Talk:Southern United States/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents 1 Muslims 2 Baltimore 3 NPOV Rewrite 4 MD/VA/DC 5 South Florida and Border States 6 Kentucky and Louisville 7 Suggestions for a new map 8 Southern Focus Study 9 Current Consensus 10 Current Consensus Continued 11 Need help with a cite in the Kentucky article 12 Current Consensus III 13 New Map Showing Southern Florida Striped 14 Talk page too unwieldy 15 Discussion of the Map 16 Kentucky not midwestern 17 Dining 18 Maryland and Delaware 19 Maryland and Delaware??? 20 Maryland? Oh, It's southern alright. 21 Maryland 22 Some rules of order for MD discussion 23 Discussion of Rules of Order 24 Maryland discussion - Vaux's research on the use of "y'all" 25 Maryland discussion on the Shortridge Article 26 Maryland Discussion on Meinig's map 27 Maryland discussion on the Southern Focus Study 28 Hidden Information 29 READ ME FIRST 30 Delaware 31 What makes the South Southern? 32 WikiProject Southern United States 33 Original Research 34 Dialectal information and maps on the South 35 Request for individual state data from Southern Focus Survey 36 Proposed solution to the Maryland Question 37 State song 38 The Southern State of Virginia Prior to 1863, and the Mason-Dixon Line 39 Protection 40 Cultural variations dispute 41 Misquoting Journal of Economic History,it excludes KY from Midwest 42 John H. Garland verdict: Kentucky in the Midwest region 43 A Texan's viewpoint 44 Kentucky in other encyclopedias - seen as a Border State 45 The Southern States 46 Southern United States 46.1 Kentucky 46.2 Oklahoma 46.3 Maryland and Delaware 47 Cotton as a measure 48 Florida: Part of "The South" 49 West Virginia not Confederate 50 Slight revision 51 Historic Southern United States map 52 Missouri and Kentucky DID Secede From the Union 53 Pennsylvania 54 Confused 55 Dixie 56 Map in the Politics Section 57 Map 58 Basketball College 59 Virginia? 60 Old South; New Definition 61 Virginia 62 Metros 63 WOW 64 NorVA 65 Major Metropolitan Areas 66 Dixie Request

Muslims

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. Stallions2010 23:42, 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. TexasReb 00:50, 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.jpg Pfly 16:58, 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)

Alabama 98 (717) South Carolina 98 (553) Louisiana 97 (606) Mississippi 97 (431) Georgia 97 (1017) Tennessee 97 (838) North Carolina 93 (1292) Arkansas 92 (400) Florida 90 (1792) Texas 84 (2050) Virginia 82 (1014) Kentucky 79 (582) Oklahoma 69 (411)

West Virginia 45 (82) Maryland 40 (173) Missouri 23 (177) Delaware 14 (21) D.C. 7 (15)

Percent who say they are Southerners (percentage base in parentheses)

Mississippi 90 (432) Louisiana 89 (606) Alabama 88 (716) Tennessee 84 (838) South Carolina 82 (553) Arkansas 81 (399) Georgia 81 (1017) North Carolina 80 (1290) Texas 68 (2053) Kentucky 68 (584) Virginia 60 (1012) Oklahoma 53 (410) Florida 51 (1791)

West Virginia 25 (84) Maryland 19 (192) Missouri 15 (197) New Mexico 13 (68) Delaware 12 (25) D.C. 12 (16) Utah 11 (70) Indiana 10 (208) Illinois 9 (362) Ohio 8 (396) Arizona 7 (117) Michigan 6 (336)

All others less than 6 percent.

TexasReb 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Rewrite

The stuff that you are looking at is old. The current article is very diffe

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!

Yet 81% of Marylanders consider themselves Northern (Southern Focus Study). How do you explain this? SwedishConqueror 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Final Subject: Overall.

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 by 74.128.200.135 (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 by 74.128.200.135 (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? WillC 21:28, 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 by 70.168.88.158 (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.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32225

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!

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1850_slvden_040701_400.jpg

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1850_slvperc_040701_400.jpg

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slv_041001_400.jpg

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slv_041001_400.jpg

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slvden_040201_400.jpg

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slvperc_040201_400.jpg

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.

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif

http://www.peak.org/~jeremy/dictionary/figures/dialectsUS.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/BibleBelt.png/280px-BibleBelt.png

http://www.popvssoda.com/countystats/total-county.gif

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.

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif

http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif

http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF

http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif

http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html

http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf

http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx.html

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).

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slv_041001_400.jpg

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.

http://static.flickr.com/135/327444696_edf37ccd64_o.jpg

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).

http://usadeepsouth.ms11.net/texas.html

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. Louisvillian 17:13, 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:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm

>>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! TexasReb 18:08, 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? --Stallions2010 16:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did my post get deleted? Louisvillian 17:13, 23 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:

>> http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/status/allstates.htm

>> 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% TexasReb 00:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Those figures are very compelling and do seem to support the current map.

SwedishConqueror 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

>>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.TexasReb 00:42, 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!! Louisvillian 17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

May I also mention that the Midwest Article no longer considers Kentucky Midwestern. Louisvillian 20:20, 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:

http://go.owu.edu/~jbkrygie/krygier_html/geog_222/geog_222_lo/geog_222_lo14_gr/qual_us_regions.jpg

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.

The climate is on the border of what would be considered Southern, and what would be considered Northern - http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/geog230/usa.gif

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 by 216.227.21.180 (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

PEMBROKE PINES This state: 39410 Northeast: 33214 Midwest: 8566 South: 9069 West: 2409

BOCA RATON This state: 14194 Northeast: 28289 Midwest: 10537 South: 6159 West: 1633

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:

PENSACOLA This state: 24960 Northeast: 4154 Midwest: 4903 South: 16988 West: 2316

PANAMA CITY This state: 16424 Northeast: 2581 Midwest: 3539 South: 10185 West: 1617

TALLAHASSEE This state: 77694 Northeast: 15620 Midwest: 14093 South: 28511 West: 3750

JACKSONVILLE This state: 361776 Northeast: 74384 Midwest: 63444 South: 156028 West: 22617

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:

ORLANDO This state: 63324 Northeast: 30671 Midwest: 19098 South: 28281 West: 5556

TAMPA This state: 136033 Northeast: 36728 Midwest: 29148 South: 44718 West: 7300

ST. PETERSBURG This state: 89329 Northeast: 50538 Midwest: 39125 South: 36260 West: 6064 --—the preceding comment is by 216.227.24.24 (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

http://wmc.ar.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/images/phys.gif

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/regions.gif

http://cirrus.dnr.state.sc.us/images/7dTDataSERCC.png

http://es-ee.tor.ec.gc.ca/paper_data/UVI_climatology_US_Canada_0403/fig10-03.gif

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.

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/scus1.html

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.

http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif

http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF

http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif

http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html

http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf

http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx.htm

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. 74.128.200.135 22:52, 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:

http://go.owu.edu/~jbkrygie/krygier_html/geog_222/geog_222_lo/geog_222_lo14_gr/qual_us_regions.jpg

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/culture/indian_areas.gif

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. --216.227.125.173 04:21, 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.

http://www.nohrsc.nws.gov/nsa/

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.

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu:7101/rsfcensus/graphics/blkp10_00.gif

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.

Scotts Irish

http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US123B.GIF

American

http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US130.GIF

Percentage

http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US130B.GIF

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.

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/Spartanburger/thesouth.jpg

http://images.fotopic.net/ydgudl.jpg

lol here are the stats for that Pop- coke map on Kentucky

http://www.popvssoda.com/countystats/KY-stats.html

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. Louisvillian 20:03, 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. --216.227.22.55 22:20, 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://www.mp3.com/nelly/artists/382582/songs.html

Chingy

http://www.mp3.com/chingy/artists/512283/songs.html

Jibbs's

http://www.mp3.com/jibbs/artists/20121619/summary.html&q=Jibbs

Now let's compare them to other Midwestern artist

Kanye West (chicago)

http://www.mp3.com/kanye-west/artists/321243/songs.html

Common (chicago)

http://www.mp3.com/common/artists/245826/songs.html

That's Hip Hop culture.

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. Louisvillian 05:24, 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:

http://www.midwestenvironmentalservices.com/louisville.htm

http://www.nationjob.com/job/tope106

http://www.mwmcorp.com/

http://www.chem-materials.com/images/territory.jpg

http://midwestmla.org/midline/Midline104.html

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:

Northeast: 6421 Midwest: 20494 South: 20486 West: 4079

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: 9528 South: 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:

Northeast: 5398 Midwest: 28107 South: 41898 West: 6956

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)

Races in Louisville:

White Non-Hispanic (61.9%) Black (33.0%) Hispanic (1.9%) Two or more races (1.7%) American Indian (0.7%) Other race (0.7%) http://www.city-data.com/city/Louisville-Kentucky.html

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 :) --216.227.87.23 09:25, 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

Louisville, Ky. 33.0 56.4 78.4 58.5 44.54 124 16.4 56

Memphis, Tenn. 39.9 62.1 82.5 63.8 54.65 107 5.1 53 / 49 Nashville, Tenn. 36.8 58.5 79.1 59.9 48.11 119 10.1 62 / 58 Richmond, Va. 36.4 57.1 77.9 58.3 43.91 114 13.8 66 / 64 Knoxville, Tenn. 37.6 57.8 77.7 58.8 48.22 127 11.5 61 / 58

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.

http://www.mid-southconference.org/ http://www.cs.utk.edu/~whitmire/acf2005/stats.Louis.html http://louisvillesoaring.org/midsouth-soaring-championships-2006/ http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Skyline.Exhibits.And.Design.Midsouth.502-423-0761 http://programs.gradschools.com/midsouth/social_work_msw.html I just googled in Louisville and MidSouth and I just put the sites right down as they came.

http://www.animemidatlantic.com/ http://www.microsoft.com/about/companyinformation/usaoffices/midatlantic/richmond.mspx http://mabug.richmond.edu/ http://www.synatlantic.org/ http://www.madcodecamp.com/ I googled in Richmond and Mid Atlantic

http://www.daytondailynews.com/travel/content/travel/destinations/kentucky/louisville042300.html This newspaper Editor in Dayton states that Louisville is Southern to the bone. Is it NO.

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.

http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_census_1860.htm

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.

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx.htm

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.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf

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.

http://www.uic.edu/educ/bctpi/greatmigration2/dataviewer/usa/USAleftcolumn.html

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu:7101/rsfcensus/graphics/blkp10_00.gif

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. 74.128.200.135 19:01, 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. --216.227.87.23 23:13, 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. 74.128.200.135 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.

DUDE ARE YOU BLIND, LOUISVILLE IS GROUPED IN WITH THE SOUTH IN ALL OF THESE MAPS http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx.

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. 74.128.200.135 02:33, 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." --216.227.20.134 03:04, 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. 74.128.200.135 03:32, 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.

Kentucky today is definitely a mixed state. It can't really be called Midwestern or Southern. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(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. --216.227.20.134 09:44, 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.

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx. http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_census_1860.htm there is a noticable percentage of Louisvillians who consider themselves Midwestern, which is why this city is not 100% Southern. http://www.mid-southconference.org/ http://www.cs.utk.edu/~whitmire/acf2005/stats.Louis.html http://louisvillesoaring.org/midsouth-soaring-championships-2006/ http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Skyline.Exhibits.And.Design.Midsouth.502-423-0761 http://programs.gradschools.com/midsouth/social_work_msw.html I just googled in Louisville and MidSouth and I just put the sites right down as they came. http://www.animemidatlantic.com/ http://www.microsoft.com/about/companyinformation/usaoffices/midatlantic/richmond.mspx http://mabug.richmond.edu/ http://www.synatlantic.org/ http://www.madcodecamp.com/ I googled in Richmond and Mid Atlantic http://www.daytondailynews.com/travel/content/travel/destinations/kentucky/louisville042300.html This newspaper Editor in Dayton states that Louisville is Southern to the bone. Is it NO. http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1850_slvden_040701_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1850_slvperc_040701_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slv_041001_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slv_041001_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slvden_040201_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slvperc_040201_400.jpg This apparently shows that Louisville can't be to Midwestern, I have yet to see a Midwestern city with a Histroy this tied to Slavery. http://users.aol.com/cinticwrt/bluegrass.html Here's an interesting article abouy Kentucky and Tennessee's invovlement in the Civil War. 74.128.200.135 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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 • Work} 16:36, 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 • Work} 16:36, 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. --216.227.20.134 18:42, 28 December 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:

http://www.riverside-landing.org/images/housenew.jpg

The property was worked by slaves.

"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..

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.jpg 74.128.200.135 17:06, 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. 74.128.200.135 16:25, 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 *. --216.227.20.134 19:28, 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. --216.227.19.81 20:14, 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.

http://users.aol.com/cinticwrt/bluegrass.html

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.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_civil_war07_tennessee.html

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.

http://www.in.gov/iwm/pdfs/indianaincivilwar.pdf

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.

http://users.aol.com/cinticwrt/bluegrass.html

74.128.200.135 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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. --216.227.19.81 21:44, 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). 74.128.200.135 22:14, 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."

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0095%28194904%2925%3A2%3C118%3ADOSLAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9&size=LARGE

Though I believe it was Southern to much less degree than other Slave owning cities. 74.128.200.135 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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. --216.227.26.203 01:33, 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.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/billmcclellan/story/2AB65615526C1FA88625720200326C8D?OpenDocument

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. --216.227.26.203 02:16, 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. 4.224.48.191 04:41, 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

What's the consensus on this? --67.158.145.218 06:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

>>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

EVEN BETTER!!!!!!! GREAT SUGGESTION TEXREB Louisvillian 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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. --216.227.22.55 22:31, 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).

>>*curious* How about that...? TexasReb 22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually really like the idea with two maps - kind of "Dixie" vs the current South. I'm (thinking) that you mean something like this:

For the "historic South" - giving preference to the CSA states: http://www.geocities.com/johnsont458/HistoricSouth.png

For the "current South", reflecting the contemporary situation and cultural boundaries: http://www.geocities.com/johnsont458/CurrentSouth.png

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***

What do y'all think? TexasReb 00:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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. --216.227.87.23 00:08, 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. --216.227.87.23 01:10, 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... TexasReb 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the 2 maps Louisvillian 05:25, 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* TexasReb 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds even better than before. So is someone going to make it soon. 74.128.200.135 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting for more users to comment on the 2 map divison first, since this map - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/US_map-South.PNG - was the only map that was included on the page from the beginning. The map that we have currently was only recently added (though I do personally prefer it, especially with its treatment of Florida as striped.) --216.227.87.231 01:07, 28 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 TexasReb 21:20, 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. 74.128.200.135 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a question how long are we going to wait to get more Concensus for the 2 maps. 74.128.200.135 00:11, 29 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. --Gator87 02:37, 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. --Stallions2010 00:51, 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.

SwedishConqueror 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

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. Louisvillian 01:13, 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. Pollinator 04:50, 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. 74.128.200.135 06:10, 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.

Are we all pretty much in agreement on that?

SwedishConqueror 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Agreed. Texas and Florida, whose residents consider themselves mostly Southerners, should be solid as well. --Stallions2010 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I proposed that a week or two ago, that's when this whole debate took place. Either this one or the 3 tone map. Louisvillian 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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 - [1]. 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. --Gator87 04:29, 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? --Stallions2010 20:43, 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? TexasReb 18:21, 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. 74.128.200.135 05:55, 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 [2] 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 - [3] . --Gator87 06:14, 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. 74.128.200.135 06:56, 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. --Gator87 15:13, 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. 74.128.200.135 16:21, 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 - [4]. 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 - [5]. 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. --Gator87 20:24, 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. 74.128.200.135 20:51, 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.

SwedishConqueror 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

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.

SwedishConqueror 05:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

>> 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. --Gator87 06:06, 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. --Gator87 07:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the disscussion for? Everyone who has contributed to the subject is in favor of the 2 maps. 74.128.200.135 20:19, 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 • Work} 20:30, 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. Pollinator 23:16, 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. Pollinator 23:26, 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? TexasReb 17:03, 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. 74.128.200.135 21:27, 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 • Work} 23:14, 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.html74.128.200.135 23:31, 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 • Work} 23:40, 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 • Work} 23:43, 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.

SwedishConqueror 04:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

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".Pfly 04:20, 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 • Work} 06:47, 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. ISBN 0-674-01722-6. 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. Pfly 06:01, 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 TexasReb 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The map approach you describe generally works for me and seems to handle all the various nuances. Thank you for your very good thought processes! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a cite in the Kentucky article

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 • Work} 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine as long as it's a reliable source 74.128.200.135 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is from a native: Kentucky: where South, Midwest, and Appalachia mingle Pollinator 05:00, 4 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 • Work} 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/travel/content/travel/destinations/kentucky/louisville042300.html

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. 74.128.200.135 20:11, 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. --Gator87 23:42, 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 • Work} 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's from the USGS, here's the site with the map: [6] 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. --Gator87 00:44, 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 • Work} 01:02, 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.

DUDE ARE YOU BLIND, LOUISVILLE IS GROUPED IN WITH THE SOUTH IN ALL OF THESE MAPS http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx.

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:

http://www.riverside-landing.org/images/housenew.jpg

The property was worked by slaves.

"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.

74.128.200.135 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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 • Work} 01:35, 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.

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/compub.htm#TN

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!!

http://www.mostlivable.org/cities/louisville/home.html

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.

http://www.answers.com/topic/louisville-kentucky

Noted for the Kentucky Derby, mint juleps, and southern charm, Louisville preserves the best of the past while looking forward to the future.

http://www.acfnewsource.org/democracy/louisville_lure.html

The once sleepy southern city is doing whatever it can to lure immigrants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawnee,_Louisville

As a southern city many of Louisville's public facilities were segregated

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-11-03-louisville-usat_x.htm

After more than a century of churning out Triple Crown winners and Louisville Slugger bats, this Southern city has yet to play in the big leagues

http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/bc0c709903b0eb73a19afeb4da09e526.html

The growth of sport in a Southern city a study of the organizational evolution of baseball in Louisville, Kentucky, as an urban phenomenon, 1860-1900

http://www.southernaccents.com/accents/entertaining/parties/article/0,14743,1190201,00.html

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

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061219105743AA9gyqK

Lousiville is a southern city, but it is influenced by the midwest as well.

http://www.cordish.com/sub.cfm?section=news&type=article&newsid=46

Construction cranes, temporary street closings and the smell of fresh paint greet visitors to this once-sleepy Southern city.

http://louisville.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/louisville/content/story.html?id=1029463

Another cool thing about this area is the co-mingling of cultures. For what many consider to be a "Southern" city, we're a pretty diverse one.

http://www.americandrivingvacations.com/Ky/Louisville/Louisville.htm

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"

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=133912385

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)

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. --Gator87 02:27, 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. Pollinator 02:40, 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 • Work} 02:46, 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 • Work} 03:08, 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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albumsat /v240/Jeff59c/quickies/CivilWarSWCnty.jpg

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. Pfly 22:02, 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

Here Virginia's Burley Tobacco Scholarship

https://www.swcenter.edu/tobacco/southwest/SWcriteria0607.htm

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.

http://southeastfarmpress.com/news/031606-Burley-tobacco/

Excert

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!

http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/commhort/2001-04/2001-04-01.html

It says it all in site it's self.

http://www.ento.vt.edu/Fruitfiles/VirginiaAppleSite.html

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.

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ho/ho57/ho57.htm

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.

http://www.ntra.com/content.aspx?type=other&id=20250&style=purple&section=bc

Louisvillian 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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. 74.128.200.135 03:57, 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. --70.168.88.158 06:24, 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.

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/compub.htm#TN

. However that same source considers the city of Louisville and Kentucky the South, as they go by the Official definition. East South Central!!

http://www.mostlivable.org/cities/louisville/home.html

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.

http://www.answers.com/topic/louisville-kentucky

Noted for the Kentucky Derby, mint juleps, and southern charm, Louisville preserves the best of the past while looking forward to the future.

http://www.acfnewsource.org/democracy/louisville_lure.html

The once sleepy southern city is doing whatever it can to lure immigrants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawnee,_Louisville

As a southern city many of Louisville's public facilities were segregated

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-11-03-louisville-usat_x.htm

After more than a century of churning out Triple Crown winners and Louisville Slugger bats, this Southern city has yet to play in the big leagues

http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/bc0c709903b0eb73a19afeb4da09e526.html

The growth of sport in a Southern city a study of the organizational evolution of baseball in Louisville, Kentucky, as an urban phenomenon, 1860-1900

http://www.southernaccents.com/accents/entertaining/parties/article/0,14743,1190201,00.html

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

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061219105743AA9gyqK

Lousiville is a southern city, but it is influenced by the midwest as well.

http://www.cordish.com/sub.cfm?section=news&type=article&newsid=46

Construction cranes, temporary street closings and the smell of fresh paint greet visitors to this once-sleepy Southern city.

http://louisville.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/louisville/content/story.html?id=1029463

Another cool thing about this area is the co-mingling of cultures. For what many consider to be a "Southern" city, we're a pretty diverse one.

http://www.americandrivingvacations.com/Ky/Louisville/Louisville.htm

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"

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=133912385

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) 74.128.200.135 18:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/anth_3346/Gastil_--_Cultural_Regions.jpg

http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-3822?articleTypeId=1

http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-3823?articleTypeId=1 74.128.200.135 18:28, 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.) --70.168.88.158 19:18, 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.

http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/anth_3346/Gastil_--_Cultural_Regions.jpg

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).

74.128.200.135 02:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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. --70.168.88.158 05:47, 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. 74.128.200.135 18:44, 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 - [7] . 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. --70.168.88.158 04:45, 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.

SwedishConqueror 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

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.

Also, technically speaking; West Texas and North Texas have a culture more closely tied with the American West, so west Texas should also actually be striped. The same goes with Northern Virginia. Northern Virginia's southern culture has been watered down as much as South Florida's because of all the Northern influence on that region. So Northern Virginia should be striped as well. Skillz187 07:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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. --Stallions2010 23:06, 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.

>> Ok..I have carried on too long...but hope I might have made a certain point! LOL TexasReb 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You've done a great job! Thank you. Finally, someone understands my point. --Stallions2010 03:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

>> 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.

>>Ok..just my rambles for the day! LOL TexasReb 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Image: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? --Stallions2010 03:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

so if everyone is one board with this map should someone now start the creation of it? 74.128.200.135 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

yes we all are 74.128.200.135 19:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.isp-planet.com/img/backbones/bellsouth.jpg

BellSouth also defines Kentucky as the South. 74.128.200.135 21:17, 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. --Stallions2010 22:39, 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 Louisvillian 00:47, 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 • Work} 23:24, 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. 74.128.200.135 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

2,000 lines of text is an awful lot. I'm no longer even sure what is being debated. Pfly 03:45, 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. 74.128.200.135 06:09, 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. TexasReb 17:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's cool 74.128.200.135 18:05, 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 • Work} 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Great what's the site called again 74.128.200.135 01:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Pick the forum that has the best fit. The worst that can happen is that the topic gets moved to another forum. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I just found it, But where do we pick on the dissucssion? Oh and steve I haven't gotten my email varification yet. 74.128.200.135 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's for the most part on board with this new map so, I think it's the best time to make it. 74.128.200.135 19:26, 7 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, --Astrokey44 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to this this article, now we can finally put the subject to rest 74.128.200.135 20:11, 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. Pfly 20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Stallions2010 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

>>Great job on the maps! Maybe this will work for everyone (or a reasonable facimile thereof! LOL) Thanks Astrokey44! TexasReb 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries :) By the way note that shortly after they were added an anon IP changed the modern map to a map that removed Delaware and Maryland - from Image:US map-South Modern.png to Image:US map-South Moderne.png (extra 'e'). Is this the consensus that they are not included?, it just looked a little suspicious being an anonymous edit. --Astrokey44 02:01, 12 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. TexasReb 14:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't West Virginia be striped on the Historical South map? Sunlight07 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Snlight07

>>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... TexasReb 21:38, 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. --70.168.88.158 09:22, 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? --Stallions2010 18:33, 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. TexasReb 15:51, 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. --Stallions2010 22:54, 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. Rjensen 02:59, 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. 74.128.200.135 03:23, 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. --70.168.88.158 05:37, 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. 74.128.200.135 19:03, 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? --70.168.88.158 20:40, 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.74.128.200.135 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.aetv.com/city_confidential/city_episode_guide.jsp?episode=135386

http://www.aetv.com/city_confidential/city_episode_guide.jsp?episode=135530

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. 74.128.200.135 03:16, 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. --70.168.88.158 04:48, 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.

http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt

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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/ElectoralCollege1908-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1908-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/ElectoralCollege1904-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1904-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/ElectoralCollege1900-Large.png/800px-ElectoralCollege1900-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/ElectoralCollege1888-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1888-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/ElectoralCollege1884-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1884-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/ElectoralCollege1880-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1880-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/ElectoralCollege1864-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1864-Large.png

The only boarder state to vote Republican

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.

