - and those of the Lower Midwest - especially St. Louis.
Noticeablely absent from http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762183.html is the city of Cincinnati, which I why I cited http://www.weatherbase.com, a comprehensive database of a wide variety of weather data on virtually all major and minor cities. Cincinnati is a Midwestern city - a lower Midwestern city - and it receives less snow annually (14.2 in) than Louisville (16.2 in) (to be honest, I was actually surprised myself to discover that!) But to be more thorough, let's look at temperature in addition to just snowfall. The average annual temperature in Louisville is 57 degrees, compared to 54.5 in Cinci, 56 degrees in St. Louis, 56 degrees in Kansas City, and 53 degrees in Indianapolis. Contrasted to 60 degrees in Nashville, 62 degrees in Memphis, 58 in Richmond, and 60 in Norfolk. As I said, it is the coldest of the cities of the Upland South and receives more snowfall than any of them. Nothing in its climate is out of line with the cities of the Lower Midwest. I'm not sure if you read the CJ or not, but on the regional weather map it highlights cities on the Midwest, not the South, and bolds several Midwestern states (Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana I believe.) As far as the Upper Midwest, you had included Milwaukee, a Great Lakes city that is prone to lake effect snow and receives about 50 inches of snow annually. Lake effect snow occurs commonly in the cities that sit on the Great Lakes as cold, dry air over land moves over the colder lakes and freezes, causing massive amounts of snowfall (Buffalo and Cleveland are the best examples of this). To quote from the Wiki page on this: "Lake effect snow, which can be a type of snowsquall, is produced in the winter when cold dry winds move across long expanses of warmer lake water, picking up water vapor which freezes and is deposited on the lee shores. This effect is enhanced when the moving air mass is uplifted by the orographic effect of higher elevations on the downwind shores. This uplifting can produce narrow, but very intense bands of precipitation, which deposit at a rate of many inches of snow per hour. The areas affected by lake effect snow are called snowbelts. This effect occurs in many locations throughout the world, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, but is most known about in the populated areas of the Great Lakes of North America. The lake effect from the Great Salt Lake in Utah helps to create "The Greatest Snow on Earth". Since the lake never freezes the lake effect can affect the weather along the Wastach front year around." This is why Chicago, at the same latitude as New York City, receives much more snow than NYC (38.2 in-Chicago versus 24.4-in NYC.) The extra snow isn't due to the cities being in a different climate zone, but rather is due to the presence of a large inland lake. And Minneapolis, while not a city that sees lake effect snow, is so far to the north of Louisville - 705 miles to be correct - that comparing its climate to Louisville (or even Indianapolis, for that matter!) is about as valid as comparing the climate of Louisville to that of cities in Northern Florida that receive no snow at all annually and have mean annual temperatures in the 70s. As I've said, when people identify Louisville as Midwestern, they normally compare it to the cities of the Lower Midwest, not those of the Upper Midwest. There is a commonly accepted distinction between those two regions.
Certainly, Louisville does have tons of companies and organizations claiming it as a Southern/Southeastern city. On that area we'll end up in a deadlock, because for every company or organization that you could provide identifying the city as Southern, I can provide one identifying the city as Midwestern (that is, those that label the city proper as Midwestern, or base their Midwestern operations in the city, not just the metro area which includes counties in lower IN). Just a few random examples:
The article that I cited from Black Table, which ran a "Six Things You Don't Know" about several states is also not in the minority when identifying sentiments espoused by many native Kentuckians towards the "big city" residents of Jefferson County. Saying that "Louisville is not in Kentucky" is a bit harsh and was just added for humor in any event, but still, it was part of the point the author was trying to make.
When I was presenting information regarding why cities in Central and South Florida are no longer generally considered Southern, one of the sources I cited (also from http://www.city-data.com , and more specifically http://www.city-data.com/housing/houses-Louisville-Kentucky.html) was a listing of the places of origin of native US-born residents in a city. In practically all cases, the home state is the largest group. For Louisville, the other groups are:
Admittedly, that's about as split as one can get, regarding the higher number of Midwestern residents - by 8! But if the Northeastern residents are grouped in, then collectively the "North" is the largest group in Louisville. Just for kicks, I checked out what the numbers looked like in Covington; not surprisingly, the Midwest is ahead by a much more substantial margin:
Northeast: 779
Midwest: 9528South: 2127
West: 791
I am certainly prone to agree with you about St. Louis as being a mixed influence city, not nearly as mixed as Louisville, which has stronger Southern elements. But then again, even as far back as the Civil War public sentiment and loyalties were much more divided in Louisville than in St. Louis; native-born and raised Louisvillian James Speed, whose policies were much in line with those of the Unionists in St. Louis, never found success as a "Radical Republican" politician in KY after the war largely because of his strong abolitionist sentiments. My personal thoughts are that it has always been due to the proportion of industry and slaves; in other words, had Louisville held as few slaves as St. Louis and had Louisville seen the same level of industrialization as St. Louis after the war, the two cities would be virtually identical today. The large presence of slaves in Jefferson County before the Civil War (meaning, lots at stake) heavily altered opinions in the region; with a lesser extent of this, the city would have developed a stronger link to the Midwest and would be placed in largely with cities such as St. Louis. They are still largely similar, but with some notable differences. As I said, I could find no verifiable sources that considered St. Louis to be anything other than Midwestern - even saying "St. Louis, a Southern city" just sounds absurd to me.
And interestingly - and reflecting the enormous amount of black migration to St. Louis from the South - St. Louis's numbers are as follows:
Again, native-born Missourians, of course, are the largest group. But these numbers do indeed back up the claim that St. Louis is a border/mixed city, as is Louisville.
As far as the linguistic stuff goes, there will always be a bit of disagreement as to exactly where to draw the lines among the scholars who determine this things (and I am certainly not one of them!) It is hard to visually distinguish via the UPenn map that I provided whether or not Louisville is exactly south or north of this border line, which I why I stated that it is "on the border." Information provided from that source (and then, from the study that you provided) suggest that the accent is more Midland - it is indeed there on pages 8 and 9, and as I said it was surprising even though I knew that the accent was watered down throughout Kentucky. Again, sources vary depending on what exactly is being measured in the accent - some less reputable maps will even include ALL of Northern Kentucky in with the Southern accent group, which most linguists would consider erroneous. But as I said, certain traits in Louisville (and to a much lesser extent, Kentuckian) speech, such as the lack of the "I" to "ah" vowel shift, are not characteristic of a pure Southern accent.
As far as Louisville's black population goes (for the city proper, before the merger)
Many cities proper in all regions of the country have significant black populations due to white flight and other factors. So in that regard, Louisville, at 1/3 black in a state that is only 7 percent black, is not abnormal at all for ANY region - neither distinctly Southern or Northern, Upland South or Lower Midwest.
In 1860 KY's population was around 20-23% black, and today it is only 7 percent - so clearly, there has been significant out migration and relatively little in migration of blacks. Really, the only state in the region that KY can be compared to accurately in terms of black population is West Virginia; looking at the map at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/New_2000_black_percent.gif, KY stands out distinctly from Tennessee and Virginia. Kentucky also has only two counties that are majority black in ancestry, and both are in western KY and border TN - Christian (included in the Clarksville, TN metropolitan area) and Fulton (included in the Union City, TN micropolitan area.) Those are the two clusters of blacks on the percentage map that aren't in KY's urbanized areas. Clarksville, TN is not "rural" - the city has a population of 100,00+, and more than that in the metro area. Fulton County, of course, is in the far western Purchase area, once the most strongly Dixiecrat region of the state; the region that it is in also includes Alexander County, IL (Cairo), a highly rural region of IL (forming the Southern tip of Little Egypt) where there are no major cities, but abnormally high black percentages. So IL has one largely rural region with high black percentages, and KY has two clusters centered around Christian and Fulton counties, which are included in TN metro areas. The vast, overwhelming majority of KY's blacks are in four counties, each of which does have a population center; Warren County (Bowling Green, 8.58% black, city much higher at about 13% black), McCracken County (Paducah, 10.88% black, city much higher at about 23% black), Fayette County (Lexington, 13.48% black) and of course, Jefferson (18.88% black). Just doing the calculations, Jefferson County contains roughly half of KY's blacks by itself, and Fayette County another 13 percent or so. The rest are mostly divided between Bowling Green, Paduach, and those two mentioned areas that border TN and IL. Across nearly all of rural KY - and especially in the east - black percentages are as low as in the Great Plains. Not similar in the least to TN, VA, AR, etc.
(I'm most certainly not bragging about the lack of diversity in the state - just making a point!) -
Though, I don't think that the debate over minority levels in KY was originally a part of the Louisvile debate and developed as a tangent, since we both agree that KY is certainly a Southern state primarily. I just wanted to clarify that blacks are no more common throughout the vast majority of rural KY - with the exception of those two aforementioned areas - than they are in rural Nebraska, Kansas, etc.
But I do have to mention one other thing regarding the whole minority debate. When, exactly, was Appalachia "heavily black"? Going back 130 years, the enormous contrast in black slave percentages between modern-day "Virgina" and what were then the Appalachian counties of VA, now in modern day West Virginia, is one of the primary reasons why Union loyalties in those counties ran so deep that they voted to separate themselves from the state of VA and to remain in the Union. Those counties were heavily Republican in contrast to heavily Democratic VA at the time; today, in non-presidental elections WV is one of the most reliably Democratic states (i.e. Robert Byrd, in office since the 50's.) Likewise, slave-light eastern Kentucky counties were heavily Republican at the time of the war and staunchly Unionist; today, these counties are the most reliably Democratic in Kentucky - http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/politics/election_2k.gif , http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/politics/election_2004.gif . The University of Virginia has an excellent Java applet that allows browsing the precise number of residents of different races, and slaves, from the different Census results historically at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/index.html. Just for one example, Jackson County, KY in 1860 had 7 black residents out of a county population of 3,087 - a black percentage of .0022. Today, the county's black population is .05. That's an extreme, but most of the Appalachian counties had then, and still have today, black populations under 2 percent, many times well under one percent. Just a few examples: Pike County (.45%), Letcher County (.51% black), and Knott County (.73% black).
Anyhow, that's my last contribution to the debate; these things can go on endlessly, and I think I've presented most of my points. I've presented my arguments that Louisville is a city of the Midwest, and you've presented yours that it's a city of the Upland South. It seems as if just about every single point that you've made is valid and excellent; in fact, the only argument of yours that I totally and wholeheartedly disagree with are those comparisons of Louisville to Deep South cities like Houston, New Orleans, and Birmingham. Like the editor on the Deep South page who was amazed that somebody had compared AR to the border states, I just cannot stomach the thought of a border city like Louisville being categorized with a city as firmly, deeply, and irrefutably entrenched in anything and everything that is Southern, like Birmingham - and a city that is in a state that sent 98%+ of its troops to the Confederacy, and is labeled the "Heart of Dixie!" In any event, since KY is striped on the map it will always be clear to readers that there is some debate, disagreement, and varying defintions regarding the identity of the state, or at least, certain regions of it. I only wish I could magically see what this debate will look like 100 years from now!
Since this debate is getting pretty long and could be useful in the future, I placed it in a separate category as a reference for subsequent editors. And thanks for the rap music links :)
--216.227.87.2309:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL Well according to according to the Midwest talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Midwestern_United_States every other post seems to be discrediting Kentucky's "Midwesterness", along with West Virginia.If you visit the Skyscrapercity Forums, or the Urbanplanet.org forums, you'll notice that there litterally might be 1/20 Southerners who have a problem with the inclusion of Kentucky as the South. Compare that to the Midwestern forums where you're likely to be cursed out for including Louisville along with Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Cleaveland, St.Louis, and so on. LOL It seems like you're trying to do that whole we're no more Deep Southern than Upper Midwestern non-sense. I have a heard time believing anyone who claims that Kentucky has just as much if not more in common Historically, Linguistically, and Culturally with the Minnesota than Alabama. I mean that to me is just CRAZY. I mean if it was truely a problem with the inclusion of Kentucky in the "Solid South" wouldn't it be an uproar when Texas Reb just proposed it in one of the last post. LOL Why don't you make an argument to prove the Kentucky is Solidly Midwestern on the talk page, LOL They'll probably ban you from ever typing your opinion on that article again. If I'm correct that's you on that page who objects to the absense of Kentucky on the striped map, while there hasn't been a single (Midwestern) soul by your side in your defenese (or any soul for that matter). You've stated that Kentucky was a dominantly Southern in culture I'll give you that, But when you say Midwestern influence you group Louisville in as a Midwestern city. You say many Deep Southern people would object to it's name, I FREQUENT SKYSCRAPERCITY, with Kentucky being grouped in with the Southeastern states, Louisville is usually lumped in with Deep Southern cities as well as Mid Southern cities and most of the polls. Like I said If there are any objections to Louisville being included the chances of it happening are 1/20 (threads). It's the total opposite in the Midwestern forums. There was a thread on there is "Louisville more Southern or Midwestern" over twice as many votes for Southern, from people all over the country. That to me shows that Louisville is generally accepted as a Southern city. Again where you feel as though Louisville is a 50/50 between New Orleans and or Birmingham when compared to Minneanapolis or Milwalkee, I feel that this argument is nonsense to say the least. Obviously Louisville shares Historical, and Architectural signifigance with New Orleans. While they both host the two of the South's premiere Cultural celebrations Mardi Gras and the Kentucky Derby (not saying that horse racing is exculsively Southern it's just the Mint Jullep Southern Belle culture surrounding the Event). Birmingham while I feel it's definantly more Southern than Louisville there ecnomy's and population trends model after each other remarkably. With both of these cities economoies being based in manufacturing obviously shows that that major manufacturing was not exclusive to the Midwest.
Oh and a question wouldn't St.Louis be considered an Upland Southern city??? I mean afterall Missouri is shaded solidly on that map. "The average annual temperature in Louisville is 57 degrees, compared to 54.5 in Cinci, 56 degrees in St. Louis, 56 degrees in Kansas City, and 53 degrees in Indianapolis. Contrasted to 60 degrees in Nashville, 62 degrees in Memphis, 58 in Richmond, and 60 in Norfolk." Your quote Louisville has the same difference in tempature between St.Louis and Richmond, though there is less of a difference between Louisville and Richmonds snowfall than Louisville and St.Louis's. According to my source Louisville is closer to Nashville in Tempature than KC.
City Average monthly temperature (°F)1 Precipitation Snowfall2 Number
of years
observed4 Jan. April July Oct. Average annual Average
annual
(in.)3 (in.)1 (days)3
Kansas City, Mo. 26.9 54.4 78.5 56.8 37.98 104 19.9 31 / 69
Cleveland, Ohio 25.7 47.6 71.9 52.2 38.71 155 57.6 62
St. Louis, Mo. 29.6 56.6 80.2 58.3 38.75 111 19.6 46 / 67
Indianapolis, Ind. 26.5 52.0 75.4 54.6 40.95 126 23.9 64 / 72
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762183.html
LOL Louisville is the warmest of every "Lower Midwestern city". I beleive you had an objection to me comparing Louisville to every Ohio city (note Cleaveland) yet you compared Louisville to Memphis, It can't work both ways. "has a more Midwestern climate (not many cities in the South get 16 inches of snow on average per year! Atlanta gets about two, Nashville about nine, Memphis about 5, Birmingham only 1, Richmond around 13 - Louisville's 16 inches of snowfall is closer to cities such as: Cincinnati gets around 14, LESS THAN Louisville (!!!), St. Louis gets around 19, Kansas City about 20, and Indianapolis around 22" here's a quote by you over the climate" Here's one of your earlier quotes I see that you use "Lower Midwestern cities" compared to Deep Southern cities when comparing and contrasting Louisville's climate. You also claim that Louisville's climate is more Midwestern than Southern. Again if you're going to compare Louisville to the Deep South than there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to compare Louisville's climate to the Upper Midwest. It's only logical. Again I see that Louisville's climate though very not much different from the Midwest (and that's onlt in terms of Lower Midwestern cities) is more Southern.
AGAIN On the whole Louisville has tons of companies claiming it as the Midwest, let's not forget that this greater area is refered to as Kentuckiana (inclusion of Southern Indiana counties), with Indiana being a Midwestern state it wouldn't seem all that bizarre for the Kentuckiana area to be referred to as the Midwest. Then again there are hundreds upon hundreds of companies that have the word Southeast attached to their signs. Just look at the Direct Car innsurance commericals, in like 2003 -04 they would start the commercial off with a glittering map of the Southeast with stars representing the Direct offices across the Southeastern states (Texas and Oklahoma were not included). They showed the same commerical ion Georgia (where I live for 4 years). Kentuckiana was ment to boost all of greater Louisville and not just the side below the Mason Dixon Line, so if that would mean a company based in Southern Indiana identiying the entire Kentuckiana region as the Midwest on their commericals than I mean whatever helps boost Louisville economic growth. I mean I'm aware that there is a noticable percentage of Louisvillians who consider themselves Midwestern, which is why this city is not 100% Southern.
Yes Louisville, as Well as the rest of the South and West are attracting Midwesterners
NASHVILLE
Place of birth for U.S.-born residents:
This state: 314894
Northeast: 23591
Midwest: 53467
South: 93214
West
MEMPHIS
Place of birth for U.S.-born residents:
This state: 418239
Northeast: 11697
Midwest: 38383
South: 139646
West: 12462
RICHMOND
Place of birth for U.S.-born residents:
This state: 132899
Northeast: 18511
Midwest: 6446
South: 26988
West: 3427
I mean what are you trying to prove by this? If you're trying to prove if this is an identity crisis thing then, LOL you haven't
LOL Just for kicks
BIRMINGHAM
Place of birth for U.S.-born residents:
This state: 200980
Northeast: 5129
Midwest: 8017
South: 19793
West: 2923
As far as St. Louis goes just by listening to some of those tracks you'll see the black St.Louisians have a Southern twang in their accent. Here's a nice little article on Wiki I found on Southern Belles.
A southern belle, was an archetype for a young woman of the American South's antebellum upper class. She epitomized southern hospitality, cultivation of beauty and a flirtatious yet chaste demeanor. The stereotype continues to have a powerful aspirational draw for many people, and books like "The Southern Belle Primer" and "The Southern Belle Handbook" are plentiful. Other current terms in popular culture related to "Southern belles" include "Ya Ya Sisters," "GRITS (Girls Raised In The South)," and "Sweet Potato Queens."
To detractors, the southern belle stereotype is a symbol of repressed, "corsetted" young women nostalgic for a bygone era
The movie Steel Magnolias showcases a variety of southern belles from differing social classes. Daisy in The Great Gatsby also epitomises the characteristics of being a southern belle, having been raised in Louisville, Kentucky.
The whole St.Louis and Louisville thing, St.Louis has for most of it's history has been larger than Louisville. During the 1860's census Louisville had a population of 68,000(ranked no.12) compared to St .Louis's 160,773 (ranked no.8).
http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0027/tab09.txt
Despite that, Louisville had larger numerical black population. By no means were they on par when it came to this demographic. Actually Louisville like New Orleans and Baltimore were known for there large Urban slave populations. Hence Kentucky had on of the largest slaveOWNING population meaning not to many plantations (there is one plantation out in Oxmoor). I can only think of two plantations in Jefferson county (can't remember the other one) there's no way 10,000 slaves were produced through that. Louisville was an urbanslaveowning Southern city. St.Louis relied on slaves on a much lesser degree than TRUE Southern cities such Louisville, New Orleans, and Baltimore.
On Louisville's Dialect again dude Louisville is clearly in the Southern range in those terms, you can mix and match as you see fit, But at the end of the day Louisville is considered Southern by Linguistic experts here are the maps again.
These all group Louisville in with the South, It's clearly below the Line, no matter how read it.
On the Black population yes Kentucky is no where near as black as the Deep South.
The Black population is still highly
concentrated — 64 percent of all
counties (3,141 counties) in the
United States had fewer than 6 percent
Black, but in 96 counties,
Blacks comprised 50 percent or
more of the total county population
(see Figure 3). Ninety-five of those
counties were located in the South
and were distributed across the
Coastal and Lowland South in a
loose arc. With the notable exceptions
of Baltimore city (a county
equivalent) and Prince George’s
County, in Maryland, generally
these counties were nonmetropolitan.
St. Louis City, Missouri in the
Midwest was the only county equivalent
outside the South where
Blacks exceeded 50 percent of the
total population.
Concentrations of Blacks in the
Midwest and West tended to be
either in counties located within
metropolitan areas or in counties
containing universities or military
bases or both. Metropolitan
The South region includes the states of
Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia,
and the District of Columbia. The Midwest
region includes the states of Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,
and Wisconsin. The Northeast region includes
the states of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Vermont. The West region includes the states of
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
What I'm trying to prove is that the Midwest lacks a "rural" african American population. Kentucky east of I-75 does not to their degree. Neither does the little Dixie area of Missouri. These rural areas are historically black in part to slavery. This my friend is unheard of in the Plains, the Upper Midwest, or in the rural areas of the Great Lake states. As the text says you will only find blacks in signifigant numbers in Midwestern (only the Great lakes and Missouri) states, in the major cities or their metro areas.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/New_2000_black_percent.gif
Look at this map can you honestly say that you see no difference in the distribution of Kentucky's and Indiana's blacks, or the entire Great lakes region for that matter. I know that Kentucky is no where near as black other Southern states, But it's presence of rural African Americans are truely a Southern trait, that stems back to it being a slave state. The same can almost be said about Missouri. The only thing is St.Louis was a magnet for unemployed Southern blacks during the Great Migration, before this time St.Louis unlike Louisville lacked the black population that charcterized Southern cities.
Look at this map and look at Kentucky notice that in 1920 Louisville has a large black pouplation unlike St.Louis due in part to slavery. You will also notice that Kentucky not really having the "huge" black pouplation that characterizes the rest of the South, was hit the hardest (in terms of black population loss) during the Migration.
As for Appalacian blackness I was moreso refering to West Virginia.
Construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad in the late 1860s and early 1870s brought many African-American laborers into southern West Virginia. An estimated 1,000 blacks helped dig the C&O tunnel at Talcott in present-day Summers County. One of these laborers was supposedly John Henry, remembered in folk tradition. New steam-powered machines were considered by many to be more efficient than human labor. Legend has it John Henry defeated one of these machines in a digging competition at the Big Bend Tunnel at Talcott.
The C&O railroad accelerated the development of southern West Virginia's coal industry in the 1870s, creating more jobs and attracting more blacks to the state. The Norfolk and Western Railroad did the same for the southwestern part of the state. McDowell County experienced an influx of migrant laborers, increasing its black population from 0.1 percent in 1880 to 30.7 percent in 1910. During the same time, the black population of the entire state increased from 17,000 in 1870, to 64,100 in 1910, and reached a high of nearly 115,000 in 1930.
The Progressive Movement
By 1900, voters had elected a state government controlled by Progressive Republicans, who sought to reform the way government took care of its people. They established a number of public institutions to serve the growing black population. During the first three decades of the twentieth century, the legislature created an orphanage, a home for the aged and infirmed, a tuberculosis sanitarium, industrial homes for boys and girls, a deaf and blind school, and an insane asylum, all for African Americans. Previously, blacks had been forced to travel to other states to receive these services despite the fact the same services were available in West Virginia for whites.
The source of employment for many African Americans, the coal industry, suffered severe economic problems following World War I. It received another blow during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Many blacks lost their jobs and left the state. Additional jobs were lost as the coal industry replaced miners with machines at an increasing rate. Between 1930 and 1980, the number of black coal miners fell from over 20,000 to less than 1,500.
http://www.wvculture.org/history/blachist.html
I guess it was misleading of me to not say that Eastern Kentucky did gain a black population as large as West Virgnia did. Though alot of there black's did come from Kentucky and Virginia.
Well I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, I just cannot see Louisville grouped in with the Midwest over the South, let alone Kentucky. Apparently I'm not the only one who diagrees in fact it seems like I'm with the majority here,LOL just look the Midwest talk article if you just look at the discussions there's post on top of post of sickened Midwesterners as soon as they came out with cultrual variations from region to region (with the Pink and Red map) there was an immediate outcry to get Kentucky and West Virgnia off of that page, Because we're Southern PLAIN AND SIMPLE. I have yet to see such sentiment to keep Kentucky off of the Southern map, and we're chating with DEEP Southerners, and they aren't insulted at the fact the Kentucky's included with Dixie. I mean they're on the verge of making a map include it in, Man that really shows how much they hate LOL. 74.128.200.13519:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, we'll agree to disagree, because we've both presented pages upon pages of evidence and you haven't changed my view on the classification of the city at all (and I"m sure I haven't moved yours). But for the record, Memphis, Nashville, and Richmond - the three cities that I always compared Lousiville to in terms of climate - are not cities of the Deep South. Also, I did not object to your comparisons of Louisville to cities in Ohio - if you'll read what I posted, you'll see that I compared Louisville to Cincinnati at least two dozen times! You completely ignored my argument that Louisville receives more snow than Cincinnati; indeed it is the warmest city of the Lower Midwest, or alternatively, the coldest of the Upland South. I'm through with the Louisville debate, because I've made my points there. But I feel like, for whatever reason, you're still trying to insist on grouping the most extreme border cities of a region in with the deepest cities of a region - i.e., grouping St. Louis/Cincinnati with Minneapolis, and Louisville with New Orleans. Ever heard Cincitucky jokes? And now I also feel like you're trying to label St. Louis as a Southern city! Can you provide one, just one, verifiable source that St. Louis is ever considered a city of the Upland South, and not one of the Lower Midwest? Saying that "well, some rappers from the city have a Southern twang" just doesn't cut it. Every linguistic map that I've ever seen puts St. Louis firmly in with Midwestern cities. Diane Sawyer, now one of the world's most celebrated TV journalists, was born in Kentucky and grew up in Louisville and has no vestiges at all of a Southern accent at all, but I haven't used this as an argument to group Louisville linguistically. Kentucky was never, is not, and will never be a state of the Deep South like Alabama or Georgia; Louisville was never, is not, and will never be a city of the Deep South like Birmingham or New Orleans. It is just much, more logical to compare Louisville to Southern cities like Nashville, Memphis, and Richmond, NOT cities like Birmingham, New Orleans, and Houston. Comparing Kentucky to Texas is downright silly in any event, as some people consider Houston a city of the Southwest and Dallas one of the Great Plains. No, not even historically do comparisons of cotton and sugar plantation states like Louisiana make sense when being compared to Kentucky, not even in terms of slave populations. Likewise, it is just much more logical to compare the city to Lower Midwest cities like St. Louis and Cinci, NOT Upper Midwest cities like Milwaukee and Minneapolis. I feel like you're personally insulted and angered because this distinction exists! As I said in my last post, I accept all of your arguments comparing Louisville to cities of the Upland South - cities like Nashville - as valid and excellent points, but you're not going to convince anybody - with facts or otherwise - that Louisville is a a northern replica of Birmingham, Jacksonville, Mobile, New Orleans, Little Rock, etc. To quote the editor from Arkansas once again (from the Deep South discussion page):
"Any state that borders Louisiana is not a border state. It's an insult to cast Arkansas in the same category of being as Southern as Kentucky." (emphasis mine)
I challenge you also to find a verifiable source that lists Kentucky as a state of the Deep South (or for that matter, to find a picture of a cotton plantation in the state!!!) Nobody on the Deep South discussion page ever suggested the inclusion of KY as a Deep South state, and its inclusion would be met with fierce resistance if suggested. This is just a discussion of plain historical facts, and it's somewhat silly. And yes, many people from states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama - especially those whose families fought for the Confederacy - do consider it an insult to have their "Southerness" equated to that of a border state like Kentucky. And after all, the inclusion of any of those states (AL,AR, GA, MS, LA) would never be debated on a map like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_United_States - on which KY is included as striped. Nobody has really objected to that map.