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://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_civil_war07_tennessee.html

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!!

http://www.mostlivable.org/cities/louisville/home.html 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. http://www.answers.com/topic/louisville-kentucky Noted for the Kentucky Derby, mint juleps, and southern charm, Louisville preserves the best of the past while looking forward to the future. http://www.acfnewsource.org/democracy/louisville_lure.html The once sleepy southern city is doing whatever it can to lure immigrants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawnee,_Louisville As a southern city many of Louisville's public facilities were segregated http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-11-03-louisville-usat_x.htm After more than a century of churning out Triple Crown winners and Louisville Slugger bats, this Southern city has yet to play in the big leagues http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/bc0c709903b0eb73a19afeb4da09e526.html The growth of sport in a Southern city a study of the organizational evolution of baseball in Louisville, Kentucky, as an urban phenomenon, 1860-1900 http://www.southernaccents.com/accents/entertaining/parties/article/0,14743,1190201,00.html 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 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061219105743AA9gyqK Lousiville is a southern city, but it is influenced by the midwest as well. http://www.cordish.com/sub.cfm?section=news&type=article&newsid=46 Construction cranes, temporary street closings and the smell of fresh paint greet visitors to this once-sleepy Southern city. http://louisville.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/louisville/content/story.html?id=1029463 Another cool thing about this area is the co-mingling of cultures. For what many consider to be a "Southern" city, we're a pretty diverse one. http://www.americandrivingvacations.com/Ky/Louisville/Louisville.htm 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"

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=133912385 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) 74.128.200.135 18:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC) http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/anth_3346/Gastil_--_Cultural_Regions.jpg http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-3822?articleTypeId=1 http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-3823?articleTypeId=1 This is obviously a Southern thing. http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx. http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_census_1860.htm there is a noticable percentage of Louisvillians who consider themselves Midwestern, which is why this city is not 100% Southern. http://www.mid-southconference.org/ http://www.cs.utk.edu/~whitmire/acf2005/stats.Louis.html http://louisvillesoaring.org/midsouth-soaring-championships-2006/ http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Skyline.Exhibits.And.Design.Midsouth.502-423-0761 http://programs.gradschools.com/midsouth/social_work_msw.html I just googled in Louisville and MidSouth and I just put the sites right down as they came. http://www.animemidatlantic.com/ http://www.microsoft.com/about/companyinformation/usaoffices/midatlantic/richmond.mspx http://mabug.richmond.edu/ http://www.synatlantic.org/ http://www.madcodecamp.com/ I googled in Richmond and Mid Atlantic http://www.daytondailynews.com/travel/content/travel/destinations/kentucky/louisville042300.html This newspaper Editor in Dayton states that Louisville is Southern to the bone. Is it NO. http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1850_slvden_040701_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1850_slvperc_040701_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slv_041001_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slv_041001_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slvden_040201_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slvperc_040201_400.jpg http://www.uic.edu/educ/bctpi/greatmigration2/dataviewer/usa/USAleftcolumn.html http://ucdata.berkeley.edu:7101/rsfcensus/graphics/blkp10_00.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Jeff59c/quickies/CivilWarSWCnty.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/Spartanburger/thesouth.jpg http://images.fotopic.net/ydgudl.jpg http://www.popvssoda.com/countystats/KY-stats.html http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/anth_3346/Gastil_--_Cultural_Regions.jpg

These sources prove ya wrong, I guess Louisville will always be the Gateway to the South. 74.128.200.135 02:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg 74.128.200.135 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dining

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? --Stallions2010 18:36, 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... TexasReb 17:52, 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!?!

Sunlight07 23:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Sunlight07

Maryland and Delaware???

I just stopped by this article, and was confused to see Maryland and Delaware are both striped. This struck me as odd, as neither state is considered Southern, nor have they been since before the Civil War. In addition, the Northern, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast articles all have Maryland and Delaware as dark red on their maps.

The Southern map seems to contradict these other sources and espouses an opinion that the overwhelming majority of people no longer consider valid. If somebody doesn't take those two states off the map, I'll do it myself.

Notice that Southern American English doesn't reach to either Maryland or Delaware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Languagesacrossthestates2.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nanaszczebrzeszyn (talk • contribs)

Maryland has a large amount of diversity for being a small state. Its long and somewhat troubled history as a "border state" is reflective of this. The western part of the state is mountainous and considered a part of Appalachia. The north-central part of the state is rolling hills and farm country, very indicative of PA. The central part of the state is dominated by the cities of Baltimore its suburbs, and the suburbs of DC. Lastly southern MD and the Eastern Shore are southern in dialect, their slave owning plantation economy pre-1865, and there southern self-identification before, during, and after the civil war. Obviously, MD is not completely "Southern." Neither the map nor the page claim that is. Please look at the following website and map to see the inclusion of parts of MD in the Southern Dialect. These maps are based on research done by the University of Pennsylvania's William Labov, one of the premier dialectal linguists in America, http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/MapsS/Map1S.html http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/home.html

Also note that dark red on the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast and Northern US page maps means "usually" not always. So it is not a contradiction to say that MD is "usually"(red) included in the North, but "sometimes" (light pink) included in the South

If you want some evidence that their are still Marylanders that self-identify as "Southerners," some aggressively so, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maryland Lasersnake 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ever considered that the northern pages might be wrong/biased and the Southern pages are right about these two states? WillC 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regions can and do overlap, there is nothing wrong with a state appearing in multiple regions. Kmusser 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

i totally agree. WillC 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

++++ I don't think the Maryland situation will ever be resolved in a manner that pleases everyone. I thought the strips would do it, since that indicates that Maryland is southern in *certain contexts,* but it appears that people don't get that a state can belong to more than one region (that's why they are border states). By the original poster's own admission, half of the state geographically is more southern culturally. The problem is, there will always be someone who wants it removed, and someone else that wants it added.

++++ Now, if Maryland is *solidly* a northern state, I think there should be an addition in it's article that mentions that Maryland is the *only* northern state that offers Son of Confederate Veterans license plates :)

I would like to share an anecdote that relates to Maryland and Southern identity. I was in Savannah, having coffee at a cafe on Madison square, when I overheard a student from the Savannah College of Art and Design complain that people in Savannah kept making fun of her for being a "Yankee." Obviously tired of being made fun of by the locals, she said to a fellow student, in a Northern accent without so much as a trace of the Southern: "But I tell them 'I'm not a Yankee, I'm from Maryland.' Maryland's south of that line -- whatever it's called -- isn't it?" -- mscallis, 24 Jan 2007

++++ What really annoys me is not if Maryland is north or south; in the long run, it doesn't matter. It is attitudes like this that bug me: "The Southern map seems to contradict these other sources and espouses an opinion that the overwhelming majority of people no longer consider valid. If somebody doesn't take those two states off the map, I'll do it myself." Someone who was not involved in creating the map or the prior, what, months of discussion, comes along and decides he doesn't like something, so he changes it without even debating the issue first. It isn't local to this article, obviously, but it is something I think is a fundamental flaw with the information found on Wikipedia.

>>Personally, as I stated time and time again in the now "Archived" discussion, I have no strong feelings one way or another about Maryland being "sometimes/occasionally" considered Southern, and voted to exclude Delaware completely. BUT...I totally agree with the above poster that there were some of us who spent months discussing/debating the whole map and inclusion/exclusion topic, then finally settled on something (two maps and three tones) that everyone could agree on. And for someone -- which could be anyone -- who wasn't in on it to suddenly change it without discussing it first is very presumptuous. TexasReb 21:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(Begin Comment) Maryland has never been Southern enough for the South, or Northern enough for the North. It is a border state and is stuck in between. I think it is obvious that there has been enough linguistic, cultural, agricultural, geographic, economic, and self-identification evidence presented in the multiple discussions on multiple Wikipages to say that MD is "sometimes" thought of as being the South. I suspect these reverts and discussions will keep popping up, but the evidence speaks for itself. Anyone who tries to completely exclude MD from the South is basing it on opinion. Lasersnake 13:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maryland? Oh, It's southern alright.

Maryland? I from Maryland and i did a survey on my college class. I asked them if they believe Maryland is north or south 64%(average) said it is south, along with virginia, and Kentucky(also Missouri & Oklahoma)the rest said the five other states were also south. I go with the majority of my class(we are in College Park, Md) But i am only one person. I really don't think that modern Maryland is CULTURY north, but idustrial, like the north. Maryland actually reminds me of the time i went to Atlanta, Georgia to visit resitives. I belive we are simalar to certain place in the south. I just don't know why everyone is hootin and hollin!!!! Everyone has their opinion! And all those surveys, please. Not everyone in those so called "NORTHERN" states took the survey, so who says that just because twenty people say it's north and two say its south, actually GOES! Yall are just acting like a bunch of immature brats trying to prove a point! Yall whining just because the Census Buero(i can't spell!haha..and im a teacher!) says that maryland, and all these other states is south! Oh, please. Is that your biggest accomplishment in life? All im trying to say is that Maryland is southern and so is Virginia. Especialy those two states! People hoot and holler just because Maryland and Virginia are modernised, therefore they have to be North. That's like saying that anywhere in the south can't be anything but cotton and corn fields because its in the south. times hve changed and many places in the south are too. Don't you see places like Charleston, Birmingham, Atlanta, and Nashville??? They are very advanced! People stupidly catorgorize Maryland & other SOUTHERN places as the North just because Baltimore, Fairfax, DC, and other cities. Might I add, Virginia is southern because of it's confederness and Maryland is southern because slavery was FORCED to stop. Also, if you see demographics on the article page, Sothern places(Md and below) have mostly AFRICAN AMERICAN ancenstors(because of the slavery), unlike the REAL NORTH EAST. And i know the North east. I went to college in NY for 2 years, but then i got tired of the buisy street life, and the below zero tempetures! I moved to the university of Maryland to get another dose of the simple life(i lived in Decatur, GA in high school) or something like my home. It's exactly like my other home in Decatur because MARYlAND IS SOUTH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.130.150 (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Maryland is marginally Southern, and this is how it is recognized on this map. We're not completely discounting the Southern element in MD, but it would be inaccurate to label modern MD as a "purely" Southern state, when (at least according to one survey) over 80% of MD residents don't consider themselves Southerners. There was a rather long and arduous debate that preceded the creation of the new map system, and this was the overwhelming consensus among editors. People from states where the Southern element is heaviest - such as Missisippi or Louisiana - by and large would not consider either MD or DE to be a part of the South in anything other than a historical sense. A variety of objective sources besides the Census Bureau do not consider MD to be a Southern state. But I do get your point, because I tend to distrust "pigeonhole" treatments of any of the border states. --70.168.88.158 06:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maryland

It is my personal belief that that person who began this section is likely not telling the truth. First of all, I have lived in the Deep South, and the notion that anyone could see Maryland and Georgia as being remotely similar, let alone the same, is impossible. It's just not believable at all.

I'm not saying I prefer one side over the other, as both had qualities that I enjoyed, but I certainly thought from day one that the two parts of the country were vastly different. The comment about weather was also something that sounded a bit off; maybe someone who'd never been to the state would believe that Maryland has similar wintertime temperatures to Georgia, but I actually lived there and won't fall for it. Temperatures all over the state regularly dip below freezing, and my grandmother told me just the other night over the phone that it was 7 degrees outside at her Baltimore-area home.

And the statistic about 64% of Marylanders considering themselves Southerners (particularly in College Park) seems entirely bogus. That figure is not tenable. Beyond flying in the face of the Southern Focus Study (in which, as the last person noted, 81% of Marylanders firmly categorized themselves as Northern), it flies in the face of common sense.

I liked the South, which is another reason that such comments bother me; many people arguing against Maryland's inclusion in Dixie seem to be Northerners who are insulted at the idea of their state being mentioned in the same breath as Virginia or Tennessee.

Yet the South itself has a very distinctive culture, and to arbitrarily throw a state in that has no societal connections with the region undermines Southern uniqueness. There is a flavor here that is hard to relay to those who haven't experienced it. Down in the South, a sort of unspoken easiness and contentedness seems to predominate in every aspect of life. The food, the work, the sports (even the weather) seems geared around this lifestyle.

Sweet tea, home fries, grits, a slow and melodic accent that almost drips with honey, these are all the essences of Southern charm that have made the states of the former Confederacy so famous throughout the world.

A deep sense of religious purpose also pervades, a silently acknowledged solidarity under a decidedly-Christian God. It seems that almost everyone here goes to church.

In Maryland, such things do not exist. That is not to say that Maryland is a bad place to be, because it's not. Marylanders are an entrepreneuring, enterprising, hardworking people. The state runs at a brisk pace, and there is a very strong feeling of work in need of finishing. Constantly, things are being done. Maryland is on a schedule. The accent is a strong one, almost barked out at you, in a way that is garrulous and firm but clearly friendly. Marylanders remind me of the cantakerous old man who calls his grandson a hippy and then gives him a punch on the shoulder.

Marylanders are often very blunt, and do not care to the extent that Southerners do about sparing one's feelings. They are direct and would rather get their point across than make someone else feel good. Their culture is very marine-based, and Baltimore is a strong point of pride. In their politics, they are as liberal as neighboring Virginia is conservative, and are fiercely unapologetic about that fact.

The same man who owns a cache of guns will tell you outright that he's voted a straight Democratic ticket all his life and then ask you if you have a problem with it.

So far as religion goes, there are major differences between Maryland and the South (I include Virginia in that category and often use if for convenient comparison). In Maryland, there is not the tendency to discuss one's religion as there is in the Southern states. Faith is an important part of many people's lives, but they don't view it as being anyone else's business. The typical Marylander would not stand up and pontificate about Jesus as the typical Virginian would.

And speaking of religion, another very critical deviation exists: among white Southerners, I noticed that the vast majority of my friends were Protestants of some some sort. Particularly, most tended to congregate toward the Baptist and Methodist confessions. As a result, most of the people I knew attended all of the same churches.

In Maryland, the majority of my friends were, by a wide margin, Catholic. These young men and women, too, normally went to church together, but of course they were reluctant to bring it up outside of chapel walls. My grandmother is the perfect example of this; Catholic all her life, yet not too keen on discussion. I often felt left out in school, because at one point the whole of the student body was preparing for their upcoming confirmations. And then every year around April would come the complaints about Lent and not being able to eat meat on certain days.

As I have said, I love both sides in different ways, but I would never, ever lump them together. Maryland is more similar to Pennsylvania, and even those two states differ strongly in certain aspects. Vast swaths of central Pennsylvania are deeply conservative, and in general I would categorize Pennsylvania (excluding Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) as being more Southern than Maryland.

Of all the states I've been, Maryland reminds me most of Connecticut. Baltimore and New Haven residents would identify well with each other.

Maryland is definitely Northern, and Virginia is definitely Southern (though at this point I would label Virginia a border state due to the influence that its northern quarter exerts, especially pertaining to politics).

Sunlight07 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Sunlight 07

++++ Just curious if you actually visited any part of the state other than Baltimore? Waldorf, Prince Frederick, Easton, Salisbury? [Lived there most of my life, so yes] It strikes me as odd that the majority of you friends were Catholic when only about 1/5 of the population in Maryland is Catholic; the largest demonination in Maryland is Baptist [Not true: 23% are Roman Catholic while only 18% are Baptist (source:[8])] As for being a Democratic state, you'll notice that in the 2006 elections, only 5 counties (including Baltimore city) voted Democratic, and several of them were marginal victories [Yeah, and between those five counties is the huge majority of the population, which would explain why Bill Clinton did better in Maryland than in any other state except his native Arkansas] While living in Maryland, I found sweet tea and home fries (although not grits) easy to come by [Could've fooled me]. It may have been 7 degrees in Baltimore when you spoke to your grandmother, but if so, it was darn close to the all time low set it 1934 :) [Well, it was 11 degrees there this morning, so I guess it's a record-breaking year. The low in Baltimore is set for 8 degrees tonight ([9])] Baltimore, at its coldest, averages 45 degrees, well above freezing. [Highs are at or below freezing all this week.] Yes, the Baltimore accent is closely related to the Philidelphia accent. What makes them different? Linguists describe Baltimore English as Philidelphia English with a Southern accent [Wow. Having grown up there, I can't imagine how I never realized this.] Maryland and Virginia have nothing in common? This one I won't even touch, it is so far from the historical reality. [Of course. I suppose I've only imagined the vast differences in religion, politics, weather, demographics, and economics. I've only actually lived in both places.]

++++ My only real point is that one must actually research, not just go off of feelings. Visiting the Baltimore/Washington area and saying "I understand Maryland" is akin to visiting Atlanta and saying "I understand Georgia." Sorry, but there is more to both states than their largest cities. [Once again, you know more about my home state than I do. My mistake.]

++++ Ah, and since I brought up DC, sorry, but economically and historically, DC has way more in common with Atlanta, Charlotte, and other Southern cities than Northern cities. [Wink, wink.] Both grew and expanded without heavy industry. White flight, leading to the growth of suburbs, etc. Baltimore was one of the largest cities in the US (I believe 4th largest) prior to the Civil War. It did have heavy industry, mostly related to the production of final goods from the raw products of the rest of the South. You'll note a large economic decline after the Civil War... [Which is why Baltimore is ranked among the most important ports in the Northeastern United States]

++++ And just as a last point, Charleston's culture focuses on maritime activities as well. Charleston, economically, depends heavily on the water; it is one of the nation's largest container ports and there are many local shrimpers and oystermen (just like there are many crabers and oystermen in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, etc). So, I fail to see how the fact that the Chesapeake is vital to Maryland, or that Baltimore is a maritime city, indicates it is not Southern. [I did not mean it that way.]

Some rules of order for MD discussion

Ok, this discussion on MD's inclusion or exclusion from the "South" continues to rage on, with no sign of resolution. I would like to put forth some suggestions on how to organize and focus our discussion in order to more easily and logically reach a consensus. I propose to keep this thread monitered and only include comments that meet two criteria.

1. The topic for discussion is "Is Maryland SOMETIMES/OCCASIONALLY considered a Southern state." This narrow focus is needed to avoid drifting back to larger and utterly unanswereable question of whether MD is entirely a Northern or Southern state.

2. Only peer-reviewed,objective data and academic discussion on this data is allowed. By peer-reviewed data, I mean articles, surveys, maps, or studies that have been written by acknowleged experts in their field, and published in academic journals. Academic discussion simply means debating or supporting the merits or interpretation of this data.

Here are some examples of what should be allowed.

1. Maryland should not be SOMETIMES considered a Southern State based on the the article Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels, by Professor James R. Shortridge (Department of Geography, University of Kansas)and published in Annals of the Association of American Geographers, a highly-respected, peer-reviewed work. In Vol. 7, Number 3 of this journal (September 1987) that finds that only 2% of Marylanders self-identify themselves as living in the South

2. Maryland can be SOMETIMES considered Southern based on the fact that large parts of Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore speak Southern dialects as defined by Prof. Bill Labov's Dialectal Atlas project at the U. of Penn. Here is a link to the map http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/MapsS/Map1S.html

Here are some examples of what should NOT be allowed.

1. I did a survey in my college class and 20 of the 30 people said MD is Southern

2. Southerns are polite, people from Baltimore, MD are rude,therefore MD is a Northern State

3. My grandaddy was from Maryland and he had a Southern drawl and cooked up a mean mess of greens, MD is the South.

I don't want to silence anyone's free speech, but comments like this are not advancing our discussion and should be somewhere else. I am willing to move them to an archived discussion on another page. What do people think of this suggestion? I will not act unilaterally on this idea, but I am willing to help moniter this thread to keep the discussion moving forward. Lasersnake 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with those suggestions and that general framework for debate. Otherwise, in another month we'll have to archive comments on MD as it's heading down that path rapidly. The word "sometimes" HAS to be used, or else Southern and Northern factions in MD, each with their own qualified sources, will never reach a compromise here. --70.168.88.158 21:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have moved some of the discussion to the archive, my next step to organize the threads with simple titles like "Southern Research Survey" or "Dialectal Evidence," etc. Please don't take offense if I removed YOUR posts (I moved alot of my content too). Feel free to review anything and everything I move and add it back in to a thread where you think it belongs. If anyone would like to comment on the guidelines for debate, or dispute anything that was moved, please put it in the thread entitled, "Discussion of Rules for debate". Also, separate threads not discussing MD will be kept on this page. It is only the Maryland content that is in need of some organization. Please let me know if I do too much or too little, and everyone should feel free to move information or propose improvements on how to move forward. I don't want to seem domineering in these moves, but I think this article will benefit from a more structured debate. Thanks. Lasersnake 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Rules of Order

Yes, but no. The problem here is that a very tiny and vocal minority insist that Maryland is Southern, and they will not lay down their case. As stated in the last post, 98.06% of the people in the state think of it as Northern. That is not an even split. If we will allow less than 2% of the population to define the state, than we must similarly note that Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, and even Florida are "somewhat Northern" due to the fact that far larger minorities in all of those places do not regard themselves as Southerners.

Do you see what I mean? The logic we're using here is insane! We're talking about less than 2% of the population--LESS THAN 2%! It just boggles my mind!

And I never said Marylanders were rude; I said that they were more brusque and direct, but not that they were in any way impolite.

I will agree to the parameters you have set, with the condition that we should reach a definitive answer on this question, not simply label the state "marginally Southern" for the sake of compromise and at the expense of fact. For most people, this is not an issue.

Sunlight07 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Sunlight07

Sunlight. I agree that the "Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels, by Professor James R. Shortridge" is a useful piece of information for our discussion, but I have a few questions about it. Using terms like "North, South, East, West" may have lead people towards geographically labeling their state rather than culturally identifying themselves. Also I am not sure terms like "South" and "East" are mutually exclusive. That meaning, someone could say "SC is an Eastern State and a Southern State," and not find a contridiction to that. Constrast that with someone trying to say "SC is a Southern state and a Northern State." Obviously these two terms are mutually exclusive. I will get into this more in the previous thread. Also, I wasn't referering to anyone specific post or poster when I listed the "bad" comments, they were fictionalizations I came up with off of the top of my head based some of the things I had remembered reading during the multiple threads on multiple pages about MD. Sorry if you thought I was refering to you or anyone else directly. Moving forward, I am going to try to organize some of this debate into more organized threads and focus in on some of the specific research we can use. Lasersnake 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maryland discussion - Vaux's research on the use of "y'all"

Here's something else that might aid us in the discussion. I wanted to provide another interesting analysis of linguistics; one based on a more subtle detail, such as usage of the word “y’all” as a plural form. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee did a comprehensive dialect survey across the US, asking randomly selected participants to answer 122 questions about certain linguistic habits. The chief coordinator of the study was Dr. Bert Vaux, Associate Professor of Linguistics, Harvard University. Question 50 of that survey asked “What word(s) do you use to address a group of two or more people?” The available choices were: a. you all b. yous, youse c. you lot d. you guys e. you 'uns f. yins g. you h. other i. y'all. There was an extremely strong correlation between states of the South and usage of the word y’all; no state outside of the South had more than 8% or so of residents report using the word “y’all”, while that word was used by a majority or plurality in most of the South. I ranked the results here and broke them into two groups – more than half, and less than half using “y’all.”

More than half using “y’all”: 1. Mississippi – 85.47% 2. Louisiana – 79.30% 3. Texas – 73.09% 4. Alabama – 72.81% 5. South Carolina – 71.83% 6. Georgia – 71.15% 7. Arkansas – 69.17% 8. North Carolina – 66.13% 9. Tennessee – 62.15%

Less than half using “y’all”: 1. Oklahoma – 46.35% 2. Virginia – 44.03% 3. Florida – 41.49% 4. Kentucky – 39.00% 5. West Virginia – 28.35% 6. Delaware – 20.93% 7. Maryland – 20.52% 8. Missouri – 13.44%

And, as a sort of “control group”, four non-Southern states: 1. California – 6.8% 2. Illinois – 6.05% 3. Colorado – 6.78% 4. Pennsylvania – 4.08%

Interestingly, the correlation between the states with less than half using “y’all” was perfect between the states where less than half self-identify as “Southern” in the American Geographers article – save for Florida, which would be expected. Regarding Maryland and Delaware, while we cannot say to any degree of certainty that usage of “y’all” connotes “Southern-ness”, it is one of the words most commonly associated with the American South, and these states are still in a rather bizarre position between North and South in the survey – nowhere near that many people in any Northern state used y’all, but neither of these states came remotely close to most Southern states. Still, they’re both far closer – probably by several standard deviations – to the Northern states. If anything surprised me in this study, it was that Missouri had fewer people using “y’all” than either MD or DE – something I would have not expected.

The entire survey, broken down by state, is accessible here – [10] --70.168.88.158 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have always said "you guys," as long as I can remember.

Sunlight07 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Sunlight07

++++ But, that is the point, Sunlight07. You are taking your personal feelings and projecting them onto the entire state. As I mentioned before, the onus is on you to *research* and prove that Maryland is not *sometimes/occassionally/by some definitions/whatever* is considered Southern. From my standpoint, it is clear that Maryland is in fact, atleast sometimes, considered Southern. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond oversees Maryland, Virginia, North Caronlina, and South Caronlina. All considered to be Southern states in this instance.

++++ I am sorry if disagreeing with you annoys you, but as long as the map includes *all* modern definitions of the South, Maryland is definitely included in some of those definitions. Just to point out how, despite your confidence that you *just know* something, but are wrong, the top container ports on the east coast are New York, Hampton Roads, and Charleston. Baltimore is currently the 18th largest city in the United States, a far cry from the 1800s rank. As to temperatures, I did say *average.* Sure, it gets below freezing in Charleston as well, but the *average* is what is used to describe weather patterns, not outliers. Demographics and economics different in MD and VA? What about the economic fact that both states rely heavily on the Federal government for jobs? How about both growing tobacco as a cash crop (which has dramatically been reduced in Maryland since 2001 by the state buyout program). How about both being important in the IT sector, with service based economies? How about the Mid Atlantic Space port, located in VA, sponsored by both states? What about the the "Virginia-Maryland Regional Veterinary College" located on Virgina Tech's campus? Westvaco, headquartered in Richmond, was founded in Western Maryland. Since you live in Maryland, take a day and watch the amount of traffic that crosses the Potomac River, then do the same on I-83 into PA. You will be amazed at the difference. There is a reason why north of Baltimore you find farm land. I could go on, but obviously you get the point. I am really not that interested in going further, but suffice it to say that I am an economist, and when I tell you that Maryland and Virginia are tightly bound economically, it is not opinion. Demographics? Annapolis, as I am sure you will know, was founded by Virginians (that covers a bit of history as well).

++++ From the wikipedia article on Virginia: The five largest reported ancestry groups in Virginia are: African American (19.6%), German (11.7%), American (11.2%), English (11.1%), Irish (9.8%).

++++ Maryland: The five largest reported ancestries in Maryland are German (15.7%), Irish (11.7%), English (9%), American (5.8%), and Italian (5.1%[4]).

++++ Not all that different. Both have high African American populations, but Maryland has about 30% while Virginia has about 20%.

++++ As for history, look to your state song.

++++ Although I am not a Marylander, I have lived there as well for many years. That said, it really won't upset me if Maryland is not included in the South. However, I do feel that given the obivious evidence that it is *sometimes* considered Southern (like helping to found the SEC :)), that it is the oppositions responsibility to prove that Maryland is *never* considered Southern.

You miss my point. There will always be a small group of fanatics no matter what anyone else says, and this it is impossible to prove that Maryland is never considered Southern. No matter what, there will always be those so detached from reality that they can actually believe that Maryland and Georgia (or even, let's face it, Maryland and Virginia) belong to the same region.

I cannot alter that. But your logic is flawed.

If I were to add to the Holocaust article, "The Holocaust is sometimes/marginally considered an elaborate hoax orchestrated by Zionists bent on world domination," I would technically be right. Yet nobody actually takes these loony-bins seriously.

Once again, I reiterate, 1.94%. We are having this discussion...because of 1.94%. Simply unbelievable.

Sunlight07 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Sunlight07

++++ Two things. First, I must again state that the map reflects more than just personal identification. But, even if it did, the fact that the Southern Focus poll shows that 40% of people living in Maryland think it is a Southern state says something. While the majority of those living in Maryland do not feel themselves to be Southern is a different issue. Visit Myrtle Beach an hour and a half from me in SC. With the number of retirees there, I have a strong feeling that a large number of people living in the area will not say that they are Southern. Try the same experiement in the Cary, NC area. Does that mean Myrtle Beach and Cary are no longer in the South?

++++ Second, by all definitions, Maryland and Virgina *are* in the same region. Now, whether or not both are Southern is a different matter. But, both were considered Chesapeake colonies in early America and continue their close relationship to this day. In fact, you can see arguments by both Marylanders and Virginians on the Mid Atlantic page that "Mid Atlantic" *means* Maryland and Virginia.

++++ And besides, a sample of 206 people in a state of 5.3 million, producing the 1.94% Southern identification statistic, isn't what I would call a reliable measure.

++++ And I apologize for not actually citing my sources as suggested in an above post. I admit, it is completely out of laziness, and also the fact that I am not really defending anything in the article so much as oppossing changing anything based off of opinion without actual research (yeah, not very convincing if I don't cite things myself). Hopefully what I have said is either obvious (which I think most is), or easily found with Google.

I'm not particularly interested in the MD discussion (though I find it interesting - for the record, I believe that the current treatment of MD is fine, because it is evident that the state is sometimes considered Southern, even if only in a quirky, mercurial sense, i.e. by the Census Bureau, in terms of accent, or by self-identification of a small minority of residents), but I wanted to state that the study that I posted is just as, if not more, reliable than the Southern Focus one, which has been heavily used in decision-making here even though a link to text of the study was never provided. In statistics, a proper, random sample of 200 people can be far more accurate than a poorly designed, haphazard sample of 10,000 people. As a matter of fact - if the text posted in the archive is true - only 173 Marylanders were polled for the Southern Focus Study numbers - a smaller amount than in this one! If it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal specializing in American geography, it is most definitely reliable and relevant to our discussion here. If anything I have more faith in this study than the Southern Focus one; this study was presented on data gathered with no "background noise", whereas the Southern Focus Study included questions about accent, Confederate flags, etc. that may have affected the answers of some of the participants (and also because I highly distrusted the numbers for Kentucky that the Southern Focus Study reported.) The Changing Regional Labels study just looked at what people identify as given the choice of East, South, Midwest, or West. And it does, for whatever it means to our decision making, show that only 1.94% of Marylanders used the term "South" to describe their state. --70.168.88.158 02:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

++++ I apologize, I didn't mean to infer that the study you posted to is not relevant or less reliable than the Southern Focus study. I simply meant to point out that focusing on a number, where ever that number comes from, is not the end-all-be-all of what should and should not be included on the map as long as the map is an attempt to capture all definitions of the South.

++++ This link maybe interesting... Just out of curiosity, I Googled for "Where is the South?" and this was one of the first links. I find it interesting for the fact that, much like the discussion here, the answers are all over the place. Check out the comments. http://bamber.blogspot.com/2004/06/where-is-south.html

Maryland discussion on the Shortridge Article

OK, it has seemed to me for a long time that an ungodly amount of importance was being assigned to that one non-collaborated Southern Focus Study in this article, so I wanted to search through accredited academic journals to see if I could find a viable alternative (for one thing, because I didn’t trust some of its findings). I did in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, a highly-respected, peer-reviewed work. In Vol. 7, Number 3 of this journal (September 1987), in the article Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels, Professor James R. Shortridge (Department of Geography, University of Kansas) seeks, through a statistically random analysis of identification cards sent out with a product, to identify contemporary trends of regional self-identification in terms of the four labels “East”, “West”, “South”, and “Midwest.” Based on self-reported identifications, he found a rather low correlation between our traditional boundaries and contemporary (well, contemporary as of 1987!!) self-identifications. The term “East” – which one would typically associate with the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast – was particularly interesting. For example, even in South Carolina, a relatively large percentage of people – just about 25% - chose the term “East” over the term “South” to describe their region. As would be expected, this trend was even more pronounced in North Carolina, with about 35 percent choosing the term “East” over the term “South.” An interestingly large percentage of people in Oklahoma – some 73% - chose the term “Midwestern” over the term “Southern.” Of the states considered to any possible extent “Southern on this page, here is a ranked list in terms of percentage of people who chose “South” as their primary regional identification. I also included the absolute sizes of the samples. These numbers reflected geography much more so than self-identifications, though Dr. Shortridge did acknowledge that for many people, emotional self-identification and/or region of birth may have played a role in the choice of label. Obviously, though some 88% of Floridians in this study identified their region as “Southern”, nowhere near that many would likely identify themselves as Southern. I divided them into four groups – more than 75%, more than 50%, less than half, and less than 10%.

More than 75%: 1. Louisiana – 194/199 – 97.49% 2. Mississippi – 72/75 – 96% 3. Alabama – 122/130 – 93.85% 4. Florida – 244/277 – 88.09% 5. Georgia – 147/168 – 87.5% 6. Tennessee – 156/190 – 82.11%

More than 50%: 1. Arkansas – 56/77 – 72.73% 2. South Carolina – 66/91 – 72.53% 3. Texas – 526/739 – 71.18% 4. North Carolina – 87/145 – 60%

Less than half: 1. Kentucky – 112/234 – 47.86% 2. Virginia – 84/343 – 24.5% 3. Oklahoma – 32/207 – 15.46% 4. West Virginia – 13/87 – 14.94%

Less than 10%: 1. Missouri – 17/415 – 4.10% 2. Maryland – 4/206 - 1.94% 3. Delaware – 0/21 – 0% (I found that particularly amusing)

For another perspective, among the states with less than half, here are the two largest groups: 1. Kentucky – South 47.86%, Midwest 32.48% 2. Virginia – East 72.89%, South 24.5% 3. Oklahoma – Midwest 74.4%, South 15.46% 4. West Virginia – East 80.46%, South 14.94% 5. Missouri – Midwest 91.8%, South 4.1% 6. Maryland – East 96.6%, South 1.94% 7. Delaware – East 100% (the sample for DE was small, but DE is a proportionally small state)

And for a last analysis, some “troublesome” counties in various transitional regions:

Tulsa County, OK (transition between South and Midwest) – 84.4% Midwest, 4.4% South. El Paso County, TX (transition between South and West) – 61.3% West, 19.35% South. Henrico-Richmond City, VA (transition between South and East) – 82.6% East, 17.4% South. Baltimore City, MD (transition (??) between South and East) - 95.83% East, 4.17% South. Kenton County, KY (transition between South and Midwest) – 61.5% Midwest, 23.1% South.

The most interesting piece I could pull out of this was that it perfectly corresponded to the old map system used on this page, with the exception of Virginia; none of the striped states on that old map (those were Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware) had a simple majority of residents in this study self-identify as Southerners, Kentucky being the only one of those states where Southerners formed a plurality. Delaware had none at all! I’m not trying to establish that study as being more or less valid than the Southern Focus one. However, it was published in a highly respected journal, and thus it was peer-reviewed by specialists in American culture and geography. Take it or reject it. I just wanted to provide a good, verifiable, NPOV alternative to the Southern Focus Study, and this article accomplishes that purpose. The Southern Focus Study is not the "Bible of the South."

The article is accessible via JSTOR, at [11] --70.168.88.158 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember this study, 70, and have it around somewhere as well (seems like I have a lot of things around "somewhere" but can't seem to locate! LOL). In any event, I ordered a hard copy of it from the Geographers Association some years back (before the days of the internet). Thanks for sharing it. TexasReb 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is currently 5 degrees in Westminster, Maryland ([12]) and 11 degrees in Baltimore City. Just a comment about weather. The last post seems to prove pretty conclusively that Maryland is not a Southern state. If we keep it in that category due to the opinions of 1.94% of the people, we have crossed the line into ridiculous. By that logic, Virginia (where 40% do not identify as Southern) is part of the Northeast.

++++ In fact, on the Northeast wikipage you will notice arguments to that exact point :) Regions are fluid, and there is no definite end of one and the start of another.

Regarding the term "East", Dr. Shortridge notes, on page 331 that: "The Atlantic Coast transition zone (from South to East) undoubtedly would look quite different had the Cobra people inserted a North box on their warranty cards instead of an East one. Reed showed dislike for the North still to be an important factor in North Carolina life in 1971 (1983, 15-18). Presumably even those Carolinians who objected to the label South could never call themselves Northerners. East, however, would seem to be a convenient, relatively neutral alternative term for many people...Carolinians still identify more frequently with the South than the East."

There could have indeed been some confusion as to what the terms meant (South region of my state? East as in Southeast, or Northeast?) but the fact that the study more or less perfectly matched to established regional/cultural boundaries seems to suggest that it was minor - Dr. Shortridge suggests that this was the case in, his estimate, only about 1% of survey-takers. This analysis is collaborated by a section near the end of the study, on page 334, in which he notes that some people chose "alternative" labels when identifying their region, the most common of which were "Southeast" and "Southwest". He then presents a table of the alternative choices chosen by state. He notes that this samples are relatively small, but still match extremely well to what one would expect. In some "surprising" cases such as SC, where a large percentage of people chose the term "East" over "South", the term "Southeast" was selected by 100% of the "dissenters" as the alternative label - thus explaining that discrepancy. I added up the numbers of those who selected alternative terms, looked at those who selected Southeast, and came up with percentages:

Of those selecting an alternative term, percentage selecting the term "Southeast" 1. Alabama - 100% (reported by 2) 2. Florida - 100% (19) 3. South Carolina - 100% (9) 4. North Carolina - 100% (9) 5. Virginia - 100% (11) 6. Louisiana - 100% (1) 6. West Virginia - 100% (1 - may be considered an "odd" case) 7. Georgia - 85.71% (12/15) 8. Mississippi - 66.7% (2/3) 9. Tennessee - 66.7% (2/3) 10. Maryland - 50% (1 - again, probably an "odd" case) 11. Kentucky - 42.86% (3/7)

(Regarding the samples, it was noted that the study participants seemed to follow the same statistical normal distribution as the general American population and were thus representative - page 326).

That matches fairly well to the Southeastern United States page, though the map on that page likely needs to be reworked. WV and MD, with only one person opting for an alternative term, are probably erroneous data. For the rest, only KY had a minority of residents opting for "Southeast" (I really wish I had this survey available as evidence earlier when some were strongly making the rather dubious argument that Kentucky is just as Southern as Georgia or Tennessee, as these results show that it is indeed a border state of highly diluted Southern character.) As would be expected, TX had a strong majority - 80.5%, 33/41 - opt for the term "Southwest" as an alternative, while not a single Texan chose the term "Southeast" in the sample.

Sorry if I seem a bit aggressive in pushing this thing. But for months on here, several editors insisted heavily, almost entirely on that one Southern Focus Study as a delimiter of what is Southern and what isn't, and virulently argued against any cultural items that seemed to challenge its findings. I found the Southern Focus Study's findings regarding Texas, Maryland, and most especially Kentucky to be highly questionable/debatable, and they seem to contradict both this study and the linguistic study example using "y'all" as a key word that I provided below. --70.168.88.158 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maryland Discussion on Meinig's map

Here is the map created by this country's most reknown geographer

[[13]]

http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg Louisvillian 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maryland discussion on the Southern Focus Study

VERY similar situation. As is the case with Delaware, so is the case with the Old Line State; for most Marylanders, the idea of being Southern is not even on the radar. There will always be extremists everywhere, but mainstream residents of the state just don't believe it.

Case in point, the Southern Focus Study. A whopping 19% of Marylanders would call themselves Southerners, compared with the similar figure of 15% in Delaware. To say that either state is actually part of Dixie would contradict the self-identification of 81% of Marylanders and 86% of Delawareans.

By that logic, Virginia is a Northern state; only 60% of Virginians consider themselves Southern, which means that an additional 40% do not.

I actually did a survey on this question for a U.S. history class I'm in. I walked around my college campus (which is in the Upper South, but I won't say exactly where) and asked random students three questions:

• 1. Is Virginia a Northern or a Southern state?
• 2. Is Maryland a Northern or a Southern state?
• 3. Where is the Mason-Dixon Line?

The answers I got were:

• 1. 18% thought Virginia was a Northern state, while 81% thought it was Southern (there were some people who didn't know, which accounts for the missing one or two percentage points).

• 2. Just under 91% thought Maryland was a Northern state, compared to roughly 9.09% who thought it was Southern.

• 3.

• A. Less than 10% knew where the Mason-Dixon Line was

• B. Just over 36% guessed incorrectly

• i. Among these:

• a. 50% thought that the line was between Maryland and Virginia (corresponding to the widely-held belief that Maryland is a Northern state)

• b. 25% believed the Line passed between Virginia and West Virginia

• c. 25% believed the Line was "somewhere below Tennessee" (I am honestly not making this up).

• C The remaining people in the sample were not confident enough in their knowledge of the Line to give any answer at all, and simply responded, "I do not know."

It certainly seemed to reveal the cultural relevance of the Mason-Dixon Line in the 21st Century...

Sunlight07 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Sunlight07

Both these discussions are missing the point that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. This page should simply report what reliable sources say. If different sources disagree on whether Maryland or Delaware are "southern", then we should report that too. It's not our job to resolve the question or make a definitive judgment. By that standard, I'd say describing Maryland and Delaware as "occasionally considered southern" is about right---most people don't consider them southern, but a minority do. --Delirium 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

++++ Although the map does include self identification and cutural definitions, to me, they are just a subset of what the map attempts to show with "modern definitions." It is pointless to argue if Maryland is cuturally Southern without an established definition of what Southern culture is. But, if the map is to encompass and reflect "modern definitions," it also has to include corporate, governmental, and other organizations definitions as well.

++++ Just out of curiousity, try the college experiement again, but ask if Virginia and Maryland are Northeastern states. I am curious as to the results :) I see Virginia and Maryland as fairly tightly tied together, and they have been in both a modern and historical sense (from colonial times, to the growth of the federal government in the 1950's which lead to their urban development, to the modern daily flow of people across their borders). In my own opinion, I see them both, as well as Delaware and West Virginia, as Mid Atlantic, but would not include any of them in the same grouping as New York or New Jersey. But, again, this is all opinion :)

++++ Oh, and you may already know this, but I think the Maryland nickname "Old Line State" has nothing to do with the Mason-Dixon Line. I believe it comes from the Battle of Cowpens here is SC (the last battle in the Patriot), where Maryland's troops were used as the "troops of the line," which won the battle.

John Shelton Reed

Percent who say their community is in the South (percentage base in parentheses)

Alabama 98 (717) South Carolina 98 (553) Louisiana 97 (606) Mississippi 97 (431) Georgia 97 (1017) Tennessee 97 (838) North Carolina 93 (1292) Arkansas 92 (400) Florida 90 (1792) Texas 84 (2050) Virginia 82 (1014) Kentucky 79 (582) Oklahoma 69 (411)

West Virginia 45 (82) Maryland 40 (173) Missouri 23 (177) Delaware 14 (21) D.C. 7 (15)

Percent who say they are Southerners (percentage base in parentheses)

Mississippi 90 (432) Louisiana 89 (606) Alabama 88 (716) Tennessee 84 (838) South Carolina 82 (553) Arkansas 81 (399) Georgia 81 (1017) North Carolina 80 (1290) Texas 68 (2053) Kentucky 68 (584) Virginia 60 (1012) Oklahoma 53 (410) Florida 51 (1791)

West Virginia 25 (84) Maryland 19 (192) Missouri 15 (197) New Mexico 13 (68) Delaware 12 (25) D.C. 12 (16) Utah 11 (70) Indiana 10 (208) Illinois 9 (362) Ohio 8 (396) Arizona 7 (117) Michigan 6 (336)

All others less than 6 percent.

Southern Focus Study. A study that has been conducted for the past decade or so to determine which states identify with the South.

"Check out this essay by John Shelton Reed, "The South: Where Is It? What Is It?" http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR...REED/ tears.html. He makes a persuasive case that the border line is where "Southern" entries in the phone book are 35%. That includes the 11 former Confederate states, minus Texas except for the eastern edge. It includes Kentucky, but not Missouri. It includes a corner of Oklahoma. (The Deep South is a smaller area, while the area of Southern influence is larger.)Reed's maps seem to show that D.C. is within "the South," though not the Deep South--at least as of 1975." Some guy makes reference to Sheldon Reeds study and his conclusion from the Study.Louisvillian 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, we have all seen these numbers for the Southern Focus survey many, many times in this article, and they have been used heavily for decision making, even though the actual text of this Southern Focus survey has NEVER ONCE been cited. Both the Southern Focus Survey and the Changing Usage survey suggest that Maryland is marginally Southern, though the Changing Usage survey suggests that it is much less so. We need to consider all qualified sources, not just the Southern Focus survey. And if we are going to continue basing decisions on the Southern Focus survey, it would be helpful to be provided with an Internet link to it, or at least a place where it can be purchased and verified. And informal polls should hold no merit here at all, please see WP:V. This would include informal workplace surveys, surverys about "catfish joints", etc. --70.168.88.158 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.irss.unc.edu/odum/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=242

Here ya go. BTW that source you've given DOES NOT EVEN MENTION THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE. Provide the actual survey and then it will be credible.Louisvillian 03:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The link has already been provided, several times on this page. If you do not have access to JSTOR, I provided an external link via your talk page to the survey. I'm assuming that you've only read the first page of it because it clearly mentions Louisville and Kentucky. --70.168.88.158 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

>>Just in case anyone ever thought otherwise, I NEVER intended for that rough attempt of mine to map out the prevalence of "catfish joints", to be taken as even remotely a "qualified" source for finding the boundaries of the South as relates to this article nor its maps. And I hope that much was obvious from the light way I brought it up to begin with.

>>At the same time however, it wasn't exactly an informal questioning of a selected audience either. It was taken from the idea John Reed had of mapping the South by comparing Southern listings to American. In this case I used hamburger as the independent variable and scoured national business listings to get an idea where catfish -- a food item strongly associated with the South -- was most popular in the country. It was done mostly for fun, although in the future I may attempt to fine tune it, write an abstract, and submit it to a geographical publication...just like a planned survey of where black-eyed peas are a tradition on New Years Day. For the moment though, it is nothing more than a little backyard type project I shared as a note of local color with others interested in Southern studies.

>>On a related tangent though, I think we would all agree that, among other things, the South is a state of mind, traditions, customs, and emotion. Therefore, one cannot dismiss studies which attempt to define the region by individual items and coorelations of them which are commonly associated with Dixie. A great example of this is the article Reed once wrote titled "The South. Where Is It? What Is It." Contained with were dozens of maps ranging from where the Southern Baptist Church was most dominent, to the influence of country music, down to where Kudzu grows. TexasReb 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Information

Someone (I strongly suspect a Southerner) purposely deleted several pages of my argument and replaced them with the phrase "MASON-DIXON LINE," which seems to be the only response that can be gotten.

Here is the material:

Maryland It is my personal belief that that person who began this section is likely not telling the truth. First of all, I have lived in the Deep South, and the notion that anyone could see Maryland and Georgia as being remotely similar, let alone the same, is impossible. It's just not believable at all.

I'm not saying I prefer one side over the other, as both had qualities that I enjoyed, but I certainly thought from day one that the two parts of the country were vastly different. The comment about weather was also something that sounded a bit off; maybe someone who'd never been to the state would believe that Maryland has similar wintertime temperatures to Georgia, but I actually lived there and won't fall for it. Temperatures all over the state regularly dip below freezing, and my grandmother told me just the other night over the phone that it was 7 degrees outside at her Baltimore-area home.

And the statistic about 64% of Marylanders considering themselves Southerners (particularly in College Park) seems entirely bogus. That figure is not tenable. Beyond flying in the face of the Southern Focus Study (in which, as the last person noted, 81% of Marylanders firmly categorized themselves as Northern), it flies in the face of common sense.

I liked the South, which is another reason that such comments bother me; many people arguing against Maryland's inclusion in Dixie seem to be Northerners who are insulted at the idea of their state being mentioned in the same breath as Virginia or Tennessee.

Yet the South itself has a very distinctive culture, and to arbitrarily throw a state in that has no societal connections with the region undermines Southern uniqueness. There is a flavor here that is hard to relay to those who haven't experienced it. Down in the South, a sort of unspoken easiness and contentedness seems to predominate in every aspect of life. The food, the work, the sports (even the weather) seems geared around this lifestyle.

Sweet tea, home fries, grits, a slow and melodic accent that almost drips with honey, these are all the essences of Southern charm that have made the states of the former Confederacy so famous throughout the world.

A deep sense of religious purpose also pervades, a silently acknowledged solidarity under a decidedly-Christian God. It seems that almost everyone here goes to church.

In Maryland, such things do not exist. That is not to say that Maryland is a bad place to be, because it's not. Marylanders are an entrepreneuring, enterprising, hardworking people. The state runs at a brisk pace, and there is a very strong feeling of work in need of finishing. Constantly, things are being done. Maryland is on a schedule. The accent is a strong one, almost barked out at you, in a way that is garrulous and firm but clearly friendly. Marylanders remind me of the cantakerous old man who calls his grandson a hippy and then gives him a punch on the shoulder.

Marylanders are often very blunt, and do not care to the extent that Southerners do about sparing one's feelings. They are direct and would rather get their point across than make someone else feel good. Their culture is very marine-based, and Baltimore is a strong point of pride. In their politics, they are as liberal as neighboring Virginia is conservative, and are fiercely unapologetic about that fact.

The same man who owns a cache of guns will tell you outright that he's voted a straight Democratic ticket all his life and then ask you if you have a problem with it.

So far as religion goes, there are major differences between Maryland and the South (I include Virginia in that category and often use if for convenient comparison). In Maryland, there is not the tendency to discuss one's religion as there is in the Southern states. Faith is an important part of many people's lives, but they don't view it as being anyone else's business. The typical Marylander would not stand up and pontificate about Jesus as the typical Virginian would.

And speaking of religion, another very critical deviation exists: among white Southerners, I noticed that the vast majority of my friends were Protestants of some some sort. Particularly, most tended to congregate toward the Baptist and Methodist confessions. As a result, most of the people I knew attended all of the same churches.