I frequent both UrbanPlanet and Skyscraperforum, and their sites go by the Census bureau. This is an encyclopedia, so it is appropriate to include a definition of culture in addition to geographic boundaries. Many sites like that will group MD and DE in with the South because the Census bureau considers them Southern (below the Mason-Dixon line).
And in citing the migration numbers, I did prove that the Midwestern element, in that regard, is marginally larger than the Southern one. That's a quantitative fact. You helped prove my cite by including several Southren cities in which the Midwestern element is not the largest in terms of migration.
--216.227.87.2323:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that Memphis, Richmond , and Nashville aren't cities of the Deep South, if you'd be so kind as to show me where I've wrote this I'd gladly apprecitate it. I'm confused I thought you have an argument about the Great Lake affect when I tried to compare Louisville's climate to Cleaveland's.
Cincinnati is located within a climatic transition zone; the area is at the extreme northern limit of the humid subtropical climate. from wiki.
Also according to the Wiki source Louisville's average tempature is 56 F compared to Cincinnati's 54F. So Louisville is still the warmest of all the Lower Midwestern cities you've mentioned.
AGAIN, you've grouped Louisville's climate in with the Deep Southern cities to show it's similarities to Lower Midwestern climate. While Louisville is a Southern city I know it's not Deep Southern, notice I say the more specifically Mid -Southern. However do you not understand what I was doing when I would make that comparison? If you're going to say well Louisville is more Midwestern then that would offically include the states of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Michigan that includes every city within this region, rather they are closer to to Louisville (in proximity) or farther. Compared to the cities in TN, GA, LA, TX, OK, AR, AL, NC, SC, VA, MD, WV, DE, AND FL. That is what that argument is about, you can't exclude an enitre section of region because it's culture is not in compliance with your argument. There is the Upper Midwest (which is included in the general term Midwest) and the Deep South, both sub regions of deep contrast with each other. My argument goes on to take to Deep Southern cities around Louisville's size New Orleans and or Birmingham and Compare them to Upper Midwestern cities Louisville's Minneanapolis and or Milwalkee. Take in account every them from Dialect, Architecture, History, to present day Culture, and obviously Louisville has much more in common with the Deep Southern cities than Upper Midwestern cities. This would easily make Louisville more Southern than Midwestern. Though there are certainly some exceptions to Louisville's Southerness, it's easily concluded that's it's more Southern.
As far as St.Louis and Cincinnati go your quick to say that these cultures over lap due to it's proximity to the Midwest (despite most saying that Southern Indiana is actually the culturally trasition zone), you neglect that reasoning in compliance with Cincinnati's Southern culture.
It has been aptly remarked that Cincinnati is the "northernmost southern city and the southernmost northern city."
Cincinnati's extensive ties to the South provoked a mixed reaction to the American Civil War (1861-1865). The city was a center of activity by the Copperheads, a name applied to people who for a variety of reasons opposed fighting the war. At the same time, the city was a major point on the Underground Railroad, the informal system to move slaves from the South to freedom in the North.
http://www.thecityofcincinnati.com/
As far as St.Louis goes I'm not saying that the city is Southern, I'am however saying that it has a Southern element, Why I was watching world's funniest mom on Nick @nite and the mom from St.Louis had a very strong Southern drawal. However I know St.Louis is frimly rooted in the Midwest, and to my knowlege has never been addressed by a Southern as a Southern city. Unlike yourself I won't argue with the Linguistic maps that I've presented because all of them group St.Louis firmly in the Midwest, while Louisville is tucked away below the Southern line.
About Diane Sawyer you're talking about news media here, during my stay in Atlanta of all the local news stations I only heard one crew member speak with a Southern drawal. Not to mention that Oprah Winfrey is from....you guessed it rural Mississippi and lived in Nashville with her father. The Southern accent is not really preferred for the news media. However there is that weather lady on news channel 32 (local) who speaks with a Southern drawal, anyway Southern accent in is the minority (in terms of media) anywhere in the Country.
Again I'am aware that Kentucky is not the Deep South, But has more in common Historically and Culturally with that Sub Region than the Upper Midwest. Again I feel that Louisville is a Mid Southern city. I'm not saying that Louisville is the long lost brother of Birmingham, or Little Rock, however it has much more to do with those cities than Des Moines and Madison. How can you actually compare what some guy said about Kentucky's boarder state staus to an entire page of objections to Kentucky's inclusion of in Midwest. I mean it's a war zone zone over there. Post after post of angry Midwesterners defaming Kentucky's "Midwesterness".
As to cotton plantations herer's one of my earlier post.
"As for the slave population percentage or Kentucky yeah it was relatively low compared to Deep Southern states, But as I stated Kentucky is the "UPPER SOUTH" (you know where Tobacco was grown where they did not rely on plantations as the Deep South) If you look at Arkansas, Tennessee (Central and Western), and even Texas, Kentucky (on par with Tennesee's) has a higher percentage than those states. However can you anwser me this, What Northern state or terriotry even came remotely to having a black population of that size at that time. Little Dixie Yes a region of Missouri that had an above normal (for that state) slave percentage. Yes this rural region in Missouri had the same percentage of slaves as Kentucky's premiere Urbancenter Louisville, But could not compare to the Bluegrass region, nor even Oldham or Shelby counties of Kentucky. Not to mention that Kentucky ranked after Georgia and Virgnia in the largest slave owning population. Again dude Kentucky is the Upper/Mid/Upland South Tobacco was king there were no less than ten slaves to every slave owner(unlike the plantation/Deep South). So tell me this what does this have to do with Minnesota or Wisconsin."
Will you get it through your head that I'm not saying that Kentucky is Deep Southern, It's the MID SOUTH. I would like you to find me a tobacco "farm" (not plantation) in Indiana where slaves were forced to work, good luck LOL. I would also love to see you find a picture of "Lower Midwestern" whose Architecture matches that of Old Louisville (which is nearly identical to that found in New Orleans). I mean LOL there are magnolias blooming all over Louisville. To end this my stance on Louisville is that it's a Upper/Mid Southern city, Kentucky is a Upper/Mid Southern state. May I also note that Skyscrapercity considers MD and De as the Northeast/Midatlantic. I'm not at all insulted Historically Louisville and Kentucky is a Southern city, and Kentucky is a Southern state. I ackwonwledge the distinctions between Louisville and the Lower Midwest, But Historically and Culturally Louisville is just a Mid Southern city.
74.128.200.13500:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Uhmmm...just to clarify my statements (some of which you've misread or misunderstood), I was the first person to say that Louisville is the "warmest of the Lower Midwest cities, yet coldest of those in the Upper South." You have insisted upon comparing Louisville's climate to near-Canadian cities such as Minneapolis to say that it is not "Midwestern", as if the climate of those cities were typical across the ENTIRE Midwest; if I were to compare the climate of Louisville (57 degrees annually) to the climate of, say, Brownsville, TX (average annual temp of 74, meaning Louisville is 17 degrees cooler on average), Louisville would be closer to Minneapolis (45, meaning Louisville is only 12 degrees warmer) or Milwaukee (47, meaning that Louisville is only 10 degrees warmer) or Chicago (49, meaning Louisville is only 8 degrees warmer) or Cleveland (51, meaning Louisville is only 6 degrees warmer), and certainly to all of the cities of the lower Midwest - Cinci, St. Louis. etc. Clearly, this is an absurd comparison on my part, and it is equally absurd as your comparisons. Again, this is why I compared Louisville to Nasvhille, Memphis, Richmond, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, the cities in the Upland South and Lower Midwest that it is closest to - not extreme locations like Fargo, Miami, Minneapolis, or El Paso. As I said, I showed that it was in the middle, and that nothing in its climate is out of line with the climate of the Lower Midwest (i.e., receiving more snow annually than Cinci.) For all of this, my source is always http://www.weatherbase.com . If our weather sources disagree about the specific details, then *shrugs*, it happens. But whether you acknowledge it or not, lake effect snow is real and it has nothing to do with a city's climate zone - even Salt Lake City, in an entirely different climate region of the country, experiences it. Again, this is why Chicago experiences much more snow annually than New York, Philadelphia, and the cities of Connecticut, roughly at the same latitude zone. A city that receives 16.4 inches of snow simply isn't in line with cities like New Orleans, Houston, Brownsville, Jacksonville, etc. that receive no snow each year, and scarcely ever ice. Also, I've never, from the beginning of the debate, tried to argue that there were significant black populations outside of slave states before the end of the Civil War - I was always in agreement with you from the beginning that Kentucky is a predominantly Southern state, and our opinions only diverged regarding Louisville and, to a lesser extent, Nothern Kentucky - the regions that I believe give the state the most considerable Midwestern influence of any of the border states besides Missouri. Kentucky certainly is NOT getting the majority of its Midwestern influence from Paducah, Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Lexington. The media and people in other regions don't like Southern accents? Probably, but this hasn't stopped people such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Bush, etc. Again, I don't think that your argument with St. Louis rap artists having a Southern drawl is valid at all; I provided Diane Sawyer merely as an example to say that individual people don't show us where the linguistic divisions fall. If she was born and raised in Kentucky and has no vestiges of a Southern accent at all - when other equally and more prominent people raised in states further south do - that's just as "valid" as your rap artist example. Even highly educated, extremely intelligent people have great difficulty trying to "erase" an accent completely if they developed it as they grew up. But then again, that example on pages 8-9 of the LAVIS study that you cited grouped Bowling Green in with the cities of the Midwest, not the South, just proof yet again that the accent is in transition and that Louisville is a border city in this, and many other regards.
Again, there was no sizable debate for an entire year regarding KY and WV's inclusion on the Midwest page, until one editor removed the map (without any discussion), I replaced it, and here we are now, with others joining in. I am not the "only one" who suggested that KY and WV be striped and provided evidence - if this were such a ludicrous assumption, how could they have ended up on the map in the first place, as the result of a consensus???? I would suggest that you (and they as well) read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._regions And if you want to see a real argument, just try suggesting on the Deep South talk page that Louisvillians are just as Southern as residents of Birmingham, New Orleans, and Little Rock, or mention potentially including Kentucky as an "honorary" member of the Deep South - that's a discussion that I would love to watch, as the fireworks fly!
One of Louisville's many nicknames is "America's southernmost northern city and its northernmost southern city." This is included on Louisville's English Wikipedia page, and at verifiable outside sources such as http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=louisville-ky-usa . And I've said before, just by logic the "Gateway to the South" cannot escape becoming the "Gateway to the North." Of course, a term like "southernmost northern city and northernmost southern city" is quite catchy and is going to be claimed by other cities as well - I think that Cinci and Charleston, WV are probably the other two well known examples.
--216.227.87.23101:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said I found that obsordity in one of your post in which you compared Louisville's climate to Lower Midwestern (St.Louis and Cincinnati) to Birmingham, which is in a state that touches the gulf of Mexico, which one would automatically assume it to be warmer. So to counter that argument I compared and contrasted Louisville's annual temps between The Heart of Dixie and Minneanapolis. That's argument you made was indeed absord. You started comparing weather with opposite ends of the regions NOT ME, and I quoted you in my previous post. I'm well aware that Louisville's tempature similar to the Lower Midwest, However I sited the Wiki Page on Cincinnati.
Cincinnati is located within a climatic transition zone; the area is at the extreme northern limit of the humid subtropical climate. The local climate is basically a blend of the subtropics to the south and the humid continental climate to the north. Evidence of both climatic influences can be found in Cincinnati's landscape material and fauna (see: Southern magnolia, Sweetgum, Bald cypress, and the common wall lizard). The USDA Climate Zone map assigns Cincinnati with a 6a/6b hardiness zone rating (zone 1 being the coldest and zone 11 being the warmest). More mild "microclimates" of a 7a/b rating may be found, particularly along the Ohio River basin. Cincinnati, which is in the Bluegrass region of the Interior Low Plateau of Ohio, generally receives less snow and has a longer growing season than much of the rest of Ohio.
The summers in Cincinnati are generally hot and humid with cool evenings. The mean annual temperature is 54 °F (12 °C), with an average annual snowfall of 16 inches (58.4 cm) and an average annual rainfall of 41 inches (1,040 mm). The wettest seasons are the spring and summer, although rainfall is fairly constant all year round. During the winter, particularly in January and February, several days of snow can be expected, allowing for winter sports, although snowfall is lighter than in most of Ohio. January temperatures range from 22 to 39 °F (-6 to 4 °C) and July temperatures range from 66 to 87 °F (19 to 30 °C).[5] The highest recorded temperature was 103.0 °F (39.4 °C) on August 17, 1988, and the lowest recorded temperature was -25°F (-32 °C) on January 18, 1978
Louisville
Louisville is located on the northern limit of the humid subtropical climate. Summers are hot and humid with mildly warm evenings. The mean annual temperature is 56 °F (13 °C), with an average annual snowfall of 16.4 inches (41 cm) and an average annual rainfall of 44.53 inches (1131 mm). The wettest seasons are the spring and summer, although rainfall is fairly constant all year round. During the winter, particularly in January and February, several days of snow can be expected, allowing for winter sports. Winter temperatures range from 27 to 43 °F (−3 to 6 °C) and summer temperatures range from 66 and 86 °F (19 and 30 °C).[8] The highest recorded temperature was 105 °F (41 °C) on July 14, 1954, and the lowest recorded temperature was −22 °F (−30 °C) on January 19, 1994.[9] However, in any season, temperatures can vary widely day by day, because of Louisville's location where many fronts often converge.
This basically means that the Southern climate doesn't stop at the Ohio river, sort of like Southern culture.
Well Louisville average 16. inches compared to Milwalkee's 47 in, Minnenapolis's 49 in, Indianapolis's 23 in, St.Louis's 19.6, Columus, 28 in /Nashville's 10, Richmond's 13.8 in, Knoxville's, 11.5, Norfolk's 7.8
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762183.html
Well according to you Richmond (former captial of the Confederacy), Nashville, Knoxville, Memphis, and Norfolk can't be Southern because of their snowfall averages. LOL these stats obviously show that a city's snollfall should not have too much weight interms of a city's Southerness.
I ackwoledged that we agreed on Kentucky's prodominantly Southern culture. Okay presidents, the media is not trying to have a veiwer change the channel because they feel offended, by someones Southern accent. Presidents on the other hand offend people the minute they step into the Oval. The Midwestern/Midland accent is the most preferred accent in the Media, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
With the tracks I provided, I wanted to show you that St.Louis obviously does have a strong Southern element in it's culture. If you look at Nelly's first single Country Grammer, one track is has a chorus, based on the Jefferson's theme song, while using Southern Food as the lyrics. In Louisville's Southern dialect you brought up Dianne Sawyers Media personality, OKAY Oprah Winfrey a black from Rural Mississippi, who now host the Daytime T.V.'s most watched show. Then there's the Black lady from good morning America who's from Mississippi, you would have never guessed, MEDIA PERSONALITY . Muhammad Ali (Louisville born and raised) had a Southern accent and was a decendent of a Kentucky slave. He was once regaured by a boxer whom he referred to as a washer women (though he pronouced it warsher women) as a Southern gentlemen.
LOL that Midwestern forum is a war zone here a few post
the inclusion of West Virginia and Kentucky as peripherally Midwestern in cultural character seems like stretching the definitions a bit, even if there may be a great deal of commuting and other economic ties across the Ohio River. //Big Adamsky 17:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Kentucky I would have to agree with. It may be on the edge of the South, but historically and culturally it most certainly *is* part of the South. Northern Kentucky on the Ohio River near Cincinnati is quite Midwestern, but the other 95% of the state is very clearly Southern. So in that case I would have to agree that Kentucky should not be included in this defintion West Virgina on the other hand is a more difficult issue. Culturally it's a mix of Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern -- particularly in terms of it's industrial culture that has many similitaries to neighboring Pennsylvania (which is unquestionably Northeastern). Unlike Kentucky, however, West Virgina is historically not part of the South. On the other hand it doesn't fit very well under the definition of Midwestern nor Northeastern either. The point being, West Virginia is literally the location where the three major regions east of the Mississippi come together and this makes it very different to identify it with one region or another. As a result I would consider it a border state -- particularly between the Midwest and the South. { stereoisomer 4:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) }
All these people are claiming parts of Kentucky and West Virginia as "Midwest". Personally, I don't see it... not at all. I think the confusion comes in thinking of Ohio as culturally homogenous, which it isn't. One need only compare the areas around Ohio University, Youngstown State University, and Bowling Green State University to learn the differences in culture within the state of Ohio. The three campuses compare more favorably to the University of Tennessee (at Knoxville), the University at Buffalo, and Iowa State University (respectively) than to one another. Accordingly, the parts of Ohio bordering Kentucky and West Virginia are much more Appalachian in nature (or "Southern", although this is itself a misnomer when applied to the region) than Midwestern. -- SwissCelt 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy I'm not the only who thought it strange to include West Virginia and Kentucky in the Midwest. I lived in Ketucky for 2 years, and even the extreme north, which most locals seem to consider to be more Midwestern than southern in culture, still seemed "southern" to me, someone born and raised in Chicagoland. Its all relative to a point, but too much of a stretch to say that Kentucky and West Virginia are midwestern. Kemet 23 February 2006
All the data here regarding Cincinnati is highly questionable. Cincinnati has virtually nothing in common with Southern culture or identity and is indeed definitive of a Midwestern city. Cincinnati most closely identifies with Chicago due to it's history of similar businesses, industries and culture. If any city in the region is a hybrid of Midwestern and Southern, then it is indeed Louisville. Cincinnati and Louisville are often compared because of a) their proximity, b) they're Ohio River cities, and c) they're approximately the same size. But that's where the simalarities end. Everything south of the Ohio River is distinctly different than what lies to the north. Even driving 15-30 minutes south of Cincinnati into Northern Kentucky will yield a cultural experience significantly different (e.g. attitudes, accents, entertainment) than that of downtown or suburban Cincinnati. Furthermore, the term 'Cincinatucky' is flat out bogus. My family has lived in Ohio (specifically Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland) for over 150 years, I've lived her almost all my life and I, nor anyone else I know, has ever used the word "Cincinatucky" or seen it in print anywhere in Ohio or the surrounding region. -- Stereoisomer 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually in Cleveland, we generally consider Cincinnati to be part of Kentucky. Unlike the focus of much of this dialogue (Midwest vs. South), Cleveland is a mix of Midwest and Northeastern (generally divided by the Cuyahoga River) due to the original immigrants settling the two cities of Cleveland (primarily settled by New Englanders) and Ohio City (primarily settled by Appalachians). I view Cleveland as one-half Hartford (on the East Side) and one-half Cincinnati (on the West Side). That said, I agree that no one, in their right mind, views WV and Kentucky as "Midwestern". It seems to me that "Midwest" is comprised of the Great Lakes States (primarily the Old Northwest Territory) and some portion of the eastern Plains States (I believe Missouri and Iowa are Midwestern, but it probably doesn't go farther west than Mississippi and Missouri River states). In sum, all of the fringe areas of any region will share some influence from and characteristics of their neighbors. That should suggest neither exclusion of the fringes nor inclusion of the neighbors. Mayor Pez 04:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
LoL Louisville is not a Deep Southern city AGAIN WHERE DID I SAY THAT, yes I made a few comparison's that Louisville has with the Deep South, It wouldn't even be an argument for Southerness if Louisville had nothing in common with Deep Southern cities. Louisville is again one with the South, particularly the Mid South. I again dude there is even objection to the map that stripes Kentucky in with the Midwestern region, let alone the Upper Midwest . LOL I guarantee one thing though I'll have a hell of an easier argument in the Deep South article than the Upper Midwest. As for the Gateway to the South, LOL WHAT ANGLE ARE YOU LOOK AT. Louisville is in Kentucky, and Kentucky is apart of the South. That's why when you are entering Louisville from the North the sign hung over the 2 street bridge brightingly stating WELCOME TO LOUISVILLE GATEWAY CITY TO THE SOUTH. There was no Welcome to Louisville gate way to the North, if you were going to opposite way. I've heard this before though. 74.128.200.13502:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"DUDE ARE YOU BLIND, LOUISVILLE IS GROUPED IN WITH THE SOUTH IN ALL OF THESE MAPS"
Why do you seem angry over this? As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. You, I, and other feel strongly on the issue, as discussions on the regional pages reflect. I'm (guessing) that you're a native born and raised Louisvillian, and my family traces its ancestry through the city back to the 18th Century, and I spent a large part of my youth in the city and across Kentucky. I never once called you ignorant in regards to this city or region (you're clearly not, as your arguments proved) and I would highly appreciate you not calling me "blind" regarding a region that I have spent 20+ years in and studied extensively. There will always be many people who regard the city (like me) as one of the Lower Midwest, just as there will always be people (like you) who regard it as one of the Upland South. You have made valid and excellent points regarding your stance, and I have made valid and excellent points regarding mine. I never said that you said that "Louisville is a city of the Deep South", but you did make several extensive comparisons between it and Deep South cities in an attempt to discredit consideration of Louisville in the same region as cities like Milwaukee and Minneapolis; that discussion actually started when you said that "if there were a tug of war with Birmingham on one end and Minneapolis on the other..." By the same token, I could have compared Louisville to Brownsville, TX in an attempt to say that it is "not Southern at all in comparison to that city", but I always avoided awkward comparisons such as that to both the Upper Midwest, and Deep South, except when addressing your arguments. Snowfall certainly isn't a great measure of a city's regional identity, but those arguments extended to areas such as culture, location, Civil War loyalties, migration, economy, etc. Even 100 years from now, Louisville will likely still exist as a border city - truly "America's southernmost northern city and northernmost southern city."
--216.227.20.13403:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I insulted you, Yes I' am a Native born Louisvillian (I have also lived in Georgia) and I feel that if Louisville had no similarities between itself and the Deep South than there would be no point in even arguing for it's Southerness, to say that a city belongs to a certain region I feel you must compare it to the entire region despite the differences. I simply feel that it's much more valid to call Louisville a Southern city than a Midwestern one of any sort (lower, Upper or the greater region). BTW Brownsville is on the boarder of Mexico and over 85% of their residence speak Spanish, doesn't exactly scream Southerness, however I can end it with that. I still feel Louisville is a Mid Southern city as you feel Louisville is "Lower Midwestern, fair enough. 74.128.200.13503:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I am a native Louisvillian and have lived here most of my life. Louisville is definitely much more a Midwestern town than a Southern one. No question. It was a Union stronghold in the Civil War, where Union generals planned major campaigns -- this is absolute fact. Political sympathies changed *after* the war to align more with the South, but that was mostly a late nineteenth century political phenomenon (that's why you see a Confederate monument in Louisville). Culturally, there are indeed a few Southern remnants, such as Kentucky Derby customs and the Farmington plantation, but I defy anyone to find much that is Southern here. Most people here speak like Midwesterners, act like Midwesterners, and therefore are Midwesterners.
However, most of Kentucky, with the exception of Northern Kentucky (near Cincinnati) is indeed Southern-oriented. During the Civil War, even though Kentucky officially was in the Union (although initially declared neutral), there was for a period a "Confederate government" that claimed large portions of the state, mostly in the southern areas. And post-war, Kentucky was governed by Southern-oriented Bourbon Democrats for a very long time, but by the late 20th century, that tradition had worn away.
(Not adding to the debate) Just saying that I added the * back to Louisville on the Southern page, since enough verifiable sources have been provided that include the city in with the North or Midwest, so it's not "in all definitions of the South." The * was actually there for a long time, I'm not sure when or why it was removed.
--216.227.20.13409:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well steve if your opinion is that Louisville is a Midwestern city than that's fine, But that does not make it a Midwestern city. If you'd be so kind as to read the post abvove you'll see where Louisville is Southern in dialect (according to just about every source). If Louisville's sentiments were truely with the North than there would have been an uproar at the site of the Confederate Monument, LOL It probably would have been destroyed in riot if it was in Cincinnati. This is obviously a Southern thing.
Please stop posting novel-length responses. People who are actually from Louisville know that the Confederate Monument has been defaced multiple times, and most people here laugh at it or joke about it. Further, I know Louisville is not Southern in dialect because of actual experience. Most people I run into have an even Midwestern dialect. That's just the way it is. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Further, one of my best friends is a Civil War author, and he fills me in quite well on Louisville and Kentucky's Civil War history. What I've said about it is accurate. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
(Again, not adding to the debate) The consensus here seems to be that Kentucky is a mixed state, and Louisville a mixed city. Louisville had the * for a long time, I'm not sure when it why it was removed. It is clearly not Southern in all sources (or to all people), though there are heavy Southern elements.
--216.227.20.13418:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"In 1860 the young men of this section were Southerners and began drilling in order to join the Southern Army. They did their drilling in a field near Pleasure Ridge Park, on Mr Charles Pages' place. The Miller's, Camp's, Shively's, and most of the young men of the leading familys of that section went to the Confederate Camp at Bowling Green. Mr. Thomas Camp had four sons to go and a nephew....Mr. Camp's exhortation to them was never to run; if any of them came back shot in the back they need not come to him for help or expect to be allowed to stay in the house. They went off gaily to the war saying, "We will have the Yankees whipped and back home by Christmas to eat turkey with you." Some of them never got back.
The Camp family are mentioned again in this exploit:
" During the Civil War many young men wh were inducted by conscription into the Northern army deserted to the South. Some of these men came across the Ohio River near Goshen. In one instance a young boy of fourteen, William Adams, drove a spirited team and springboad wagon from Goshen to Valley Station. His mission was to deliver a grandfathers clock, but in the clocka Southern sympathizer was hiding. The boyt brought him through the back roads to the Camp farm, of whom the young deserter was a relative. He hid in the hills above the farm and the Camps fed him until he could join the Southern army
For the Louisville readers: the hills mentioned are visible today, off the Gene Synder freeway, and is that part of the Jefferson County Forest between Pond Creek and Blevins Gap.
The map upthread shows the route of the Don Carol's Buells Union army marching to Louisville. The history mentions this march up "Salt River Pike", todays Dixie Highway:
"Buell's Army, in his race with Bragg, passed along the pike....they camped one night in that territory between Salt River and Louisville. The next day there were not as many chickens, turkeys, geese, hogs, beehives, rail fences, and cordwood ast there was the day before, and there was some horse trading".
..this bivouac before reaching Louisville was someplace in southwest Jefferson County, off of Dixie Highway.
It should be said this area, though pro-South, was not really plantation country, thought there was some large old houses and big pieces of property, like this one along the river, on 200 acres (but enlarged later to 1,500 acres)...the Moorman House:
"Mr. Moorman was good to his slaves. He did every thing he could to encourage their legal marriage of slaves. Often he would buy or sell a slave so that the slave could be on the same farm with their legal husband or wife. After the war was over and the slaves where freed the head of each colored family recieved $100.00 to start on. Up until the time of his death, Israel Putnam, son of Alanson, heard from children of these old slaves. The letters came addressed to "Old Marse".
There apparently was a rural African-American population in SW Jefferson County into the 20th century. A "Cold. Church" shows on an old 1870s map, at around Pages Lane and 3rd Street Road. The history mentions two others:
One of the early colored churches in our community stands at Blevins Gap Road and Orell Road. It will soon be 100 years old. A school for colored children formerly was in the same area.
On Johnsontown Road and Mill Creek there stood at one time a church and school for colored folk. It was begun by the slaves and their families. At the end of World War I, it was burned with a firey cross supposedly by the Ku Klux Klan. There is now a good 'hog proof' fence around the plot and it is well kept and mowed by the descendants"
Which brings up a question of a "secret history"...what happened to this rural African American population? Where they driven out by racial violence prior to white suburbanization?
As Kentucky was a border state and Jefferson County was right on that border, there where Union sympathizers. One pro-union family left Southwest Jefferson County for Indiana for the duration of the war and returned when the war was over.
And there was a region of German farmers in Southwest County that where Union sympathizers, shown on the map above:
"Mr. Carl Schroerlucke remembers many stories told to him by his mother concerning the Civil War. He said that 50,000 Union soldiers where camped at the Old Folk Home in Shively and around Louisville. Some of the men visited in this German settlement, which was very strong Union. Hannah, Carl's mother, would as
ask the little boy what he could possibly do in a battle, and he answered he was needed to beat the drum.
One of the Union soldiers by the name of Dickeman visited the farm often, and said he intended to return one tday to live in this valley. From Louisville this army went ot the battle of Shiloh, he was never heard from again and the Friauf's assumed he was kidded.
There was a company of 100 men from this Shardine Precinct...
So, just as their neighbors further south joined the CSA army, the German farmers formed a company to join the Union.
The history also makes passing mention to the depredations of the "guerillas". Kentucky (and Missouri) had quite a few irregulars, actually just plain bandits in many cases, called "guerillas". One famous one operated in the area south and southwest, was captured, and hung out on what is now Dixie Highway...
Probably not too interesting stuff, unless one is into local history, but for me it was neat to see how this grand epic of our history..The Civil War...played out in this little corner of Kentucky..
Well Again Steven I'm a born and raised Louisvillian AND I SWEAR TO THAT ONE, I have also however lived in Georgia (4 years). While from my personal experiences I can tell you that the Southern accent is not as profound here as in the Deep South, they are prominant here. PROVE ME WRONG. HELL I can say there's no Southern accents in Richmond (which is a lie), But do I have proof of that claim Hell NO, according to every source I've given on dialect, WHICH ARE THE ONLY ONES I'VE FOUND ON THE NET Louisville as well as Richmond are grouped in with the South more particularly the Mid/Upper South. LoL maybe you should actually try visiting one of those cities, instead of having a Southern perception based off Gone with the Wind. I'm not ignorant to the fact that their is a South Midland accent in Louisville, just as their is a Northeastern in Richmond. Despite those facts Louisville as well as Richmond are grouped in with the Southby all of these linguistic experts. Anywho about the Confederate Monument, I'm pretty sure kids in Nashville or Richmond aren't oh so moved by the spectical either, THEY'RE KIDS. Again if Louisville is truely this Northern/Midwestern city this monument would have been burned to ashes by now. You say my post are to lengthy, well I had just ended the 4 day war with 216.227.20.134|216.227.20.134, until you bursted in labeling your opinion as fact with not a single source. So to prove you wrong I posted sources, that are more credible than yourself, and with my sources labeling Louisville clearly as a SOUTHERN CITY, you got angry and started criticizing me for making valid points LOL. You challenged someone to defy anything you've just said LOL more than 3/4's of the page is defying what you've stated WITH SORUCES. So I think it's on YOU to prove your case for Louisville 's PRODOMINANTLY Midwestern culture. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/Spartanburger/thesouth.jpg74.128.200.13517:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Also --216.227.20.134 09:44, 28 I feel that decisions like that one should wait until, there is a concensus on the new map. I'm not denying your evidence, However with the new Map you'll have to put a star by Houston, Dallas, San Antiono, Austin, Richmond, and Va beach. So I feel those decisions should follow the Concensus. 74.128.200.13516:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, for some reason I accidentally inserted the post above in the middle of 74.128.200.135's comments. There was one crucial point that I wanted to make, however, regarding the rationale behind Louisville getting a * and not cities in VA, TX, or even FL. A large part of the decision behind the creation of the regional map was Civil War loyalties, and Louisville is the only city that you cited (from the map) that was majority Unionist, sent most of its troops to the Union, and is located in the northern region of a border state, Kentucky, that remained in the Union. While arguments could be made for the possible * next to cities in VA and TX in terms of contemporary changes, historically Texas, Virginia, and Florida were CSA states, sent negligible percentages of men to fight for the Union, and only relatively recently in history (that is, recently compared to KY) would one have considered these three states as being "peripheral" in terms of their Southern culture. Richmond, of course, was the seat of government of the CSA. And also, I've monitored this page intermittently for about a year now, and for as far back as I can remember Louisville always had the *. I really have no idea when it disappeared - quite possibly at the beginning of the "debate" on the Midwest page, as a result of a change by one of those editors. *Shrugs* Both historically and in terms of the cultural division today it is both a split city, and merits the *.
--216.227.20.13419:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do believe I found where the star may have been removed; much earlier on the talk page (near the top, under the Baltimore discussion), an editor said:
"On the other hand you have Kentucky a state that had over 80% of it's residence identify as Southerners on the Southern Focus Study (tied with Virginia) yet it is a striped state on the Map and Louisville has a star by it (indicating it may or may not be Southern)."
There was subsequent discussion about some details, but removing the * from Louisville-Jefferson County was never suggested, nor a consensus sought. So, the editor who removed the * did it based on his/her own opinions on the matter, and never provided any evidence/reasoning. I'm far too lazy to comprehensively review the page history to see exactly when that edit was remove. The consensus here seems is that Louisville is a border city and needs to be *'ed. Even on the Midwest talk page, editors agree regarding the split nature of culture in Louisville. After all, it is not as if there was an attempt made to remove Louisville from the table.
--216.227.19.8120:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I have a question if Missori is striped then why aren't KC nor St.Louis included on the map? This map system has flaws. However I do remember one forumer who sugguested removing the star in one of the past disscussions. I would like to see what they will do if that new map is added, I think that would end alot of Conflict on this page. 74.128.200.135 20:44, 28 December
During the early decades of the 1800’s the slave population of Kentucky was increasing much faster than the white population. Whereas slaves had represented about one sixth of the population in 1790, by the year 1840 the white population was only a little larger than three times the number of slaves.
By 1860 Kentucky had an overall population of approximately 1,150,000 of whom about 226,000 were slaves and about 10,000 were free Negroes. The state stood third in total population among the slave states.
Kentucky in 1860 had about 60,000 foreign born, most of whom were Germans who had come in the 1850's and had congregated mainly in Louisville, Newport and Covington. Thus Kentucky had more foreign born then any other Southern state except Missouri with its great German population in St. Louis, which proved so instrumental in keeping that border state in the Union.
In 1860 Kentucky ranked first in the nation in the production of hemp which was the antebellum staple crop of the Bluegrass. Burley tobacco was not introduced there until well after the Civil War. Kentucky also stood very high in the national production of tobacco, being second to the mother state of Virginia. Both hemp and tobacco depended considerably upon slave labor. She ranked second in the production of mules and was a great supplier of this stubborn animal to the Deep South which depended heavily upon the mule in the operation of the plantation system.
The census of 1860 revealed that Kentucky had an unusually large number of slave holders. Of all the Southern states only Virginia and Georgia had more. This is evidence of the fact that the South's "peculiar institution" was broadly accepted as part of the economic and social life of the state. It also indicates that the economy of the state rested on a large grouping of numerous small slaveholders - the so-called middle class gentry of the state. In the Deep South the wealthy planters often had far more slaves, but the number of slaveholders, per state, was far less, thereby revealing the Deep South's greater extremes of wealth and poverty.
In Kentucky no planter owned over 300 slaves, only 7 owned over 100, and only 70 owned more than 50. However, on the other hand, with the exception of Virginia, Kentucky had more slaveholders owning from one to seven slaves than any other slave state.
In 1860 Kentucky ranked ninth in the number of slaves held among the fifteen slave states. She had less then North Carolina or Tennessee, but more then Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Maryland, Florida or Delaware.
Ante-bellum politics in the Bluegrass state reflected the dominance of the slaveholding areas of the Bluegrass region and Western Kentucky. From the time Isaac Shelby took the Oath of Office as Kentucky’s first governor in 1792 until Thomas Bramlette was elected pro-Union governor during the height of the War in 1863, Kentucky had not had a governor from the mountains. From Isaac Shelby through the term of the eleventh governor John Breathitt in 1834, seven of these first eleven governors had been born in Virginia, one Isaac Shelby, who served two non-consecutive terms, was born in Maryland, and another was born in South Carolina. Only one of these early governors was born north of the Mason-Dixon Line, and that was Joseph Desha from Pennsylvania. Desha’s family, however, was to add glory and military valor to Kentucky’s Confederate war record, and descendants of that family were to spread the prominence of their name throughout the lower South.
The early politics of Kentucky were Jeffersonian and she was tied by her frontier and southern agrarian loyalties to the principles espoused by the Sage of Monticello. From the original Jeffersonian mold the wealthier electorate after the War of 1812 drifted into the developing Whig Party led so ably by Henry Clay.
Clay dominated the Kentucky political scene from the War of 1812 until his death as a member of the United States Senate in 1852, when the ominous distant thunder of the Civil War was beginning to be heard over the land. Henry Clay loved the Union passionately, as did the entire upper South. It did not harbor the fire-eating Secessionist of the Deep South, stamp, such as Calhoun, Yancey, or even a Jefferson Davis. The Whig party encompassed the financially and socially affluent in old Kentucky, represented by such prominent families as the Wicklfffes, Clays and Crittendens.
The Democratic Party, an the other hand, largely appealed to the loyalties of the mountain man and poor yeoman farmers of the thinner soils. This Jacksonian segment of the population, while always strong west of the mountains, failed to dominate Kentucky until the demise of the Whig party in the years following Clay's death.
The 1850's found Kentucky in the throes of party realignment. Many of the old Whigs supported the nativist "Know - Nothing" Party which was soon eclipsed. Most of these former Whigs then aligned themselves with the newly organized Constitutional Union Party which was to nominate John Bell of Tennessee in the presidential campaign of 1860. This party wished to preserve the Union and at the same time quite idealistically avoid the impending crisis. It attracted most of the former Whigs in the border states.
Less well known than the Virginia or Mississippi theatres, Tennessee and Kentucky saw some significant fighting, with Tennessee eventually serving as the jumping off point for Sherman’s March to the Sea. Kentucky was one of the Union’s shakiest border states. The state governor was strongly pro-Southern, and public opinion started off strongly in favour of neutrality. Lincoln was determined to keep Kentucky within the Union (he had been born in the state). His approach was to keep Union armies out of the state, and avoid taking any provocative action in the hope that Unionist opinion in the state would grow, or that the Confederates would make a mistake and force the state on to the Union side.
The Confederates blinked first. On 3 September 1861, General Leonidas Polk moved to occupy the key rail terminal at Columbus, Kentucky, a strong point on the Mississippi River. The same local opinion against invasion that could have forced Kentucky into the Confederacy now worked the other way, and the state government declared for the Union. Over the next few months there was an exodus of Confederate sympathisers, many of whom signed up to fight in Confederate armies (this early movement probably explains why later Confederate invasions found so little support in the state), but the vast majority of the state passed into Union control.
A significant feature of Kentucky and Tennessee are their rivers. The Ohio River forms the northern border of Kentucky, before joining the Mississippi at Cairo, the southernmost town in Illinois, and an important Union base. From Cairo, the Mississippi flows south, marking the western border of Tennessee Kentucky. Confederate control of Kentucky would have given them a very strong northern border, and probably denied the Union use of Cairo.
Instead, the Union was able to use the rivers to penetrate deep into Tennessee and the Deep South. The Tennessee River flows through northern Alabama before crossing the heart of Tennessee to join the Ohio, while the Cumberland River runs through northern Tennessee, passing the state capital and important Confederate industrial base at Nashville.
The Confederates blinked first. On 3 September 1861, General Leonidas Polk moved to occupy the key rail terminal at Columbus, Kentucky, a strong point on the Mississippi River. The same local opinion against invasion that could have forced Kentucky into the Confederacy now worked the other way, and the state government declared for the Union. Over the next few months there was an exodus of Confederate sympathisers, many of whom signed up to fight in Confederate armies (this early movement probably explains why later Confederate invasions found so little support in the state), but the vast majority of the state passed into Union control.
Here's some more excerts as far as the Civil War goes and yes Kentucky was considered Southern as well as Louisville despite being on the Northern boarder.
Morgan held little
respect for Bragg and his authority. Morgan was "riding high" on his popularity
and felt there were many Southern sympathizers in Southern Indiana and Ohio,
and he hoped to gain aid from these sympathizers once he entered the Hoosier
state.
I know all of these aources are becoming a headache, however I'm trying to prove that Louisville and Kentucky were indeed Southern before after and during the civil War.
"I say emphatically Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern states."
With quotes like this from it's Governor when asked would he supply Union Troops, do you have to ask how Southern this state was.
3 people are debating this at the time, and 2 are pro-starring Louisville, and you are for keeping it without the star. Since the star was there historically, we should leave it there for the moment. You are in the minority in this matter. TexasReb was pro-striping Kentucky on the map, so it is clear that you are in the minority on this matter. St. Louis and Cincinnati, again, are never considered Southern - they just have Southern elements.
--216.227.19.8121:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually Texreb sugguested the map that would place Kentucky amongst a higher rank of Southern states (Texas and Virginia), he also has stated he has no problem with the inclusion of Kentucky in the Solid states. If this map does get passed then to comply with the map either every "usually Southern" city (Louisville, Richmond, Houston, Dallas, Austin, ECT.) would have stars; or only does cities in MO, MD, OK, and DE (the true boarder states in terms of culture) Oh wait cities in Missouri are somehow exempt from the boarder status despite their state being striped. St. Louis and Cincinnati have Southern elements (though still Midwestern) as Louisville has Midwestern elements (while still Southern). 74.128.200.13522:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's his quote below
"Seems like a while back a general vote was taken and the one now displayed was the one that got most of the support. It is probably evident that NO map is going to please EVERYONE, yet one that shows the "Solid South" (pun intended) as the Old Confederate States is pretty much in line with the way The South is usually defined in the history books and else where. My vote is to keep the map the way it is (although personally I wouldn't object to including Kentucky if enough feel strongly about it, as obviously a few do). >>My main problem with the original suggestion above is that while certainly states such as Texas and Virginia have some independent characteristics, to stripe those two loyal and true states of the Confederacy in the same classification with border states like Missouri, West Virigina, Maryland and particularly Delaware would be not only inacurate historically but with very much at odds as to how residents of the states themselves feel about their "Southerness." >>If a change is insisted on however, my suggestion might be a THREE instead of TWO "toned" map, that is solid red, pink perhaps, and stripped. The 8 states mentioned above being the solid red and described as "almost always included", the "pink" states being Texas, Virginia, Florida and Kentucky as "usually included" and Oklahoma, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland and perhaps Delaware as "sometimes included" (although really, I would leave Delaware out completely). This would make much better sense, I believe. >>Anyway, bottom line, again, my vote is for leaving the map the way it is. That is, the Old Confederacy as the solid states (the only possible change being adding Kentucky if enough agree), all the others being stripped"
"St. Louis was considered a southern city with strong sympathy for the slave owners of the South."
Again, the entire point of starring Louisville was that it has both contemporary and historical reasons and sources that include it as a city of the North, or of the Midwest. You will find no sources that refer to St. Louis in the 20th Century as a city of the South even though, as everyone acknowledges, the city has significant Southern influences. There exists no debate regarding its regional identity for the last 100 years. Historically again, Richmond served as capitol of the Confederacy and Houston, San Antonio, Dallas in Texas were decidedly Confederate. Louisville was a Union stronghold and considered one of the North's most important cities in the war. Louisville was starred on the page until an editor, who did not sign his post and did not discusus the matter, chose to remove it. It's a perfectly consistent treatment of the city, and the majority of people who are discussing it at the moment agree.
--216.227.26.20301:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as the historical signifigance of Louisville's "Northerness", I have yet to see it. Here's another source for St.Louis's 20th century Southerness, about Chuck Berry's upbringing in the city.
It isn't as if St. Louis has always embraced him, either. Quite the contrary. He was born in California in 1926 and came here as a young child. This was very much a southern city back then, especially in its racial attitudes. Berry sang in the Sunday school choir at Antioch Baptist Church, but he was not always a compliant young man. He was rebellious. He got in trouble. He went to prison.
I'am aware that St.Louis is not generally accepted as a Southern city (now), But since you seem to be so up on sticking with the map then we should stick with it. If Missouri is striped then shouldn't that states metro's be included in this list? You're so high up on the map in terms of Kentucky, yet your ears raise up when St.Louis's regional security comes into question, by that same map it's suddenly a problem. Again that's why I feel that this map has flaws.
Actually, since even Baltimore and Washington DC are included in the table of cities with *'s, I personally would have no problem at all with including St. Louis on the table, with a *, if enough editors agreed. That only seems consistent. Baltimore is virtually never included in the South anymore, except by those weird folks over at the Census Bureau who are still using that silly Mason-Dixon divison, placing the Philadelphia suburbs of DE in with the South (!!!!!)) Baltimore and Maryland are just as, if not more, marginally Southern than St. Louis and Missouri. In any event, whether or not St. Louis gets included in the table with a * has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Louisville is a border city, was a Union stronghold, and is simply not in all definitions of the South.
--216.227.26.20302:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I did some research regarding the creation of this table, back to its origin (in early Jan of this year, 2006). For the very first few days that it appeared on the page, it had no * distinction for cities that are often not included in the South, as this edit reflects -
Revision as of 01:15, 26 January 2006 (edit)
VT hawkeye (Talk | contribs)
Later that day, the * distinction was added by this post - Revision as of 02:36, 26 January 2006 (edit) (undo)
CrazyC83 (Talk | contribs)
From that post at the very beginning, Louisville was included with a star. I checked one page in late January, one in February, one in March, one in April, one in May, and one in June - all of them had Louisville with the *. So again, when I added the * back to Louisville's name I was simply reverting to a consensus that has been established for a long time, and was only recently changed when an IP removed the * without the appropriate discussion. Just to clarify.
I've been asked to contribute to this discussion on Louisville and Kentucky re Southern/Midwestern identification. I am a native Chicagoan, and also have lived in Louisville from 1971 to 1984,and return frequently on visits. From a cultural geography perspective the usual northmost line of Southern cultural influences in the lower Midwest is US 40, so it might be more accurate to consider southern Indiana and Illinois more southern than it would to consider Kentucky Midwestern. The Southern Focus study referenced earlier seems to confim the Southern character of Kentucky. About the only part of the state that could be considered Midwestern are the three northern counties across the river from Cincinnati.
Louisville is probably a bit more unusual in that it has aspects that are not traditionally associated with the South. In terms of historical aspects the city was settled by Virginians, and then recieved a large immigration from Germany and Ireland. Unlike other Midwestern cities it did not experience input from the second immigration from southern and eastern Europe to any signifigant degree, and lacks any historical "ethnic neighborhoods" that characterize true Midwestern cities like Dayton or Fort Wayne or South Bend. Louisville has experienced in-migration from the rural areas of central and western Kentucky (the areas directly south and west of the city), which has reinforced its southern character in modern times, which reinforced the southern character of the local working-class.
Louisville was and is industrial, but that is not necessarily a marker of being a Midwestern anomaly in a southern region, as numerous southern cities have an industrial base, such as the textile cities of the Carolina Piedmont. Louisvilles industial development was part of the New South, and marketed to the South, and its leading newspaper editor of the postbellum era, Henry Watterson, was considered an expontent of the New South ideology. During the postbellum era the L&N Railroad, headquarted in Lousiville, was a major carrier into the deep South, terminating at Pensacola and New Orleans, and painted its locomotives "confederate gray".
Another aspect of Louisville that gives it a historical and modern Southern character is the experience of slavery. Louisville did have a slave population, and slaves were used in industry (44 worked for one company), building trades, steamboat trade, and as household servants. During the Jim Crow era Louisville did segrate blacks and whites into seperate school systems, and event tried to enact ordnances restricting blacks to certain neighborghoods (found unconstitutional by the USSC). One did not see this type of legal Jim Crow elsewhere in the Midwest. Some of the residential patterns of black settlement also paralled other urban south centers. In Midwestern cities blacks settled in older inner city neighborhoods, but in Louisville there was a tendancy for blacks to settle on the urban periphery, originally in Smoketown, but later in neighborhoods like Little Africa (later Park Duvalle) and in the Wet Woods (the Newburgh Road area). This pattern is similar to that identified by Harold Rabinowitz in his "Race Relations in the Urban South", where freed slaves formed settlements on the edges of Southern cities (which is quite visible in Lexington, too).
The aspect of religion as a indicator of southern cultural character is also key as Louisville is a center of the Southern Baptist faith, with a large seminary in town. Baptists vie with Catholics as the largest denomination in the city.
In terms of dialect I would say that the southern accent is pretty common in Louisville, though there is a local dialect that is maybe more akin to the midwestern, maybe more like that unique New Orleans dialect, which is not really southern.
And finally the physical character of the city is more southern to me. The common vernacular housing of the older pre-WWII city is not like that in other Midwestern cities, where one sees the use of one or two story houses or cottages (sometimes duplex apartments) with the gable end facing the street. Louisville uses the very Southern shotgun house, as well as other forms that are appear to be unique to Louisville, such as a variation on the foursquare. For post WWII building, there was the continued popularity of neoclassical or colonial revival in developer housing. Even the local version of the ranch house sometimes uses wrought iron on the front porches as a sort of generic reference to "New Orleans/River City".
Finally, in terms of pop culture, there is that popularity of deep fried fish and seafood, and hush puppies, in local fast food chains. Fairly banal but you dont get hush puppies up north.
Ultimatly this is all anecdotal, but from my time in Louisville, compared to Chicago, Louisville is quite southern to me. I really do not see the Midwestern aspect in the city. The place seems to identify more with the South, and feel more southern, than even close-by Midwestern cities like Cincinnati and Indianapolis.
4.224.48.19104:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions for a new map
It seems like many editors are unhappy with the current regional map. On the discussion page for this map, I made the suggestion, by reading and re-reading the discussion here, that a map along these lines be created (by any editor with the ability to edit PNG files):
Solid States 1. Arkansas 2. Louisiana 3. Mississippi 4. Alabama 5. Georgia 6. Tennessee 7. South Carolina 8. North Carolina
Striped States 1. Florida 2. Texas 3. Oklahoma 4. Missouri 5. Kentucky 6. Virginia 7. West Virginia 8. Maryland 9. Delaware
>>Seems like a while back a general vote was taken and the one now displayed was the one that got most of the support. It is probably evident that NO map is going to please EVERYONE, yet one that shows the "Solid South" (pun intended) as the Old Confederate States is pretty much in line with the way The South is usually defined in the history books and else where. My vote is to keep the map the way it is (although personally I wouldn't object to including Kentucky if enough feel strongly about it, as obviously a few do).
>>My main problem with the original suggestion above is that while certainly states such as Texas and Virginia have some independent characteristics, to stripe those two loyal and true states of the Confederacy in the same classification with border states like Missouri, West Virigina, Maryland and particularly Delaware would be not only inacurate historically but with very much at odds as to how residents of the states themselves feel about their "Southerness."
>>If a change is insisted on however, my suggestion might be a THREE instead of TWO "toned" map, that is solid red, pink perhaps, and stripped. The 8 states mentioned above being the solid red and described as "almost always included", the "pink" states being Texas, Virginia, Florida and Kentucky as "usually included" and Oklahoma, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland and perhaps Delaware as "sometimes included" (although really, I would leave Delaware out completely). This would make much better sense, I believe.
>>Anyway, bottom line, again, my vote is for leaving the map the way it is. That is, the Old Confederacy as the solid states (the only possible change being adding Kentucky if enough agree), all the others being stripped.
TexasReb 20:12, 26 December 2006 (UT
I was actually fine with the map as it stands now (though I still don't understand why some states are white...???) It just seemed like some editors were, with good reason, unhappy with the treatment of Texas and Virginia - though yea, historically it certainly is the best fit.
--216.227.22.5522:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
>>Well, thanks, Louisvillian! But it occured to me also, emphasizing first of all (for the umpteenth time, it seems! LOL) that while I prefer the map remain the way it is -- yet possibly including Kentucky -- that perhaps there be TWO maps. The FIRST, being the map of the "Historic South" (or titled something similar). That is, the 11 Confederate States being solid red, the borders ones striped, and the text reading something like:
"The states in red were in the Confederacy and have historically been regarded as "The South" (and "Dixie")in an emotional and traditional sense. Those in stripes were considered "Border South" states, and gave varying degrees of support to the Southern cause although they remained in the Union""***
>>And then ANOTHER as the "Modern Day South" (or whatever) with the three-toned colors/stripes, as I suggested above.
>>My rationale for that would be it might come as close as possible to satisfying those who (like me! LOL) see the true CSA states as deserving of an "offset" ...yet at the same time, another map would indicate that, in many ways, definitions of the South have changed a bit over the years. BUT STILL show certain obvious truths. Which is, while states like Texas, Virginia, Florida and yeah, Kentucky are not, as a whole, as "Southern" anymore as Mississippi or Alabama or Georgia, that they are MUCH more so than states like Missouri, Maryland and Delaware (which again, ought not even be part of it).
I don't have the software capable of doing textures, such as the striped ones, but editors such as Sunlight07 (who I'm pretty sure created the map) do. But at least in content, what do you think about those maps?
>>I think those two maps are EXCELLENT! And WELL DONE! And illustrates both the historic, and contempory visions of the South. And stays right in line with the wording of the main article. (My imaginary hat off to you, sir! LOL).