In Maryland, the majority of my friends were, by a wide margin, Catholic. These young men and women, too, normally went to church together, but of course they were reluctant to bring it up outside of chapel walls. My grandmother is the perfect example of this; Catholic all her life, yet not too keen on discussion. I often felt left out in school, because at one point the whole of the student body was preparing for their upcoming confirmations. And then every year around April would come the complaints about Lent and not being able to eat meat on certain days.

As I have said, I love both sides in different ways, but I would never, ever lump them together. Maryland is more similar to Pennsylvania, and even those two states differ strongly in certain aspects. Vast swaths of central Pennsylvania are deeply conservative, and in general I would categorize Pennsylvania (excluding Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) as being more Southern than Maryland.

Of all the states I've been, Maryland reminds me most of Connecticut. Baltimore and New Haven residents would identify well with each other.

Maryland is definitely Northern, and Virginia is definitely Southern (though at this point I would label Virginia a border state due to the influence that its northern quarter exerts, especially pertaining to politics).

Sunlight07 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Sunlight 07

++++ Just curious if you actually visited any part of the state other than Baltimore? Waldorf, Prince Frederick, Easton, Salisbury? [Lived there most of my life, so yes] It strikes me as odd that the majority of you friends were Catholic when only about 1/5 of the population in Maryland is Catholic; the largest demonination in Maryland is Baptist [Not true: 23% are Roman Catholic while only 18% are Baptist (source:[2])] As for being a Democratic state, you'll notice that in the 2006 elections, only 5 counties (including Baltimore city) voted Democratic, and several of them were marginal victories [Yeah, and between those five counties is the huge majority of the population, which would explain why Bill Clinton did better in Maryland than in any other state except his native Arkansas] While living in Maryland, I found sweet tea and home fries (although not grits) easy to come by [Could've fooled me]. It may have been 7 degrees in Baltimore when you spoke to your grandmother, but if so, it was darn close to the all time low set it 1934 :) [Well, it was 11 degrees there this morning, so I guess it's a record-breaking year. The low in Baltimore is set for 8 degrees tonight ([3])] Baltimore, at its coldest, averages 45 degrees, well above freezing. [Highs are at or below freezing all this week.] Yes, the Baltimore accent is closely related to the Philidelphia accent. What makes them different? Linguists describe Baltimore English as Philidelphia English with a Southern accent [Wow. Having grown up there, I can't imagine how I never realized this.] Maryland and Virginia have nothing in common? This one I won't even touch, it is so far from the historical reality. [Of course. I suppose I've only imagined the vast differences in religion, politics, weather, demographics, and economics. I've only actually lived in both places.]

++++ My only real point is that one must actually research, not just go off of feelings. Visiting the Baltimore/Washington area and saying "I understand Maryland" is akin to visiting Atlanta and saying "I understand Georgia." Sorry, but there is more to both states than their largest cities. [Once again, you know more about my home state than I do. My mistake.]

++++ Ah, and since I brought up DC, sorry, but economically and historically, DC has way more in common with Atlanta, Charlotte, and other Southern cities than Northern cities. [Wink, wink.] Both grew and expanded without heavy industry. White flight, leading to the growth of suburbs, etc. Baltimore was one of the largest cities in the US (I believe 4th largest) prior to the Civil War. It did have heavy industry, mostly related to the production of final goods from the raw products of the rest of the South. You'll note a large economic decline after the Civil War... [Which is why Baltimore is ranked among the most important ports in the Northeastern United States]

++++ And just as a last point, Charleston's culture focuses on maritime activities as well. Charleston, economically, depends heavily on the water; it is one of the nation's largest container ports and there are many local shrimpers and oystermen (just like there are many crabers and oystermen in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, etc). So, I fail to see how the fact that the Chesapeake is vital to Maryland, or that Baltimore is a maritime city, indicates it is not Southern. [I did not mean it that way.]

If you cannot not win a debate, please just concede defeat instead of cheating. Now... (unsigned)

I am the one responsible for moving the comment. It is currently in the archived section of this discussion page, you can access it by clicking on the link at the top of the discussion page. I moved your comment, as well as many others, including many of my own in an effort to organize all of various threads, arguments, discussions, etc. about Maryland. These discussions were repeating the same ancedotal observations over and over and over again. Frankly the discussion was going nowhere. What I did was proposed some rules for debate on the Maryland issue, please read the thread titled "Some Rules of Order for MD Discussion." Basically it was to direct the debate to discussing published, reputable research on Maryland for the purpose of discussing ONE specific questions "Is Maryland SOMETIMES/OCCASIONALLY considered part of the South." I encourge you to add your comments on any of the articles discussed to the appropriate thread, and please "vote" on the overall issue of "Is Maryland SOMETIMES/OCCASIONALLY considered part of the South." in the thread entitled "Proposed solution to the Maryland Question." I am going to leave this thread posted for one week so you have a chance to read my comment, and then I am going to archive it as I believe it is not discussing any new information on this topic. Lasersnake 13:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Sunlight07, I have noticed that you have recently modified the North United States page to remove all references to Maryland being a Southern Border State in certain contexts, which the discussion on the page indicates you did without permission of the pages contributors. I will revert the page to it's previous status when I get the time. Please keep in mind that your opinion is not everyone's. And be careful thowing those stones, your house seems to be made of glass. ****

READ ME FIRST

To all posters- There is an effort underway to organize the hot topic of Maryland's inclusion in the South. If you wish to take part in this discussion please read "Some rules of order for MD discussion" on this page and place your post in the appropriate thread. If you wish to discuss some topic other than Maryland, please create a new thread. Thanks. Lasersnake 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Delaware

anyone who considers delaware a northern state has obviously never been there....the culture found in the southern two counties looks identical to rural arkansas, tennessee, mississippi, alabama, or georgia....only the top part is yankified. WillC 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

>>WillC, with all due respect, I don't think the question is whether or not anyone considers Delaware a "northern" state, as to whether or not they/we consider it even remotely a *Southern* state. It just isn't.

>>I honestly, swear, don't mean this to be flippant or insulting to the 15% of the good folks of Delaware who think of it as Southern, but the fact that two counties (how many counties does Delaware have?) may have some Southern characteristics is even up for grabs. And c'mon...to assert that they have something in common with even the "least Southern" counties in Georgia and Alabama (as in the northern parts)....or even Texas and Arkansas...is just -- with all due respect -- not even in the ballpark.

>>Along some of those lines, I am an affecionado of Southern studies, and have some of the same ilk by way of distant cousins from Mississippi and Alabama (arguably the most Southern states of all) who don't really think of Texas as being truly Southern (at least one or two even exclude Louisiana and Tennessee!), but at the LEAST they acknowlege that Texas has the historical credentials, and the culture to lay a goodly claim to the family name...and are not even remotely thought of as yankees.

>>Really...Delaware's "claim" to any sort of Southern status begins and ends with it being below the Mason-Dixon line and being included, for the same reasons, as part of the U.S. Census Bureau South. TexasReb 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Delaware is north of Texas, but is culturally Southern. State your case to the contrary. WillC 04:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Delaware is not culturally Southern, Hell Missouri is MUCH more Southern than Delware, But still is not what most would say Southern in culture. 74.128.200.135 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to support your argument. In the meantime, most of Delaware is rural with a clearly, albeit stereotypical Southern culture where NASCAR, wrestling, and country music are king. WillC 12:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

>>Ok, I will do so. But I must add aforehand that, again without trying to be disrespectful or flippant, to make an argument that Delaware isn't a Southern state is akin to arguing that apples aren't oranges. Some things are simply self-evident. But here are several points.

1. Although it permitted slavery, of all the Border States, only Delaware not only rejected secession, but the legislature passed a resolution condemning it. No organized Confederate units came from Delaware.

2. The overwhelming majority of residents of Delaware do not think of the state as Southern and do not see themselves as Southern. We are talking less than 15% here. (see Southern Focus Poll)

3. Likewise, the vast majority of Southerners do not see Delaware as part of it. Now granted, as I stated in my above post, there are some in the deep Deep South who reject Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, etc...and I have even heard a few die-hards question Louisiana and Tennessee! BUT...even the most exclusionary grant that those states are NOT yankee and have the basic credentials and history to stake a claim in Southern soil. Just ask most Southerners about how they regard Delaware.

4. The ONLY reputable source that counts Delaware as part of the South is the U.S. Census Bureau, and that is for geographically convenient reasons.

5. You mentioned country music. I don't have them handy right at the present time, but there have been cultural/sociological maps done based, seperately, on the ratio of country music stations to rock, birthplaces of country music stars, and even one where the "size" of the state cooresponded to the number of times it was mentioned in country music lyrics. Delaware was non-existent/miniscule/inconsequential in all of them. (as a matter of trivia, in the latter one mentioned, Texas and Tennessee were "largest" with Louisiana a respectable third! LOL).

Anyway, those are my arguments. But before closing, I want to emphasize that I am NOT demeaning nor intending to insult the state of Delaware nor its residents. In fact, I believe Delaware's nickname is "The First State"...as it was the first to ratify the Constituion...which speaks highly of its history. I have met many fine people from the state. But it is not a Southern state and that is NOT an insult. TexasReb 13:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

These are opinions you state and that is not how Wikipedia works....you will need to show proof. In the meantime, you come off as a biased Deep South resident who rejects the culture of the border states, sight unseen. WillC 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

>>Of COURSE they are opinions, but opinions based on facts. Tell me specifically what part of my arguments you can dispute with YOUR facts?

>>And you are wrong about me being a biased resident of the Deep South (which if you had really read my earlier posts, should have been easy to discern). I am a Texan proud of my native state, my Deep South ancestry, and my Confederate heritage (hense the moniker "Texasreb"). In any event, on the contrary, I sometimes find myself arguing -- and getting frustrated over it -- Texas' "Southern status" to folks in the Deep South (some of whom are distant cousins) and even wrote a full length article on the subject once: http://usadeepsouth.ms11.net/texas.html

>>I just dont think Delaware is a Southern state even compared to, as someone else noted, Missouri. That is NOT intended to be an insult...just a fact as I see it. And again, you call what I presented opinions. Well, state your case to the contrary.

>>And meanwhile, I will back out a bit (for the moment) and let others wade in on the topic. If I can be "proven" wrong, I will be the first to admit it! TexasReb 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the population lives in unrbanized northern delaware. WillC 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with what others have expressed: DE definitely belongs in the "historical" South because it permitted slavery (though even then, its slave percentages were negligible and I'm almost certain that it had more free African Americans than enslaved ones) but the state's inclusion in the modern South seems a tad strange. I'm sorry, but being below the Mason-Dixon line, Ohio River, or whatever other arbitrary measure you can find does not in any way measure the culture of a region. However, that's just my opinion, though it's an opinion based on numerous facts. However, though more "northern" than MD, DE still isn't quite as "northern" as the other Northeastern states because it has in excess of 10 percent of its residents identify, culturally and geographically, with the South. If anything, I would recommend leaving it striped on the map and perhaps adding a blurb about how the state is only considered marginally Southern in the vast majority of contemporary definitions. Many people in lower Southern states tend to view MD and DE in the same light, so striping one and excluding the other doesn't seem to be logical.

And yes, I definitely agree that we will never find a solution to "mapping the South", or any other region, that appeals to everyone, but must instead try to attain a compromise. Since there is a very small - but highly vocal - minority of DE residents who strongly consider their state to be southern, I feel like it is imperative that we listen to their opinions and argumentation. I, for one, still am not quite satisfied with the treatment of the border states on this map system, but it seems like the only workable compromise that will prevent future edit wars. --70.168.88.158 02:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW 68 I remember you said that your friend created that blog on velocity, well for some reason she won't allow my response to your comment go through, can you ask why? I even made a "little" comment after yours to see if it would go through and sure enough it went through, however the response pertaining to your argument wouldn't go through (lol sounds kinda fishy) I would love to continue the debate we were having on Louisville's status as a Southern city. 74.128.200.135 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

>>Just a few comments regarding the above posts. Even though I voted to exclude Delaware completely back when all this came up, I see and agree with the logic of "70" (hey, you and "74" need to get a screen name! LOL) as regards leaving it striped. The only thing I would object to is adding a blurb. If we do that concerning Delaware, then it is going to open up a floodgate of individual notations about all the "border" states particular "peculiar" connection with the South. My thought is that perhaps the phrase 70 used (marginal) could be added instead. As in: "The striped states are sometimes/occasionally/marginally considered Southern"

>>What do y'all think...?

>>Tell me what y'all think of this too. The only flaw in the otherwise wonderfully done "Historic" map is the glaring omission of West Virginia. Admittedly, this is an historically contradictory thing. At the time Virginia seceded, the northwestern counties were very much a part of the state at large. Reps from that area met, withdrew from Virginia and applied for admission back into the Old Union. This status was granted in 1863. Soooo, SHOULD West Virginia be considered a border state? OR, since the Confederacy didn't recognize it as ever being a seperate entity, perhaps it should just be shaded solid red to fit back into larger Virginia...?

>>Again, that is one that baffles me, and I am curious about how the rest of you all feel. TexasReb 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point Texasreb I have no objections to it. Louisvillian 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on the remarks about W. Virginia on the historical map, it had a pro-Confederate minority as did the other border states and needs to be addressed on this map. I would favor an approach along these lines, recognizing VA as it was at the onset of the war - [14] . --70.168.88.158 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, WV was part of VA before the war and as such be dark red on the "Historic South" map. Lasersnake 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

MASON-DIXON LINE

What makes the South Southern?

>>The above post containing very good observations (and very good "writing") on what makes the South "different" got me to thinking a bit on just what objective characteristics make the South "Southern". Yeah, I know the phrasing sounds rather stilted and/or puerile, but oh well! LOL

>>Historically speaking, Mississippi has no greater claim to the designation "Southern" than does Texas, even though today the former is indisputedly considered more so. By that I mean the idea of "The South" began to formulate in the 1830's and culminate with the formation of the Confederacy. For many years afterwards, it was the former states of the CSA that were cemented in popular mindset as "The South." Distinctions as to which were "more Southern" were not generally made until beginning sometime in the early/mid-twentieth century, for reasons and factors far too numerous to list here (although it would/will make another good topic later on).

>>Anyway, back to the point, the man generally recognized as the premier "Southernologist" extant is Dr. John Shelton Reed (ala' Southern Focus Poll) and he has been the author of many a great book/article/survey on just what constitutes the South...ranging from the aforementioned Southern Focus Poll study of where people considered themselves to live in the South and/or consider themselves Southern, to originating/compiling data on where kudzu grows, the dominance of the Southern Baptist Church, country music influence, where grits are a custom, etc, etc. In other words, where things generally THOUGHT of as "Southern" are to be found in greatest concentration.

>>Contintuing in that vein, shamelessly "copying" from his original idea, did a crude study myself once (it is mentioned in the now "archived" discussion page) on where catfish is most likely to be a staple of eating. Going thru internet yellow page sources, I compared the ratio of business listings having "catfish" in the name compared to "hamburger." What I found was that, indeed, the states most noteable corresponded pretty well to the states of the maps on the article page. I have that damn thing around somewhere and can't seem to locate it, but going from memory, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas and Alabama had a percentage of greater than 25% of cat to hamburger. Other Southern states ranked over 10%, but strangely (or so it seemed to me) the eastern seaboard South (Virginia and the Carolina's) had a relatively low ratio.

>>My next project is to assertain where eating black-eyed peas on New Years Day is considered a "must."

>>What are a few things y'all would list as determinate of where "The South" really is? TexasReb 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say all states that were in the Confederacy are no doubt Southern. Also, any state that has the majority of residents considering themselves Southerners is part of the South. (For all y'all Deep South purists, that includes Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida. Y'all aren't the only Southerners.) Many other things...--Stallions2010 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL on the black eye peas on New Years survey, Louisville is certainly in that category. When I went to Sav a lot to purchased some black eye peas and pigs feet, THEY WERE OUT OF BOTH ITEMS(this was the 27th of this past December). They were even out of the canned black eye peas. So when I went to the back to ask the meat the department if they had anymore pigs feet in stock before I could utter a word he said we're all out of pigs feet and a host of other pig parts. Louisville's cuisne is indeed Southern. Louisvillian 17:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

>>*grinning a bit over Louisvillian post* Sometime I really think that it is the "simple things" that make the South Southern...like black-eyed peas on New Years Day. I remember once being caught up north (Ohio) on New Years Day and driving like a madman SOUTH to just get a can of them to say I ate 'em. A word to the wise...and any Southerner knows this anyway: NOTHING is better than fresh from the garden or the same from the local grocery store. Dried is the next best bet. Canned are only a last resort...! TexasReb 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

">>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 (10-25%). What sort of surprised me though was the relative lack of catfish joints in the Carolinas and Virginia..."

TexasReb Here was your Catfish study from earlier. Louisvillian 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Louisvillian, I have the actual percentages of each state around somewhere but after moving a while back, it is still boxed up somewhere I imagine. LOL Oh well, nothing really important, it was just a little something I did once based on the idea of locating the South by things generally thought of as Southern. TexasReb 12:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

MASON-DIXON LINE, and a State of the U.S. prior to the Civil War.

WikiProject Southern United States

I have proposed a WikiProject for the South. Please show your support by going here and adding your name. This project will benefit all Southern-related articles. Thanks! --Stallions2010 19:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

is illegal per wiki standards and thus is not relevant to our discussions....goodbye Southern focus study. WillC 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Southern Focus Study is not original research, dumbass.

Sunlight07 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Sunlight07

Dialectal information and maps on the South

Here's the Soft Drink Pronouciation map in which Kentucky and Louisville are no different than the rest of the South.

pop.... soda .....coke..... other.... Total

Alabama 22 248 2093 195 2558 1.01%

Arkansas 88 166 999 46 1299 0.51%

Delaware 17 476 33 11 537 0.21%

Florida 207 2647 2596 255 5705 2.25%

Georgia 83 637 3442 266 4428 1.75%

Kentucky 662 279 1406 202 2549 1.01%

Louisiana 51 185 1934 393 2563 1.01%

Maryland 105 3139 525 149 3918 1.55%

Mississippi 52 98 1036 62 1248 0.49%

Missourri 1253 4483 402 156 6294 2.49%

North Carolina 138 1283 1408 665 3494 1.38%

Oklahoma 1022 352 1097 97 2568 1.01%

South Carolina 38 386 918 168 1510 0.60%

Tennessee 113 345 2559 215 3232 1.28%

Texas 220 2128 10339 586 13273 5.24%

Virginia 283 2998 1112 315 4708 1.86%

West Virginia 948 300 167 59 1474 0.58%

http://popvssoda.com:2998/stats/ALL.html

I don't really have time to analyze too amny words right now however I randomly chose to analyze the pronouciation of the word Garage between Southern states.

The ways to Pronounce it and percentage of pop. who do pronounce it a certain way

Interesting Dialect Comparisons 70 however there were quite a few maps posted earlier that acutally compare the pronounciation by the regions for you.

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx.

"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..." Survey conducted by Texas Reb on Catish resturants from state to state. Louisvillian 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, popvssoda.com is not a verifiable site - it's an informal poll that doesn't guarantee statistically valid samples - and a survey about "catfish joints" is not verifiable. We've already seen those sources before. In addition to the "y'all" question, from the verifiable dialect survey that I cited earlier, a question was included on the name for soft drinks. Since it is established that "Coke" is the generic term most common to the South, we can obtain rankings here also (again, the source for this is [15], University Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Question 105: 105. What is your generic term for a sweetened carbonated beverage? Here are the percentages that gave the "Southern" response of Coke:

More than half using term “Coke” for generic soft drink 1. Mississippi – 73.68% 2. Tennessee – 62.27% 3. Alabama – 61.84% 4. Georgia – 60.62% 5. Louisiana – 59.18% 6. Texas – 58.64% 7. Arkansas – 54.89%

Less than half using "Coke" 1. South Carolina – 44.12% 2. Kentucky – 43.77% 3. Oklahoma – 33.3% 4. Florida – 27.94% 5. North Carolina – 25.48% 6. Virginia – 19.45%

Less than 20% 1. West Virginia – 11.67% 2. Missouri – 11.48% 3. Maryland – 8.92% 4. Delaware – 2.27%

That one seems pretty conclusive on MD as well. If anything, it seems like the whole "Coke" thing is more a business of the Deep South. South Carolina was the only real surprise among that group, to me at least. --70.168.88.158 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay you've found that the word yall is pronounced less often in Kentucky than most other Southern states. I have provided over 10 linguistic maps that group Kentucky and Louisville in with the South, NOT THE MIDWEST NOR THE NORTH. One was even telovised on PBS's "DO YOU SPEAK AMERICAN" in which the host drove a steamboat on the Ohio River stating the Louisville was the Northern most "Southern" city (without mention of the oppoiste term) in terms of dialect.

THe Coke vs Pop thing wouldn't you think a study conducted entirely on the subject and breaks the numbers down county by county would be more conclusive than one that may touch on it. You cm=omplained about the Southern Focus Study not specifying into the counties of the states, now you have a study that does and Jefferson County is labeled Southern, it's not verifiable. I you're being a little too critical of my sources. I recall you using an "Editorial" from a news paper as credible source as to why Louisville is Midwestern. Then to counter the CENSUS BUREAU'S designation of Kentucky in the South you posted something about amphibians and that organization labeling Kentucky Midwestern. Louisvillian 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The popvssoda.com page is, again, not a verifiable source and makes no assurances on obtaining random statistical samples. The survey that I quoted, from an organized dialect survey of 122 questions at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, was coordinated by a Harvard University Professor of Linguistics. Again, I have yet to see an actual link to the website for this Southern Focus survey, or even a link to the library where I can purchase it. I'm not denying that it exists, but I would like to at least see where those numbers came from. As far as the Census Bureau goes, a major part of the controversy on this page is that the Census Bureau considers Maryland to be a Southern state, while a majority of its residents clearly think otherwise. The same is true for Delaware. I am not, have not, and probably never will deny the "Southern-ness" of Kentucky to the same degree that I would Maryland, due to a preponderance of the evidence. But I will not accept the absurd notion that "Kentucky is the sister state of Tennessee" or "Kentucky is the sister state of Georgia" when every single piece of evidence that has been presented on this site, including the Southern Focus survey and every one of my surveys, shows Kentucky tilts, at best, in a comfortable medium, comparable to Virginia, West Virginia, and other border states. The number "80-something percent" was cited a million times in making some of these claims, without a cite for the Southern Focus survey, when I have provided a live link to a verifiable, peer-reviewed survey in which a full 52.14% of surveyed Kentuckians did not chose the term "South" to describe their state. This is not a Cracker Jack survey; it was authored by a Professor of Geography and published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the study of American Geography; it holds just as much weight as the Southern Focus Study. The dialect surveys using "y'all" and "Coke" as litmus tests were just secondary, but they both revealed that Kentucky is still mixed. Do you think that the Southern accent just magically "turns off" somewhere in the middle of Indiana, without gradually sputtering out? The government agency that I provided, including Kentucky in the Midwest, is the USGS, which is in the business of regional geography. So again, just as it is clear that Kentucky is a Southern state, it is equally clear that the state is a unquestionably a mix. There's no way to logically get around that. I am sorry if you disagree, but Kentucky is a border state. I insist on having this fundamental truth about the state accurately represented in articles discussing its culture. --70.168.88.158 05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pop vs Soda Map

"View an excellent map (with statistics by county) created by Matthew Campbell and Prof. Greg Plumb of East Central University in Oklahoma"

http://popvssoda.com:2998/

LOL I bet if Jefferson County was shaded blue/Midwestern in this survey it would just be the icing on the cake for your argument wouldn't? Sadly it's Red/COKE/Southern along with most of Kentucky.

Ironically the same source you're discrediting, gave a direct source to the dialect research data that you provided. This obviously wasn't a mom and pop road study either it was created and concluded by Oklahama University. As far as the Southern Focus Study and that study you've given LMAO THEY CAN'T COMPARE. You're seriously trying to compare a decade long survey that has gained nation wide attention (which may I add was conducted by North Carolina) to a little fad survey, PLEASE!! LOL NOW THAT'S A FUNNY COMPARISON.

Date: 09/1999 Sample: National Sample of Persons 18 or older

"Question Number: 6 The variable STATE16 was used to create the variable RESIDENT. Respondents who lived in a southern state (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas or Virginia) at the age of 16 they were coded as 1. If a respondent lived in Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia or Washington DC, he / she was coded as 2. If the respondent lived outside the south or the border states he / she was coded as 3. "

http://cgi.irss.unc.edu/tempdocs/21:11:24:3.htm

Kentucky seems to be included in the definant Southern states in terms of respondants here.

http://cgi.irss.unc.edu/cgi-bin/POLL/search.poll.cgi

Here' s a better link to a search I conducted to find more out about Kentucky's result during the studies. Quite Honestly though I think it's funny that you held so little merrit towards the Southern Focus Study, yet here you come with what is indeed a cracker jack survey when compared to accuracy and persistence of the Southern Focus Study and you post that as a source as a futile way to show Kentuckians are dissconnected with the South..... tsk tsk.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/

The Department of Labor also Considers Kentucky Southern.