Might I suggest the following text, respectively, to the two maps?
(HISTORIC SOUTH):
The states in red were in the Confederacy and have historically been regarded as "The South" in an emotional and traditional sense. Sometimes they are collectivelly referred to as "Dixie." Those in stripes were considered "Border South" states, and gave varying degrees of support to the Southern cause although they remained in the Union***
(CONTEMPORARY SOUTH)
The states in red are almost always included in the modern day definition of the South, while those in pink are usually included. The striped states are sometimes/occasionally considered Southern***
TexasReb, I am just as hesitant about including DE in the South as you are (I can only imagine what a typical resident of Wilmington would have to say about being called a Southerner!!), but the state was a slave state and the Census bureau folks do include it in the South - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Census_Regions_and_Divisions.PNG . I suppose there might be a very small minority of people in the extreme lower tip of the state who consider themselves Southern, but they're rather outnumbered. Perhaps even include DE as a non-Southern state in the current South map and simply add text in the caption about its history.
--216.227.87.2300:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! And actually, regarding the "Historic South", the map that was created by the Wikiproject on US regions corresponds exactly to mine (but with striped instead of pink states, even better) - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/US_map-South.PNG . In any event, before changing the map or adding another one it would be best to do a vote, to reach consensus and attempt to minimize future arguments over the boundaries.
--216.227.87.2301:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
>>I vote absolutely for the two map South. It makes sense and I think would satisfy all...at least as much as these things could do amongst those of us who are interested in such things. Of course, I give a plug for the "text" I suggested for each! LOL And seriously, unless it would make it too complicated, to exclude Delaware completely. Only in the loosest most mecurical sense could that state have the slightest claim to being Southern...
TexasReb01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
>>*laughing a bit* It occured to me that if two maps are indeed decided upon, then maybe the colors should be dark red, red, and stripped...as opposed to my original "off the top of my head" scheme of red, pink, and stripped. After all, pink just doesn't strike me as a proper color for a Southern state! *grins*
TexasReb17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
>>I agree, 216, that more should weigh in before changing the map and concur also with you in having no problems with the one presently displayed. My position is that IF a majority believe a change must be made, then two maps (One the historic CSA South, and the other being a three-toned contemporary South) is probably the closest we are ever going to get to satisfying everyone! LOL
TexasReb21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember the old vote it was either make EVERY state including Missouri Solid or show culural destinctions through Civil War alliances. 74.128.200.13502:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to wait to see what more editors have to say, since relatively few people have been involved in this discussion. Maybe even 2 months or more, as the map that we have now is still largely a compromise map. I'm certainly in favor of the suggestion for 2 maps, but we'd had little input on the idea.
--Gator8702:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am firmly against striping Texas and Florida, and I will try my best to prevent this. If the majority of their residents consider themselves Southerners, no one has the right to stripe these states. A great defending link: http://usadeepsouth.ms11.net/texas.html. PLEASE read the main points of this article. Honestly, most Texans will get greatly offended if one says they are not Southerners. I count as one of them. Florida is part of the South as well. If it isn't, name one region that it's part of and I will see if it fits. Florida is too small to form its own region. A region like "Texas and Florida" would not make any sense, as the states are not connected and they do not share a great number of similarities. Texas is not the West. Like I said, most people who say that have not been to every region of the state, if been there at all. Take Fort Worth, Texas for example. The city is known as "Where the West Begins", but not in the literal sense of the phrase. It is like Fredericksburg, Texas, which is known for its German flavor. Fredericksburg is obviously not part of Germany. The same goes for Fort Worth - in fact, the vast majority of its residents say they are Southerners. I know this from personal experience. As in the article I provided the link for, you can exclude us from the Southeast, from the East - but you have no right to exclude us from the South. I would be greatly offended if Texas and Florida were striped, and I would constantly fight the decision. --Stallions201000:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Southern Focus Study
I would be in favor of redefining the region based on this analysis, and I believe that the curren map is a good one. When 68% of Kentuckians consider themselves Southern, it seems silly to stipe Kentucky on the map; clearly, Kentucky is a Southern state. Similarly, when 19% of Marylanders and 12% of Delawareans consider themselves Southern, striping those states is at best a nod to historical pretension; both Maryland and Delaware are obviously Northern.
Also, the striping of Virginia is patently ridiclous. It just is. Virginia should be made dark red.
LOL even with that clear analysis of Kentuckians Southerness, some will still try to find some sort of reason as to why Kentucky is unbrandable, or designate some area of the state as another region (Louisville or Northern Ky) with no sources other than their opinion. As far as Stevetheman, well the tides have turned buddy, and the concensus, seems quite clear that Kentucky should be shaded in with the rest of the South, or we should go with Texrebs suggestion and use the 3 tone map. Louisvillian01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
As one who has lived both in Kentucky and in the Deep South, I dispute that. Kentucky is a blend of Appalachian and mid-western, and bears only a superficial resemblence to the real south. Pollinator04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well again I've lived in Georgia for 4 years, and from my experiences their and a brief summer in Minneanapolis, I think I can easily conclude Kentucky is a Southern state. Also please tell me what the real South is and tell me what Kentucky lacks to be included. 74.128.200.13506:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Current Consensus
Just so that I understand it, the current consensus is:
Kentucky as solid red (68% view themselves as Southern)
Missouri as either striped or excluded (a mere 15% view themselves as Southern)
West Virginia as striped or excluded (25% view themselves as Southern)
Oklahoma as solid red (53% view themselves as Southern)
Virginia as solid red (60% view themselves as Southern)
Maryland and Delaware completely excluded (only 19% and 12%, respectively, view themselves as Southern)
All of this corroborated by the Southern Focus Study's findings.
I would strongly disagree with the above proposal, on two points, and instead prefer the proposal for the two maps mentioned earlier. I'm not sure if this is the place to vote, but if so, count that as my vote against this proposal and for the 2 map system. 1. While the Southern influence in Maryland and Delaware is highly diluted (especially in DE), they were historically Southern states, they were slave states, and we simply would not be telling the full truth by completely excluding them from the South. See the Northern talk page, as well as the following Census map - [5]. Both need to be maintained as striped Southern states in any consideration of the region.
2. Kentucky, Virginia, and Texas all need to be striped and not solid. It would be inaccurate to go based solely on the one Southern Focus study and nothing else, and even based solely on the study, while high percentages of residents do consider themselves to be Southern in KY and VA, those percentages (68 for KY, 60 for VA) are simply not the same as states such as Mississippi (90%) Louisiana (89%) Alabama (88%) Tennessee (84%), etc. On an exam, 90% is an A, 84% is a B, but 68% and 60% would either be a D or F - there is a substantial difference in the two categorizations. A minority of 33% or of 40% is an extremely large minority, not a negligible portion of the population or a statistical margin of error. TX is the same as border state KY, at 68%, and in Florida barely half (51%) of residents consider themselves as Southern and since then, that percentage has almost certainly lowered given the continuing migration to the state. To include any state that is less than 75-80% Southern as "solid" on the map, to me, would be inaccurate. Even North Carolina, considered to be highly influenced by Northern and other outside migration, had 80% self-identify as Southern - thus, it should be solid.
Thanks.
--Gator8704:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
All states that have over 50% of their populations saying that they are Southerners should be solid. They should not be compared with the Deep South states. Florida = barely half, but still over 50%. Texas = well over half (also, I don't think it's 68%, I think it's 86%. Provide the proof, please.) Kentucky = over 50%. All of these states should be solid, then. Why is it that you are so against solidifying TX, KY, and FL? Even Alabama and Mississippi have areas that are not completely Southern in culture. Shall we stripe them too? --Stallions201020:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
>>Stallions, regarding your question over Texas' numbers, the 86% is the number of those questioned in the state who said Texas was in the South, while the 68% is the percentage of those so questioned who said they considered themselves to be Southerners. This "chasm" (which exists to one degree or another in ALL the Southern states, even those in the Deep South) has come up here as to which one is more of an indicator of a particular states "Southerness." Personally, I believe before the question could be answered, one would have to look at other factors. For instance, while I can't speak for states like, say, Kentucky, but as in Florida (although much higher there) the "gap" in Texas is very likely due to the numbers of northern transplants that may have been polled (the survey didn't ask respondents if they were born and bred in the state they resided). Many of them might acknowledge they LIVE in the South, but not think of THEMSELVES as one with it. A study done of native Texans only would very likely have yielded a much "closer" result between the two questions (that is, more saying they are Southerners). So the question really is, how many individuals of non-Texas origins were polled? And how what sort of influence do they have on the state's culture? TexasReb18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Gater I think we're more in tune with the 3 tone map as opposed to the labeling of decisively Southern states, who had a majority of it's population identify with South (howeverway), with the boarder states who had less than half of it's population identify as the South. The core South, was going to be shaded Dark Red (area that scored over 90%) Kentucky, Texas, oklahoma and Virginia were going to be shaded light red as they are generally considered Southern states, and the boarder states would be striped as they normally aren't considered the South. As far as the ABC grade scale, that's just a silly way to go about it. The grading range is just way out of whack with the states percentages. In doing so you're basically only disadvangtaging Ky, Tx, Ok, and Va as you're only comparing them to the Dark Red (Deep South), and toally neglecting the boarder states in means of range. Anyway this "3" tone map should be based on the Southern Focus, which would me much more of a specification rather than your method of grouping "light red" states into the boarder state category which would ultimately offend residents of both boarder and generally Southern states. This seems to be the most logical and least conflicting way to go about it. 74.128.200.13505:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely agree much more so for the 2 map system, incorporating the three tone map, than the other suggested division. I do also strongly believe, however, that factors other than this one survey should be used in decision making, and that's why I believe that the current proposal, which considers only the Southern Focus survey and thus rejects DE and MD, is flawed. Discussions on the Northern talk page reveal that there are indeed people in these states that do strongly self-identify as Southern (even to the point of being offended at being labeled as Northern or Mid-Atlantic), and it is a total rejection of history to totally exclude these states from the South VA may be at 60% Southern in this survey, but it is included as striped on [6] From the beginning, I have agreed that it is highly inconsistent to stripe Kentucky and not Texas and Virginia (only makes sense historically with the border state status, but not anymore) - but the answer to this is not to solidly shade Kentucky, which is indeed still a mixed border state, but rather to stripe Texas and Virginia. I also can't imagine, other than from a geographic standpoint, why we would want to include Florida, either. And with the exceptions of TX, VA, and FL all of the solid red states on the current map, and the one before it, had Southern self-identification percentages at 80% or higher - which is why I believe my analogy fits, but whatever. But saying that some of the border states, along with FL and TX, are in the same category as those other states isn't an accurate fit, and has never been used in the maps on this page. Just for review, the map that existed on this page for most of its history - up until the recently displayed map that shades FL was added, was this one - [7] .
--Gator8706:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Gator what is the problem man? People in Generally Southern states have made it clear that they do not want to be in the broad category of a boarder state. This puts them in the same category as Mo, Md, De, and Wv with no distinction whatsoever. The 3 tone will DISTINGUISH generally Southern states from Core or Deep Southern states, which is the distintion you're so eager to prove, yet you're neglecting the differences in Southerness between the boarder states. A simple way to distinguish these states (boarder states) would be the Southern Focus study. I mean I just don't understand what problem you're having with these distintions. If it quacks like a duck it's a duck, if the majority of a state's population identifies with the South than it's a Southern state. Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Virgnia are generally considered Southern states, unlike the other boarder states which is clearly sugguested between you and Swedishconquorer's conversation. So to distinguish those sets of states from one another those GS states would be light red, as opposed to the Core South's Dark Red, and the boarder states striped fit. With the distinction between the GS states and the Core Southern states the light tone of red will show that while that states have OTHER REGIONAL INFLUENCES it's still GENERALLY A SOUTHERN STATE. This will give the map more dept and will not insight future problems. 74.128.200.13506:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I supported using a 3 tone map to differentiate VA, TX, FL, and KY from MO, MD, and DE from the beginning - in fact, I was the person who created a sample version of this map. I was speaking out against this current proposal, and any subsequent proposals that will treat diluted Southern states such as VA, TX, KY, and FL in the same manner as states of the Deep South, or will completely reject MD, DE, and MO. Just check earlier edits. I still do, and did then, believe that the one Southern Focus survey was being given far too much weight in decision making, and wanted to point that out. We need to also acknowledge history and a wide variety of other factors, not just uphold this one survey as an infallible barometer of Southern culture, although it provides us with a great analysis.
--Gator8715:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well we already have a map that weighs a state's Southerness based solely on the Civil War. As far as history is concerned what are we going to go by slavery, reconstruction, I mean it all relates to the Civil War! On your earlier post before this one you said that you were against the "3" tone map and favored the "2" toner, as you have suggested to stripe GS states, rather than go with the "3" tone color scale suggested earlier. As far as the Southern Focus Study it should hold most of the weight in this "3" tone map. Gator If there is more criterior you'd like to contribute than do so, rather than going against the main plan with no solution of your own. 74.128.200.13516:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Uhmmm...you misread my post, clearly. I said that I favored the 2 map system, not the two tone one. Just to clarify, so that nobody is confused. This is the system that my vote would be for. To quote "I would definitely agree much more so for the 2 map system, incorporating the three tone map, than the other suggested division." I have heavily contributed to this debate and I took the time, much earlier, to create samples for what the three tone map would look like, here - [8]. The system that TexasReb originally proposed, and that I supported, would be a two map system - one would be a map of the "historic South", essentially the CSA, while the other would be a "contemporary South", which reflects the current regional identifications and cultural boundaries. This definition is where the three tone map would come in, the link posted above, while the "historic South" map would essentially be this one, giving well-deserved special treatment to the states of the Confederacy - [9]. I will not support any system that ignores history - specifically the Civil War- and groups border states in with the states of the Confederacy, and the two map system would avoid that. I will also not support any system that excludes DE and MD completely from the South, as the current proposal would, because this is simply false.
--Gator8720:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty then, so basically everyone who has contributed is in favor of the "3" tone map. Thanks for the clarity Gator. So if there are no objections should we get the ball rolling on this project. 74.128.200.13520:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Current Consensus Continued
I would support a two-map plan, with one map labelled "Historical South" and the other map labelled "Current South." The condition is this, however: the Current South must actually be current, not based on what somebody read in a history book. To stripe Kentucky, simply because it fought for the Union, would be preposterous; Kentucky is an obviously Southern state.
To exclude Oklahoma, simply because it was not a state at the time of the Civil War, does not reflect recent demographics (or the fact that a majority of Oklahomans would call themselves Southern).
Similarly, striping Maryland and Delaware merely because these two states fall beneath the (by now long arbitrary) Mason-Dixon Line, is 1patently ridiculous. Neither resembles the South at all, and 81% of Marylanders consider themselves Northern. An even higher percentage of Missourians believe themselves to be Northern as well, and thus Missouri ought to be excluded from the current map.
I would advise everyone to view the Kentucky talk page (where any suggestion that the state is Northern is med with furious contestion), the Maryland talk page (where refutations of alleged Southern heritage have descended into flagrant sectionalism (mostly on the part of the Marylanders, who have denounced the South as the land of knuckle-draggers and whatnot)), and the Northeastern United States talk page, where an eloquent argument has been made for the inclusion of Maryland, Delaware, and D.C. in the Northeast.
I would like this new map to be based on common sense. If you really think about it, most people know that Kentucky and Oklahoma are in the South. If you really think about, most people know that Maryland and Delaware are (firmly) in the North (even linguistically, the Baltimore accent shares more in common with the Philadelphia accent than with any kind of Southern dialect; see Baltimorese and Northeastern United States culture section.
Okay, I warn you that this is downright nasty, but I feel that it illustrates the argument quite well. These quotes come from the Maryland debate. The first is a Marylander speaking about the South. The second is a Southerner talking about Maryland. Put on your bile shields:
"1.Enough is Enough
Let me ask you something: why do you want to bind us to the South so badly? This is not the scholarly History21 talking here, this is the person and the patriot. Why do you feel the need to claim us as your own, as some part of the vile territory that you would one day hope to erect on this nation?
Your user page says that you support the reestablishment of the Confederacy. Marylanders repulsed the traitor-filth Robert E. Lee when he dared cross the Potomac, and Marylanders will deflect any similar Southern incursion in the future. The hundreds of Marylanders who died at Antietam did so for a reason: to save their country.
It amazes me that the Southerners who claim that their domain is the "true" America are in fact the same people who came closest to tearing America apart, the same people who wrought secession against this land, and the same people who dared to send armies against the United States.
What was done to Maryland was an abomination. The invasion of the United States was an abomination. The Confederacy was an abomination. Do not dare claim loyalty to America when you would see the rebirth of the Confederate States. Robert E. Lee, revered by the South, was responsible for thousands of American deaths. HE TOOK UP ARMS AGAINST OUR COUNTRY.
We ceased to be a Southern state on the day that our "brethren" crossed the Potomac on their abhorrent journey. We will never, ever be like you. We are no part of your filthy union of blood traitors who attempted (but failed so miserably) to divide the United States. Maryland hates the South, hates the oppression and bigotry that define it, and the betrayal that it has so wholeheartedly embraced.
Our spirits are as fundamentally different from yours as it could be possible to be. And should the South ever "rise" again, should they ever once again attempt to strike down Lady Liberty (this time led be Republicans), a Democratic Maryland would wield her righteous shield and mighty sword, would be the first to fight down the Rebel insurrection and end the atrocity.
So far as history goes, we have rejected you as harshly as it is possible to do. My opinion is no isolated one. The Maryland article will reflect none of my zeal, no--unlike you, I still treasure neutrality (or did you not notice my edit about Maryland's farm acreage?) I just thought that you ought to know how I feel.
We are never comrades. We never will be. So says Maryland, a state PROUD to be a member of this glorious Union."
That was the Maryland user.
Here is the Southerner.
2.Oh, History21... Silly Yankee! As is usual with your sort of people, your arrogance precedes you! I thought that I was the only one to be slighted by your genius when I realized that you had added onto my article The Real Freshmen Handbook (assuming no doubt that a dumb Georgian couldn't possibly complete the piece on his own), and yet it turns out that you have afflicted numerous users with your pseudo-intellectual twittering! As is the case with so many Northerners, you have managed to take a decent argument and contaminate it with such pure snobbishness and bigotry (surely you've realized by now that you Northerners can be bigoted?) that all others discard your logic with disgust.
Bang-up job!
I was born and raised in Georgia, lived there until my seventeenth birthday, spent a mercifully short three months in the blessed Northern paradise known as Maryland, and have resided since in California. So long as Maryland being a Northern state, you couldn't be more correct; I realized from your condescending, self-righteous idiocy that only a diehard Yankee could have been ranting against the supposed evils of Dixie. I checked out some of your posts on people's talk pages. So Robert E. Lee is "traitor-filth," huh?
That is the same kind of mindless discrimination and visceral, groundless dislike that I found myself subject to every day while living in what I have come to regard as this Union's most accursed state. For claiming to be a land of tolerance and acceptance, you all sure know how to make a person feel utterly miserable for their cultural roots. Marylanders would jabber on and on about how much they loved President Clinton--but let me show a Southern flag and they were ready to burn me at the stake. Such an enlightened people!
You dare to say that Maryland was "raped?" What kind of fantasy world do you live in? You want to talk about rape? Talk about Georgia. Talk about Richmond. Talk about the hundreds of miles of devastated farmland, the shattered generations, the heart of an entire nation that was utterly and completely eviscerated.
You horrible people, subjugators who pretended to be subjugated, will never know what the Civil War was really about, nor can you know what the South is really about. You want to claim that what makes you different is your money, your malls, your cities, your schools? That's fine. In fact, I'll support it. I've been to both placed, and Maryland outpaced Georgia in absolutely everything. I'm not ashamed of it. We haven't all been blessed to grow up in Grand Pa Washington's backyard. But that's still not what separates us.
What separates us is a wall, a wall of love on one side and iron on the other. The Potomac is as much a spiritual (to borrow your word) boundary as a political one. We are distinguished by our faith in God, our hospitality, our independence, our chivalry, our nobility, and our respect. You are distinguished by your lack thereof.
So yes, Maryland is a Northern state. In fact, Maryland is as Northern as it is possible to be. You reject the South? Ha, that makes me laugh. We reject you. We don't want or need your vicious cruelty, your mocking, your mean spirits. Keep all of that to yourselves.
For those of you here trying to claim Maryland as a Southern or even a border state, that battle was ended long ago. Maryland had the chance to show her allegiance. She chose her side, and there she remains. The intentions of people like WillC and many others are good, but the answer lies in the very contrast between History21 and the others. It is about decency, courtesy, and respect.
Harper32 22:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Harper32
Those are the sentiments that I'm getting. It seems a bit over the top on both sides, but if they feel that passionately then I suppose it shows us the true sentiments of those on both sides of the Potomac.
>> Following this thread on the Maryland discussion page, History21 is a high school student, who has hopes to become a history teacher (help us). Given that the media's portrayal of the South as backwards, poor, dirty, and generally undesirable, it is understandble his strong objections to being characterized as Southern. However, his objections disregard history and Maryland outside "Suburban Maryland." Anne Arundel County, Southern Maryland, Western Maryland, and the Eastern Shore, while outnumbered by population, covers much of the state, all of which are Republican, rural (except northern AA County), and Southern in character. Given 20-50 years, the same debates will be happening throughout Virginia and North Carolina. Notably, Charleston, SC, is no longer considered as speaking Southern American English according to Wikipedia... As the population centers of America continue to shift from the North East and the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt, so too the definition of what is the South. Isn't Cary already known as "Containment Area for Relocated Yankees?" Consider that the same as Central Maryland, and soon to be all of the Upper South.
Ha, reading those conversations regarding MD brings back memories. I've definitely seen some very heated discussions about MD on here and other forums though, like those exchanges above, it's mostly just opinions with minor evidence/proof. From my personal experience and travels, which count for nothing in a forum such as this, I wouldn't even consider the Northern VA region to be Southern in proper terms, and anything above VA wouldn't make the cut. All of the factors for MD and DE - Civil War alliances, industrial development, current demographics, political trends and religious affiliations - would indicate that both are clearly Northern. The Southern Focus survey seems to corroborate this view, but only depending on how you look at it. With 40% of Maryland residents saying that "their community" is in the South but only 19% claiming themselves as Southern, I'm still somewhat undecided and reticent about completely excluding this state (what are those 40% thinking? what facts/proof/evidence are they going by?) DE is a much easier case, because the numbers are consistent - only 14% view their community as Southern, and only 12% view themselves as Southern. Other than the Census Bureau (which is still working off of that dated Mason-Dixon division), I have yet to see good, solid proof for the inclusion of these as contemporary Southern states. So, unless other editors have solid reasoning for their views, I guess it would be based off how much weight we wanted to give the Census Bureau. Missouri's also a weird case, especially since the Souther accent does extend into portions of the state, unlike MD and DE, according to the Southern English page . I've also heard people from states in the Upper Midwest refer to Missourians as "Southerners", though that probably just reflects their own prejudices. We definitely need more discussion and more cites. I'm actually in the process of researching proof and cites regarding the extent of Southern culture in TX, FL, VA, and KY.
--Gator8706:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, in reviewing discussions on the Florida talk page, it appears that a version of the map that we have now, with Florida striped, appeared somewhat earlier in the page's history but was removed due to controversy. Florida is, indeed, a weird case because of its undeniably Southern geography, but widespread Northern/international culture. Every single other highly or moderately "diluted" Southern state borders the other region from which it shares many characteristics - Texas and the West, Kentucky and the Midwest, Virginia and the Northeast, etc. While you can definitely find maps from reliable sources that include all or portions of Texas in the West, Kentucky in the Midwest, and Virginia in the Northeast, this (obviously) isn't the case for Florida. A common question raised has been "if Florida isn't Southern, then what exactly is it?" Just something else to consider in the discussion.
--Gator8707:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Kentucky historically and currently is mixed. Unless you get a vast majority of Kentuckians saying they are Southern, it is mixed. 68% according to one study is not a vast majority. Kentucky's northern areas simply are not southern in nature. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Right. And that oft-quoted 68% is only ONE poll. Knowing what is done with polls, I would never even begin to trust just one poll. It depends on who asks the questions and how they are framed. Kentucky is still a border state, not part of the South. Its culture has some southern aspects, but not a lot. The culture is more Appalachian than Southern. And its dialect is much more similar to southern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Pollinator23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: There was an edit conflict when I added my comment above and some other work disappeared. I was starting to restore the lost edit, when I was accused of deleting other comments. I did not do so. It was apparently a software glitch caused by an edit conflict and I intended to restore it. So please don't be so quick to accuse. Pollinator23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
>>Actually, Pollinator, the Southern Focus Poll percentage results I posted up the line somewhere are NOT just the results of one poll in the sense of a one-time gathering of data, but the averages calculated from 14 years of polls taken on the same two questions: Is your community in the South, and Do you consider yourself a Southerner? TexasReb17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So according to you Texas is not Southern?? The state that held captial of the Confederacy certainly can't be Southern according to you. How is Kentucky a mixed state historically, it didn't succeed? What else is so Northern or mixed about Kentucky's history that just excludes it from the South, or is so signifigant that out of all the GS states it must be mentioned. Face it Kentucky, Texas, Virginia, and normally Oklahoma are considered Southern states, and you haven't contributed a damn thing, But your own opinion to your own point. You can't dispute the more than 3/4's of this pages sources saying otherwise. While Gator and I disagree on Louisville's status we both agree that Kentucky is s prodominantly Southern state along with concensus on this page. You're crazy if you can't see this. 74.128.200.13521:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would say if a quarter of the sources "say otherwise", then that makes it clear that Kentucky's status as a Southern state is disputed. And that's the point. I am actually saying that Kentucky is generally regarded a Southern state (as the opening text in Kentucky clearly says), but that it is also not universally seen that way, and culturally speaking, the northern parts of the state are not southern in nature. What is so painful about saying that factually, there are a good number of sources that dispute Kentucky being a purely Southern state? Hopefully, southern honor isn't guiding your position here. We need to look at the facts, not faded glory. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Steven can you not grasp the concept of what I'm getting through with this map? (red everthing SLOWLY) We are going to have a "3" tone map (got that down). The states colored Dark red are states that form the core South. The states that are shaded light red (PLEASE NOT PINK) are states that HAVE OTHER REGIONAL INFLUENCES (what I just stated a few post up), but are GENERALLY CONSIDERED SOUTHERN (you even agree with that one). Which will include Texas, Kentucky, Virginia, and Oklahoma. The "BOARDER STATES" or states that are not normally included in the non official Southern definition are going to be striped. Again Steven (not going to fast am I) the states shaded light red will indicate that they "HAVE OTHER REGIONAL INFLUENCES" (emphasised Steven), but are generally considered Southern.
As for the Southern Focus study' accuracy, I would trust that since they are conduxted by a prestigous University (UNC) and has been conducted for over a decade now, it has become more accurate and more trusted. Also rather than deny Kentucky's prodomianantly Southern character hows about you actually get sources, and quit relying on your opinion to make the call. http://www.unc.edu/depts/csas/more/southernfocus.html74.128.200.13523:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, read WP:NPA. Further, I would say that those states that have other regional influences, in some cases, ARE border states, of which Kentucky most certainly is. I think we need a 4-tone map. (kidding) But I'm serious about Kentucky being a border state. It has been called a border state ever since the Civil War. I really don't understand how this can be disputed seriously. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, some might call UNC "naturally biased". If we saw multiple studies from different parts of the country find the same results, then I would consider them acceptable for consideration. But even then, 68% connotes mixed, not solid South! Stevie is the man!Talk • Work23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note, before discounting Maryland due to the Civil War, please actually do a bit of research on the state's situation during that conflict. The first bloodshed of the war happened in Baltimore, not Charleston. As Union forces were changing trains, a group of Baltimore citizens attacked them. Afterwards, a Union army took position on what is now called Federal Hill, with it's guns facing not into the harbor, but into the city, with orders to burn Baltimore to the ground should there be any more trouble.
The Maryland senate did not vote to secede, but they did pass a resolution to follow Virginia's lead. However, many members of the senate were arrested and held without right to trial before Virginia seceded. The govenor was replaced by Lincoln and the state was put under martial law, with many citizens arrested, including a descendant of Francis Scott Key ("Star Spangled Banner").
While the majority of Marylanders served as "Home Guards," including guarding prisoner of war camps (in which I have read a letter from the Union commander claiming that the Marylanders were letting Confederates escape), many others served in the Confederacy, including famous commanders such as Steuart and Archer. Infact, the current county executive of Anne Arundel County is the relative of Benjamin Welch Owens, one of the winners of the Confederate Medal of Honor. Also, look at the Navy of the Confederacy. I bet you find many Marylanders amoung it's ranks, including the Conderacy's Secretary of Navy.
There are memorials to the Confederacy in Baltimore (bet you didn't know that!). Robert E. Lee used to wear Crossland Crosses (see the Maryland flag) on the buttons of his battle uniform. In fact, the Maryland flag is quatered with Crossland Crosses, the symbol the Confederate Maryland units used to signify their state. Lee certainly considered Maryland southern soil, which can painly be read in his letters to Jefferson (whose family originated in Maryland, as well as the Lee's owning land in Maryland, and the Pinckney's of South Carolina, etc).
Infact, the term "Old South" was coined in Hill's speech in Baltimore!
Harriet Tubman and Fredrick Douglass were from the Eastern Shore. Kunta Kinte (sp?) has a statue in Annapolis, where he first set foot on American soil.
John Wilkes Booth is from Bel Air, north of Baltimore.
Yes, this all has to do with the Civil War, but since that seems to be a point used to say Maryland is not Southern, I think a bit of history is needed.
Is Maryland rural? Well, actually, yes in many parts. Visit the Eastern Shore, Southern Maryland, or Western Maryland. Is there a Southern accent? In certain areas, yes. Marylanders even drink sweet tea all year round!
Hell, the University of Maryland's colors are red and white, derived from the fact that the campus was used as a base for the Conderates to carry out raids on Washington, D.C.
What about the fact that Maryland has the highest black population of any state not in the "Deep South?" Infact, no other state not considered Southern has as high of a percentage.
You can even look at such current events as Maryland's Lt. Governor telling Martin Short to shove it on Real Time with Bill Mar (sp?) when he was making fun of Southerns. How about the fact that the music style "Bama Bounce" is directly inspired by "Baltimore Club?"
How about "My Name is Earl," a show considered to be a Southern comedy. Written by a Marylander, with many references to Maryland towns.
What about Maryland being included in many "Southern" economic organizations, like the Southern Regional Education Board and the South's energy co-op? Is Maryland only Southern when it benefits other states?
Geographically, Maryland is the part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Appalachian Mountains, and the humid subtropical zone, just like the rest of the Southern Atlantic states.
I could go on, but what is the point? Maryland is different that other southern states, and it's population is diverse, not only ethnically, but also from a far flung number of states. Of course it is obvious that if you ask a random Joe in Maryland if they are southern, chances are they will say no; they just moved there from PA or India! Try asking someone whose family has been in Maryland for more than a generation. But the same can be said of Atlanta, Charlotte, and many cities in Texas.
In fact, Maryland was always different from the rest of the South... Baltimore always had a high level of industry, as it was the main manufacturing center for raw goods from the South pre Civil War.
Before Maryland can be voted as "not Southern," there needs to be a clear definition of what "Southern" is.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the first design of what is now known as the Battle Flag of the Confederacy was actually sewn by three sisters from Maryland and presented before the First Battle of Bull Run. They also sang "Maryland, My Maryland" for the officers gathered there (maybe you should read the words of the official state song). There would be no "Stars and Bars" if it wasn't for a few Marylanders.
Now, feel free to discount Maryland, beyond the historical, cultural, and geographical facts as laid out above. I've already spent too much time on this, and it is doubtful any one will actually read it, much less do a small bit of Googling to find out the history.
You make an excellent argument for Maryland being placed within the historical South, but most of what you said does not apply to the state today. I could cite any number of things, from the state's staunchly Northern political leanings to its weather to its food. To include Maryland and Delaware in the contemporary South (and to exclude Kentucky and Virginia) blatantly ignores reality. This Encyclopedia should be an honest reflection of how things are, not how they were 150 years ago.
Having lived in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, I can assure you that Maryland shares far more in common with its neighbor above the Mason-Dixon Line than with its neighbor below the Potomac. The news media long ago ceased referring to Maryland and Delaware as Southern. What is the one thing you most often hear as having cost Al Gore and John Kerry their presidential bids?
"In the last two elections, the Democrats have failed to win even one Southern state." And yet, they won both Maryland and Delaware.
In the case of Kentucky: leave it solid, for goodness' sakes. The state is very obviously Southern, as innumerable Kentuckians have attempted to testify on this page (indeed, it seems that only the people from other states have persisted in classifying Kentucky as a border state of some sort).
As for Virginia: stripe Northern Virginia, and leave the rest of it red. The majority of Virginia is very Southern, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seriously regarded as Northern.
This bit about the battle flag is not true. The flag was designed by William Porcher Miles of South Carolina. The flag was not used in the First Battle of Bull Run, in fact it was in the aftermath of that battle that the need for a battle flag at all became an issue.
On the other hand, yes, the Maryland state song, Maryland, My Maryland, is amazingly Confederate, with lovely lines like ""Sic semper!" 'tis the proud refrain"; something one wonders whether John Wilkes Booth had in mind after shooting Lincoln dead. Though my favorite part is rhyming "patriotic gore" with "Baltimore".Pfly04:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
How many Northern (Golden Triangle) Kentuckians have you conversed with on this matter? I was born, raised and live in Louisville, and I know this state's history rather well. It's a border state with mixed influences, although I readily concede (and that's nothing new) that a majority of references do characterize the state as a whole as Southern. But that's what stripes are: they represent that there is indeed a large minority view that there's a significant midwestern influence in the state, and that influence is heavy in the northern part of the state. Just accept that there's a lot of people in Kentucky who don't accept it as a pure Southern state. It is factual to present the state with a disputed cultural heritage. Heck, this is the state that wanted to keep slavery *and* retain the Union. It's always been a mess here. And the map should reflect it. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work06:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean Marylander's vote democratic? Might have something to do with the fact that over a quater of the population is African American and that the state has voted Democratic since there was a such thing as the Solid South.
As to the flag, if I can remember, I will try to find a source tomorrow. Starting a new job here tomorrow. Either way, thanks for considering what I have said.
The best source I've found for Confederate flag info is Coski, John M. (2005) The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN0-674-01722-6. I added some of the info from that book to the page Flags of the Confederate States of America. There seems to be a tremendous amount of mythology wrapped around the battle flag, and Coski's book is the only in-depth scholarly, apparently unbiased source I've come across. Worth reading if you are interested in the topic. Pfly06:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
>>Boy, this discussion has really taken off since I last participated! Anyway, it appears that most like the idea of the 2 map system I proposed a while back (born of the idea it might be the ONLY way to satisfy as many as possible LOL).
>>And it also appears there is general agreement on alignment if I read the recent posts correctly. To wit: The first map would be the "Historic South", with the 11 Old Confederate States (SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, TX, VA, AK, NC, and TN) shown in dark red, while the Border States of KY, MO, MD, and DE are striped. The second map would be labeled either "Contemporary/ Current/ Modern/ South" and be three-toned. In this latter one, the dark red states would be: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. The lighter (or medium) red states would show: Texas, Virginia, Kentucky and Florida. And those in stripes would be: West Virginia, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Maryland (and Delaware if neccessary).
>>Is that about right? If so, I would like to (once again! LOL) get in a plug for the text to each of the maps:
>>Historic South
"The states in red were in the Confederacy and have historically been regarded as "The South" in an emotional and traditional sense. Sometimes they are collectively referred to as "Dixie." Those in stripes were considered "Border" states, and gave varying degrees of support to the Southern cause although they remained in the Union"
>>Contemporary South
"The states in dark red are almost always included in modern day definitions of the South, while those in medium red are usually included. The striped states are sometimes/occasionally considered Southern"
>>Does the above wording sound agreeable to y'all?
>>Just as couple of final comments. It seems there is some discussion about the status of Delaware on the "Current South" map. Personally, the only reason I can see that remotely justifies even striping it is because the U.S. Census Bureau includes it in its definition of the region. Even with that though, my vote would be to exclude it entirely. I also noticed a little about Oklahoma and whether it should be regular red or striped. I go with striped for several reasons. While it is true in the Southern Focus poll a slight majority said they considered themselves Southerners, I live very near the Oklahoma border, occasionally travel through there, and know something of its history. For that reason, I am fairly confident in saying that the "Southern feeling" in Oklahoma, even among those so self-identified, is not nearly of the intensity or depth of historical/regional pride as is the case in the other states to be regular red (Texas, Virginia, Kentucky and Florida). Sure, parts of Oklahoma (southern and eastern sections) because of Anglo settlement patterns have definite Southern traits and cultural characteristics, but Oklahoma became a state relatively late in American history (1907) and unlike its Arkansas and Texas neighbors, Old South traditions were never firmly entrenched there and it is the "Indian Territory" aspects that really molded it. It should really be striped. But as I am fond of saying, that is JMHO! LOL TexasReb16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Currently, it reads that Kentucky is "normally included in the group of Southern states, but sometimes partially included, geographically and culturally, in the Midwest". Certainly from all the discussion on this page, someone has a reference or two they can stick to this. I will actually give barnstars for this. :) Cheers! Stevie is the man!Talk • Work23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting read. Not sure if it's more than just an essay, though. But I agree with the author, certainly. Louisville and the Northern Kentucky area near Cincinnati are unmistakably midwestern in their culture. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
according to this Dayton Newpaper editor Louisville is Southern to the bone.
Steve I'm not trying to insult you or anything, But you are not a debater. You continue to ignore the numerous sources that I have posted on more than 3/4's of this page. You continue to pass your opinion off as Fact with not a single source to back up your claims to Louisville's stronger Midwestern identity. I'M A NATIVE AGAIN AND YES I LIVE HERE CURRENTLY. I live in the heart of Louisville and I hear Southern accents as strong as molasses, you will not here this Columubus Ohio. I have also lived in Georgia for "4" years so I know what Southern is at it's strongest. Plain put Louisville is a Prodominantly Southern city AND YOU HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED NOT A SINGLE SOURCE TO SAY OTHERWISE. 74.128.200.13520:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Also Steve, I posted several different sources on the Midwest talk page that cite Louisville as a Midwestern city; near the bottom of my comments, I actually posted 10 such sources. Having a largely (predominantly, in my opinion, as backed up by cites) Midwestern culture in the state's largest and most influential metro should settle "discussion" about Kentucky being a solidly Southern state - and this doesn't even count Northern Kentucky (cites regarding this region should be fairly easy to find, I didn't look for any earlier because its "Midwesterness" was never under attack.) I'm also simply amazed that this discussion is even continuing regarding placing Kentucky in the contemporary, three tone map as a solid state. This is silly, and if it is carried out it will represent an egregious mistake. Simply review the history of the Southern page (the actual page, not the discussion), and you will see that Kentucky ended up shaded/striped on the map because many editors felt uncomfortable lumping it in with the rest of the South, and most certainly, the Deep South. Kentucky is still, and has long been, included on the pages for the North and the Midwest (one editor removed the map from the Midwest a few times in the last month, but it has since been restored as cites were provided.) On the Deep South talk page, one editor went as far as to call it an "insult" to place a state such as Arkansas in the same category with Kentucky. While there are many, many Kentuckians who do personally feel as strong an attraction to and affinity for the South as would most native-born residents of Georgia or Alabama, they are still living in a border state. A user on the Midwest talk page provided a map from a US government agency that included KY in the Midwest, and a simple Google search will reveal more from a variety of sources. While nobody has challenged (to my knowledge) the notion that KY is a predominantly Southern state, it is simply not accurate, currently or historically, to classify Kentucky in with states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, South/North Carolina, or even Tennessee. Just like here, there have been a few highly outraged users on the KY talk page when the state's identity was questioned, but the opinions tended to gravitate toward the state being of a mixed character. Even the singular Southern Focus survey, cited quite frequently as a means of disputing the Midwestern influence in KY, clearly, irrefutably reveals that the state is indeed mixed - if a full third of the residents of the state don't consider themselves Southerners and more than 20% don't even consider their very community to be geographically in the South, what more proof is needed to clarify that Kentucky is mixed? Not as "mixed", certainly, as Missouri, but still a mixed border state.
--Gator8723:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Gator87, I looked through the 10 references, and while they definitely should lead anyone to believe that Louisville is disputed, none of them seemed definitive enough to back up Kentucky's partial "midwesternness" in its article (please "argue" with me if you think I'm incorrect). I also tried to look for the government map you speak of, but there's so much talk on that page, I can't find it. Could you give me a link to the map? Thanks! Stevie is the man!Talk • Work00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It's from the USGS, here's the site with the map: [10] I would agree that we need something very strongly worded from a great source regarding the state; I was thinking that since the rewrite states that only portions of the state are considered Midwestern, finding information that mentions Midwestern influence in both Louisville and Northern Kentucky (or indeed, the entire Triangle) would be a great start. It would be best to find one article for a link, and not a series of different sources. I'm still searching for such a piece from a verifiable, reliable source.
--Gator8700:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that will help. I will wait before adding that as a reference until more is collected. Hopefully, I can spend some time soon looking for additional references. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that Memphis, Richmond , and Nashville aren't cities of the Deep South, if you'd be so kind as to show me where I've wrote this I'd gladly apprecitate it. I'm confused I thought you have an argument about the Great Lake affect when I tried to compare Louisville's climate to Cleaveland's. Cincinnati is located within a climatic transition zone; the area is at the extreme northern limit of the humid subtropical climate. from wiki. Also according to the Wiki source Louisville's average tempature is 56 F compared to Cincinnati's 54F. So Louisville is still the warmest of all the Lower Midwestern cities you've mentioned.
AGAIN, you've grouped Louisville's climate in with the Deep Southern cities to show it's similarities to Lower Midwestern climate. While Louisville is a Southern city I know it's not Deep Southern, notice I say the more specifically Mid -Southern. However do you not understand what I was doing when I would make that comparison? If you're going to say well Louisville is more Midwestern then that would offically include the states of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Michigan that includes every city within this region, rather they are closer to to Louisville (in proximity) or farther. Compared to the cities in TN, GA, LA, TX, OK, AR, AL, NC, SC, VA, MD, WV, DE, AND FL. That is what that argument is about, you can't exclude an enitre section of region because it's culture is not in compliance with your argument. There is the Upper Midwest (which is included in the general term Midwest) and the Deep South, both sub regions of deep contrast with each other. My argument goes on to take to Deep Southern cities around Louisville's size New Orleans and or Birmingham and Compare them to Upper Midwestern cities Louisville's Minneanapolis and or Milwalkee. Take in account every them from Dialect, Architecture, History, to present day Culture, and obviously Louisville has much more in common with the Deep Southern cities than Upper Midwestern cities. This would easily make Louisville more Southern than Midwestern. Though there are certainly some exceptions to Louisville's Southerness, it's easily concluded that's it's more Southern.
As far as St.Louis and Cincinnati go your quick to say that these cultures over lap due to it's proximity to the Midwest (despite most saying that Southern Indiana is actually the culturally trasition zone), you neglect that reasoning in compliance with Cincinnati's Southern culture.
It has been aptly remarked that Cincinnati is the "northernmost southern city and the southernmost northern city." Cincinnati's extensive ties to the South provoked a mixed reaction to the American Civil War (1861-1865). The city was a center of activity by the Copperheads, a name applied to people who for a variety of reasons opposed fighting the war. At the same time, the city was a major point on the Underground Railroad, the informal system to move slaves from the South to freedom in the North. http://www.thecityofcincinnati.com/ As far as St.Louis goes I'm not saying that the city is Southern, I'am however saying that it has a Southern element, Why I was watching world's funniest mom on Nick @nite and the mom from St.Louis had a very strong Southern drawal. However I know St.Louis is frimly rooted in the Midwest, and to my knowlege has never been addressed by a Southern as a Southern city. Unlike yourself I won't argue with the Linguistic maps that I've presented because all of them group St.Louis firmly in the Midwest, while Louisville is tucked away below the Southern line. About Diane Sawyer you're talking about news media here, during my stay in Atlanta of all the local news stations I only heard one crew member speak with a Southern drawal. Not to mention that Oprah Winfrey is from....you guessed it rural Mississippi and lived in Nashville with her father. The Southern accent is not really preferred for the news media. However there is that weather lady on news channel 32 (local) who speaks with a Southern drawal, anyway Southern accent in is the minority (in terms of media) anywhere in the Country. Again I'am aware that Kentucky is not the Deep South, But has more in common Historically and Culturally with that Sub Region than the Upper Midwest. Again I feel that Louisville is a Mid Southern city. I'm not saying that Louisville is the long lost brother of Birmingham, or Little Rock, however it has much more to do with those cities than Des Moines and Madison. How can you actually compare what some guy said about Kentucky's boarder state staus to an entire page of objections to Kentucky's inclusion of in Midwest. I mean it's a war zone zone over there. Post after post of angry Midwesterners defaming Kentucky's "Midwesterness". As to cotton plantations herer's one of my earlier post. "As for the slave population percentage or Kentucky yeah it was relatively low compared to Deep Southern states, But as I stated Kentucky is the "UPPER SOUTH" (you know where Tobacco was grown where they did not rely on plantations as the Deep South) If you look at Arkansas, Tennessee (Central and Western), and even Texas, Kentucky (on par with Tennesee's) has a higher percentage than those states. However can you anwser me this, What Northern state or terriotry even came remotely to having a black population of that size at that time. Little Dixie Yes a region of Missouri that had an above normal (for that state) slave percentage. Yes this rural region in Missouri had the same percentage of slaves as Kentucky's premiere Urbancenter Louisville, But could not compare to the Bluegrass region, nor even Oldham or Shelby counties of Kentucky. Not to mention that Kentucky ranked after Georgia and Virgnia in the largest slave owning population. Again dude Kentucky is the Upper/Mid/Upland South Tobacco was king there were no less than ten slaves to every slave owner(unlike the plantation/Deep South). So tell me this what does this have to do with Minnesota or Wisconsin." Will you get it through your head that I'm not saying that Kentucky is Deep Southern, It's the MID SOUTH. I would like you to find me a tobacco "farm" (not plantation) in Indiana where slaves were forced to work, good luck LOL. I would also love to see you find a picture of "Lower Midwestern" whose Architecture matches that of Old Louisville (which is nearly identical to that found in New Orleans). I mean LOL there are magnolias blooming all over Louisville. To end this my stance on Louisville is that it's a Upper/Mid Southern city, Kentucky is a Upper/Mid Southern state. May I also note that Skyscrapercity considers MD and De as the Northeast/Midatlantic. I'm not at all insulted Historically Louisville and Kentucky is a Southern city, and Kentucky is a Southern state. I ackwonwledge the distinctions between Louisville and the Lower Midwest, But Historically and Culturally Louisville is just a Mid Southern city. 74.128.200.135 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Uhmmm...just to clarify my statements (some of which you've misread or misunderstood), I was the first person to say that Louisville is the "warmest of the Lower Midwest cities, yet coldest of those in the Upper South." You have insisted upon comparing Louisville's climate to near-Canadian cities such as Minneapolis to say that it is not "Midwestern", as if the climate of those cities were typical across the ENTIRE Midwest; if I were to compare the climate of Louisville (57 degrees annually) to the climate of, say, Brownsville, TX (average annual temp of 74, meaning Louisville is 17 degrees cooler on average), Louisville would be closer to Minneapolis (45, meaning Louisville is only 12 degrees warmer) or Milwaukee (47, meaning that Louisville is only 10 degrees warmer) or Chicago (49, meaning Louisville is only 8 degrees warmer) or Cleveland (51, meaning Louisville is only 6 degrees warmer), and certainly to all of the cities of the lower Midwest - Cinci, St. Louis. etc. Clearly, this is an absurd comparison on my part, and it is equally absurd as your comparisons. Again, this is why I compared Louisville to Nasvhille, Memphis, Richmond, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, the cities in the Upland South and Lower Midwest that it is closest to - not extreme locations like Fargo, Miami, Minneapolis, or El Paso. As I said, I showed that it was in the middle, and that nothing in its climate is out of line with the climate of the Lower Midwest (i.e., receiving more snow annually than Cinci.) For all of this, my source is always http://www.weatherbase.com . If our weather sources disagree about the specific details, then *shrugs*, it happens. But whether you acknowledge it or not, lake effect snow is real and it has nothing to do with a city's climate zone - even Salt Lake City, in an entirely different climate region of the country, experiences it. Again, this is why Chicago experiences much more snow annually than New York, Philadelphia, and the cities of Connecticut, roughly at the same latitude zone. A city that receives 16.4 inches of snow simply isn't in line with cities like New Orleans, Houston, Brownsville, Jacksonville, etc. that receive no snow each year, and scarcely ever ice. Also, I've never, from the beginning of the debate, tried to argue that there were significant black populations outside of slave states before the end of the Civil War - I was always in agreement with you from the beginning that Kentucky is a predominantly Southern state, and our opinions only diverged regarding Louisville and, to a lesser extent, Nothern Kentucky - the regions that I believe give the state the most considerable Midwestern influence of any of the border states besides Missouri. Kentucky certainly is NOT getting the majority of its Midwestern influence from Paducah, Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Lexington. The media and people in other regions don't like Southern accents? Probably, but this hasn't stopped people such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Bush, etc. Again, I don't think that your argument with St. Louis rap artists having a Southern drawl is valid at all; I provided Diane Sawyer merely as an example to say that individual people don't show us where the linguistic divisions fall. If she was born and raised in Kentucky and has no vestiges of a Southern accent at all - when other equally and more prominent people raised in states further south do - that's just as "valid" as your rap artist example. Even highly educated, extremely intelligent people have great difficulty trying to "erase" an accent completely if they developed it as they grew up. But then again, that example on pages 8-9 of the LAVIS study that you cited grouped Bowling Green in with the cities of the Midwest, not the South, just proof yet again that the accent is in transition and that Louisville is a border city in this, and many other regards. Again, there was no sizable debate for an entire year regarding KY and WV's inclusion on the Midwest page, until one editor removed the map (without any discussion), I replaced it, and here we are now, with others joining in. I am not the "only one" who suggested that KY and WV be striped and provided evidence - if this were such a ludicrous assumption, how could they have ended up on the map in the first place, as the result of a consensus???? I would suggest that you (and they as well) read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._regions And if you want to see a real argument, just try suggesting on the Deep South talk page that Louisvillians are just as Southern as residents of Birmingham, New Orleans, and Little Rock, or mention potentially including Kentucky as an "honorary" member of the Deep South - that's a discussion that I would love to watch, as the fireworks fly! One of Louisville's many nicknames is "America's southernmost northern city and its northernmost southern city." This is included on Louisville's English Wikipedia page, and at verifiable outside sources such as http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=louisville-ky-usa . And I've said before, just by logic the "Gateway to the South" cannot escape becoming the "Gateway to the North." Of course, a term like "southernmost northern city and northernmost southern city" is quite catchy and is going to be claimed by other cities as well - I think that Cinci and Charleston, WV are probably the other two well known examples. --216.227.87.231 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said I found that obsordity in one of your post in which you compared Louisville's climate to Lower Midwestern (St.Louis and Cincinnati) to Birmingham, which is in a state that touches the gulf of Mexico, which one would automatically assume it to be warmer. So to counter that argument I compared and contrasted Louisville's annual temps between The Heart of Dixie and Minneanapolis. That's argument you made was indeed absord. You started comparing weather with opposite ends of the regions NOT ME, and I quoted you in my previous post. I'm well aware that Louisville's tempature similar to the Lower Midwest, However I sited the Wiki Page on Cincinnati.
Cincinnati is located within a climatic transition zone; the area is at the extreme northern limit of the humid subtropical climate. The local climate is basically a blend of the subtropics to the south and the humid continental climate to the north. Evidence of both climatic influences can be found in Cincinnati's landscape material and fauna (see: Southern magnolia, Sweetgum, Bald cypress, and the common wall lizard). The USDA Climate Zone map assigns Cincinnati with a 6a/6b hardiness zone rating (zone 1 being the coldest and zone 11 being the warmest). More mild "microclimates" of a 7a/b rating may be found, particularly along the Ohio River basin. Cincinnati, which is in the Bluegrass region of the Interior Low Plateau of Ohio, generally receives less snow and has a longer growing season than much of the rest of Ohio. The summers in Cincinnati are generally hot and humid with cool evenings. The mean annual temperature is 54 °F (12 °C), with an average annual snowfall of 16 inches (58.4 cm) and an average annual rainfall of 41 inches (1,040 mm). The wettest seasons are the spring and summer, although rainfall is fairly constant all year round. During the winter, particularly in January and February, several days of snow can be expected, allowing for winter sports, although snowfall is lighter than in most of Ohio. January temperatures range from 22 to 39 °F (-6 to 4 °C) and July temperatures range from 66 to 87 °F (19 to 30 °C).[5] The highest recorded temperature was 103.0 °F (39.4 °C) on August 17, 1988, and the lowest recorded temperature was -25°F (-32 °C) on January 18, 1978
Louisville
Louisville is located on the northern limit of the humid subtropical climate. Summers are hot and humid with mildly warm evenings. The mean annual temperature is 56 °F (13 °C), with an average annual snowfall of 16.4 inches (41 cm) and an average annual rainfall of 44.53 inches (1131 mm). The wettest seasons are the spring and summer, although rainfall is fairly constant all year round. During the winter, particularly in January and February, several days of snow can be expected, allowing for winter sports. Winter temperatures range from 27 to 43 °F (−3 to 6 °C) and summer temperatures range from 66 and 86 °F (19 and 30 °C).[8] The highest recorded temperature was 105 °F (41 °C) on July 14, 1954, and the lowest recorded temperature was −22 °F (−30 °C) on January 19, 1994.[9] However, in any season, temperatures can vary widely day by day, because of Louisville's location where many fronts often converge. This basically means that the Southern climate doesn't stop at the Ohio river, sort of like Southern culture. Well Louisville average 16. inches compared to Milwalkee's 47 in, Minnenapolis's 49 in, Indianapolis's 23 in, St.Louis's 19.6, Columus, 28 in /Nashville's 10, Richmond's 13.8 in, Knoxville's, 11.5, Norfolk's 7.8 http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762183.html
Well according to you Richmond (former captial of the Confederacy), Nashville, Knoxville, Memphis, and Norfolk can't be Southern because of their snowfall averages. LOL these stats obviously show that a city's snollfall should not have too much weight interms of a city's Southerness.