Gator I understand that you are trying to make sure that the Midwestern Element of Kentucky is well represented in this article, however I just can't help but think you're trying to show it as more than it actually is. Sure 20% of Kentuckians consider themselves something other than Southern/or living in a Southern state, But the overwhelming majority of Kentuckians see this state as Southern. Making reference not only to the Southern Focus Study, But I've also provided countless credible linguistic maps labeling Kentucky and Louisville as Southern, Historical maps and sources; Users like Ply have provided authentic Cultural maps Created by DW Meining

http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg

That label Louisville and Kentucky as Southern. Again CULTURAL MAPS. LOL I remember you claimed that one of my sources labled Bowling Green Midwestern and so you claimed Louisville's dialect was Midwestern. Not only that but you then tried to prove that that out of all of my dialect sources (most of which were conducted by Universities) that one soruce held more merrit over the others. My point you are over representing your opinion/Kentucky's Midwesterness (in ehich I'am and have always acknowledged it) in this article. Louisvillian 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is your opinion that the Midwestern element in Kentucky is "over-represented" in this and other articles. I might add that 3 months ago, the split nature of KY was not represented at all, because every single time that somebody attempted to add something in along those lines, you removed it because you cannot bring yourself to bear the fact that you're living in a state that has, for the last 140 years, been accused of "whistling Dixie" in terms of its relationship to the South. In a section entitled "Cultural Variations", it is more than appropriate to mention that the idiosyncrasies of this state, which are well established. I have provided a source from an article, published by a professor of geography and published in a highly-regarded peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the study of American geography, that found less than half of Kentuckians not using the term "South" to describe the state; of those choosing an alternative list of terms, less than half chose the term "Southeast." In that same section states such as Louisiana, Texas, Virgnia, and even North Carolina and Georgia have information about variations in culture. The only reason for not including a written description of Kentucky in this section would be because it irritates you personally, because it flies in the face of your opinions about the state. It's becoming rather clear to me at this point that regardless of what evidence I provide - whether it be maps, studies, historical proof, or anything else - you are going to remove any information on this encyclopedia that even remotely attaches Kentucky to the Midwest, because you have managed to convince yourself that the state is virtually indistinguishable from Tennessee and want everybody else to think exactly along those lines. Were the Census Bureau to decide tomorrow to place Kentucky in the Midwest, you would not acknowledge that as evidence. If the Changing Usage study that I provided found a majority of Kentuckians using the term "South", you would be praising it. If a study is provided that includes specific examples regarding Kentucky or Kentucky cities, you will pretend that the parts of that study that acknowledge the split nature of the state don't exist. Since nobody here has ever been debating whether or not Kentucky is Southern, this is entirely a discussion about just how "split" the state is, and I've provided cites to back up my points. I've noticed that, without even reading the citations, you decided to remove similar evidence/phrases from the Louisville and Kentucky pages, because, again, you cannot bear the notion that either of these two are ever considered Midwestern, even though they are. You are not a scholar in the field of American geography, and I am not going to allow you to remove this information, which is sourced and cited, just because you dislike the fact that Kentucky was, is, and always will be a mixed border state. So in short, it's impossible to debate the nature of KY to you because you're going to ignore any proof showing the split nature of the state, before preceding to post 25 pages of information, verbatim, that you've posted 25 times before. Case in point, YOU provided the LAVIS study, apparently without even bothering to read it, that grouped Bowling Green and New Albany as Midwestern in dialect; when I pointed this fact out, you quickly dropped that survey, though you had posted it a dozen times before I noticed that. You ignored the dialect survey I posted that showed Kentucky below the rest of the South, and in with the border states, in terms of the words "y'all" and "Coke". You ignored my USGS map. And you'll ignore any other evidence that I post regarding the Midwestern influence in Kentucky, beucase it doesn't exist to you. This is ridiculous. It's about as futile as trying to debate racial equality with a die-hard KKK member, and it's not adding anything constructive to this article. Kentucky ended up in the same category as Texas and Virginia on this new map, and not the same as Tennessee and Georgia, for a reason. If you continue to remove this information and citations - or misconstrue what is represented in these studies - simply to prove a point, I will call for arbitration in this matter to settle this childish nonsense. --70.168.88.158 06:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you check the early history the objections to the old starring system, was started by s user who claimed the star next to Louisville should be removed. You're argument is highly hypocritical as you tried so hard to denounce the findings of Southerness conducted by the Southern Focus study before you found some mom and pop study (which is indeed inferior to the Southern Focus Study) and now it holds just as much merrit as the Southern Focus study!!!! You're CRAZY the Southern Focus study has been conducted for OVER A DECADE sampling over 10,000 citizens of this nation. Compare that to some fad one year study that just by late introduction into the this debate is overshadowed by the Southern Focus Study.

ARE YOU BLIND "My point you are over representing your opinion/Kentucky's Midwesterness (in which I'am and have always acknowledged it) in this article"

You make it seem as though I'm not acknowledging Kentucky's Midwesterness; during the map debate on the old page I persistantly argued that Kentucky and definantly Louisville were mixed, which is why I always emphasized that Kentucky (along with Texas and Virginia) ARE generally Southern states MEANING THEY HAVE OTHER REGIONAL INFLUENCES. Your problem with that was the MOSTLY SOUTHERN part. Despite your empty acknowledgement that Kentucky was a Southern state (due to the concensus) you would persist on calling it boarder along with states suchas Maryland and Missouri. You just refused to acknowledge that Kentucky is much more Southern than those states. WHAT MAPS HAVE YOU PROVIDED OR HISTORICAL PROOF (other than mindlessly uttering Kentucky being a boarder state during the Civil War). The only other study you provided was that citydata info that showed where most of the in migrated population was coming from, and you tried to use it as some sort of regional identity poll to counter the Southern Focus Study and it BLEW UP IN YOUR FACE when I posted every Mid Southern city's in migrated population patterns (and even Birminghams) and they all read the same pattern as Louisville; Midwest, Northeast, South, West (in that order). You then quickly dropped that argument. Now here you come trying to compare the Southern Focus Study to some crappy JSTOR excert of some one year fad survey and expect it to hold just as much (in your case more) merrit as the Southern Focus Study. Then to top it off you questioned the accuracy of the University conducted Southern Focus Study (lol keep in mind this was conducted for over a decade now) as you claimed they have been known to be rigged or some BS and now here you come waving this crap in my face LMAO GET OUT OF HERE .Back to the sources the number and quality of the sources you provided for your argument is truely crap when compared to the shear numbers of mine let alone the proof was conducted by more than reliable sources. I also noticed earlier during our debate you would repost the smae second rate sources you provided where as I was posted new ones up during every one of my post.

If I was truely against the notion of Kentucky's Midwesterness I would even be fighting the fact that a good portion of Kentuckians don't consider themselves or this state Southern, I would have deleted that passage of the article. No I was not going by that crackerjack survey you provided but by the Southern Focus study in which it indicates that 20% of Kentuckians don't consider this state to be Southern. One thing you seem not to acknowledge is the 80% of Kentuckians who view this state as Southern. This is what I ment by over asserting Kentucky's Midwesterness I mean MY GOD like one user said on the old page "if over 80% of Kentuckians view themselves as Southern than obviously it's a Southern state". Again if you check the history I left that alone (except for the Northern regions crap) AS IT IS FACT. However I don't know if you need a membership or what for that JSTOR, But in any case what you are asserting is in that link is not viewable in the excert on that the JSTOR. In this case you will need the actual source which according to you actually MENTIONS louisville. The Lavis study did not group Bowling Green in the Midwest nor the North. It merely concluded that two Alabama cities differed the most from New Albany,IN !!! Then I have given countless dialect maps that all group this city and state in with the South. You again have not proved a Damn thing towards your argument in this sector or the debate. I posted a national map conducted entirely on how EACH U.S. county pronounces Soft Drinks and Louisville and Kentucky all got grouped in with the South as they pronounce it Coke. Ironically the same map you tried to discredit (until I gave the credentials which were directly under the map on the link I provided) gave a direct link to the dialect survey you posted and held above all of my dialect maps. To make another futile attempt at denouncing Kentucky's Southerness you tried to make a comparison of Southern states on how frequently "yall" is said. That's fine, But you also failed to emphasize that Virginia ranked below Kentucky....tsk tsk.

On the Article again you asked for a source to prove Southern Indiana was more Southern than Midwestern, since there is no source verifying that statement, there is no verifiable source stating Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, so when I changed that text, YOU REVERTED IT. Again Hypocricy. You are over asserting Kentucky's Midwesterness and in doing so you're denouncing it's Southerness. You really need to check yourself before accesss me buddy. Louisvillian

Just when, exactly, did Kentucky lose its status as a border state? I was not aware of this. In the introduction of the Encarta article on KY, at [16], it is clearly stated, regarding Kentucky: "Located on the border between the historical U.S. regions of the North and the South, the state officially remained in the Union during the American Civil War (1861-1865)." This is why it is represented on this page, as well as the page of the Upland South, the page for the Midwestern United States, and the page for the Northern United States. The patent, simple reality is that if Kentucy were indeed the "sister state of Georgia" or the "sister state of Tennessee", there is no chance, not a chance at all, that Kentucky would be included as a state of the Northern United States in this map. NOBODY, not a single person in the map's existence, has ever challenged the appearance of Kentucky in the map on that page. If Kentucky had a "sister state", and I don't believe it does, it would be the other border states, and in particular West Virginia and/or Missouri, not Georgia or Tennessee. And before about 3 months ago, other than the * beside the name of Louisville in the table of Southern cities, there was no recognition of that fact because certain editors still haven't brought themselves to realize this fact about the state's culture; they want Kentucky treated the same way as Georgia or Alabama, instead of the same manner as West Virginia and Missouri, even when this flies in the face of reality. You aren't trying to block information about Kentucky's split nature from appearing on this article? Nonsense. I've noticed your edits on the Velocity blog, Urbandictionary, Urbanplanet, and even various newspaper articles that label Louisville as Midwestern; in each and every case, you virulently defend the city and state's "Southern-ness" and refuse to acknowledge any other information. I'm not removing the cultural variation information, when it is cited and sourced and NOBODY OTHER THAN YOU HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT. Let's face it; there are dozens of editors that monitor this page, and you are the ONLY one who continues to ignore these citations and remove that information. On the Kentucky page, you were the ONLY editor who removed my citation proving that Kentucky is sometimes included in the Midwest. You're still essentially telling lies about the study that I posted, because it does include Kentucky as a Midwestern state and mentions Louisville by name several times, including it in a table of the most promising emerging Midwestern cities, behind Detroit but ahead of Indianapolis (but that doesn't agree with your opinions, so why should you bother to acknowledge it?) And of course, you'll never acknowledge the study I posted, regardless of the doctorate and qualifications of the author or the rigor of the journal, because it found that 52 percent of Kentuckians did not use the term "South" to describe their state, while about a third chose the term Midwest; in the Golden Triangle region of Kentucky, a majority chose the term "Midwest" over "South" to describe their region. But of course, you will never accept that study; I knew that before I cited it here. I also reject your idea that Midwestern influence in Kentucky is "minor", because it's simply false and just your opinion. As far as the data from city-data.com, I never "dropped" that argument, because Louisville and Covington were the ONLY CITIES in "the South" outside of Florida that had MAJORITIES of Midwestern or Northeastern immigrants...that wasn't true for Nashville, Memphis, Birmingham, Richmond, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, etc. I never "rejected" the Southern Focus Study; however, as another editor pointed out, it gave participants no choice in labeling their region other than "South" or "not South." What would the results have looked like for Kentucky had the survey also asked "Do you also/occasionally your region to be a part of the Midwest?" What would the results have looked like for Virginia had it been asked "Do you also/occasionally consider your region to be in the Northern Mid-Atlantic or the Northeast?" Relative to my study, which actually presented choices, this was a definite flaw and shortcoming in the Southern Focus method of collecting information - a sort of natural bias. And the Northern Kentucky page declares that the region if generally considered Midwestern (anybody from KY knows that it is), and in any event, the study that I posted specifically addressed the Golden Triangle region of Kentucky. --70.168.88.158 07:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay Gator/user "70" you want opinion well here's a few responses to a thread (in the Midwestern section) on skyscrapercity

"For those who say Louisville is not the Midwest"

gych "Or at least partially Midwest, check out the city's racial history. It was the first city in America to have black libraries. This is no typical "southern city." Here is the link, a good read:" (original Post)

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050924/NEWS0102/509240380/1008/NEWS01

TheKansan September 25th, 2005, 10:36 PM What the hell do black libraries have to do with being located in the midwest? Louisville is not a part of the midwest, end of story, it doesn't matter what the architecture is like, it doesn't matter if they have black libraries, it doesn't matter if the people use a midwestern accent instead of a southern one. Tulsa is also not part of the midwest. Pittsburgh is not midwestern either. Topeka is midwestern, St. Louis is midwestern, Chicago is midwestern as well.

STLgasm September 25th, 2005, 10:41 PM The thing is, residents of Louisville do have southern accents. I personally think St. Louis has a lot of characteristics in common with East Coast cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia. Does that make St. Louis an East Coast city? No. Louisville is a southern city, even if it has some Midwestern qualities

SRG September 27th, 2005, 05:01 AM When I was in Lousiville the locals pronounced it "Lou ahh vul". Take what you want from that. Sounds like a pretty Southern accent to me, though the city definately has some major Midwestern accents like any other city stradling the Winn Dixie Line.

The anti-cheesehead September 27th, 2005, 05:06 AM Why do you want Louisville to be midwestern so bad? Is the south that bad? Is the midwest that good? For what it's worth, I've always thought of Louisville as a southern city.

NovaWolverine September 28th, 2005, 07:18 AM Haha that's funny, at least put a picture of chicago up there, not nyc during a blackout or whatever that is. But still, by no means is the midwest some liberal, vibrant, technologically and socially advanced place and the south is just shit. Which you already know of course.

Louisville is southern, period. Even places that resemble east coast cities like StL., if you really put them next to eachother, you'd find that they really are much different and that it has more in common with a city like Detroit or KC or Chicago.

Tulsa is southern too.

There is a such thing as a midwestern accent, it really is nothing like you all said, but there is a twang that's distiguishable if you're not from the midwest.

And despite these boards being havens for liberals, there's plenty to be proud about being a southern city.

IMO while there's a midatlantic on the east coast that definitely transitions from north to south, that's what southern ohio and indiana and illinois are.

card04 September 29th, 2005, 12:39 AM I never said that Louisville isn't southern, all you have to do is look at a map to see this. What I have said is that culturally it has a strong midwestern influence. I have lived in the midwest and the south, that is why I asked that question. Personally, while there are differences, both regions are similiar. To say that Louisville is midwestern is false, to say that it has no midwestern influence is false as well. While you can't really compare it with Chicago, you can easily see similiarities between Louisville and other mid-sized midwestern cities, such as Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Dayton, Oklahoma City, etc. I would even go as far as saying that you could see similiarities between Louisville and St.Louis, even though it is a lot bigger. On the other end you will see more similairities between Louisville and other southern cities. Being a southern city, this would only be natural. I am not saying that Louisville is not southern, or not even half midwesten, just that it does have a lot of influence from that region. Also I don't hate being southern, or have a obsession with wanting to be midwestern. The fact is I am proud to be southern, I plan to keep it that way. I am only trying to be factual about Louisville's culture.

NaptownBoy October 6th, 2005, 05:20 PM I think that sometimes people just have to stop and accept the situation, in this case the argument that Louisville is a southern city. Yes, Louisville has a lot in common with midwestern cities, but it has a whole lot more in common with Southern citites as well. Similarly Indianapolis has a lot in common with East Coast and Southern cities but is undoubtedly in the Midwest because of its geographic and culutural influences. I always considered each major city to have its own unique identity-and Louisville's is simply a blend of regional influences. But I always considered Louisville to be unquestionably southern, though.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/index.php?t-260883.html "Is Louisville Southern or Not" Thread in the Southeastern threads of ssc

tennreb March 2nd, 2006, 03:30 PM It's definitely not deep South. It depends on whether most of their residents have a strong association with the South. Do the vast majority of students go to Southern colleges, especially those leaving Kentucky? Does it have a laid-back vibe? In most Southern cities, most residents are one or two generations removed from cotton.

teshadoh March 2nd, 2006, 04:08 PM It's both as is Washington. I think it depends on how comfortable the forummer is about discussing Louisville, if he feels he gets more discussion from a midwest board rather than a southern board then so be it.

JivecitySTL March 2nd, 2006, 04:15 PM I personally consider Louisville to be southern. Not only because it's located in a decidedly southern state (KY), but also because when I visited there, I really felt like I was in the south. Not the deep south, but the mid-south.

Naptown March 3rd, 2006, 12:06 AM It's both as is Washington. I think it depends on how comfortable the forummer is about discussing Louisville, if he feels he gets more discussion from a midwest board rather than a southern board then so be it. Sorry, I don't consider Washington southern. Especially when you look at architecture, culture, transportation, etc.

Louisville is Southern, but it has a good Midwestern mix to it.

shane453 March 3rd, 2006, 02:02 AM I'd say southern; just listen to its residents speak, look at some of the plantation-style homes. But remember that there is no cultural line that defines with any precision the border between south and midwest, so border cities and states are likely to be difficult to classify. Even in the Civil War people couldn't figure out if Kentucky and other border states were part of the south or the north...

Ian604 March 3rd, 2006, 03:22 AM I think of Louisville as Southern with a hint of midwest, but the further west you go in Kentucky it seems it picks up more of a midwestern feel. Lexington and Central Kentucky feel Southern but Covington and other parts of Northern Kentucky feel like small town New England to me. Weird differences for towns that are within an hour from one another.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php?t-323638.html

Urban dictionary is a site in which one can use an unlimited amount of alliases with one email address, so I really don't count those opinions ( though the main prson arguing Kentucky's Midwesterness is "Kentucky Yank").

I have made probably 4 post on Velocity blog, But again the anonymous option gives people an easy chance to create a false concesus.

I have only responded to one EDITORIAL and I voiced my opinion, so sue me.

LMAO are you FREAKING SERIOUS!!! The problem I have with you and that study is YOUR HYPOCRICY when it came to the Southern Focus Study. You tried to denounce the findings of the Southern Focus Study by saying some crap about it not being that accurate, totaling ignoring the fact that it is a University study that has been conducted for over a decade (with the persistance the accuracy surely increasing each year) and here you come with this ONE YEAR (IF NOT MONTH'S) FAD SURVEY crap and you are acutally insisting that it hold's just as much merrit as the Southern Focus Study WTF. To top it off you can't even find the acutal data for this crappy survey. No but what erks me is that you're asking me why I don't accept this survey, when you have constantly been denouncing the finding of the DECADE LONG Southern Focus Study and the data provided by it that states that 80% of KENTUCKY'S population identifies with the South (a fact that you refuse to acknowledge). That sir is pure ignorance. Then you ramble on and on about me not accepting Kentucky's Midwesterness, (ANWSER ME THIS) HAVE I NOT STATED THAT KENTUCKY HAS MIDWESTERN INFLUENCE? You keep accusing me of not wanting to accept such and such when I have stated this fact countless times. You just keep focusing on my stance that it is a "mostly" MEANING IT HAS MIDWESTERN INFLUNECE Southern State. Your unwillingness to acknowledge my acknowledgements of Kentucky's Midwesterness ulimately makes your argument "seem" ingoranct.

The source that you have posted sadly since it is a JSTOR I can't copy and paste every word that is avaiable on that EXCERT. That would show you that the LINK YOU HAVE PROVIDED DOES NOT MENTION LOUISVILLE NOR KENTUCKY.

While the Northern Kentucky page does not cite that claim, I have provided the Mening's map on this Article to back that claim. While it includes No. Ky as mostly Midwestern it also labels Southern Indiana as mostly Southern. So ultimately the orginial (which was the original text of this Southern article's history) is reverted; Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern as it is Economically and Culturally tied to Cincinnati; Conversly Southern Indiana is more Southern as it is Economically and Culturally tied to Louisville. Again Mening's map ACTUALLY provides that EXACT info on the map and I have cited it.

LOUISVILLE Place of Birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 193908 Northeast: 6421 Midwest: 20494 South: 20486 West: 4079

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 Louisvillian 19:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not my concern that "you" do not acknowledge the American Geographic Society study. You are not a professor of American history or geography, and you have not published in peer-reviewed journals. But you insist on having your opinion about this city and state taken as absolute fact. What is the purpose of a section on "Cultural Variations?" It is to reveal what VARIATIONS exist inside the state. It is not a section to say that "well, it really irritates me when damn Yankees try to call my state Midwestern." As far as the city-data information of regional immigration, notice that only Louisville has more Midwestern immigrants than Southern one. None of those other cities do. If you total the Midwestern and Northeastern immigrants into Louisville and count the combined total of Midwest and Northeast as "North", there are more "Northern" immigrants than "Southern" ones. This is not true in any of those other cities - add the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, but I've done it here:

It appears that, in terms of regional immigration, there is indeed an identity crisis in the Golden Triangle:

Memphis: North: 50,080. South. 139,646. Largest group is South (by a long shot) Nashville: North: 77,058. South. 93,214. Largest group is South Richmond: North: 24,957. South. 26,988. Largest group is South Atlanta: North: 56,056. South: 76,404. Largest group is South Charlotte: North: 105,805. South: 106,251. Largest group is South Birmingham: North: 13,146. South: 19,793. Largest group is South Houston: North: 151,606. South: 173,796. Largest group is South Dallas: North: 103, 801. South: 107,646. Largest group is South.

SOUTHERN IMMIGRATION IS THE LARGEST IN MEMPHIS, NASHVILLE, RICHMOND, ATLANTA, CHARLOTTE, BIRMINGHAM, HOUSTON, AND DALLAS

Louisville: North: 26,915. South: 20,485 – Largest group is Midwest (20,494) Covington: North: 10,307. South: 2,127 - Largest group is Midwest (9,528) Lexington: North: 44,871. South: 26,851. Largest group is Midwest (33,790)

NORTHERN IMMIGRATION, SPECIFICALLY MIDWESTERN, IS THE LARGEST IN LOUISVILLE, COVINGTON, AND LEXINGTON

And even outside of the triangle, certain "Southern" cities in Kentucky still don't quite fit in with the rest of the South using this measure. For example:

Bowling Green: North: 7,233. South: 6,077 – largest individual group is the South with 6,077; however, the total of “North” - Midwest (5,889) plus Northeast (1,344) - is larger. Not true in Nashville, even though this city is just 65 miles down the road from Bowling Green.

So yet again, here we have another measure in which the Triangle cities are an anomaly in terms of most of the rest of the South. In terms of large cities, the only places in the South where that "litmus test" didn't hold true were Northern Virginia and Central and Southern Florida. This was my entire point; despite never having had huge surges of immigration, Kentucky's cities are somehow just as, and sometimes more, culturally mixed than cities in Florida and Northern Virginia, where long-time families are outnumbered by recent arrivals. Kentucky is not a "Sun Belt" state in terms of growth, and yet, somehow, it's immigration is split, with a tilt toward the Midwest. Thus, Louisville, which has seen declining populations for about 30 years, has a higher percentage of "Northern" immigration than booming cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, and Dallas. How? This is where the term "Gateway to the South" makes true sense - the further South that you go into Kentucky, the less you see this pattern of Midwestern dominance in terms of immigration, so that by the time you're into Tennessee, the pattern doesn't hold at all - until you reach extreme areas like Central Florida or far western Texas. This is the historical pattern of migration in Kentucky - not surprising seeing as it borders more Midwestern states than Southern ones, and is closer in proximity, for the most part, to Chicago than Atlanta.

At one point earlier on another site, I noticed that you had stated that "Southern Baptists are a huge majority in Louisville" or something like that. False. For the record: Jefferson County Catholic Population: 156,949. Jefferson County SBC Population: 108,354. So, there are about 50% more Catholics in Jefferson County than Southern Baptists, for the record. The numbers are even more titled toward Catholics in NKY. My source is [17].