I ackwoledged that we agreed on Kentucky's prodominantly Southern culture. Okay presidents, the media is not trying to have a veiwer change the channel because they feel offended, by someones Southern accent. Presidents on the other hand offend people the minute they step into the Oval. The Midwestern/Midland accent is the most preferred accent in the Media, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. With the tracks I provided, I wanted to show you that St.Louis obviously does have a strong Southern element in it's culture. If you look at Nelly's first single Country Grammer, one track is has a chorus, based on the Jefferson's theme song, while using Southern Food as the lyrics. In Louisville's Southern dialect you brought up Dianne Sawyers Media personality, OKAY Oprah Winfrey a black from Rural Mississippi, who now host the Daytime T.V.'s most watched show. Then there's the Black lady from good morning America who's from Mississippi, you would have never guessed, MEDIA PERSONALITY . Muhammad Ali (Louisville born and raised) had a Southern accent and was a decendent of a Kentucky slave. He was once regaured by a boxer whom he referred to as a washer women (though he pronouced it warsher women) as a Southern gentlemen.
LOL that Midwestern forum is a war zone here a few post the inclusion of West Virginia and Kentucky as peripherally Midwestern in cultural character seems like stretching the definitions a bit, even if there may be a great deal of commuting and other economic ties across the Ohio River. //Big Adamsky 17:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Kentucky I would have to agree with. It may be on the edge of the South, but historically and culturally it most certainly *is* part of the South. Northern Kentucky on the Ohio River near Cincinnati is quite Midwestern, but the other 95% of the state is very clearly Southern. So in that case I would have to agree that Kentucky should not be included in this defintion West Virgina on the other hand is a more difficult issue. Culturally it's a mix of Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern -- particularly in terms of it's industrial culture that has many similitaries to neighboring Pennsylvania (which is unquestionably Northeastern). Unlike Kentucky, however, West Virgina is historically not part of the South. On the other hand it doesn't fit very well under the definition of Midwestern nor Northeastern either. The point being, West Virginia is literally the location where the three major regions east of the Mississippi come together and this makes it very different to identify it with one region or another. As a result I would consider it a border state -- particularly between the Midwest and the South. { stereoisomer 4:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) } All these people are claiming parts of Kentucky and West Virginia as "Midwest". Personally, I don't see it... not at all. I think the confusion comes in thinking of Ohio as culturally homogenous, which it isn't. One need only compare the areas around Ohio University, Youngstown State University, and Bowling Green State University to learn the differences in culture within the state of Ohio. The three campuses compare more favorably to the University of Tennessee (at Knoxville), the University at Buffalo, and Iowa State University (respectively) than to one another. Accordingly, the parts of Ohio bordering Kentucky and West Virginia are much more Appalachian in nature (or "Southern", although this is itself a misnomer when applied to the region) than Midwestern. -- SwissCelt 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC) I'm happy I'm not the only who thought it strange to include West Virginia and Kentucky in the Midwest. I lived in Ketucky for 2 years, and even the extreme north, which most locals seem to consider to be more Midwestern than southern in culture, still seemed "southern" to me, someone born and raised in Chicagoland. Its all relative to a point, but too much of a stretch to say that Kentucky and West Virginia are midwestern. Kemet 23 February 2006 All the data here regarding Cincinnati is highly questionable. Cincinnati has virtually nothing in common with Southern culture or identity and is indeed definitive of a Midwestern city. Cincinnati most closely identifies with Chicago due to it's history of similar businesses, industries and culture. If any city in the region is a hybrid of Midwestern and Southern, then it is indeed Louisville. Cincinnati and Louisville are often compared because of a) their proximity, b) they're Ohio River cities, and c) they're approximately the same size. But that's where the simalarities end. Everything south of the Ohio River is distinctly different than what lies to the north. Even driving 15-30 minutes south of Cincinnati into Northern Kentucky will yield a cultural experience significantly different (e.g. attitudes, accents, entertainment) than that of downtown or suburban Cincinnati. Furthermore, the term 'Cincinatucky' is flat out bogus. My family has lived in Ohio (specifically Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland) for over 150 years, I've lived her almost all my life and I, nor anyone else I know, has ever used the word "Cincinatucky" or seen it in print anywhere in Ohio or the surrounding region. -- Stereoisomer 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Actually in Cleveland, we generally consider Cincinnati to be part of Kentucky. Unlike the focus of much of this dialogue (Midwest vs. South), Cleveland is a mix of Midwest and Northeastern (generally divided by the Cuyahoga River) due to the original immigrants settling the two cities of Cleveland (primarily settled by New Englanders) and Ohio City (primarily settled by Appalachians). I view Cleveland as one-half Hartford (on the East Side) and one-half Cincinnati (on the West Side). That said, I agree that no one, in their right mind, views WV and Kentucky as "Midwestern". It seems to me that "Midwest" is comprised of the Great Lakes States (primarily the Old Northwest Territory) and some portion of the eastern Plains States (I believe Missouri and Iowa are Midwestern, but it probably doesn't go farther west than Mississippi and Missouri River states). In sum, all of the fringe areas of any region will share some influence from and characteristics of their neighbors. That should suggest neither exclusion of the fringes nor inclusion of the neighbors. Mayor Pez 04:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Jeff59c/quickies/CivilWarSWCnty.jpg
Some excerpts:
About Confederate sympathizers:
"In 1860 the young men of this section were Southerners and began drilling in order to join the Southern Army. They did their drilling in a field near Pleasure Ridge Park, on Mr Charles Pages' place. The Miller's, Camp's, Shively's, and most of the young men of the leading familys of that section went to the Confederate Camp at Bowling Green. Mr. Thomas Camp had four sons to go and a nephew....Mr. Camp's exhortation to them was never to run; if any of them came back shot in the back they need not come to him for help or expect to be allowed to stay in the house. They went off gaily to the war saying, "We will have the Yankees whipped and back home by Christmas to eat turkey with you." Some of them never got back.
The Camp family are mentioned again in this exploit:
" During the Civil War many young men wh were inducted by conscription into the Northern army deserted to the South. Some of these men came across the Ohio River near Goshen. In one instance a young boy of fourteen, William Adams, drove a spirited team and springboad wagon from Goshen to Valley Station. His mission was to deliver a grandfathers clock, but in the clocka Southern sympathizer was hiding. The boyt brought him through the back roads to the Camp farm, of whom the young deserter was a relative. He hid in the hills above the farm and the Camps fed him until he could join the Southern army
For the Louisville readers: the hills mentioned are visible today, off the Gene Synder freeway, and is that part of the Jefferson County Forest between Pond Creek and Blevins Gap.
The map upthread shows the route of the Don Carol's Buells Union army marching to Louisville. The history mentions this march up "Salt River Pike", todays Dixie Highway:
"Buell's Army, in his race with Bragg, passed along the pike....they camped one night in that territory between Salt River and Louisville. The next day there were not as many chickens, turkeys, geese, hogs, beehives, rail fences, and cordwood ast there was the day before, and there was some horse trading".
..this bivouac before reaching Louisville was someplace in southwest Jefferson County, off of Dixie Highway.
It should be said this area, though pro-South, was not really plantation country, thought there was some large old houses and big pieces of property, like this one along the river, on 200 acres (but enlarged later to 1,500 acres)...the Moorman House:
"Mr. Moorman was good to his slaves. He did every thing he could to encourage their legal marriage of slaves. Often he would buy or sell a slave so that the slave could be on the same farm with their legal husband or wife. After the war was over and the slaves where freed the head of each colored family recieved $100.00 to start on. Up until the time of his death, Israel Putnam, son of Alanson, heard from children of these old slaves. The letters came addressed to "Old Marse".
There apparently was a rural African-American population in SW Jefferson County into the 20th century. A "Cold. Church" shows on an old 1870s map, at around Pages Lane and 3rd Street Road. The history mentions two others:
One of the early colored churches in our community stands at Blevins Gap Road and Orell Road. It will soon be 100 years old. A school for colored children formerly was in the same area.
On Johnsontown Road and Mill Creek there stood at one time a church and school for colored folk. It was begun by the slaves and their families. At the end of World War I, it was burned with a firey cross supposedly by the Ku Klux Klan. There is now a good 'hog proof' fence around the plot and it is well kept and mowed by the descendants"
Which brings up a question of a "secret history"...what happened to this rural African American population? Where they driven out by racial violence prior to white suburbanization?
As Kentucky was a border state and Jefferson County was right on that border, there where Union sympathizers. One pro-union family left Southwest Jefferson County for Indiana for the duration of the war and returned when the war was over.
And there was a region of German farmers in Southwest County that where Union sympathizers, shown on the map above:
"Mr. Carl Schroerlucke remembers many stories told to him by his mother concerning the Civil War. He said that 50,000 Union soldiers where camped at the Old Folk Home in Shively and around Louisville. Some of the men visited in this German settlement, which was very strong Union. Hannah, Carl's mother, would as ask the little boy what he could possibly do in a battle, and he answered he was needed to beat the drum.
One of the Union soldiers by the name of Dickeman visited the farm often, and said he intended to return one tday to live in this valley. From Louisville this army went ot the battle of Shiloh, he was never heard from again and the Friauf's assumed he was kidded.
There was a company of 100 men from this Shardine Precinct...
So, just as their neighbors further south joined the CSA army, the German farmers formed a company to join the Union.
The history also makes passing mention to the depredations of the "guerillas". Kentucky (and Missouri) had quite a few irregulars, actually just plain bandits in many cases, called "guerillas". One famous one operated in the area south and southwest, was captured, and hung out on what is now Dixie Highway...
http://www.rulen.com/partisan/mundy.jpg
Sue Mundy (and no he wasn't a girl)
Probably not too interesting stuff, unless one is into local history, but for me it was neat to see how this grand epic of our history..The Civil War...played out in this little corner of Kentucky.
http://users.aol.com/cinticwrt/bluegrass.html
"I say emphatically Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern states."
http://users.aol.com/cinticwrt/bluegrass.html
From Kentucky's governor.
I mean Gator are we going back this long ass debate?? Kentucky's prodominantly Southern culture has been proven through these sources and I guess since Texas got called into question, you're denying Kentucky is a Southern state. Oh that's right you see it as while the majority of Kentuckians see themselves as Southerner and or living in a Southern state that minority must label Kentucky a boarder state. That is REDICULOUS, Kentucky and Missouri while showing signifigant characteristics or two regions in certain areas of the state, KENTUCKY IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED SOUTHERN, WHILE MISSOURRI IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED MIDWESTERN.
LoL Louisville is not a Deep Southern city AGAIN WHERE DID I SAY THAT, yes I made a few comparison's that Louisville has with the Deep South, It wouldn't even be an argument for Southerness if Louisville had nothing in common with Deep Southern cities. Louisville is again one with the South, particularly the Mid South. I again dude there is even objection to the map that stripes Kentucky in with the Midwestern region, let alone the Upper Midwest . LOL I guarantee one thing though I'll have a hell of an easier argument in the Deep South article than the Upper Midwest. As for the Gateway to the South, LOL WHAT ANGLE ARE YOU LOOK AT. Louisville is in Kentucky, and Kentucky is apart of the South. That's why when you are entering Louisville from the North the sign hung over the 2 street bridge brightingly stating WELCOME TO LOUISVILLE GATEWAY CITY TO THE SOUTH. There was no Welcome to Louisville gate way to the North, if you were going to opposite way. I've heard this before though.
I don't have time to read novels (like the above), but I'll make some points: 1) Riverside, The Farnsley-Moremen Landing did not become a part of Louisville until 2003! So if it was southern in nature has nothing to do with Louisville. 2) The Union planned the Atlanta Campaign (you know, the one that burned that city to the ground) at the Galt House in Louisville! Yeah, that's Southern-friendly all right. (sarcasm) 3) Look at the 10 links provided by Gator87 and there's clearly a dispute as to whether Louisville is Midwestern or Southern. Louisville has long been called the top of the south and the bottom of the north. "Gateway to the South" is a cute sign moniker, but it's just a sign and "gateway" here means "edge between two regions", obviously. 4) Most importantly, Louisville has White Castle! This is a restaurant of the North, for northerners, as only northerners' bellies can handle the slyders! (ok, this was humor, but I think we need a bit of levity here). Stevie is the man!Talk • Work01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Nashville and Richmond have White Catles and New Orleans has Rally's. Detroit has Checkers and only Souteastern states have Chickafila (and Louisville has one). I've been through this before steven. Despite
Louisville being occupied by the Union it still has no Union Monument...STRANGE and instead has a 23 foot Confederate monument in it's First Suburb Old Louisville. Louisville had one of the largest Urbanslave and slave owning populations in country, Oh man we're the twin of columbus. Louisville unlike Midwestern cities was not formed through the Northwest Ordinance.
Gateway to the South Louisville is in what state....Kentucky. Kentucky is in what region.....the South. So when you're coming through Louisville on I-65 from the North and you were entering Louisville, the State of Kentucky and the South, you're greeted with the welcome to Louisville Gateway city to the South sign. Oddly there was no sign saying the opposite when you were coming from further South HHHMMMMM.
On that Courier Journal article, WHERE'S IT UNDER OPINIONS LMAO
She didn't even list where the debate was taking place.
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9049101
A vigorous campaign to reclaim the South's trade followed the war. In the 1880s the Louisville and Nashville Railroad was extended to Jacksonville, Florida.
KENTUCKIANA DUH, let's not forget that Louisville's metropolitan area extends into the OFFICIAL MIDWEST region/Southern Indiana. I'm aware that Louisville's metro area may be considered Midwestern for that reason. However that same source considers the city of Louisville and Kentucky the South, as they go by the Official definition. East South Central!!
Louisville is proud to host the two most exciting minutes in sports. This genteel Southern city is home to the Kentucky Derby, the world's most famous horse race.
Horses, hats, and mint juleps: Churchill Downs may be the place to be the first weekend of May, but every day of the year, you'll find great style and plenty to see and do in this classic Southern city
If there was only one city in the South you can visit to discover the genteel Southern lifestyle, Southern Hospitality, and Soutehrn Heritage we suggest Louisville. But as the most Northern of the Southern cities, that sophistication comes with a "southern twist"
LOL while I was doing a simple google search I came across this Louisville area rapper's myspace page, and he had a few interesting polls One being "Kentucky is" No.1 Gateway to the South, No. 2 Swangin in tha Midwest, No. 3 Big East (AKA style New York rappers). LoL out of the 75 respondants 55 say it's the Gateway to tha South, 16 say it's the Midwest, and 5 say the Big East. Keep in mind this is a local rapper, so many if not most of the respondants are Louisvillians. Just thought it could contribute to the whole how Louisvillians feel about regional identity. I GUEST THEY'RE SOUTHERNERS TOO. Louisvillian02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Louisvillian, reposting verbatim pages upon pages of arguments that you've already made - on this same page, which is the case with some of those above points - clutters talk pages and isn't a good practice; furthermore, it adds nothing new to your argumentation, since we've already seen these points before. If you've already said something, summarize it, direct editors to your earlier comments, and please assume that other editors have read it and acknowledged it (I've read every one of your posts, and for the most part I respect your sources and analysis.) About the "Gateway to the South" phrase: an analysis that I've heard many times before, and seems to make the most sense, is to accept this only in reference to the entrance into a transitional zone. Cultures do not shift abruptly at rivers or lines on maps, and the Ohio River is not an impermeable buffer between Northern and Southern culture. When it is said that Louisville is the "Gateway to the South", what should be understood is that Louisville marks the spot at which, traveling south, Midwestern cultural influence disappears rapidly and the culture of the South becomes dominant; i.e., by the time that you reach, say, Bowling Green, you're clearly in the South. Likewise, traveling north from Louisville, the culture of the South loses ground rapidly so that by the time you reach Indianapolis, you're clearly in the Midwest. There is a sort of "cultural buffer zone" of probably a good 50 miles on each direction, which it why it is often said that many counties in Southern Indiana exhibit many Southern characteristics (though they're still Midwestern in nature.) To a lesser extent, the "Gateway" argument could be extended to the entire state of Kentucky - the state itself is a mix, though above it is clearly the Midwest, and below it is clearly the South. And this is exactly why KY needs to retain its border state/striped status on any maps.
--Gator8702:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly Kentucky's soil types and agriculture are predominantly northern. It's definitely not in the cotton belt. Tobacco is grown; it's traditionally thought of as southern, but the variety grown in Kentucky - burley - is not the southern type; it's the type that's grown as far north as Ontario, New York, and Connecticut. Blueberries are not the southern rabbiteye varieties but the northern highbush. Apples predominate over peaches for orchard fruit. Kentucky's famous bluegrass will hardly last a season in the South, but grows just fine in Ontario, Canada. Pecans grow only in a few protected locations. I could go on with many more examples, but I'm sure you can catch the point. A southern agriculturist would see only a little that would be familiar. Pollinator02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Re the anon's statement "Louisville being occupied by the Union it still has no Union Monument...STRANGE and instead has a 23 foot Confederate monument in it's First Suburb Old Louisville. Louisville had one of the largest Urbanslave and slave owning populations in country, Oh man we're the twin of columbus."
I'm afraid this shows that the anon really doesn't understand Louisville history that well. Louisville was solidly Union during the war, with the city being a *major* Union supply hub, a significant war planning location, and *multiple* Union fortifications stood throughout the city. This is absolute fact. It is often said that Louisville (and Kentucky) joined the Confederacy (politically) after the war. Yes, this is true, due to how badly the Union military commander Burbridge treated not only Confederates but also Kentucky civilians during the war. However, as a political movement (which led to the monument being erected in the 1880s), it was finite and withered away in the 20th century. The anon may want to note that there have been efforts in recent years to balance that monument with Union-related monument(s), or move it to Cave Hill Cemetery, so almost nobody will see it any more. The southern influence on Louisville politics died away a long time ago, as you might notice with our Jewish major, who has held that position since the mid 1980s. A truly Southern city would never elect a Jew and you know it. Louisville is practically in the North/Midwest by most measures *today*. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Further, the anon also probably doesn't know that the slave issue is irrelevant, as the biggest slaveholder in the area, the very influential *Republican* Speed family (one of whom became Lincoln's Attorney General, and another one was Lincoln's bedmate, I'm not kidding!), badly wanted to keep Kentucky in the Union and worked with Lincoln to make it so, including having Lincoln ship in loads of arms for Union sympathizers. The Union sympathy in Louisville was essentially "let's keep the slaves *and* stay in the Union"). Stevie is the man!Talk • Work03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Anon WOW !!! Steven well according to that source clearly Louisville was not not solidly Union again here is the map. "Let's keep the slaves" AGAIN how Northern could the city have been. Kentucky remained in the Union in it's best interest (which keeping slaves was a priority), however when the Union backed out on it's promise that's when it was said Kentucky succeeded after the War (Louisville was a driving force). Again if Louisville was so Union Steven where is our Union Monument??? Why is there a 23 ft Confederate monument in our first suburb if we were "completely Union". Honestly when you say that it kind of like me saying that Louisville is completely Southern, Both are simply not true.
As far as slavery, do you realize slavery in the a community was an economic backbone, and provided social status for every Southern town at that time. Not one Midwestern or Northern city had this kind of mentality or social class, as they did not hold slaves. It's utterly rediculous to in my book to claim that Louisville or any slave holding city was anything but Southern in Post Civil War times. Then it's not like Louisville had one or two slaves here and there, Louisville had one of the largest slave populations in the country (10,000 +) and a population of 60,000. This social status was found no where in the Midwest, despite Louisville being occupied by the Union, the Southern mentality did not lessen. As a matter of Fact it grew throughout the state of Kentucky which for some odd reason why some of you are so quick to say well Kentucky remained in the Union, that you don't want to acknowlege that it's Dixie Element was never lost with over 70 Confederate monuments (including the largest one in Louisville) compared to 2 Union monuments to this very day.
For what it's worth, slavery was the economic backbone of many places outside the South. A great portion of the cotton produced by slaves in the South went to textile mills in New England and England. Towns like Lowell, Massachusetts were dependent on slave-produced cotton from the South. New England had dominated the slave trade until it was outlawed (and even afterwards), and continued to pour money into the slave system. Without capital and support from New England and England, American slavery would have been very different. While it is true that New England and England did not have populations of slaves, many of the people owned slaves and plantations in the South, the Carribean, and elsewhere. The booming textile mills of New England and England were deeply dependent on slave-produced cotton. I just wanted to point that out - that economic dependence on slavery was far from limited to the American South. Pfly22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Pfly that's kind of a different topic from what I was getting at. Yes other regions of the nation as well as European countries relied on Cotton and Tobacco grown by Southern slaves, However they did have the Social Cast sytem if you will that were tied to the Old South's Slavery. This of course is referring to the period after Northern Slavery was abolished. Which is when the Mason Dixon Line Theory came into play.
As far as Louisville's Liberalism I have found this interesting ranking. As far as Louisville being to only Southern city that would elect a Jewish mayor, I think this would give you a different view of things.
I ranked all of the Southern cities with populations of 200,000 or more and put them in a list. The higher on the list the city is, the more liberal it is. I included the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Delaware in this list because the U.S. Census calls them Southern, and they're below the Mason-Dixon line. I also included Texas and Oklahoma. I based each city's liberality on two things. The first is the 2004 Election. The difference between the amount of votes Bush and Kerry received is counted as a positive number if Kerry received more votes and negative if Bush received more votes. Example: Nashville voted 55% Kerry and 45% Bush. Therefore, Nashville gets a score of 10. The biggest positive difference in votes between the two candidates was Washington, D.C. with a score of 81. Therefore, Washington, D.C. gets a 100. Since a score of 81 earns a city 100%, all the other scores are adjusted--Nashville's score of 10 translates into 12.35. (Obviously, if the list included cities that had even greater positive differences than 81, the highest positive difference present would be equal to 100%.) Keep that number in mind as we continue to the next basis for judgement, the Local Gay Index. The National Index is 100. Any number above or below 100 represents the percentage that a city's gay population is above or below the national norm. For example, Nashville's local index is 125, which represents that Nashville has per capita 25% more gays and lesbians than the national norm. For my list, however many points above the national average a city's gay index is is counted as positive points; likewise, if the number is below 100, the city gets a negative score in this category. The highest local index was Atlanta with an index of 299. Therefore, 199 equals 100%. Each other score was then adjusted--Nashville's score of 25 became 12.56. Finally, Nashville's 2004 election score of 12.35 and its gay population score of 12.56 were each multiplied by 0.5, as that is how much each contributed to the overall score. After that, the two products of those multiplications are added together for the final score. Nashville's final liberality score was 12.455. After performing these operations on thirty-six other cities' statistics (I didn't include Lexington, KY because I could not find its gay index), I have ended up with the list below. My statistics came from CNN.com and epodunk.com.
Southern Cities with 200,000 Plus Inhabitants Listed in Descending Order according to their Liberality
1. Washington, D.C. (score: 90.955)
2. Atlanta, Georgia (score: 61.73)
3. Baltimore, Maryland (score: 51.685)
4. New Orleans, LA (score: 51.405)
5. Durham, NC (score: 35.285)
6. Richmond, VA (score: 34.355)
7. Orlando, FL (score: 27.89)
8. Austin, TX (score: 25.975)
9. Dallas, TX (score: 23.505)
10. Norfolk, VA (score: 19.84)
11. Miami, FL (score: 17.275)
12. St. Petersburg, FL (score: 16.22)
13. Nashville, TN (score: 12.455)
14. Tampa, FL (score: 12.265)
15. Memphis, TN (score: 11.13)
16. Charlotte, NC (score: 7.245)
17. Louisville, KY (score: 7.15)
18. Houston, TX (score: 6.39)
19. Augusta, GA (score: 6.38)
20. Birmingham, AL (score: 3.24)
21. El Paso, TX (score: 2.495)
22. Hialeah, FL (score: 1.695)
23. Greensboro, NC (score: 1.37)
24. Raleigh, NC (score: 0.275)
25. Montgomery, AL (score: -3.29)
26. Baton Rouge, LA (score: -6.68)
27. San Antonio, TX (score: -6.79)
28. Jacksonville, FL (score: -8.365)
29. Corpus Christi, TX (score: -11.655)
30. Fort Worth, TX (score: -12.165)
31. Chesapeake, VA (score: -16.18)
32. Oklahoma City, OK (score: -16.53)
33. Arlington, TX (score: -16.685)
34. Tulsa, OK (score: -17.79)
35. Virginia Beach, VA (-19.015)
36. Plano, TX (-33.33)
37. Lubbock, TX (-37.51)
Note: Lexington, KY is not included because I couldn’t find sufficient data.
Gator I simply got tired of typing the same things over and over again, When Stevethe man comes on he makes speaks his opinion as if it's fact. He completely ignores the sources I've posted that easily counter his false assertions. Then out of frustration he accuses me of being a non Native Louisvillian LOL. However if you feel differently about what I've posted than dispute it or whatever.
Pollinator as far as Tobacco goes and Burley and what not
The Piedmont of North Carolina and Virginia was one of the big winners in the burley sweepstakes in 2005. New burley growers in North Carolina (including a few in the Coastal Plain) accounted for about 3.8 million pounds in 2005, estimates Blake Brown, North Carolina Extension economist. But there were other credible estimates of 4.5 million pound production or even more with area planted of 2,500 acres or more.
Across the border in Virginia, Piedmont counties that traditionally grow flue-cured and dark tobacco accounted for 615 acres of burley in 2005, says Stan Duffer, marketing specialist with the Virginia Department of Agriculture. No official estimate of Virginia volume was available, but a yield of 1,800 pounds per acre seemed plausible, and that would give production of about 1.1 million pounds.
Did you know that by using recommended techniques you can begin highbush blueberry harvests the second year after planting, and obtain new vegetative growth of 4 feet height a year (grower-proven in Virginia)? With today's availability of disease-free tissue cultured nursery-grown plants, drip irrigation and generous use of compost and surface mulches, growers can greatly shorten the older, break-even time on these perennial plantings that may produce fruit annually for 30, 40 or more years. Remember, blueberries have no tap root, moisture must be applied regularly, then conserved with surface mulches and organic soil amendments, to prevent plant stress, declining yields and eventual plant death. Plan carefully to do it right, or don't go there at all!