And again, I really could care less what is posted on outside forums, when I have provided peer-reviewed research to verify my claims. Research that, again, you are the ONLY person to not accept. I'm not removing it simply because YOU disagree with the findings in a peer-reviewed journal. No other editors here have complained about the cite being on JSTOR (I would suggest you find out what JSTOR is, by the way, before attempting to negate its validity. It houses one of the largest collections of academic research in the world.) The Changing Usage study holds just as much weight as the Southern Focus one - you are the only person here who believes otherwise. There has not been a "massive outcry" to remove this study. Just you. --70.168.88.158 20:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Miami This state: 96406 Northeast: 17809 Midwest: 5341 South: 15409 West: 2454

Austin, TX Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 360604 Northeast: 29504 Midwest: 56056 South: 53323 West: 37849

St. Louis Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 244749 Northeast: 5398 Midwest: 28107 South: 41898 West: 6956

Indianapolis Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 528362 Northeast: 22996 Midwest: 77730 South: 94178 West: 17854

Cincinnati Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 236708 Northeast: 10919 Midwest: 17181 South: 47955 West: 4106

Cleveland Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 340543 Northeast: 21813 Midwest: 10692 South: 66678 West: 4327

I reckon all these cities most be more Southern than us. In all honestly I have no idea what these numbers are suspose to mean, when you have Nashville and St.Louis having the same migration patterns. I guess Kentucky cities are just weired in terms of migration. The point though is this is not a Southern or Midwestern migration pattern, which one can obviously see from the data presented above. As far as the sunbelt goes Louisville has growin at 4% since 2000 and that is identical to Memphis and Oklahmoma city's growth and it out paces Birmingham and Pre Katrina New Orleans. Lexington is faring a bit better than Louisville (percentagewise). St. Louis and Cincinnati as a result of their heavier industry/lack of a diversified economy in the pre 1970's era they are having a very sluggish growth rate. Kentucky is growing faster than Alabama, Mississippi and Oklahma which are in the heart of the Sun Belt. Having no relevance to the disscussion at hand; alot of what is holding Kentucky back from a population expolsion is Eastern Kentucky and their Depression like economy that always needs to be bailed out with state funds.

I'm the only person who cares enough to look through the link provided. The Geocities link you sent me isn't working and may I make a suggestion rather than using the JSTOR if you say you have it than on Geocities than cite it with that. The main point I'am arguing is that the "Link" you have given does not even mention Louisville in it's text. Now on the Southern Indiana thing, I'm sensing hypocricy here you're willing to use a Wiki Article's claim that does cite it's source (Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern) so I then give the DW Meining's map as a source, which also labels not only Louisville but Southern Indiana as Southern. So when it's "REVERTED" back into the text you persistantly change it from more Southern to "contains many elements of the South" while leaving the No. Ky is more Midwestern on there? Again unlike you I'am providing a DIRECT link to the source that I'm making claim to, which is a cultural map created by the most reknown geographer in this nation's history and you delete that why. Then on the Majority of Kentuckians consider themselves Southern, You refuse to acknowledge the findings of the DECADE long Southern focus study and you delete that WHY?

You also refuse to acknowledge that while I have provided a host of Southern cities that have not only a larger Catholic population, But a larger percentage of Catholics you can't provide a single Midwestern city that has a not even a large, but "signifigant" Baptist population. May I also add that Galveston, San Antonio, Dallas, and Richond were magnets for German and Irish Catholics during the migration.

Again who is the only one to make reference to that study when you have one that is more recent and has been conducted for OVER A DECADE MEANING MUCH MORE PERSISTANCE AND ACCURACY. Again WTF, what you are claiming is ludicris and is somewhat laughable. You didn't want to acknowledge the findings of the Southern Focus Study (which clearly lablea Kentucky as Southern) yet you come twirling around some crappy mom and pop survey and claiming it holds just as much merrit as the SOuthern Focus Study WTF!!!!!! Then to top it off more people identified with the South then the Midwest in the study LMAO. You criticize me more pointing out that Kentucky is more Southern than Midwestern, when you're just frustrated because I've pointed out that it's not the quentessential example of a boarder state like Maryland or Missouri two states that almost totaly reject their Southerness (as evidence on this page) like YOU WANT IT TO BE. Yeah I'm one the 80% percent who see this state as Southern. Louisvillian 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Interviewers spoke by telephone in March with random samples of 841 adult Southerners and 413 non-Southerners. For poll purposes, the South consisted of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. The new poll’s margin of error is 3.5 percent. Louisvillian 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Again before you edit out Southern Indiana and more Southern than Midwestern and replace it with it contains many elements of the South, and leave in Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern even though I have cited it with the direct link to Meining's map as a verifiable source Tell me why it must be edited other than to reflect YOUR opinion. Louisvillian 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, using sixth-grade words like "LMAO" and "WTF" isn't helping your case any and, to be blunt, is probably hurting it. It's clear to me, by now, that you make a business of going around, trolling from site to site on the Internet attempting to remove any information that links KY to the Midwest, and you've expected to do the same thing here. You've made comments attacking the linguistic map on the page for Southern American English, and attacking the Midwestern cites on the Kentucky and Louisville pages, in addition to posts on many outside sites defending this bizarre notion that Kentucky is, essentially, Georgia-North. I am not going to sit by and allow you to, bit by bit, remove information linking KY to the Midwest simply because it is YOUR OPINION and you've made a habit out of doing it. This is not a forum for opinions along the lines of Urbanplanet or Skyscrapercity. "The edit "Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern" is your opinion; in any event, the map that you cited by Meining is actually a map created by another Wiki editor (Pfly) to reflect one of his works. I proposed the comprommise "is highly Southern in comparison to the rest of the Midwest", which it is; it is by no means a "majority Southern region", nor is any part of Kentuckiana with the exception of Louisville's suburbs in rural counties like Spencer. Now, regarding JSTOR, you are clearly the only editor who thinks that Louisville and Kentucky aren't mentioned in the Midwestern Industrial History study, because those studies have been accepted by editors on the Kentucky and Louisville. Those citations would have been removed from those pages by now were I fabricating the content of the studies. "You're the only person who cares enough to read them" is a rather asanine notion, just as asanine as the notion that a study published in the Annals of the Assocation of American Geographers is a "mom and pop" study - a view, again, that YOU are the only person to hold, solely because it found that less than half of Kentuckians preferred the term "South" to describe their state. In any event, different studies will find different things. In the Changing Usage study, to reiterate, more than half of Kentuckians did not use the term "South" to describe the state. That's a hard, undeniable fact. *Amazingly*, this study only conflicted with the Southern Focus one regarding Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland - it's kind of obvious why. Other editors, including myself, have moved on to discussing information about Maryland; it has been settled that Kentucky is a mixed border state, hence it's status on the map. I'm not willing to accept an 80% pigeon-hole treatment of the state without a HUGE amount of proof, when a simple Internet search can find dozens of maps placing the state in the Midwest, dozens of sites claiming either the state or specific cities to be Midwestern, etc. Whether this Southern Focus study was conducted for one year or fifty, it did NOT PRESENT CHOICES TO RESIDENTS IN BORDER STATES. Had it simply bothered to ask Kentuckians "Would you also/occasionally consider your state or city to be Midwestern", the results would have been quite different. The 40% number in MD in the Southern Focus study - higher than Missouri - is also worthy of criticism and was not correlated by the Changing Usage study. The Changing Usage survey simply confirmed that by showing that self-identification in Kentucky is in line with a transitional area/border state, not a "pure" state. The immigration numbers show that, in terms of immigration patterns, Louisville is more oriented to the Midwest than South. As is most of Kentucky. As I said earlier, you'll only find this, in the South, in western Texas, Northern Virginia, and Central/Southern Florida. When you cite growth numbers, you are citing numbers for the METRO of Louisville, not the central areas. Jefferson County, KY has about the same population today that it did in 1970. Somehow, despite not having grown at all over the last 30 years, it still has a split regional immigration pattern. As I said, this is due to proximity - its sheer location on the Ohio River. It's common sense. --70.168.88.158 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I mean honestly I felt like stating the real words, but I would then be banned and a lot more mess. Trolling around what sites a Louisville blog "ON THE SUBJECT", I check out Urban Dictionary (just to see what it's about) and there is already some user denouncing any Southern aspect of the state, so I make my stance, and I respond to an Editorial/someone's opinion and hell it could have been yours. On the Southern as Georgia statement on my first edit I MADE REFERNCE TO SOMEONE ELSES OPINION !

[18] look at it again

There are quite a few attacks about the Wiki map on that Southern dialect page, only I provided sources to back my claim that Western Kentucky 's dialect is more Southern. I notice you attacking the Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern while totally letting the Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern statement fly, it's pure ingorance. The Meining's map that he has refurbished (not in the since of editing regional or state boundaries, but adding more noticeable color), is none the less the same map that Meining created. I posted this map because it not only verifies the claim that Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern in culture, But it also verifies that Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern. YOU SIR need to stop nit picking what facts you're going to take from this source (which is the only source verifing that Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern), either both sub regions have more characteristics of the major city adjacent to them and the region the ciy is in, or they just have many elements of the major city and the region the major city is in. AGAIN THIS IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD THING. You're the only editor who has a problem with the Southern Focus study and it's finding's and the Meining's map that I cited your claims with. AGAIN you claim you have the actual study from the JSTOR source where this text is mentioned on Geocities, why the hell don't you cite your source with it? The link you have given does not state what you claim it does in it's text. You're upset because I'm actually checking your sources, what did you expect anyone to do, who wanted to see proof of the claims?

YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE TO CHOOSE THAT STUDY OVER THE SOUTHERN FOCUS STUDY. You criticized the DECADE LONG Southern Focus study's accuracy yet you come with some ONE YEAR (IF NOT SHORTER) survey and aspect it to hold just as much merrit as the Southern Focus Study WTF!!!! You are a very opinionated person and you don't want to admit that your opinion is driving you 95% to claim what you are claiming. Better yet ANSWER ME THIS QUESTION, Do you think that the study you presented is more accurate than the Southern Focus Study. Then you talk about the choices given on the Southern Focus Study, I mean what are you saying that Kentuckians wouldn't be able to realize that by saying they aren't Southern would more than likely place them in the Midwest as Missourians (a true boarder state) were able to figure out, are you saying that Missourians are better abled to comprehend that not identifying with the South would place them in the Midwest or residents of Maryland somehow were better abled to comprehend than residents of Virginia that not identifying with South would place them in the Northeast!!!!! You're basically implying that the Study could have mislead Kentuckians and or Virginians, well tell me why hasn't it mislead Missourians, Delaware residents, Marylander's, or West Virginians. I mean just ACCEPT THESE FINDING my God!!! 80% of Kentuckians Identify with the South. Then on the study you presented more Kentuckians identified with the South than the Midwest, you don't want to acknowledge that either.

"Question Number: 6 The variable STATE16 was used to create the variable RESIDENT. Respondents who lived in a southern state (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas or Virginia) at the age of 16 they were coded as 1. If a respondent lived in Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia or Washington DC, he / she was coded as 2. If the respondent lived outside the south or the border states he / she was coded as 3. "

http://cgi.irss.unc.edu/tempdocs/21:11:24:3.htm

Apparrently they did differentiate between Southern and Boarder states and guess what Kentucky citizens chose to be Southern.

AGAIN

Miami This state: 96406 Northeast: 17809 Midwest: 5341 South: 15409 West: 2454

Austin, TX Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 360604 Northeast: 29504 Midwest: 56056 South: 53323 West: 37849

St. Louis Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 244749 Northeast: 5398 Midwest: 28107 South: 41898 West: 6956

Indianapolis Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 528362 Northeast: 22996 Midwest: 77730 South: 94178 West: 17854

Cincinnati Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 236708 Northeast: 10919 Midwest: 17181 South: 47955 West: 4106

Cleveland Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 340543 Northeast: 21813 Midwest: 10692 South: 66678 West: 4327

Then on that citydata stunt you're trying to pull, GIVE IT UP. By your logic Indianapolis's, Columbus's, Cincinnati's, Cleveland's, and St.Louis's population migrations are more oriented to the South than the Midwest. What does this prove, that those cities migration patterns are more Southern than Midwestern, that Miami and Austin, Texas are more Midwestern than Southern, GIVE IT UP!

As far as me keep bringing this up, what do you mean? I prove what I felt needed to be proven, to get a better map on this page and both maps is perfect, especially with the recent correction of the Historic map. You have been createing new topics on the Talk page to show that Kentucky and Virginia don't say yall as much as other Southern states (hence they already stated light red on the map showing cultural difference between the rest of the South). You then try to counter the DECADE LONG (and is still conducted and has a 3.6% margin of error) Southern Focus study with your mom and pop survey stating you wish you had this survey when you were debating Kentucky's Southerness with me and in doing so acknowledging that the Debate was over between us two and Kentucky's status as a Southern state, SO YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STARTED THIS DEBATE OVER AGAIN. Louisvillian 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said that "immigration defines the region of a city." That's a figment of your imagination. I just proved, through hard, quantative data that Kentucky cities have drawn in more Midwestern immigrants than Southern ones - and this, despite low population growth. As I said, given that the state borders more Midwestern states than Southern ones and is generally closer to Chicago than Atlanta, this makes sense - these immigrants, one again, just serve to refute this insupportable, asanine notion that "Kentucky is the sister state of Tennessee" and that the Midwestern influence in the state is a minor, negligible aspect of life. Again, I'm not removing information from a section on cultural variations, which is cited, just because you, in your eternal omnipotence and trolling, disagree with a peer-reviewed study finding that less than half of Kentuckians used the term "South" to describe their state - or because you have resolved to hunt down any and all information on the Internet linking Kentucky to the Midwest, and then remove it, because YOU dislike it. You have done this, many times before, on other Internet sites and I am not going to allow it to happen here. Anything in a peer-reviewed journal, written by a Professor of Geography and supported by the Association of American Geographers, holds just as much weight as the Southern Focus study. OF COURSE you're going to disagree with this study because, again, you have (apparently) resolved to remove any information from Internet forums or user-edited sites that links Kentucky to the Midwest. Check this page - you're the only person who thinks otherwise. I'm also not removing the section that "Louisville is considered Midwestern in some analyses of the Midwest" because it IS CONSIDERED Midwestern in at least "some" analyses of the region (in fact, it is considered Midwestern in MANY analyses of the region, but "some" is a much more neutral, supportable term.) The purpose of the section on cultural variations is to reveal DIFFERENCES between Kentucky and much of the South, and the paragraph accomplishes that. Apparently, you're also the only person who has a problem with JSTOR sources (imagine that! you have a problem with the sources that don't agree with your worldview! Amazing.) And please do not lie about my stance, as you have done numerous times before. If I so vehemently disagreed with the Southern Focus survey, I would be insisting that Kentucky be striped on the modern map, instead of being a "medium" state - which I am not. After it was proposed, I was actually the first person to support the three-tone map, and its inclusion of KY, FL, TX, and VA as medium states. So, pull yourself together and realize that nobody is challening the Southern Focus Study per se. I am, however, challenging its authority as the "Bible of the South" when I have provided an equally meritorious survey that disputes its claims regarding the border states. And, for the millionth time, it was a study that found, when presented with choices, only a minority of Kentuckians - 47 percent - chose the term "South" to describe their state (amazingly, 82 percent of folks in TN chose the term "South"...a "sister state" indeed!) And this is the information that I am including in the cultural variations section. Just check the Kentucky page, and the disclaimer about Kentucky's region. I am hardly surprised that you exhibited the same type of violent reaction to Kentucky being classed in the "East Central" USA, before being overruled there. That information has been on the page for about a week now, and you are still the ONLY person to have a problem with it. It is written in such a way to FAIRLY balance the heavy Midwestern influence in the Triangle region with the dominant Southern culture in the rest of the state. I guess the rest of us are just ignorant and uninformed about this state, since nobody else has changed that section? I do, very much, try to establish a consensus when I edit articles (which is fairly rarely...I became involved in this entire debate because I saw that the full truth wasn't being told about the border states, largely because of editors like you). But your continued history of irrationally removing edits that link KY to the Midwest in any manner, as well as the fact that not a single other editor has voiced concerns with the original wording of the section, shows that I have not written anything "out of the ordinary" in that section. I have used words such as "some sources" and "many residents" instead of terms such as "a majority" and "most sources" JUST TO AVOID CONFLICT. But you will never be happy until, everytime that Kentucky is mentioned, a sentence is included stating that "a huge majority of Kentuckians identify with the South" or something like that - even in a section on cultural variations, designed to reveal differences in the state's culture. --70.168.88.158 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So what the Hell are you saying about About Indianapolis, St.Louis, Cincinnati, or Cleveland? That their growth is more Southern than Midwestern,

St. Louis Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 244749 Northeast: 5398 Midwest: 28107 South: 41898 West: 6956 Indianapolis Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 528362 Northeast: 22996 Midwest: 77730 South: 94178 West: 17854 Cincinnati Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 236708 Northeast: 10919 Midwest: 17181 South: 47955 West: 4106 Cleveland Place of birth for U.S.-born residents: This state: 340543 Northeast: 21813 Midwest: 10692 South: 66678 West: 4327 You are saying the same thing in each response, how I troll and what not, so I'm going to anwser with the same response. As far as me trolling again Urban dictionary is a site in which one can use an unlimited amount of alliases with one email address, so I really don't count those opinions ( though the main prson arguing Kentucky's Midwesterness is "Kentucky Yank"). I have made probably 4 post on Velocity blog, But again the anonymous option gives people an easy chance to create a false concesus. I have only responded to one EDITORIAL and I voiced my opinion, so sue me. You still have not anwaered my question, which source is more credible the DECADE LONG ( AND STILL RUNNING ) Southern Focus Study or a study that was conducted earlier, is less known, WAS ONLY CONDUCTED FOR MAYBE A YEAR. My god if the study is just as prominent/ or holds just as much merrit as the Southern Focus Study than LOL why can't you do a simple google search and find anything related to it. LOL again your hypocricy is hysterical, you criticized the decade long Southern Focus study saying that it might not be all that accurate (3.6% margin or error), and you are now claiming that a study conducted before the Southern Focus Study for one YEAR (EMPHSIZING THE THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THEY WERE CONDUCTED). That is obviously your logic. You try to down me for calling this state Southern and not accepting that Kentucky is just as Southern as Missouri or Maryland (or just an all out boarder state), yet you neglect that I have provided MUCH MORE evidence to support my claims, then you call me ignorant for doing so LMAO!! I'm still not beleiving your hypocricy with this new/ older study you've found and the Decade long Southern Focus Study I mean it's unbelievable. However for the sake of the page, the best thing to do is incorperate both of our sources, (Which common sense would tell you that the majority of Kentuckians Identify with the South. 47% on your year long survey said the South and near 80% said South on mine, it's surely over the majority). I'd fell more comfortable providing citing the Southern Indy and Northern, ky claim with the Meining's map (this claim does need to be cited). Louisvillian 02:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeat, for the 65th time: Never rejected the Southern Focus Survey, I simply said that it is not the Bible of the South, as it has been made into on this page. Culturally speaking, Kentucky is one of the most quixotic states in the country, and claiming that any one study can give us the "final word on Kentucky" - whether it be yours, mine, or anybody else's - is ignorance of the highest degree (and you didn't read my survey apparently, because it wasn't a one year thing - it was based on about 12,000 registration cards sent in over a period of time - and I repeat, it's in a peer-reviewed journal whose scholarly authority is not yours to question). This is why I introduced the Changing Usage study - to provide another view in addition to the Southern Focus one, which was pretty much the entire basis for the new map system (not saying that I disagree with the new map system, but the amount of importance assigned to this ONE study truly blows my mind.) I'm perfectly fine with the information about Southern Indiana and Northern Kentucky - that's only consistent - but you still insist on the view that a "majority" or "vast majority" of Kentuckians use the term "South" or "Southern." That is an opinion, albeit a qualified one, but still an opinion - I have a highly qualified source that did not find a majority of Kentuckians using that term, and I'm certain that I could find other studies/polls/surveys showing the same thing. Saying that "many Kentuckians..." fall into one group or another is much more accurate and, above all else, likely to stand without controversy. Having spent much of my life in the Triangle, the state's most heavily populated region, I flat out reject the notion that a "vast majority", or perhaps even "a majority" (and if it is a majority, it's a slim one, something like 55-45) of Kentuckians view themselves as Southerners, and have provided a peer-reviewed study that shows that. "Common sense" says that a majority of people in Alabama, Georgia, and Arkansas are going to identify with the South...not so in Kentucky, where some counties border multiple Midwestern states. Saying that "many Kentuckians view themselves as Southerners" and "many Kentuckians do not view themselves as Southerners" is balanced, truthful, and a compromise I'm willing to accept. --70.168.88.158 03:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider Kentucky to be a Southern or Midwestern state? Do you consider Kentucky to be a Southern or Midwestern state? Southern [ 83 ] [76.85%] Midwestern [ 25 ] [23.15%]

Where does the south end/begin? Options Track this topic Where is your line? Where is your line? Pennsylvania, Southern Ohio, St Louis [ 26 ] [14.53%] South of DC, Ohio River [ 91 ] [50.84%] Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina [ 47 ] [26.26%] Other [ 15 ] [8.38%]

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5533

These are the only ones I have time to find right now, there is one more I've seen on the net for sure and I'll post it later.

However you have a very opinionated stance in this subject and you don't want to see it. The study that you make reference to again was conducted in 1987... and that's it. The Soutehrn Focus study surveyed nearly 20,000 citizens around the nation and again is still GOING AFTER OVER A DECADE!!!! The margin of error is only AFTER A DECADE 3.6%. Imagine how wide the margine is more the study you've cited just guess. Louisvillian 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The margin of error in the Changing Usage study was at about 1 percent. And for the last time, it was NOT a "one year" study, and included data from 12,000 participants. The only reason to disagree with it is because it invalidates your opinions - i.e., it presents Kentucky as a highly diluted border state, which it is - and that will be my last word on this matter. If anything, Kentucky has become MORE diluted since 1987; I would like to see this study replicated today, using the same methods, and I'm quite sure that fewer than 47% would chose the term "South." Just using common sense, if this study were so poorly designed, why is it that it virtually replicated the findings of the Southern Study results for every state except the border states of Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky? Again, culture in border states isn't easily reducible to numbers in a study, and this is why I insisted on sources other than the Southern Focus one. I'm opinionated, and you aren't? Please. So you're not highly opinionated in providing research to verify your claims, and then I'm "opinionated" when I provide research to verify mine? Ridiculous. Because I refuse to acquiesce and accept this dubious claim that a "vast majority of Kentuckians" consider themselves Southern, when I provide peer-reviewed research that nulllifies that claim, I'm "highly opinionated." As I said, Kentucky is a highly quixotic state; your edits on this page, other Wikipedia pages, and the Internet in general show that you have a long history of becoming violently enraged when people deny that Kentucky is a majority Southern state, regardless of their reasoning and logic. You are, in fact, opinionated to the extent of removing citations from peer-reviewed academic journals, before even bothering to read them, simply because they do not present Kentucky the way that you want the state to be presented; or furthermore, to the extent of automatically finding a way to disagree with any type of source, of any degree of verifiability, that casts doubt on Kentucky's "Southern-ness". And I'm the only opinionated one here? Hardly. I don't really care how much this irritates you. It is my state just as much as it is yours, and I have simply provided cited, consensus-approved Wiki edits to make certain that the split nature of this state is well represented here, unlike before, when other than a few maps there was little information linking KY to the North and Midwest. I feel that this has been accomplished as of now.

--70.168.88.158 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How is the changing Usage Study indentical in all other aspects for every other state than the boarder states when compared to the Southern Focus study, when the Southern Focus study was analyzing which states identify with the South? You make no since in that comparison!! Again the Changing Usage study was conducted in 1987, and it states NOTHING ELSE, HENCE IT WAS ONLY CONDUCTED FOR A YEAR AT THE MOST. Please show me where it states that the margin of error was only 1%; better yet send me a copy of the study via your Geocities link. If Kentucky was more diluted today than it was back in 1987 than why would a more recent, persistant, and accurate study find that 80% of Kentuckians say that their community and state is Southern and 68% actually identified as Southerners. Further more you still can't comprehend what I'am saying about the merrit of this study, The Annals of the Association of American Geographers had peer reviewed a study that was conducted more maybe "A YEAR "in 1987 based on regional identity TRUE. The Southern Focus Study is based almost entirely on how people feel about issues such as The War in Iraq, Abortion, Religion, and most importantly identification with the SOUTH!! Hence THE NEW MAP!

John Shelton Reed Percent who say their community is in the South (percentage base in parentheses) Alabama 98 (717) South Carolina 98 (553) Louisiana 97 (606) Mississippi 97 (431) Georgia 97 (1017) Tennessee 97 (838) North Carolina 93 (1292) Arkansas 92 (400) Florida 90 (1792) Texas 84 (2050) Virginia 82 (1014) Kentucky 79 (582) Oklahoma 69 (411) West Virginia 45 (82) Maryland 40 (173) Missouri 23 (177) Delaware 14 (21) D.C. 7 (15)

Percent who say they are Southerners (percentage base in parentheses) Mississippi 90 (432) Louisiana 89 (606) Alabama 88 (716) Tennessee 84 (838) South Carolina 82 (553) Arkansas 81 (399) Georgia 81 (1017) North Carolina 80 (1290) Texas 68 (2053) Kentucky 68 (584) Virginia 60 (1012) Oklahoma 53 (410) Florida 51 (1791) West Virginia 25 (84) Maryland 19 (192) Missouri 15 (197) New Mexico 13 (68) Delaware 12 (25) D.C. 12 (16) Utah 11 (70) Indiana 10 (208) Illinois 9 (362) Ohio 8 (396) Arizona 7 (117) Michigan 6 (336) All others less than 6 percent.

You made the argument that Kentuckians unlike residence in Boarder states like Missouri and Maryland might be confused as to the other alternatives other than Southern. From that argument it lead me to believe that somehow you thought Kentuckians were less intellegient than residence in MO, MD, WV, or DE and less capable of making a decision that lables themselves and their community into a certain region. That was quite honestly BULLSHIT and ignorance to the highest degree. You continue to lump Virginia and Kentucky in with those boarder states, because the study you've presented shows that less than half of residence in those states identify with the South. You don't mention that Kentucky chose Southern over Midwestern or visa versa for Virginia and The Northeast. You have also forgotten to show us the results for the "Boarder States" that you are trying to lump us in with. You mentioned earlier that Delaware had virtually no residence identify with the South yet you still don't want to see that Kentucky had more residence identify with the South than any other region (LOL that's a fact that can be added into the text). You keep insisting that Kentucky is not Alabama nor Arkansas and that only your source can prove that, WRONG. The Southern Focus study shows where there is a signifigant range between Kentucky and those Deep Southern states Southeness, and it also shows that there is a MUCH LARGER range between Kentucky and the "Boarders states" Southerness. So much more that if those states are called boarder states than Kentucky is definantly a Southern state, and more particularly a Mid Southern State. Then you don't even want to accept that if you were to average in the studies together (let's say your study held as much merrit as the Southern Focus Study) you would still have a good 60%-65% majority of Kentuckians saying this state is Southern. Then you claim "well this is cultural Variations" despite that you missed where Texas's Southerness was verified with the Southern Focus study, which obviously make you out to be on a mission issolate Kentucky from the South, neglecting Virginia or Texas. I have also provided polls ( from forums in which you must be a registered member) explaining that a good majority ( reframing from using "vast" majority) of people consider Kentucky to be Southern. If you don't want to except those polls, than by all means find more I guarantee that they will all read similarly. Though your hypocricy will be shown at the end when you claimed that more people feel Kentucky is more Midwestern on UrbanDictionary, a site in which you can have unlimited allias with one account. Then I know you're going to come back with the crap about me trolling and what not. You brought up an Editorial, in which one states his opinion, it should be worth mentioning that another Louisvillian made a funny comment about Louisville definantly being a Southern city. You criticize me for expressing my opinion along with some facts on a blog created specifically for the argument. You then claim that I'm the only person who's arguing for Kentucky's Southerness, and it futile and ignorant and what not LMAO, Just look at the Midwest page you are the only person protecting what every Midwesterner has considered a junk map, for it's inclusion of decisively Southern states (Kentucky and West Virginia) that are labeled sometimes Midwestern. LOL they don't even want the sometimes part mentioned. The talk page it is mainly you arguing more Kentucky's Midwesterness. Though I was going to help you out a little (out of pitty from the response you were getting), I wrote piece and stating that Kentucky is sometimes considered Midwestern (check the history on that page), but then I clicked to the Louisville page and seen you talking trash about me so I let you fend for yourself against the angry Midwesterners. On the other hand this page has created a new map to make Kentucky's Southerness more Prominant, you were the only one objecting to the map (which was an over whelming concensus; again an example of your empty acknowledgment that Kentucky is more Southern than Midwestern, which was only made by yourself so that you wouldn't be in the minority) because you felt there was no need to differentiate between Kentucky and the "Boarder states" Southerness. When the map was finally created one South Carolian objected to Kentucky's inclusion and you hopped over that "like a hooker on Derby" as proof that Southerners don't accept Kentucky, despite the overwhelming concensus between Southerners to create the new Southern map in the first place and the OUTCRY made by Midwesterners to ban Kentucky from their map. You call me ignorant for calling Kentucky a majority Southern state and for bringing the sources and information onto this page, which was embrased by other Southerners, HENCE THE NEW MAP. Kentucky is a Southern state get over it.

Then on this I feel that the Southern Focus Study is the "Bible of the South" nonsense, was never staed by me. You make it seem as though we have not been debating this topic and covering 75% of the Old talk page. In which it was proven by myself that Kentucky's History, Dialect, and Culture is simply more Southern, These points were proven by uncountable sources provided by myself and other's. On the other hand you provided very little sources for some of your arguments and none at all for the rest of them and insisted that I use "logic" (specifically your logic/opinion), and when I refused to do so you call me ignorant. Using your opinion over uncountable credible sources UUUHHHH.....NO, sorry buddy but that's not happening!

BTW as proof of your biased Ignorance is hitting the history page on the article and seeing that you removed my source , which was a map created by DW Meinging which would obviously label Southern Indiana as more Southern as it is attached to Louisville/Kentucky, which in tern would undoubtibly label this state as Southern. Your goal being to make Kentucky out as another Missouri would ultimtely fall if my sources remain LMAO Pathetic Ignorance. Louisvillian 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I would suggest that you cease with the personal attacks - again, a violation of Wiki policy, and definitely not helping your case in any manner.

Second of all, you have not "proven" anything. For every source that you have provided, I have provided either a refutation or an alternative source. You have, however, convinced yourself that Kentucky is an identical sister of Tennessee, and are rather adamant that the rest of us uphold that view. Whenever your view is challenged, you become enraged. Your behavior is clearly that of a troll, one who has attacked other editors on various occasions whenever the assertion has been made that Kentucky is, to any degree, Midwestern - most notably, your little quib and childish rage on the Kentucky talk page when the introductory text was changed from "East South Central" to "East Central." To quote from your comments there: " If you look at Virgnia's pages no one there is grouping that state into an unofficial region, they are just calling it how it is A SOUTHERN STATE. JUST GET OVER IT "STEVE" AND FACE THE FACTS YOU'RE WRONG ." You can CAPITALIZE YOUR YELLING, curse, howl, use middle-school words like "WTF LMAO!!!", moan and complain all that you want. I don't care. You're a troll, and you're used to doing this to get your way. If you expect YELLING AND CURSING and such to intimidate me, you're out of luck. I'm not impressed by howling teenagers or grumpy Internet trolls.

Case in point: what are you still angry over? The fact that the phrase "a vast majority" or "a good majority" or "a majority" of Kentuckians is no longer in that paragraph. Why haven't I insisted on inserting the sentence "Some studies suggest that a majority of Kentuckians do not identify with the South" in this paragraph? I could, because my study found that. However, I'm not a bigot, nor irrational, and I'm well aware that all of the border states are highly quixotic. Hence, use of the word "many", which really can't be disputed. Nobody has ever attempted to argue that Kentucky is a mostly Midwestern state, contrary to your odd interpertations of the discussion. But we have, long ago, acknowledged that the state is mixed. Plain and simple, it's a mixed border state - it was 140 years ago, and still is today. As far as the quote on TX goes, the Changing Usage study agreed with the Southern Focus study in its findings about Texas - a large majority of Texans, in both studies, chose the term "South" over any other regional labels. Kentucky and Texas, though both diluted multi-regional states, have different histories and cultures.

Now, we can settle here, with the use of the word "many" in the paragraph, which is a fair, rational, and common sense compromise. Or, you can continue to insert POV statements such as a "vast overwhelming majority" of Kentuckians consider themselves this or that into the paragraph, and I will continue to remove such, one-sided, questionable, and ultimately POV information and we'll still be doing this 6 months from now. It's up to you. --70.168.88.158 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm joining with 70.168.88.158 to form a consensus. Further, I admonish Louisvillian to start making his case concisely, as I refuse to use up my precious time reading his novel-length text. I'm staying with this consensus until Louisvillian complies with my request. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as Teenager goes try again buddy. Aside from your rambling on and on about me "YELLING" and "throwing tantrums" you really haven't addressed every or even most of my points in my preivous post. As far as you editing out the words majority, do you understand why this makes you a hypocrite and or bigot, Well the fact that you insist that you insist that your study hold's just as much merrit as a much more recent, persistant and accurate study. Amazing how hard you're fighting to keep the finding that 79% of Kentuckians identify with the South out of the text. You absolutely refuse to acnkowledge this finding and you insist on going with a more "neutral" term, I mean THE FACT IS KENTUCKY IS A SOUTHERN STATE and there's no way to weasle around that. So let me get this straight you are giving me an ultimatum, to either allow you to exlcude both of the sources (for no reason what so ever, and have more merrit than yours) that I have contributed to the artcle, and let yours stand; Or I can fight to keep mines in, UUMMMM..... I think I'm gonna fight.

Now the fact that you continue to edit out the Meining's map is just the raw example of the ingnorance and biasness that you are displaying in this debate. Both of the claims of Southern Indiana and Northern Kentucky need to be cited, by adding this map it will cite both claims that the sub-regions have more influence from the oppsite region that they are in. Please tell me exactly why you do this! When you're opinion is in the minority you claim that Kentucky is generally Southern State, Now that it's just us arguing you're claiming that's it's a mixed boarder state (another exzample of bigotry). By your reasoning Texas and Virginia are also mixed boarder states. As far as you providing just as many sources to counter my Southern Claim, ARE YOU ON CRACK (sarcasim). [19] clearly here you can see that for every source you provided I've provided 3. Not even mentioning that 70% the sources you've brough were weather maps. You haven't contributed anything to the dialect argument that supports your argument, other than mindlessly repeating Kentucky was a boarder state during the war you might have provided maybe (giving you the benefit of the doubt) one source for historical signifigance, and you haven't provided anything up until recently that has to do with present day culture and that's not including maps that label the nation be culture as I have. Plain Put you backed your argument up with virtually nothing, and you called me ignorant for not seeing it your way AGAIN PATHECTIC. Louisvillian 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that I'm not the only person with a common sense approach here. How, in what twisted logic, is saying that "many Kentuckians consider the state to be Southern" an attempt to say that Kentucky is not a Southern state? That's a concept that you have invented, because to you the phrase "Border State" equates to a rejection of cultural influence from the South, when it does not. If I were so hell-bent on removing Kentucky from the South, as you seem to believe that I am, I would have inserted the sentence "According to some studies, only a minority of Kentuckians use the term "Southern" to describe the state" - which the Changing Usage study found. I am not so bigoted, close-minded, and ignorant as to believe that any one study can measure/delineate the cultural influences in this state. "Many" Kentuckians consider themselves to be Southerners, and "many" Kentuckians consider themselves to be something else, whether it be Appalachian, Midwestern, etc. It's that simple. This is the compromise that I've been proposing for the last week or so, but you continue to insert phrases such as "a good majority" or a "vast majority" of Kentuckians think this, or that. We have two surveys/studies that disagree, and I have found a rational middle ground - one which, pursuant to your overly emotional and immature behavior on this and other sites, you continue to reject. --70.168.88.158 21:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't play games with me 70, it was a matter of time before your sole supporter in the previous debate hopped in this one. The fact that your study found that the South had the most responses out of the other regions and the fact that my study (or the more known and merritable study) found that 79% percent of Kentuckians identify with the South could be stated in the article. You refuse to acknowledge that you're attempting to label this state as Southern as Missouri or Maryland or in other words a typical boarder state. You think calling this state boarder is a compromise, between what? with all of the credible sources I've given you're not in any position to compromise, you're the hostidge here, and I have you in a corner SIR. Then in this little compromise you're trying to make, you will say that "many" Kentuckians consider themselves Southern, the problem I have with that is most Kentuckians consider themselves Southern. Even if you were to average our studies findings together 79% and 47% you have 63% of Kentuckians identifing with the South. That's even saying that your earlier less persistant, and less accurate study held as much merrit as the more recent, much more persistant, and much more accurate Southern Focus Study. But You will never accept this, Hell before you found that study you wouldn't even accept the signifigance of 79% of Kentuckians identifing with the South, and instead boasted that the other 21% held just as much merrit as the majority. Now that you've found this study it's indeed YOUR bible. So to answer your question I will not compromise to expolit one finding and totally ignore the other and logically more credible ones, HELL NO. You actually expect me to compromise when you won't even let my more than credible source stand on the page, which may I add does cite a statement that needed a citation, because it shows that Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, which is obviously attributed to Louisville/Kentucky and ruins the lie of neutrauility you're trying to spread, YEAH RIGHT. Ignorance, One sided, Corruption and Biotry, are the four best ways to describe your argument. Louisvillian 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no one study that can qualitatively (or even quantitatively) "prove" that "a good/vast majority" of people in this state believe A or B. Really, the whole debate regarding "many" is absolutely ridiculous, and motivated because, to be honest, you would prefer that this paragraph not be there in the first place (since it IS there, you want to rewrite it to suit your opinions). As far as the debate on the Midwestern page, it was the original consensus of the Wikiproject on US regions to include WV and KY as striped in the map, and it was not a "one person" argument - originally, one editor objected to the map and others joined in on both sides. Kentucky is a border state, plain and simple. This is not debatable. And if you continue to curse and engage in this debate like a spoiled baby, screaming that you'll "never compromise", you'll end up getting blocked and bring about an early end to this. So, it's your choice. You can compromise or continue to troll. --70.168.88.158 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL I just noticed that crap you're trying pull on the Midwestern map page

"The caption provided should clearly provide an explanation of the nomenclature used with the map; if another editor feels that I did not properly explain the system in the caption, I encourage him/her to change it. "Kentucky and West Virginia are generally included in the South" is a strongly worded phrase."

Here you state this crap (funny how you don't try to pull that on this page), but earlier on this page you claimed that you were one of the main supporters for the new map on this page, which considers Kentucky, Virginia, and Texas as generally Southern states. Again Hypocricy and Bigotry are the best ways to describe your argument.

"Disagree I believe this map must be reworked, now for all of those who support it please don't fly off the handle, I understand and accept the sources that you have presented, several counties in WV and KY along the Ohio river are considered by some apart of the Midwest however is that enough to include them in this map? Some consider parts of Texas in the Midwest, seen by the state chartered Midwestern State University, others consider Colorado, Oklahoma, and states as far west as Montana as a part of the Midwest. Those who argue in whole hearted support of this map, must realize why many people involved in this debate consider it improper: the map places KY and WV on the same status as nebsaka, Missouri and Kansas, those states are obviously the most accepted Midwestern and it is unfair and historically improper to group them in such ways perhaps there can be another map made. Also I would prefer that we keep decorum, so don't suggest that I am some sort of devil. - thank you Astuishin 05:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)"

[20]

Just an example of one of the countless OUTCRIES made by many angry Midwesterners, Who do not want Kentucky represented as the Midwest, to any degree. That concensus that you claimed put this mapping system in this page, is no where in the pages history, nor can I even recall a heads up for the new map on either page. Louisvillian 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Until Louisvillian stops writing novels, I'm siding with Gator's version. If you can't make your case in ten sentences or less, you have no case. Nobody has the time to read your f$#king novels! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Steve I'm gonna state my case reguardless of how long it is. I found it as only a matter of time before you entered the debate, and by no means did I expect you be siding with me. Quite honestly you bring nothing to the debate other than your opinion and boasting that you're a "Louisvillian" as if I'm not one, So Hey! Louisvillian 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I'm sticking with Gator's content. If you don't realize that your personal attacks and uncooperative behavior isn't helping your position, then you may want to reconsider your participation in the Wikipedia. I don't have to add any information beyond what has already been stated by Gator, as he already perfectly summed up what he has done. I am signing on to Gator's explanations without additional comment. And Gator and I aren't going anywhere, ever.

You are insisting on things that just aren't true, and they're not going to be allowed. If you want Louisville to be part of the Solid South (which it currently is not), you need to run for public office and push that platform. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh WOW you really stuck it to me there. If I felt that Louisville was the solid South than I wouldn't have made the comment in favor of your opinion on the Louisville talk page that Louisville is a mixed city, in which one user was attempting to put a citation on it. As far as my claims not being true, well uuuhhhh my sources say otherwise, sadly you can't say the same. Louisvillian 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sources don't prove your position because you ignore other sources. Wikipedia is supposed to provide a neutral POV. That means we must say that Kentucky is predominantly a Southern state, but with heavy Midwestern influence in Louisville and Northern Kentucky. All you present are the sources that back up your pro-Southern bias. That and your abusive language is not scholarly. And as I've said before, I don't have the time to do my own research (I'm not retired and thus have other things to do), but I think Gator is providing very good sources. Why cannot we be balanced rather than biased here? Nobody is arguing that the state as a whole isn't predominantly Southern -- that argument is already laid to rest. It's about Midwestern influence in the northern part of the state, which is undeniable. I will support the balanced rather than the biased text in this article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think when Gator send me crap like this on my page "Kentucky - it is a Border State, and this has been common knowledge for the last 150 years."[21] it's quite clear what he's out to prove. He has given some good information in his debate, that back the fact that Kentucky is a mixed state, But he has an empty acknowledgement that it's a Southern state. Yeah he'll admit Kentucky is Southern when he feels that a concensus is forming against his opinion, But when it was just us he ranted on and on about this state being a "mixed boarder state", no Southern mentioned in their. If that's his opinion than that's fine, But he has attempted prove that through some hog wash studies that are countered by more recent, persistant, and accurate studies. Quite honestly I stand with my earlier opinion, his argument is full of bigotry and ignorance. Louisvillian 03:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for individual state data from Southern Focus Survey

The importance of the Southern Focus Study data continues to linger on this page. In the meantime, I have provided a verifiable study (Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels, Dr. Shortridge, University of Kansas, Annals of the Association of American Geographers) and immediately provided a JSTOR link to the study. I have thoroughly reviewed the Southern discussion archives and I can never find any type of a source for the specific, state-by-state data Southern Focus survey (it wasn't in the links provided earlier); the figures are just stated, but never externally sourced. To be specific, we need to see some hard, external data for these numbers:

Percent who say their community is in the South (percentage base in parentheses)

Alabama 98 (717) South Carolina 98 (553) Louisiana 97 (606) Mississippi 97 (431) Georgia 97 (1017) Tennessee 97 (838) North Carolina 93 (1292) Arkansas 92 (400) Florida 90 (1792) Texas 84 (2050) Virginia 82 (1014) Kentucky 79 (582) Oklahoma 69 (411)

West Virginia 45 (82) Maryland 40 (173) Missouri 23 (177) Delaware 14 (21) D.C. 7 (15)

Percent who say they are Southerners (percentage base in parentheses)

Mississippi 90 (432) Louisiana 89 (606) Alabama 88 (716) Tennessee 84 (838) South Carolina 82 (553) Arkansas 81 (399) Georgia 81 (1017) North Carolina 80 (1290) Texas 68 (2053) Kentucky 68 (584) Virginia 60 (1012) Oklahoma 53 (410) Florida 51 (1791)

West Virginia 25 (84) Maryland 19 (192) Missouri 15 (197) New Mexico 13 (68) Delaware 12 (25) D.C. 12 (16) Utah 11 (70) Indiana 10 (208) Illinois 9 (362) Ohio 8 (396) Arizona 7 (117) Michigan 6 (336)

All others less than 6 percent.

Is there an Excel spreadsheet containing these state-by-state totals? I believe it is necessary that either (1. An Internet link to the Southern Focus survey data be provided here, or (2. Information provided, by those who cite the survey, as to where it can be obtained/purchased. For almost all states, the Southern Focus study is in agreement with the study that I provided. However, the differences are drastic regarding a few border states - most notably, Kentucky and Maryland (i.e., the Southern Focus study found some 80% of Kentuckians choosing the term "South", while the Changing Usage survey found less than 50% using the term; in Maryland, the respective numbers were 40% and 2%.) Clearly, both of these studies are valid. But having an actual cite for the Southern Focus survey data only seems necessary at this point. --70.168.88.158 05:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

>>Concerning the factual information, the individual state data was published in the June 1999 edition of "Southern Cultures", the journal of "The Center for the Study of the American South" at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The state percentages contained within represent the "average" number compiled from 14 seperate polls asking the questions "Is your community in the South?" and "Do you consider yourself a Southerner?" The polls, involving 17,000 respondents, were taken twice yearly between 1992 - 1999 by the Institute for Research in Social Science at the university in cooperation with the Center for the Study of the American South. Dr. John Shelton Reed is director of the research institute.

>>So far as my own opinion on certain differences reflected in the two studies (Southern Focus and Changing Usage), I would say at least part of it has to do with the range of possible answers. For instance, in the Focus poll, the question asked was, simply, whether or not one considered their community to be in the South. This did NOT preclude that respondents might not have also answered in the affirmative if asked if their community was in ANOTHER region as well. This could potentially be of importance in states like Texas (west), Kentucky, Oklahoma, and parts of Arkansas (midwest), and Virginia, Maryland, and parts of North Carolina (east). The other part "Do you consider yourself a Southerner" may be more revealing in many ways (although outside immigration is a factor to be considered as well).

>>On the other hand, the Usage Poll by Shortridge gave CHOICES to respondents. For example, slightly over 71 percent of Texans chose South over West, which is a significant majority. (This bore out something Reed once said of his own survey, which was that even though there was an east/west gradient in the state, most west Texans -- with the exception of the trans-pecos El Paso area -- said they lived in the South).

>>What was interesting also was the map provided on the Shortridge study which shaded -- based on responses -- individual parts of the United States into both distinct regions, as well as "transition zones." On that topic, Reed once said that such an individualized (by county) break-down of the Southern Focus Poll questions was planned for a future date. TexasReb 14:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source TexasReb. I would definitely agree, I'm currently searching around to see if I can find yet another survey or study along the lines of these two. But yea, the fact the the studies essentially disagree only on border states like KY, OK, VA, etc. reveals something - the Southern identification percentages found in TX were very close between the two. --Gator87 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"We found 84 percent of Texans, 82 percent of Virginians, 79 percent of Kentuckians and 69 percent of Oklahomans say they live in the South," says Dr. John Shelton Reed, director of the institute. "'Our findings correspond to the traditional 13-state South' as defined by the Gallup organization and others, but is different from the Census Bureau’s South, which doesn’t make sense." Louisvillian 02:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution to the Maryland Question

Following the thread of what TexasReb said, it is obvious that culture is not something that is absolute, but rather a sociological construct. What I mean, is that you can not test culture like you can test a mathmatical proof, or the theory of gravity. Culture is something that exists in the minds and actions of individual human beings. This construct is made up from the self-identity of individuals based on certain cultural "artifacts." Many of these artifacts have been discussed in these threads, dialect, religion, demographics, food, history, etc. What is clear, to me at least, is that there is no natural or man-made boundary that clearly separates what is "Northern" and what is "Southern." It would make our lives very easy if every one on one side of Potomac spoke like Rhett Butler, ate grits, when to a Baptist church, and flew a confedate flag, and everyone of the other like spoke like Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront, ate oatmeal, was a Catholic, and flew the Stars and Stripes.

That is not the way culture works though. Instead you have transition areas where artifacts of both cultures are present, and self-identity is thus split or less ferverent. So my compromise is to keep Maryland striped but change the label from SOMETIMES/OCCASSIONALLY considered Southern, to something like "STATES THAT ARE STRIPED REPRESENT A TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STATES AND CONTAIN ELEMENTS OF BOTH CULTURES," or something to that effect. A section in the main article, citing some of the many sources we have been discussing, will be made to explain this. I like this compromise because it acknowleges that some cultural artifacts of the South are present in Maryland, but does not give "full membership" in the club (even SOMETIMES/OCCASSIONAL membership.) This compromise will probably work for other border states as well, but for right now lets just figure out Maryland since it is generating the most debate. What do you think? Lasersnake 12:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. But maybe we should combine the two to make the label read, "The striped states represent a transition between the North and South and contain elements of both regions; therefore, they are sometimes/occasionally considered Southern." Do y'all agree? --Stallions2010 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

>>Lasersnake, I for sure concur with what is said about culture not being something which can be labratory tested, and just as much agree with what you (and some others) say about the obvious existence of "transition zones". Still, I have some deep reservations about changing the wording of the "Modern South" map to reflect such, for several reasons.

>>1. To bring in "transition zones" as part of the map caption would complicate things. We have to remember that while WE are all obviously serious students/laymen/researchers of Southern studies and culture, most people who will access the maps for information need it kept a bit more simple.

>>2. The term "North" as a vernacular region is not really even in common usage nor agreement anymore among most Americans! Oh sure -- and I share in it -- we Southerners might refer to the midwest and northeastern states as collectively "the North" and residents within as "yankees"...but the point is such usage IS very esoteric and Dixie flavored. Flat fact is that a simple "North/South" dichotomy went out many years ago, so much so therefore one would have to qualify each border state with its own particular sub-association with another region..which would likely make it too lengthy (i.e. Maryland with the northeast, Oklahoma and Missouri with the midwest, etc).

>>2. The whole idea of the second map with three tones was to reflect "degrees" of "Southerness" as generally defined by the aggregate of sources. Obviously, few would exclude Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia or South Carolina from the South. By most definitions (with history counting for quite a lot) Texas and Virginia are usually included. And finally, to one degree or another, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Maryland are sometimes counted in. The bottom line is, that to re-define, so to speak, the striped states as "transitional" is a bit at odds with the original concept behind the map.