Peaches are a popular fruit with Kentucky growers and consumers. Kentucky consumes more peaches than it produces and this provides opportunities for additional peach production.
The size of home peach plantings is determined by the space available or the amount of fruit desired. Commercial growers should determine their market in advance of planting. Market choices in Kentucky in order of popularity are: roadside markets, local retail outlets, u-pick orchards and shipping to terminal markets. Once the market choices are determined the need for a certain production level and a certain time of harvest helps delineate the minimum size planting. Available labor, equipment cost and equipment capabilities further define the size of the planting. For example, one grower, a roadside market operator, reports that he moves 600 pecks a day from mid-july until school starts, when demand falls. This planting must produce this volume within this time frame. A good sprayer for insect and disease control is one of the more expensive equipment items. Most of these sprayers can comfortably handle 30-40 acres. Matching production acres to equipment capacity will lower the cost per acre for equipment. Fifteen to twenty acres will keep one person reasonably busy with additional labor needed during peak seasons. The County Agricultural Agent can provide you with detailed labor and equipment projections.
Kentucky's climate has both good and bad characteristics for growing peaches. One of its good points is the intense sunshine which builds carbohydrates and helps produce high-quality fruit. The rainfall is sufficient for good growth and fruit sizing during most seasons. On the other hand, winters are unpredictable. Fluctuating temperatures often cause fruit buds to start growth too early. Consequently, hardiness is lost during the warm periods after the end of the late December or early january rest period. If a severe cold wave then occurs, the fruit buds may be killed, This same condition often occurs in the spring about bloom time. Some localities very seldom have crop failures owing to freezing of the fruit buds, while others may seldom have crops because of winter or spring fruit bud killing (Figure 1 ). For these reasons, selection of the peach orchard site is probably the most important single factor in peach production.
Visitors can drive through Old Louisville's Historic District to see one of the largest collections of restored Victorian homes in the country and Louisville's oldest, largest and most beautifully preserved homes, surrounded by the beauty of mature magnolia and oak trees. Since 1956, Old Louisville has been the home of the St. James Court Art Show held annually the first weekend in October.
Magnolia do complement the Southern Architecutre of Old Louisville greatly.
The star next to Louisville is again creating a whole new problem in it's self. I have provided sources that show that Richmond, is a Mid Atlantic city, I can find sources that would say that San Antonio and some other Texas cities area Southwestern or Western. Plain put the star next to Louisville will not correspond with the new map. Kentucky, Texas, and Virgnia are generally considered Southern and with that the cities are to. If you would like to start this debate all over than be my guest Gator. 74.128.200.13503:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly getting the whole argument regarding the maps. The * pertains to the metro area of Louisville, including some counties in Indiana, and not the state of Kentucky. This has absolutely nothing to do with Virginia, Texas, or the rest of the state of Kentucky. Factually, grouping Louisville just the same as Atlanta and Nashville, when a system exists for those cities that are not always considered Southern, is inaccurate. By this train of logic I would suppose that Covington, were it included on the table, would be considered a purely Southern city? This is getting kind of silly. As I've stated before at least a dozen times, there were both historic and modern reasons as to why Louisville has always had the * distinction on this page, and the last time this emerged in discussion the consensus was to keep Louisville with the *. As I said in my last post (more on that below) I would actually prefer removing this entire distinction, as it adds little and could be a source of pointless discussion. I'll wait for a consensus on that, but Louisville is often considered a Midwestern city. This is a fact, and its metro is the only one in this list - other than Baltimore and DC, both of which are *'ed - that includes counties in states that are definitely not Southern (DC and Baltimore in Maryland, Louisville in Indiana).
Also, I'm not sure who removed my last post (I hope they won't do it again), but here it is:
I definitely do not wish to re-enter this discussion, as I've presented my points in detail on both this and the Midwestern talk pages, but I wanted to note that I had added the * back to the city of Louisville on the main page to reflect its nature as a border/mixed city. The IP that removed it cited the adaption of the new two map system as a reference, though this new map system has absolutely nothing, in and of itself, to do with the actual city of Louisville. While the state of Kentucky is usually considered Southern for the most part, numerous sources do include Louisville in the Midwest; cites were provided on the Midwest page, and could also be found in peer-reviewed works such as Midwestern Industrialization and the American Manufacturing Belt in the Nineteenth Century (Journal of Economic History, David R. Myer) and Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels (Annals of the Association of American Geographers, James R. Shortridge), among many others. If anything should be changed in the table, I would suggest removing cities such as Baltimore and Washington DC, instead of attempting to categorize a largely Midwestern city, such as Louisville, as a purely Southern one. Or perhaps, removing this * distinction entirely, as it may lead to numerous endless discussions/debates in the future. I would actually prefer removing this * distinction completely, as it adds relatively little informationally to the article - the mixed/marginal nature of Southern influence/identity in cities such as Louisville is covered in their respective articles. As long as this * distinction exists, though, it is factually inaccurate to cast Louisville in just the same as cities like Atlanta, Nashville, and Richmond.
--70.168.88.15806:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Gator Louisville has Midwestern influence again and yes Louisville is sometimes considered Midwestern as Richmond and Virginia Beach are sometimes considered Northeastern or Mid Atlantic. Louisville has not always had the star next to it. Before they put up the Red and Pink map (that labled Kentucky pink) and they just used the official definition they already had a list of Southern metros and while cities like Baltimore were starred Louisville was not. It wasn't until that Red and Pink when that they starred Louisville, as it correstponded with the map. Ironically they starred El paso while not making Texas Pin, which stirred a bit of controversy on the page.
Let's not forget that this greater area is refered to as Kentuckiana (inclusion of Southern Indiana counties), with Indiana being a Midwestern state it wouldn't seem all that bizarre for the Kentuckiana area to be referred to as the Midwest. Then again there are hundreds upon hundreds of companies that have the word Southeast attached to their signs. Just look at the Direct Car innsurance commericals, in like 2003 -04 they would start the commercial off with a glittering map of the Southeast with stars representing the Direct offices across the Southeastern states (Texas and Oklahoma were not included). They showed the same commerical ion Georgia (where I live for 4 years). Kentuckiana was ment to boost all of greater Louisville and not just the side below the Mason Dixon Line, so if that would mean a company based in Southern Indiana identiying the entire Kentuckiana region as the Midwest on their commericals than I mean whatever helps boost Louisville economic growth
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9049101
A vigorous campaign to reclaim the South's trade followed the war. In the 1880s the Louisville and Nashville Railroad was extended to Jacksonville, Florida.
Louisville is proud to host the two most exciting minutes in sports. This genteel Southern city is home to the Kentucky Derby, the world's most famous horse race.
Horses, hats, and mint juleps: Churchill Downs may be the place to be the first weekend of May, but every day of the year, you'll find great style and plenty to see and do in this classic Southern city
If there was only one city in the South you can visit to discover the genteel Southern lifestyle, Southern Hospitality, and Soutehrn Heritage we suggest Louisville. But as the most Northern of the Southern cities, that sophistication comes with a "southern twist"
LOL while I was doing a simple google search I came across this Louisville area rapper's myspace page, and he had a few interesting polls One being "Kentucky is" No.1 Gateway to the South, No. 2 Swangin in tha Midwest, No. 3 Big East (AKA style New York rappers). LoL out of the 75 respondants 55 say it's the Gateway to tha South, 16 say it's the Midwest, and 5 say the Big East. Keep in mind this is a local rapper, so many if not most of the respondants are Louisvillians. Just thought it could contribute to the whole how Louisvillians feel about regional identity. I GUEST THEY'RE SOUTHERNERS TOO. Louisvillian 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 74.128.200.13518:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't start re-posting 10 pages of information again, because I'm not going to re-read it, and I don't think anybody else will, either, given the cluttered nature of this page. I just removed the * distinction entirely until a new consensus can be reached here regarding the inclusion of certain cities - or unless it is decided to just leave the distinction out. Again, if you check the page's history, it is undeniably clear that Louisville has always been included as a city with a * - from the beginning, when the * system was first proposed - and changing that because of a new map system makes absolutely no sense. I have already said this, and a simple check of the page history on the date of Jan. 6, 2006, reveals that it is true. This is silly, because we are debating about regional identity not with the help of outside, verifiable sources, but because of a technicality with a new map system (!!!) But I want to hear what other editors have to say regarding that. Again, the basis for this entire new map system was that one Southern Focus survey, and that survey did not measure self-identification in individual cities. Thus, we must believe that since Kentucky is mostly Southern, every city in the state, by default, must be mostly Southern. This doesn't work logically and most Kentuckians know it's not the truth; they would rightfully laugh at and reject the notion that cities such as Louisville, Covington, Florence, etc. should be judged based on the culture of the rest of the state, because there is such an enormous difference between the two. And again, Louisville's metro extends into Indiana - none of those other examples that you cited extend into non-Southern states, with the exception of Baltimore and DC (and even then, some people would contend that Maryland is Southern, whereas nobody would argue that Indiana is anything but a Midwestern state.)
--70.168.88.15819:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The sources I have posted have yet to be disputed by yourself. I'm not going to post new ones if you won't even respond to the old ones. The star system was put in place to correspond with the Red and Pink maps. If you're so up on date you'll easily see that the star system came after the new maps. Kentucky being labled pink automatically starred the city, is that not True????
Clearly by me stating that Northern Ky is more Midwestern than the rest of Kentucky and even the fact that I have stated that Kentucky has Midwestern influence would obviously show that some cities will definantly have that mix of culture. Covington is a town of less than 50,000 that sits directly across the river from Cincinatti, obviously Cincinatti would have more input on the cultural exchange between two. Back when they put the Red and Pink maps (on both the Southern and Midwestern pages) up they even addressed this cultural exchange, between Louisville and Southern Indiana and Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, by saying that Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern as it is tied to Louisville economically and Culturally (and those are almost the exact quotes from the article) as the opposite with Cincinatti.
Most Kentuckians know that Louisville is the only "major" city in the state. From my uncountable experiences when traveling to see family in Bowling Green, Campbellsville, and Franklin the onlt resentments that they had about the city were crime and UofL. I have met not one town of extreme Kentuckians who feel Louisville should not be apart of the state or any of that non sense.
Kentucky 3,685,296 1,910,325 1,774,971 51.8% 48.2% r 3,660,324 1,862,183 1,798,594 50.9% 49.1% r 3,220,711 1,684,053 1,534,653 52.3% 47.7%
Tennessee 4,877,185 2,969,948 1,907,237 60.9% 39.1% r 4,591,023 2,773,573 1,817,547 60.4% 39.6% r 3,926,018 2,318,458 1,605,229 59.1% 40.9%
Alabama 4,040,587 2,439,549 1,601,038 60.4% 39.6% r 3,894,025 2,337,713 1,556,175 60.0% 40.0% r 3,444,354 2,017,485 1,426,680 58.6% 41.4%
Mississippi 2,573,216 1,210,729 1,362,487 47.1% 52.9% r 2,520,770 1,192,805 1,327,833 47.3% 52.7% r 2,216,994 986,642 1,230,270 44.5% 55.5%
http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt
Do you realize that Kentucky is still very much a rural state, whereas you have Louisville one of the nations largest cities and you wouldn't expect there to be some sort of difference between the two.
Honestly I think that the only reason for starring the "Metro area" of Louisville is because it does stretch into Southern Indiana, hence Kentuckiana. With those Indiana buisnessess they sometimes referr to the entire region as the Midwest. However I'am strongly opposed to the city of Louisville being labled a Midwestern city, I don't see where that's anything other than opinion trying to dispute facts. Louisville is a Mid Southern city with Midwestern "influence" (which is not dominate).
Please check the page history throughout the month of January 2006 (I believe the exact date is either Jan. 6 or Jan. 26.) And again, if you've already posted something on this same page, I've read it. Re-posting it isn't going to strenghten your point at all because nobody is going to re-read the same information 20 times. Regardless of how strongly you feel about your point, this is a bad Wiki practice and it quickly clutters up talk pages.
--70.168.88.15805:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Gator in my last post the only thing I reposted was the cultural map (which I just found) that lables Louisville Southern portions of Indiana and Illinois as Southern. That along with a vast majority of other Cultural, Historical , and linguistic maps are lableling Louisville as a Southern city.
If you look at the History Gator the star system did not come into place until the Red and Pink maps (southern and sometimes considered Southern). Thusly every metro in every Pink state had a star by it, Is this not true? Since then (now) Wiki editors have worked out the flaws in the mapping system, and it would be only logical to (or in accordance with the new mapping system)to leave every state in the medium red color scale as unstarred.
BTW Gator the fact that you have yet to respond to my reposted statement, is enough indication that my point is indeed valid and really can't be disputed. 74.128.200.13518:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The distinction on the maps between red and pink states was in use for a long time before the table with the cities was introduced. Louisville was included with a * from the beginning for a valid reason, not just because of some arbitrary nomenclature used on the maps. But you don't have to believe me, because the page history proves that - [11] . Note that it was at this post that the * distinction was first introduced, and Louisville was included with a * at that point. Also, on the map at the time Texas was included as a "solid" state, but El Paso were starred, but then removed. The * system had nothing to do with the maps, which remained relatively stable from the creation of the metro table until this latest debate started. And again, this entire discussion is utterly ridiculous and a waste of time because you are trying to use a technicality to reshape the cultural identity of Louisville, not outside sources or other forms of proof. When Louisville was included in the table with a *, there was never a visible form of protest against that decision until an IP removed the * without discussion; when the matter was discussed, the majority viewed the city as border/mixed. This is also why I strongly believe that it is just best to leave this * distinction out entirely, as it is not used on other pages and will serve as an impetus for endless debates as editors insert their personal agendas into the shaping of the different regional delineations. Removing a * from a table isn't going to make Louisville any less Midwestern or more Southern than it is in reality, and people know that (the Wikipedia article on Louisville, monitored by many locals, in the opening section clearly states the Louisville is both the "southernmost northern city and northernmost southern city", as the majority of locals know and acknowledge.) In addition, the following text appeared on the Southern article for a long time until it was removed (I can only imagine why, it seems some Kentuckians take great offense at their state's overall history and culture):
Many Southerners do not recognize Kentucky, West Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland as "Southern" due to their allegiance to the Union during the Civil War.
It should also be noted that many in Kentucky (generally, those in western and northern areas) do not believe themselves to be Southerners, historically or culturally.
That text disappeared in April of 2005, as the page history shows. Again, the new map system is based on the one Southern Focus survey, and that survey did not measure Southern regional and self-identifications in cities, only in entire states. It is simply not reasonable to compare Louisville and Northern Kentucky to the rest of the state in terms of culture, and a majority of residents in these areas know it. And no, it is not the "same difference" as comparing Atlanta to the rest of Georgia or Charlotte to most of North Carolina; the stark contrasts between Kentuckiana/Northern Kentucky and the rest of Kentucky are far, far greater historically and culturally (any Kentuckian knows the jokes that proliferate like wildfire in the rest of the state regarding people in Louisville and the Covington area.) I provided 10 sources on the Midwestern page regarding the city's identity that have been accepted as valid, in addition to the arguments made and sources provided on this page. And you keep reposting the same exact text, verbatim, time and time again. I am not going to waste my time and crowd this talk page answering the exact same arguments, word for word, time and time again.
--70.168.88.15804:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Current Consensus III
I would also like to mention that reclassifying Maryland and Delaware as Southern would require extensive revision of other Wikipedia articles; both the Northern United States page and the Northeastern United States page classify Maryland and Delaware as Northern in their maps, and the Northeastern page in particular makes repeated references to Maryland, from its MARC train system to its Democratic voting patterns to the heavy Catholic population in Baltimore to the food (an entire section of the Cuisine of the Northeastern United States page is devoted to Baltimore).
My point is this: most Wikipedians seem to be in agreement on this already, and if we ignored their clear consensus on the issue we would be forced to overturn a great deal of information that currently lists Maryland as what it is, a Northern state.
Wouldn't want to make things hard just to reflect facts :) Seriously, in my humble opinion, what needs to be reflected is that Maryland is a border state, containing characteristics of both the North and the South, being solidly in none, but nominally in both. The thing about creating cultural, historical, and geographical borders is that one can't; there is always a grey area.
Oh, and thank you for actually reading my post.
>> Just to add to this... If Maryland is discounted as Southern for having 23% of it's population being Catholic, where does that leave Louisiana with 30%? Actually, Maryland was founded by Irish Catholics and contained the first American Archbishopric. That didn't stop the Klan from naming Maryland as the first state in it's "Empire," despite their strong feelings on that denomination. (See the founding constitution of the Klan.) To me, I would say, wow, great, the South had another American first!
>> As to contemporary Southerness, what about the fact that Maryland is one of only nine states that offer Sons of Confederate Veterans license plates? I noticed you are into politics. Well, I am an economist, so I will point to two things off the top of my head... Maryland is part of the Richmond Fed, which also includes Va, Nc, and Sc. Secondly, SunTrust, Atlanta based bank, which whole operates in the South, has brances in Maryland.
>> Just to through it in, Kappa Alpha Order, a fraternity that holds Lee as their ideal and until recently did not have chapters in non Southern states has had a chapter at UMd for a long time...
>> All somewhat arbitrary examples, but so is what is "Southern."
>> Maryland's weather is not Southern? What, 90 degree + days with near 100% humidity isn't Southern enough? Compare Baltimore's average weather with Charlotte.
>> Food? I live in SC. We have a chain here called "Maryland Fried Chicken" :) Old Bay, which was invented in Maryland, sure helps to make a boil. Maryland is one of the largest producers of Silver Queen sweet white corn. Virginia "country ham" is quite popular, along with corn bread and sweet tea. While not "food," Maryland still grows tobacco as a cash crop, just as it did in colonial days, when it used tobacco leaves as currency (just like Virginia). Soft drinks are almost always called "Coke," even when it is RC Cola. True, no Hoppin John, but you can get sweet potato pie, and if in the right diner, you will always be called "Hun."
>> I will bow to your experience, but I have lived everywhere you mentioned that you have, plus North Carolina and South Carolina. Maryland is closer to home than Central PA. I remember being on a tour bus in Charleston, and the tour guide poking fun at the various Northerners on the bus with a North Carolinian accent (yes, there is a difference). Finally, he came to a Marylander. All he said was "Salisbury is a great town!" Anecdotal, you bet, but atleast is show that even in the heart of the Confederacy, Maryland is considered "different" than Northern states by some. Maybe not Southern, but still not quite Northern either.
>> Ah, and one last point; the MARC train system? Because Maryland has public transportation it isn't Southern? Yes, it also has running water :) Seriously, how does this denote that it isn't a Southern state?
>> My point isn't that Md is 100% Southern, but to exclude it totally is, in my opinion, incorrect.
>> Thanks.
New Map Showing Southern Florida Striped
I think we should revert to the old map where all of Florida was solid red. We should revert it to the way it was to show the US Census Bureau's definition of 'The South.' We should have the map that shows Southern Florida as striped under the Culture of the Southern United States section to show the where Southern Culture is prominent.
West Texas and South Texas no doubt have a more Western/Hispanic influenced culture. But North Texas definitely does not. Along with East Texas, it is one of the more Southern regions of Texas. East Texas' Southern culture far surpasses North Texas', but North Texas still has a relatively stronger Southern influence rather than a Western one. Texas is a Southern state. However, the cultural variations in Texas are complex, due mostly to the rough terrain and large Hispanic population of some regions of the state. West and South Texas are the regions in which the cultural variations are predominant, not the North, Central, East, or Panhandle regions. --Stallions201023:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
>>This is very true, Stallions. Something else that needs to be mentioned on this general topic as well. As someone noted in an earlier discussion (although the main focus was about Kentucky, not Texas) the hispanic influence on the state is a relatively new phenomenon. Yes, Texas was once a Mexican possession and such has always been reflected in various ways, especially in South Texas and most noteably in cities like San Antonio. However, from the time Texas won her independence in 1836 and was annexed into the United States in 1845, it was the white/black duality -- just like that in the older Southern states -- that played the predominent role in shaping the states history, culture, traditions, customs, folkways, etc. Unlike the true southwestern states of New Mexico and Arizona, the hispanic impact in the above ways mentioned, was relatively minor. This is one reason why the term "Southwest" when referring to a region, is so complicated. Up until into the 1960's or so (and for other reasons, in addition to demographics, far too lengthy to get into here) Texas was never excluded from "The South". And nobody ever included New Mexico or Arizona within it. Texas was/is "western South" while the latter two were/are "southern West." Those are two wholely different critters, and while the term Southwest might be used to describe all three states, there is no real basis, other than convenience, to group them together as a true region.
>>Another thing which I don't think is really absorbed by some is that the "West" is not a region per se, but a collection of them where the common denominator comes down to superficial items as post-bellum settlement, wide-open spaces and really big mountains and the image of ranching and cowboys. Otherwise, what does Texas have in common with Wyoming? Or Kansas? In fact, speaking of the last, a lot of the old gunfights and animosities of the "Wild West " were traceable to animosities between Texas cowboys of formerly Confederate soldier status, or if too young to have joined up, unabashed Southerners, driving the cattle north to a Kansas town full of former Union soldiers and townspeople who despised them.
>> You are welcome, Stallions. And I have been meaning for some time to thank you in turn for your occasional citiation and link of/to that piece I once wrote titled "Texas and the Deep South", which was first printed in USADeepSouth webzine. In any event, on that "Southwest" thing, there is a great article in a volume called "The Encylopedia of Southern Culture." I don't have a copy of it at home, so am going from memory, but what it covered was the history and evolution of the term "Southwest". Originally, it meant, the frontier states of the South, and consisted of Alabama, Missisippi, and Tennesee. Then went on to Louisiana and Arkansas. Finally, Texas.
>>Sometime after the War Between the States, it sort of solidified into being defined as Texas and, to a lesser extent, Arkansas, and to some degree, Oklahoma. The main point being that at no time was the term used to denote a wholely seperate region, but rather, a sort of "twin" to the "southeast, which together made up The South.
>>As time went on though, and westward migration continued, for geographical reasons, New Mexico and Arizona began to be called the Southwest and, as the article in Ency. Southern Culture put it (paraphrased from recollection), "the relationship to the South became increasingly unclear..."
>>This is sort of where it stands today. That is, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico all being considered "Southwestern", yet too often no historical and cultural distinction between the former and the latter two when applying the label. So it gets confusing. Those in the latter two states tend to reject any sense of "Southwestern brotherhood" with us, and likewise, most Texans don't think of ourselves being Southwestern in the same vein with them.
>>I don't want to keep belaboring the point, but Texas is southwest as in "western South". A place where Southern history, religion, culture, folkways, traditions, etc are flavored with Western dress, wide-open spaces, and free-spirited individuality (for the most part, that is. East Texas is where the Deep South of the southeast begins). On the other hand, New Mexico and Arizona are the true hispanic/indian influenced Southwest of the West.
File:Map of Texas highlighting Palo Pinto County.png Also, I'd like to point out that most Texans live in the southeastern part of the continental U.S. Texas is obviously in the southern portion of the country, and the eastern part of the country ends in eastern Palo Pinto County, Texas. Although more land area is in the western portion of the continental part of the country, the vast majority of people live east of P.P. Co. Most major cities, including Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, Austin, Waco, etc. are east of this point. San Antonio's city center is in the western section of the country BARELY, but the eastern areas of the city as well as the eastern suburbs are on the eastern side of the country BARELY. Interesting, huh? --Stallions201003:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
BellSouth isn't the most reliable source...they leave out key Southern states, like Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Don't get me wrong, I agree completely that Kentucky is the South. But BellSouth is a company that cannot operate in as large a range as the entire South. --Stallions201022:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I was kind of suprised that at least Virginia wasn't in it's market, However I was just getting at Kentucky isn't always the last Southern state that comes to mind.
So is someone going to actually construct a "3" tone map based on the Concensus Louisvillian00:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk page too unwieldy
I'd like to continue responding to the anon/"Louisvillian" who keeps leaving very lengthy responses here, but this page has become too unwieldy and is thus a pain to both look for responses and respond to them. And since most of the talk is recent, it would seem odd to archive it. Whatever should we do? Stevie is the man!Talk • Work23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Steve you've not responded to any of my post with anything but your own opinion, you're not a formidable debater on this subject so whatever. 74.128.200.13503:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well really it was over between Gator and I until "Stevetheman" came into the debate labeling his opinion as fact (which clearly ignored the sources I've posted). So back to the map. We have the core South (Dark Red: I suppose there's no debating what those states are), The states that while THEY HAVE OTHER REGIONAL INFLUENCES are still GENERALLY CONSIDERED SOUTHERN (For the record to end this THE STATE OF KENTUCKY HAS MIDWESTERN INFLUENCE!(which will be labled light red). These states are again Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Then there are the boarder states or states that are usually not considered Southern (But still sometimes are included and will be striped). With all the arguing aside is everyone in agrement with this mapping scale. 74.128.200.13506:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
>>The only thing I would quibble about regarding your post, 74, is that Oklahoma be striped, not regular red, for reasons I stated in the "Current Consensus Continued" thread. TexasReb17:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion between myself and 74.128.200.135 hasn't been serving any purpose for this article, as the main issues for contention seem to be resolved. However, I will be very happy to continue talking about whether Louisville is Midwestern on another site. I hereby invite him to join my Louisville History & Issues discussion board (Google it) if he wants to continue the discussion, and then he can type his positions and references to his heart's content. Of course, other Louisvillians will be joining in the discussion as well. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
74, I would suggest that it is time for you to create an account...it'd make communicating with you much easier!--Stallions2010
Hello! I stumbled across this page and noticed the map request. The maps I made (historic and modern) were from the two-map request above by TexasReb. There is so much discussion here I was not sure if that was the final consensus so I can change it if this isnt right. Cheers, --Astrokey4406:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
After a few more days to make sure this is really resolved, we should archive this overly long talk page and start a fresh one. I'll do it if I remember and no one else does it first. Pfly20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
>>Great job on the maps! Maybe this will work for everyone (or a reasonable facimile thereof! LOL) Thanks Astrokey44! TexasReb23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, as I stated in an earlier post, the only remote reason for even making Delaware a striped state is that the U.S. Census Bureau includes them in their definition of the South. If we are taking a vote on this though, mine would absolutely be to leave Delaware out. So far as Maryland goes, even though I imagine the overwhelming majority of Southerners don't see them as Southern, and likewise, the large majority of Marylanders don't see themselves as Southerners, there IS some small degree of historical and cultural justification for striping them as "occasionally" considered Southern. I don't have a strong feeling either way with them. TexasReb14:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
>>That is a tough one to call, Snlight07, as West Virginia has a VERY unique and complicated history as relates to the Historic South (the Confederacy). As you probably know, the area now known as West Virginia were simply the northwestern counties of Virginia when the state seceded. However, Union feeling was so strong in that area that that representatives from the afore counties met and decided to "secede" from the rest of Virginia, and then apply for membership back into the Union as a seperate state. In 1863, this status was granted...although naturally the Confederate government and the State of Virginia did not recognize it.
>>So it comes down to a lot of contradictory facts. On one hand, yes, men from western Virigina fought for the Confederacy (Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson being one), but yet, the predominent feeling in the area was without a doubt pro-Union. And was it really a "state" at all? To stripe it as a "Border state" implies it was a seperate entity all along with divided loyalties. On the other hand, to leave it un-shaded is odd too. One possible alternative is to "consolidate" it in with the rest of Virginia to reflect the status of the state when it actually seceded.
>>Good question, though. And I would be curious as to what Virginians and West Virginians think on the matter...
TexasReb21:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of the Map
++++ Please do not delete my post again. I am sorry my opinion differs to yours, but that is my entire point! Everyone has a different opinion as to what is the South. Thats why a three tone map was created in the first place. Besides, it is rude :) ++++
The new map is great. Thank you for creating it.
However, it appears not everyone is happy with it. That is fine, but before modifying it, how about we actually discuss changes before they are made? Not everyone will agree 100% with what is presented, but that is why compromise is necessary. For example, it appears by IP addresses that atleast one Kentuckian thinks Maryland should not be included at all. But, at least one South Carolinian (me) wouldn't have included Kentucky on a map of the South. Perhaps shaded, but not solid. Sorry, but when I think of Kentucky, I think of Appalachia or the Mid West, not the South. But, I am will to concede my own definition will not match everyones.
So, please discuss before you change anything...
++++ Oh, and my point wasn't that Kentucky shouldn't be included on the map just because I don't consider it a truly Souther state. Rather, I meant that the same can be considered true of many of the states on the new map; they have mixed status. The three tones are there to indicate "relative" Southerness, so if everyone simply edited the image because they happen to disagree with it, we might as well link the map to the one for the Deep South and be done with it. ++++
I really don't have strong feelings either way regarding Delaware and Maryland and their inclusion in the contemporary South, though from my experiences residents of Maryland are more likely to contend that their regions of their state are "Southern"; I've never heard this type of a reaction, personally, from residents of Delaware. Personally (though admittedly, it counts for nothing) I wouldn't include either in the South, except with the strongest of the strongest of reservations; I believe that Southern cultural influence ends at Northern Virginia, not Baltimore or Dover. Idefinitely don't believe we should give the Census Bureau too much weight in our considerations, though, as they operate using arbitrary boundaries such as the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon line that do little to reflect cultural boundaries.
--70.168.88.15809:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm, interesting opinion. What part of SC do you live in, if you don't mind me asking? Personally I see Kentucky as a Southern state with a little Northern influence in it. What's the opinion of South Carolinians about Texas being part of the South? --Stallions201018:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
++++ This is *my* opinion, not South Carolinians in general :) I see Texas as a mix of South West and South. Again, like many other states, it has a stronger outside influence than the Deep South.
++++ As to Maryland, my main thought comes from living in both Maryland and Fredricksburg, Va. Traveling up 301, if the Potomac wasn't there, you couldn't tell that part of Virginia apart from Maryland. But, again, that is only my opinion, and if others feel differently so be it. That is what the discussion is for.
++++ But, although the sample size is quite small, I did conduct a very informal poll at work today. Working with people from NC to FL, about 50% answered that Maryland was Southern. It took a bit of thought (and scrunched up faces) with many of them, but there you go...
++++ Oh, and I am from Charleston. We have plenty of outside influence here :) A large number of wealthy Northerners are (and have been) moving in, as well as a growing Hispanic population. And, we do have catfish! TexasReb must not have looked hard enough. But, oysters are king... Part of my point, the South is diverse and hard to categorize.
>>Just a few random thoughts regarding the above post(s), I too have no strong feelings one way or another about Maryland, but agree totally that people in Delaware (as borne out completely by the Southern Focus poll) are very unlikely to see themselves as Southerners. And, wellll, to be a bit blunt, if someone researching Southern culture asked the average Southerner if Delaware is a Southern state, they would probably get an answer like, "son, what kinda grab-assin' question is THAT?" LOL
>>Ok, to get back on track following my lame attempt at humor, I would vote to exclude Delaware completely. As 70 just said, the US Census Bureau's definition of the South is not really one we ought to concern ourselves with. It was, as was noted, likely originally drawn up more of geographical simplicity (that old Mason-Dixon line thing!) than based on much more important facts such as history and culture. So far as Maryland goes, as 70 also said, there is a bit more justification for striping them. TexasReb15:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Charleston? That is probably my favorite town in the world, along with Fort Worth, Texas. Man, Charleston is nice...can't get much more Southern than that. Yes, I agree that Texas is a mix of Southern and Western influences, but I wouldn't ever categorize it as part of the West/Southwest -- it's pure Southern country. But as for Charleston, I didn't know that Northerners were moving in there. I'm considering retiring there...that is, when I do, which will be a long time from now. --Stallions201022:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Kentucky not midwestern
Not many historians, geographers or state experts call Kentucky Midwestern. The reason is that Kentucky historically DID influence the Midwest through out-migration but there was very little back-influence. That is few Midwesterners went to Kentucky. Slavery was the main feature that distinguished Kentucky from Ohio-Indiana-Illinois. The historic battles over railroad access to the upper south--Cincinnati vs Louisville-- is another factor that made for a big difference. Rjensen02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Rjensen Kentucky nor Louisville are not considered Midwestern, by linguistic experts, cultural Geographers, or local Historians. However the state and city are considered Southern by the vast majority of those references, and it's evident with the numerous maps I've posted in earlier debates. 74.128.200.13503:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Kentucky is a border state, situated between the Upland South and the Lower Midwest. The latest user from South Carolina who posted his opinion is merely echoing the opinions of many, many other Southerners regarding the state. Many Southerners do not accept the state as their own, just as many Midwesterners reject it. A wide variety of sources can be found that situate the state geographically as Midwestern, and many verifiable sources cite two areas of the state - Louisville and Northern Kentucky - as Midwestern, geographically and culturally. All facts. I, and others, have posted dozens upon dozens of sources that attest to this. I've actually looked at some other outside sites and I'm almost certain that, because of typing and language use patterns, the same small group of users is attempting to re-shape public opinion on the Internet regarding the state. Nobody's going along with it, on any of these sites. Kentucky is not Minnesota, nor is it Tennessee. Kentucky is not a relic of Dixie, nor a frost-covered Upper Midwestern state. It's unique culture reflects both regions; the more urbanized regions along the Ohio River lean closer to the Midwest, with the rest of the state leaning toward the South.
--70.168.88.15805:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok Gator let me get this straight, we're on a Southern Talk page and to my knowledge out of all the opinions of all the Southerner's who have contributed to this page onlt two are opposed to the inclusion of Kentucky in the South. Sure Gator there are a few sources on the net that show Kentucky as apart of the Midwest, But that cannot compare to number of sources dubbing it the South, and I think it's rediculous for anyone to argue that. There was a pole on Urbanplanet where over 3/4's of the voters say that Kentucky is the South. There was another pole I've just found the other day about the subject where 29 say it's Southern , 9 say it's in between both regions, and 4 that say it's the Midwest. As far as the group going around trying to reshape opinions, do you honestly think it's a conspiracy or just people stating their opinions. That one site you cited where the guy says that Louisville is a Midwestern city plain and simple, I've debated with that guy quite few times and he really doesn't say anything to support that AT ALL. It's more like Southern In, and Il are moe SOuthern than Midwestern. 74.128.200.13519:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't rely on non-verifiable sites such as Urbanplanet, nor on the votes of their users, for my definitions of cultural regions. But what I have found in searching the 'Net, out of curiosity, is a bitter reaction among a few users on these forums (or more aptly labeled as trolls, perhaps) who *seem* to type in exactly the same way and use the exact same arguments whenever it is suggested that cities such as Louisville are Midwestern. In fact, some of their arguments were literally copied and pasted from one site to another, and some of those same responses, word for word, were used in this Wiki debate. This happened on a blog at the Louisville CJ Velocity site, and on Urbanplanet, KY was initially included in the Midwest until they entered the scene. "Conspiracy", definitely not, but it's clear to me from the typing patterns that these are the same users, and that there is not a massive public outcry at the notion of Louisville being labeled as Midwestern. If we're going by non-verifiable forums, Urbandictionary.com is a clear example of a site where those who consider Louisville and Kentucky as purely Southern are quite outnumbered.
None of those sites really matter, of course. I've provided plenty of cites that back up the point of Louisville being considered a border city or a Midwestern one, with Kentucky being a border state. Neither is purely Southern. I'm not even sure what this debate is about anymore - is anybody seriously contending that either Louisville or Kentucky are *purely* Southern areas?
--70.168.88.15820:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well you're so inclined to lean towards one Southerner's opinion on Kentucky's Southern status on a Southern page, yet you don't won't to recongnize a poll in which over 3/4th's of the voters (over 50 voters) made the call that the state was Southern. You say that you don't rely on non verifiable sites like Urbanplanet, But LOL you used a news paper "editorial" as one of your "10 reliable sources", which may I add was only one person's opinion. I could swear that if that Urbanplanet poll or any other poll on the net actually had a majority of it's voters say that Louisville (yes Louisville had over twice as many votes as a Southern city than Midwestern one) or Kentucky were mostly Midwestern it would be the icing on the cake for you. Yeah you're ah..right I do copy and paste alot of information in these debates and not word from word, just what can nesscisary for the debate at hand. There is even another user on Wiki who copied and pasted his opinion of Maryland and Virginia status as Southern states on just about every page that it can be involved in. Urbandictionary is a site that does not require one to keep the same user name, making that site quite easily corrupted on subjects like this one. Two Users named Midwestern soldier and Kentucky yank are going around created new definitons just to include Louisville or Kentucky in the North or Midwest. Lol one comment by one of them I did see that was quite amusing on the Owensboro definition, one had said something like "those hicks in Owensboro are confused as to what region they live in" LOL.
I've provided more sources including linguistic maps, cultural maps, and Historical maps and excerts, labeling the city as Southern and some of the sites that were "major" like Britanica include Louisville and Kentucky into the region that I have stated that they belong in the Upper South. LOL you continue to put words in my mouth, have I ever stated that Kentucky is a purely Southern state? NO I have stated that it's a Southern state with Midwestern influence. Louisville's Southern component is stronger than it's Midwestern component, which has even been proven through your criteria (Dialect, History and what not). If you want to end the debate fine, I've done what needed to do on this page and apparently most other's feel that the change that was made was correct so hey.74.128.200.13503:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are some clips from City Confidential (an A&E program about true murders) that take place in Paducah and Somerset Kentucky. Just from listening to these clips of your every day KEntuckians you will here the Southern dialect that is prodomiant throughout the state. 74.128.200.13503:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, I've spent enough of my life in Louisville to know that it's a mixed border city, far closer culturally (simple proximity having a large deal to do with that) to the Midwest. Opinions that I have found among *educated* users with good sources are always split regarding the city; there is definitely no clear "majority" that view the city as Southern. One of the dozens of sources that I provided was an editorial survey in the CJ; again, you've cited plenty of non-verifiable votes on forums such as Urbanplanet, and even random pictures from photobucket, so I don't see why a survey from the metro area's largest newspaper should carry any less weight than votes among random users on these forums, etc. Wikipedia has always recognized Louisville's split nature, as do most cultural studies. As I said much earlier, had Louisville ended up on the other side of the Ohio River, with exactly the same culture, history, and linguistics, nobody would be arguing that it was a "Southern" city - it would be called a Midwestern city with heavy Southern influence, such as Evansville, IN or Cincinnati. Thus, the best argument that can be made that Louisville is a "majority Southern" city is that it is located in Kentucky, which is funny because most Kentuckians know exactly how different the city is from most of the rest of the state. Why do encyclopedias state that Louisville is a "major... center of the Midwest", as my Columbia University Press source stated? Why do large multinational companies, such as KPMG - one of my cites - place Midwestern, not Southern/Southeastern, offices in Louisville? Why does the municipal government of Louisville cite surveys that compare Louisville to Midwestern cities, not Southern ones? Why does Louisville have more Northern immigrants than Southern ones (fact, check http://www.city-data.com)? Why are opinion polls always split on the matter? Confederate monument? Again, one that most locals laugh at, has barely survived to modern times, and will soon be converted into part of a "Freedom Park" honoring both Union and Confederate war soliders as a compromise move (and we all know that would NOT happen in Richmond, Dallas, or Houston.) Yet again, the Southern Focus survey didn't measure individual cities; the logic that "since only 1/3 of Kentuckians feel they're not Southern, then only 1/3 of Louisvillians must feel the same way" is false. History-wise, Jefferson County was a *major* Union stronghold, and the North would not have won the war without Kentucky - fact. After the war, it is definitely true that the city's, and state's, politics re-aligned to be more one with the South because of an influx of Confederate veterans, but Kentucky's politics were still never exactly "Southern" - the state never denied blacks the right to vote, was never considered a "Solid South" state, had very small percentages vote for Thurmond and Wallace (in fact, the state gave the least support to both in the South, outside of WV), adopted the first state civil rights act in the South and peacefully integrated. My grandparents were always rather proud of Kentucky's stark differences from the rest of the South in these regards. And Louisville's politics have always been more liberal than those of KY in general, as evidenced by the county's votes in the 2000 and 2004 elections - and Yarmuth? He just speaks for himself. Politically informed Kentuckians know that he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in any other district of the state other than Louisville's. Nor would a liberal Jewish mayor still be in office, with incredibly high approval ratings, for 20+ years. Why has Abramson refused, again and again, to run for statewide office? He knows very well that his socially and economically liberal "Northern" attitude - pro affirmative action, pro gun-control, and the list goes on and on - would absolutely outrage the vast majority of Kentuckians. Most Louisvillians will simply not accept having their culture placed in the same category as the rest of Kentucky, for good reasons. We don't act like them, don't talk like them, and in many cases, don't really think like them. My family is just one of many that feel this way.
As fas as I'm concerned the debate is indeed over because: 1. Kentucky has been maintained as a border state in both the historic and modern maps of the South; 2. in the modern maps, KY is properly in the same category as diluted states such as Texas (often considered Western/Southwestern), Florida (hardly culturally Southern at all outside of the Northern portions) and Virginia (Northern Virginia is often where many consider the Northeast to begin.) 3. The Wikipedia page on Louisville nowhere, not once, states that Louisville is a "majority Southern city", though it is, in the opening paragraph, referenced as the "southernmost northern city and northernmost southern city"; 4. Even the KY page, monitored by many editors, states without controversy that KY is sometimes included in the Midwest, geographically and culturally. And, 5. Kentucky is still included, as striped, on the pages for the Midwestern United States and the Northern United States. So, you're welcome to your opinion. Kentucky will always be a border state, with Louisville and Northern Kentucky leaning more toward Midwest culturally and the rest of the state representing the South, though often in a quite diluted cultural form.
If you want to continue this debate on another site, it's fine with me, because it's clear that, through the treatment of Kentucky and Louisville on this site, most Wikipedians know exactly how mixed they both are. But this talk page is really getting a bit too cluttered for continued debate now that the decisions have been made regarding the maps.
--70.168.88.15804:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That site you gave from the Courier was not a poll. I beleive that the title of the "editorial" was Louisville a Mideastern city. The editor states that from "a" debate (not even naming where it could be seen) the majority of the users say that Louisville is the Midwest. Again the user doesn't even state what site the debate is taking/or has taken place. Okay Gator again Urbanplanet, a forum in which you have to register and be approved to post and vote on. I'm not too sure to many people would go that far as to register multiple accounts just to manipulate a poll. Than it's not like it was a 1 to 2 vote over 3/4th's of the voters voted that Kentucky is a Southern state. Then you persist with the argument that the closer you are to the Ohio the more Midwestern it becomes, while I must agree that Covington (directly across from Cincinnati) is less Southern than Franklin (about 15 miles from the Tennessee boarder), just by listening to that A&E clip you can here the profound Southern accent all those native Paducans (which is also on the Ohio River).
"far closer culturally (simple proximity having a large deal to do with that) to the Midwest."
Promity the closet "major" city to Louisville is Cincinnati and yeah there's no denying that these cities have a quite a bit in common, But they are not twin cities. Historically these cities while on the Ohio river were on different sides, allowing one to have slaves, while the other could not. I'm not even going to go back into slavery or anything, since we've already disscussed that and you've labled that a Southern quality of the city. It was also noted that Louisville and Kentucky like other Southern cities lost black population during both migrations, which is quite the opposite in Cincinnati and St.Louis in which the Great Migrations characterized thosed cities GREATLY. That just goes to show you that you can't just judge a city by it's neigbors and completely ignore the barrier (The Ohio River) that held much symbolism in terms of regional identity.
You're right Wikipedia does recongize that Louisville has Southern and Midwestern culture again I've even stated that. Which is why I haven't brought it to attention in on the Louisville article. Louisville is indeed a mixed city, However we both know that it's not a half and half mix. Simply put I've provided much more evidence towards my point than you have yours. You've brough encyclopedia sources and so have I. I've also provided numerous lingusitic maps that all group Louisville and Kentucky in with the South. While we may shre similarities with Evansville and Cincinnati in dialect, the Experts just seem to always group us in with the South...HMMM now what would that be saying (I'll let you figure that one out). I brought quite a few maps that divide the U.S. into cultural regions and Louisville as well as Kentucky just always seem to be grouped in with the SOuthern despite the similarities that they share with the city up the river ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE MASON DIXON. I've provided tons of Historical maps that just keep conspiring to group Louisville and Kentucky as Southern.
The only things that rural Kentuckians have against the Primate city in their state which also happens to be one of the largest urban centers in the Nation is crime and UofL. I have heard no such rural Kentuckian disown Louisville for any reason other than that. What encyclopedia??? World Book certainly doesn't they start off the article with Louisville is a major manufacutring center for the Southeastern United States (they have since dropped major manufacutring center. Britanica considers Louisville an Upper Southern city. I would guess that Louisville being a metropolitan area that extends into Indiana, would sometimes be considered Midwestern in due to those Indiana Suburbs.
Kentucky 3,685,296 1,910,325 1,774,971 51.8% 48.2% r 3,660,324 1,862,183 1,798,594 50.9% 49.1% r 3,220,711 1,684,053 1,534,653 52.3% 47.7%
Tennessee 4,877,185 2,969,948 1,907,237 60.9% 39.1% r 4,591,023 2,773,573 1,817,547 60.4% 39.6% r 3,926,018 2,318,458 1,605,229 59.1% 40.9%
Alabama 4,040,587 2,439,549 1,601,038 60.4% 39.6% r 3,894,025 2,337,713 1,556,175 60.0% 40.0% r 3,444,354 2,017,485 1,426,680 58.6% 41.4%
Mississippi 2,573,216 1,210,729 1,362,487 47.1% 52.9% r 2,520,770 1,192,805 1,327,833 47.3% 52.7% r 2,216,994 986,642 1,230,270 44.5% 55.5%
Here is the Urban to Rural comparison by the Census Bureau for East South Central States.
Well Gator I'll have to agree with you that Louisville again being one of the nations largest Urban centers is not exactly duplicates of Campbellville, Kentucky. However it's kind of insulting to say that we Louisvillians don't carry state pride with us. It's silly to say that a city of 700,000 doesn't carry state pride, because it doesn't ALWAYS tag the initials KY when being listed.
Why does Louisville have more Northern immigrants that Southern LOL, ever heard of the Sunbelt. The South and West are the fastest growing regions in the Nation, and where are Nashville's, Memphis's, Richmond's, Little Rocks, Charlotte's , Atlanta's transplants coming from the primary the Northeast and the Midwest. LMAO Are you seriously presenting this as an argument towards Louisville's Midwesterness. You already presented this city data information inwhich you attempted to use that transplant data as some sort of identity poll. Then when I posted every Mid Southern cities (including Birmingham just to show how obsurd a point was being made) transplant data and they were almost identical to Louisville's(Northeast;Midwest;Midwest;South;West in those orders for every MidSouthern city)you quickly dropped the argument.
So anwser me this if Louisville was so loyal to the Union why is that just now being placed up? If Union loyalties were so high in Louisville, why wasn't the Confederate statue's placement followed by an uproar of Northern citizens that you say just characterize the Gate to the South in which Slavery was just abolished, WHY??? This Confederate heritage is not only controversial in Louisville or Kentucky, But in profound Confederate state's like Georgia, Virginia, and (newly debated) South Carolina which have all voted to change their flag. It was onlt matter of time before Louisville a split city would make such a move. However the region that you are grouping us with (the Midwest) would be speechless at the site of a Confederate monument that has stood in place for 100 years in one of it's profound cities.
You have historians comparing Kentucky's Civil War allaince with that of Tennessee (which it has most in common with during this period)
Yes Kentucky suceeded, But that doesn't change the Southern character of the state before the War. That doesn't change the fact that there are over 70 Confederate monuments in the state compared to 2 Union monuments. I'am aware that Kentucky was an essential tool to the Union and it was Lincoln's determination to keep this state in the Union. He even compromised to allow the state to keep it's slaves, so long as it stayed in the Union. However when the Union took back it's promise that's when Kentucky once again started leaning towards the South politcally.
On the whole Liberal Thing here is an excellent ranking of Southern cities liberality, However I know since Louisville is ranked 16th than you will find some flaw in the ranking system.
Southern Cities with 200,000 Plus Inhabitants Listed in Descending Order according to their Liberality
1. Washington, D.C. (score: 90.955) 2. Atlanta, Georgia (score: 61.73) 3. Baltimore, Maryland (score: 51.685) 4. New Orleans, LA (score: 51.405) 5. Durham, NC (score: 35.285) 6. Richmond, VA (score: 34.355) 7. Orlando, FL (score: 27.89) 8. Austin, TX (score: 25.975) 9. Dallas, TX (score: 23.505) 10. Norfolk, VA (score: 19.84) 11. Miami, FL (score: 17.275) 12. St. Petersburg, FL (score: 16.22) 13. Nashville, TN (score: 12.455) 14. Tampa, FL (score: 12.265) 15. Memphis, TN (score: 11.13) 16. Charlotte, NC (score: 7.245) 17. Louisville, KY (score: 7.15) 18. Houston, TX (score: 6.39) 19. Augusta, GA (score: 6.38) 20. Birmingham, AL (score: 3.24) 21. El Paso, TX (score: 2.495) 22. Hialeah, FL (score: 1.695) 23. Greensboro, NC (score: 1.37) 24. Raleigh, NC (score: 0.275) 25. Montgomery, AL (score: -3.29) 26. Baton Rouge, LA (score: -6.68) 27. San Antonio, TX (score: -6.79) 28. Jacksonville, FL (score: -8.365) 29. Corpus Christi, TX (score: -11.655) 30. Fort Worth, TX (score: -12.165) 31. Chesapeake, VA (score: -16.18) 32. Oklahoma City, OK (score: -16.53) 33. Arlington, TX (score: -16.685) 34. Tulsa, OK (score: -17.79) 35. Virginia Beach, VA (-19.015) 36. Plano, TX (-33.33) 37. Lubbock, TX (-37.51)
Note: Lexington, KY is not included because I couldn’t find sufficient data.
I'm pretty sure 15 other Southern cities are capable of electing a Jewish mayor. May I also note that over 90% of blacks vote democratically, and with Southern cities having the largest percentage of blacks they are the most Democratic cities in the nation. The only Major city in the Bush/Gore elections to vote Republican was Cincinnati A MIDWESTERN CITY.
Gator I now have no problem with Kentucky being striped on the Midwestern or Northern map, as Virginia is also. Not to mention in the text they state that Kentucky is GENERALLY regaurded as a Southern state. I have no problem with that, now that Kentucky true regional identity is cited in the region that it has always and will forever belong in THE SOUTH. As for Louisville always being a Midwestern city YOU'VE LEFT ME NO CHOICE
However that same source considers the city of Louisville and Kentucky the South, as they go by the Official definition. East South Central!!
Oh and here's another cultural map posted by Ply earlier. It was map created by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.W._Meinig. The nations probably the nations most known cultural mapmaker, even he agrees that Louisville is more Southern than Midwestern.
I, as a Southerner, am surprised that no one has made any mention of Waffle House and Chick-Fil-A in the article. These two restaurants are deeply associated with the South. Perhaps we should make mention of them...what do y'all think? --Stallions201018:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
WHAT IS WAFFLE HOUSE? What is this mythical place that everyone keeps talking about?
>>Speaking of Southern foods, on the main article page concerning "Cruisine" it is the general lack of mention of black-eyed peas and catfish that most leaps out. I have often thought that a good way to define the South is where it is customary to eat black-eyed peas on New Years Day! LOL
>>So far as catfish goes, I once did a little informal study to see where businesses that had "catfish" in their name were most prevelent. Using "hamburger" as the independent variable (which I figured would be fairly uniform throughout the country), and in state by state internet yellow page listings, it turned out that the states where there was over a 25% ratio of the former to the latter were Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas and Alabama. States like Louisiana, Tennesee, Georgia, Florida, and Kentucky made strong showings also (10-15%). What sort of surprised me though was the relative lack of catfish joints in the Carolinas and Virginia...
TexasReb17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Maryland and Delaware
Okay, I'm from Maryland, and I do not think that Maryland or Delaware should be included. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I've lived in Maryland and Virginia, traveled through Delaware, and spent extended periods of time in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Delaware is basically Maryland, Jr. (you know it's true); and Pennsylvania, while different from Maryland, is much more similar to it than Virginia. The first time I ever visited Northern Virginia, which is considered that state's wealthiest area, I thought of it a "small town" kind of place. Virginians were shocked, but I was raised in Maryland and grew up with something else. In all honesty, I can see no real difference between Delaware and Maryland, aside from the fact that Delaware is far less urbanized (the accent between the two states is almost identical; both are very similar to the Philadelphia dialect).
West Virginia, meanwhile, is definitely part of the South. Outside of Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington Counties, Virginian is very rural. I live in such an area, about ten miles from the West Virginia border, and can tell you that there is no measurable difference between these neighboring states (except that West Virginia is even more desolate than the majority of Virginia, if that's at all possible).
It just bugs me to see Maryland striped on the map, since I know from experience what life in both Maryland and Virginia is really like. Beyond its extreme northern portion, Virginia is very agricultural, very conservative, and VERY Southern. Placing Maryland into the same category is actually funny to me. It's probably one of the most misguided opinions I've ever heard.
AND WOULD SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT A DAMN WAFFLE HOUSE IS!?!
![[2]](http://www.utexas.edu/depts/grg/adams/305/geolinguistics/USdialectssmall.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Census_Regions_and_Divisions.PNG/600px-Census_Regions_and_Divisions.PNG){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_map-Northx.PNG){kind=link}