>>Finishing up, I think the way it is worded now is about as compromising as it will ever get, and gets my vote. BUT...if a change is the will of the majority, here are my own suggestions/input:

1. Re-word the tagline of the modern map (as concerns the striped states) to say something like: "The striped states contain strong elements of adjoining regions, yet are counted as Southern by some sources" (hell, I don't know..THIS one IS difficult...and ain't nobody gonna hurt my feelings if they think the above really suc...uhhhhhh stinks!LOL)

2. As Lasersnake suggested, what about a WHOLE 'nother "chapter" in the main article devoted to just this discussion? During it, we could incorporate a map which indeed DOES show "transition" zones and all? Like what the Shortridge study reflected...

>>Ok..I have rambled enough for now. Just got to thinking though, too bad we all don't have a private "chatroom" to go to and kick it around...! TexasReb 02:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Either keeping the map the same, or adopting some or all of my compromise would be fine with me. I am just hoping that this new idea will be acceptable to our contributors that want to exclude Maryland entirely. I reread the actual article again, and it does a pretty good job of discussing the various "artifacts" of Southern culture like dialect, food, literature, sports, etc. There is also a pretty good section "Cultural Variations" that lists the OCCASSIONAL/SOMETIMES Southern states and gives brief explanations of why each is SOMETIMES considered. This section on Maryland (or maybe in a new "master" section about all of these areas) would be a good place to discuss both the Shortridge and Southern Focus studies. Another idea would be to put the discussion of these studies under the "Culture" heading. Lasersnake 13:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Maryland and Washington D.C although they may have shown some slight sympathy for the confederacy during the civil war, are not southern. They relate more with northeastern states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, than they do with the south. Besides even some areas not part of the south have shown confederate sympathy such as New York City. Culturally and economically these states do not fit the mold of the south. And to answer the poster's above question about how many people drive over to Virginia over Pennsylvania to work. Well most people that live in Baltimore work in Washington D.C and Northern Virginia since employers over there pay more. Baltimore is still kind of a rust belt town, and serves as a gigantic bedroom community for folks in Washington D.C since real estate is cheaper in Baltimore.

State song

maryland my maryland is pro-confederate. WillC 14:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Southern State of Virginia Prior to 1863, and the Mason-Dixon Line

I think the map showing West Virginia as not part of the "Historic Southern United States" is completely unsupportable.

West Virginia is definitely south of the Mason-Dixon Line, and West Virginians definitely speak a (transitional) Southern U.S. dialect. The locals make fun of the "flat" accent of their nearby neighbors in Pennsylvania.

But the defining point being missed is that West Virginia started out as part of Virginia. No one will claim Virginia is not part of the South. West Virginia did not physically shift "north" due to tectonic plate activity after succeeding from Virginia, nor did the people's culture change.

So when you say a map is the "Historic Southern United States", what "history" are you talking about -- you are ignoring the first 85 years of the US when the area was nothing but a part of Virginia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Appalachiaeditor (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. Somebody earlier made comments along those same lines, and since that appeared to be the consensus on this page (somebody please correct me if I am wrong) I changed the image to include present-day WV as part of VA, as it was at the onset of the war. --70.168.88.158 03:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

>>Ditto. This was indeed a topic of discussion earlier, and it was agreed that West Virginia should be added back to larger Virginia to make the map more historically accurate...and presentable! TexasReb 14:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have proposed this article for protection, and an admin did it. This is a "Good Article" and edit warring is going to impair its quality, and it would make southerners look bad too. (I'm not born in U.S. but I have lived in Virginia for a considerable amount of time, which is within South}. Wooyi 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural variations dispute

I'm glad to see that an admin has blocked editing so that we can resolve what is, essentially, a minor dispute. This is essentially lingering over from the entire map debate, so hopefully this will be a somewhat "stabilizing" consensus.

After the map debate, I added the following text to the page, under the section on "Cultural Variations":

VERSION 1: Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while many Kentuckians consider the state to be Southern, many others do not readily identify with the South or consider themselves to be "Southern", opting instead for the term "Midwestern" or more neutral regional labels [13]. For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is heavily influenced by Midwestern culture, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is highly Southern in comparison to most of the Midwest, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville. Louisville, viewed as Midwestern in some analyses [14] and as Southern in others, is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.

After a few reversions, this was the settled version. Note the use of the words "many..." and "some...", designed to avoid absolutes/superlatives such as "a majority..." or "most..." and minimize the rest of future conflicts. My sources are numbers 13 and 14 on the page, and described in some detail on this page. The Changing Usage survey that I cited, from the peer-reviewed Annals of the Association of American Geographers, found about 47.86% of Kentuckians using the term "South" to describe the state's geographic region, while the study from the Journal of Economic History grouped the Ohio River cities of Kentucky into its formulation of the US Midwest. Factually, I would argue that Kentucky is a historical border state of the country, is often rejected as "Southern" by regional purists in the Deep South, and has several MSAs that straddle the border between Midwest and South. Furthermore, the state is represented on an occasional basis on the pages for the Midwestern United States and the Northern United States. So, my entire point in writing the text was to reflect the nature of the state, as has been done in that Cultural Variations section for Florida, Texas, North Carolina, etc.

Another editor, Louisvillian, has refused to compromise with the usage of the word "many" and wants to emphasize (his opinion) regarding the state. Again, I proposed the word "many" as a common middle ground since our information, from two meritorious sources, disagreed about "majorities." Furthermore, I contend that making statements such as a "vast majority" about any state, especially border states, is inherently POV and more likely to cause dispute than the word "many". Additionally, Louisvillian's edit history on this page (and others) shows a distinct pattern of attacking any information that links Kentucky's culture to the Northern USA. He has inaccurately portrayed the information contained in the studies that I posted and has frequently become enraged; see the Kentucky talk page for one example. I apologize deeply for edit warring with this editor, but his established history of past edits leads me to not extend good faith to the content that he has entered, especially given his violent reaction and since this content was essentially the same as mine, with the exception of the questionable word "majority" and the removal of some information that he/she disagreed with. His proposed version is below:

VERSION 2: *Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while a good majority of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[22] ^[1] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [23]. Louisville is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.

Hopefully, we can all agree to a consensus on this and restore some stability to the page. --Gator87 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How is the changing Usage Study indentical in all other aspects for every other state than the boarder states when compared to the Southern Focus study, when the Southern Focus study was analyzing which states identify with the South? You make no since in that comparison!! Again the Changing Usage study was conducted in 1987, and it states NOTHING ELSE, HENCE IT WAS ONLY CONDUCTED FOR A YEAR AT THE MOST. Please show me where it states that the margin of error was only 1%; better yet send me a copy of the study via your Geocities link. If Kentucky was more diluted today than it was back in 1987 than why would a more recent, persistant, and accurate study find that 80% of Kentuckians say that their community and state is Southern and 68% actually identified as Southerners. Further more you still can't comprehend what I'am saying about the merrit of this study, The Annals of the Association of American Geographers had peer reviewed a study that was conducted more maybe "A YEAR "in 1987 based on regional identity TRUE. The Southern Focus Study is based almost entirely on how people feel about issues such as The War in Iraq, Abortion, Religion, and most importantly identification with the SOUTH!! Hence THE NEW MAP!

John Shelton Reed Percent who say their community is in the South (percentage base in parentheses) Alabama 98 (717) South Carolina 98 (553) Louisiana 97 (606) Mississippi 97 (431) Georgia 97 (1017) Tennessee 97 (838) North Carolina 93 (1292) Arkansas 92 (400) Florida 90 (1792) Texas 84 (2050) Virginia 82 (1014) Kentucky 79 (582) Oklahoma 69 (411) West Virginia 45 (82) Maryland 40 (173) Missouri 23 (177) Delaware 14 (21) D.C. 7 (15)

Percent who say they are Southerners (percentage base in parentheses) Mississippi 90 (432) Louisiana 89 (606) Alabama 88 (716) Tennessee 84 (838) South Carolina 82 (553) Arkansas 81 (399) Georgia 81 (1017) North Carolina 80 (1290) Texas 68 (2053) Kentucky 68 (584) Virginia 60 (1012) Oklahoma 53 (410) Florida 51 (1791) West Virginia 25 (84) Maryland 19 (192) Missouri 15 (197) New Mexico 13 (68) Delaware 12 (25) D.C. 12 (16) Utah 11 (70) Indiana 10 (208) Illinois 9 (362) Ohio 8 (396) Arizona 7 (117) Michigan 6 (336) All others less than 6 percent.

You made the argument that Kentuckians unlike residence in Boarder states like Missouri and Maryland might be confused as to the other alternatives other than Southern. From that argument it lead me to believe that somehow you thought Kentuckians were less intellegient than residence in MO, MD, WV, or DE and less capable of making a decision that lables themselves and their community into a certain region. That was quite honestly BULLSHIT and ignorance to the highest degree. You continue to lump Virginia and Kentucky in with those boarder states, because the study you've presented shows that less than half of residence in those states identify with the South. You don't mention that Kentucky chose Southern over Midwestern or visa versa for Virginia and The Northeast. You have also forgotten to show us the results for the "Boarder States" that you are trying to lump us in with. You mentioned earlier that Delaware had virtually no residence identify with the South yet you still don't want to see that Kentucky had more residence identify with the South than any other region (LOL that's a fact that can be added into the text). You keep insisting that Kentucky is not Alabama nor Arkansas and that only your source can prove that, WRONG. The Southern Focus study shows where there is a signifigant range between Kentucky and those Deep Southern states Southeness, and it also shows that there is a MUCH LARGER range between Kentucky and the "Boarders states" Southerness. So much more that if those states are called boarder states than Kentucky is definantly a Southern state, and more particularly a Mid Southern State. Then you don't even want to accept that if you were to average in the studies together (let's say your study held as much merrit as the Southern Focus Study) you would still have a good 60%-65% majority of Kentuckians saying this state is Southern. Then you claim "well this is cultural Variations" despite that you missed where Texas's Southerness was verified with the Southern Focus study, which obviously make you out to be on a mission issolate Kentucky from the South, neglecting Virginia or Texas. I have also provided polls ( from forums in which you must be a registered member) explaining that a good majority ( reframing from using "vast" majority) of people consider Kentucky to be Southern. If you don't want to except those polls, than by all means find more I guarantee that they will all read similarly. Though your hypocricy will be shown at the end when you claimed that more people feel Kentucky is more Midwestern on UrbanDictionary, a site in which you can have unlimited allias with one account. Then I know you're going to come back with the crap about me trolling and what not. You brought up an Editorial, in which one states his opinion, it should be worth mentioning that another Louisvillian made a funny comment about Louisville definantly being a Southern city. You criticize me for expressing my opinion along with some facts on a blog created specifically for the argument. You then claim that I'm the only person who's arguing for Kentucky's Southerness, and it futile and ignorant and what not LMAO, Just look at the Midwest page you are the only person protecting what every Midwesterner has considered a junk map, for it's inclusion of decisively Southern states (Kentucky and West Virginia) that are labeled sometimes Midwestern. LOL they don't even want the sometimes part mentioned. The talk page it is mainly you arguing more Kentucky's Midwesterness. Though I was going to help you out a little (out of pitty from the response you were getting), I wrote piece and stating that Kentucky is sometimes considered Midwestern (check the history on that page), but then I clicked to the Louisville page and seen you talking trash about me so I let you fend for yourself against the angry Midwesterners. On the other hand this page has created a new map to make Kentucky's Southerness more Prominant, you were the only one objecting to the map (which was an over whelming concensus; again an example of your empty acknowledgment that Kentucky is more Southern than Midwestern, which was only made by yourself so that you wouldn't be in the minority) because you felt there was no need to differentiate between Kentucky and the "Boarder states" Southerness. When the map was finally created one South Carolian objected to Kentucky's inclusion and you hopped over that "like a hooker on Derby" as proof that Southerners don't accept Kentucky, despite the overwhelming concensus between Southerners to create the new Southern map in the first place and the OUTCRY made by Midwesterners to ban Kentucky from their map. You call me ignorant for calling Kentucky a majority Southern state and for bringing the sources and information onto this page, which was embrased by other Southerners, HENCE THE NEW MAP. Kentucky is a Southern state get over it.

Then on this I feel that the Southern Focus Study is the "Bible of the South" nonsense, was never staed by me. You make it seem as though we have not been debating this topic and covering 75% of the Old talk page. In which it was proven by myself that Kentucky's History, Dialect, and Culture is simply more Southern, These points were proven by uncountable sources provided by myself and other's. On the other hand you provided very little sources for some of your arguments and none at all for the rest of them and insisted that I use "logic" (specifically your logic/opinion), and when I refused to do so you call me ignorant. Using your opinion over uncountable credible sources UUUHHHH.....NO, sorry buddy but that's not happening!

BTW as proof of your biased Ignorance is hitting the history page on the article and seeing that you removed my source , which was a map created by DW Meinging which would obviously label Southern Indiana as more Southern as it is attached to Louisville/Kentucky, which in tern would undoubtibly label this state as Southern. Your goal being to make Kentucky out as another Missouri would ultimtely fall if my sources remain LMAO Pathetic Ignorance. You are merely repeating the same thing as above so I thought I'd do the same thing especially since you haven't responded to this argument. Louisvillian 02:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky as "Midwestern"?? Not according to the historians of Kentucky or the Midwest. They all classify it as South. Look at the Encyclopedia of the Midwest, of Kentucky, and the South. Unanimous agreement here. What happened is that southerners from Kentucky moved into southern Indiana and left a southern cultural imprint there. However, no Midwesterners moved into Kentucky, ands so they left no impact there. See The Kentucky Encyclopedia by John E. Kleber, Thomas D. Clark, Lowell H. Harrison, and James C. Klotter (1992) and The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia by Richard Sisson, Christian Zacher, and Andrew R. L. Cayton (2007). Note the maps that always put Kentucky to the South of the Midwest. Rjensen 18:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Let us remember that this is not a debate about whether or not Kentucky is "Midwestern", but rather, which of the two edits above is preferable, if either. 2. "All" historians of the Midwest and South classify Kentucky as Southern. "No Midwesterners moved into Kentucky". Both false. I provided two verifiable sources - one from the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, and one from the Journal of Economic history, that included Kentucky and/or its major cities in the Midwest. Furthermore, a significant number of Midwesterners have moved into Kentucky, just as a significant number of Kentuckians have moved into lower portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. I provided numbers earlier along those lines. --Gator87 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gator87 has misread clear articles. The Lousiville SMSA extends into Indiana but Kentucky does not do so. No expert says Kentucky is part of the Midwest. Rjensen 19:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that Kentucky as a whole is midwestern, just that portions of it have substantial midwestern influence. Louisville is far more Midwestern in culture than Southern, for instance. But Louisville isn't much like the rest of the state, as most Kentuckians will readily attest. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "The Midwest is defined as the manufacturing portion of the East and West North Central census regions plus West Virginia and Kentucky cities along the Ohio River." "Within the Midwest, intra- and interregional trade also grew enormously...300 percent at Cincinnati, 150 percent at Louisville, and 900 percent at St. Louis." TABLE 4: Manufacturing Employment Size and Growth for the 20 Largest Industrial Cities in the Midwest - ...6. Detroit, MI 7. Louisville, KY 8. Indianapolis, IN." "The eight largest industrial centers as of 1880 contained half of the Midwest's industrial employment...the three largest in 1860 - Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Louisville - benefited from access to antebellum markets along the Ohio and Mississippi River system." Dr. David R. Meyer, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp.921-937.

2. "Someone from Kentucky, though, might conceivably opt to be a part of East, Midwest, or South, depending on which label had the more intense personal cultural attraction for him or her." TABLE 1: Summary of Major Regional Affiliations, Kentucky - East: 40 West: 6 South: 112 Midwest: 76. "A small area of Kentucky, including Louisville, Lexington, and suburban Cincinnati falls into a three-way transition zone. No strong associations exist there between regional label and age, suggesting that the zone is stable." Dr. James R. Shortridge, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Sep., 1987), pp. 325-336

3. United States Geological Survey, Midwest Environmental Sciences Center - [24]

Indeed, nobody is or ever has argued that Kentucky as a whole is Midwestern. But there is an undeniable, highly substantial Midwestern cultural influence in the Golden Triangle region of the state. I repeat, highly substantial influence in that region, not a minor one, as it is in the rest of Kentucky. While Lexington leans marginally toward Southern culture and Louisville is highly split (at least in the eyes of many residents, though many strongly believe that the region is in the Midwest), a majority of residents in Northern Kentucky suburbs would identify as Midwesterners. This is what I represented in my edit to the Cultural Variations section - I never once made a statement along the lines that "Kentucky is a Midwestern state", even though some sources do include the entirety of Kentucky in the Midwest. The Golden Triangle region may be a small part of Kentucky in terms of land area, but it holds a majority of the state's population and its three largest urban centers, as well as the majority of the state's economy and population growth. Just as it is inaccurate to portray Kentucky as a Midwestern state a la Illinois, so is it inaccurate to also deny the quixotic, split nature of this state, treating it like Tennessee or North Carolina. The state's behavior in the Civil War and subsequent borderline politics and economy for the last 140 years - never quite Southern, but never quite Northern - should make that clear. I would suggest that Rjensen avoid the use of superlatives and absolutes such as "no sources" in this discussion.

--Gator87 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gator87 doesn't get it. We're talking about the state of Kentucky over the last 200 years, and he's talking about a couple suburban counties over the last few decades, using information he made up himself. Kentucky, like Maryland, West Virginia and Missouri was a slave state that supported the Union. Everyone knows that. It does not make Kentucky "midwestern" or "northern" --it makes Kentucky a border state, which everyone knows. We really don't want editing of a serious article by anyone who seems to be unfamiliar with the scholarship on Kentucky --its history, culture, politics and economics. Look at some scholarly experts: Bossism & Reform in Southern City: Lexington, Kentucky, 1880-1940 by Bolin (2000): the title says it all. How about Kentucky Justice, Southern Honor, and American Manhood (2003) by the state's leading historian James C. Klotter. Our Kentucky: A Study of the Bluegrass State edited by James C. Klotter has many references to the state as southern in terms of names, foods, religion, and culture. The famous Kentucky: A Guide to the Bluegrass State. by the WPA Federal Writers' Project 1939. is filled with reference to southerness and none to being Midwestern. Rjensen 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would, again, encourage Rjensen to reproduce one single edit (of mine) in which I have insisted on the viewpoint that Kentucky is a Midwestern state, and not a border one, before continuing with his unsubstantiable rhetoric. I would also like him to present examples of information that I have "made up myself", because every argument that I have presented is based on verifiable, external data. The statements that I cited, just above his comments, are from peer-reviewed academic journals. Who is this "we" that Rjensen refers to, as the consensus was for my edits of the Cultural Variations section, edits which simply reveal the split nature of the state? Furthermore, the Cultural Variations edit referred not to a "few suburban counties", but rather to a distinct sociocultural region of the state counting for more than half of its population. If he is indeed well-versed in the history of the state, he will be aware that this region historically was the only industrialized one in the state of Kentucky, with just as many (if not more, as some contend) economic and cultural ties to the North than South. My cite from the Journal of Economic History is one example of this. Rjensen entered this debate without an awareness of what was being discussed; namely, the contention that Kentucky's culture and history has wide variations and diversity, with experts acknowledging that regions of the state fit within the Midwest from a geographical or sociocultural perspective, and the relative preferability of my edits to those of Louisvillian.

--Gator87 00:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the Journal of Southern History (Feb 2007) page 206 by Jonathan Wells about the black perspective in categorizing Kentucky: "the two sides of the [Ohio] river may as well have been hundreds of miles apart." "A short distance made the difference betwen freedom and slavery." Rjensen 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen still is apparently not aware of what is being debated here. But if he wishes to digress and discuss the politics of slavery in Kentucky, he is no doubt aware that cultural scholars acknowledge that the non-plantation based slavery in Kentucky differed greatly in its severity and brutality from the type of labor-intensive, cotton-oriented slavery across most of the South, and that slavery was less of an economic foundation in Kentucky than in Virginia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida. This argument clearly goes both way; just as, to a slave, there was a substantial difference between being in Kentucky or Ohio, as there was a substantial, though less so, difference between being in Kentucky or Georgia. While Kentucky adopted Jim Crow after the war as did the other Southern and Border States, Kentucky never oriented with the group of "Solid South" states and never denied the right to vote to blacks. Kentucky's lack of notable Dixiecrat politicians - and even more notably, the fact that Kentucky did not provide a single signatory for the Southern Manifesto - clearly demonstrates this. The Southern Education Foundation acknowledges the Border State-Southern state disparity in terms of civil rights, stating that "Thirteen years after Brown (1954), only 16 percent of African American students are attending schools with White students in the 11 Southern states of the old Confederacy. In Maryland, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and other states on the border South, the rate of integration is 50 percent or above."

Again, this does not have much to do with the discussion here in the Cultural Variations section. But if Rjensen wishes to lump Kentucky's politics in with the rest of the South, he is conducting original research.

--Gator87 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as slavery goes while Kentucky was not the plantation, cotton South Kentucky had the 3rd largest slave owning population in the nation and Louisville had one of the largest slave populations in the South and it was the second largest producer of Tobacco. Slaves once represented a quarter of this states population, and Tennessee had only larger than us in this category by a 1%-5% margin. A piece from an a user mentioned earlier on the Old Talk page

"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)."

It should also be worth mentioning that Kentucky like the South had a darker history in terms of African American mistreatment. Kentucky had one of the highest lyching rates in the nation.One that was even high than Virginia and the Carolinas [25] (it's just a map).

Another fact worth mentionings is that Kentucky was a state that lost blacks to the "Great Migration". I see it like this Louisville was a manufacturing center that offered plenty of jobs to blacks, if it was unique to the South than it wouldn't have been passed up, nor have lost blacks during the migration North. Cincinnati up river on the opposite side, gained large amount of blacks during the migration North. St. Louis on the other hand gained a tremendous amount of blacks, so much that it shaped the city we see today.[26][27]

Gator please respond to my earlier post!! 74.128.200.135 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for ignorning the points that I just presented regarding Kentucky's politics in the realm of Civil Rights. In any event, Rjensen is still insistent on a full-fledged debate regarding Kentucky (which was not the purpose of the discussion) and Louisvillian will not address the POV, pointless nature of his edits to my paragraph under Cultural Variations. Since there is no debate ensuing regarding the relative merit of my edits vs. Louisvillian's under the Cultural Variations section, I am left to believe that my edit is not being challenged, and that instead these editors wish to attempt to argue that I have "placed" Kentucky in the Midwest, which I have not. I will, however, argue to represent to the fullest the truth that Kentucky is a Border State with a heavy Midwestern influence, as I always have.

That being said, it is amusing that watch the attempt to lump Kentucky, a Border State, into the same categories as states of the "pure" South. As of 1860, Jefferson County, KY counted 11.5% of it's population as slaves, while the state of Kentucky hovered around 24%. Again, looking at the numbers via a proportion, instead of absolute numbers, reveals the relative importance of slavery in Kentucky as of 1860. Even a proportion doesn't tell the full story, however, because slavery was concentrated in the state; slaves were virtually nonexistent in most of the state east of modern day I-75, essentially the Appalachian regions. The slave percentages in Border State KY as of 1860 were lower than those in FL, GA, AL, SC, NC, MS, VA, TX, AR, LA, and TN.

Jim Crow and mistreatment of blacks was real and harsh in the South as well as in the Border States, but it was usually significantly less severe in the Border States. For example, while Georgia and Alabama passed 27 Jim Crow statutes from the end of the Civil War to the 1950's and Virginia passed 25, Kentucky only passed 17, Missouri 14, and Maryland 15. Integration in the state was earlier and more peaceful than in most of the South, with UK integrating in 1949. On Kentucky's record in this area, Encarta documents that "Although segregation of the black and white races was in effect in most public spheres, Kentucky had never denied its black citizens the right to vote as did many Southern states. The first black elected to a Southern legislature after Reconstruction was in Kentucky in the 1930s. Berea College had been the last integrated institution of higher learning in the South until 1904, when the legislature passed a law requiring racial segregation in all state schools. Yet in the 1940s federal courts, led by Kentuckian Frederick M. Vinson, chief justice of the United States, began to break down those racial barriers in education. When the Court in 1954 fully outlawed segregation with its Brown v. Board of Education decision, Kentucky accepted the ruling and moved with few exceptions toward peaceful integration, a model for the South. Kentucky adopted the first state civil rights act in the South in 1966, and a similarly path-breaking open housing law followed in 1968. National leaders like Kentucky’s Whitney Young, Jr., were instrumental in the effort."

Now, does Louisvillian wish to discuss his pointless editing of the paragraph that I wrote in Cultural Variations, or does he/she wish to continue to debate endlessly on other areas? If he/she is certain of the superiority of his edits to that section, I would like to see a line of reasoning for them developed here.

--Gator87 05:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have finally been able to read all of the information posted about the Kentucky debate. I applaud both sides for their painstaking research. Based on the weight of the evidence, I support "version 2." I think both sides agree that Kentucky is "more" Southern than Midwestern, and really what we are arguing about is alleged POV in the proposed verions. I think their is substantial evidence to support the proposition that "a majority" of Kentuckians consider themselves to be "Southern". I don't know what a "good majority" is, it does sound a little POV. I suggest changing "good majority" to "majority" (by definition over 50%, which seems to be what most sources, not all, but most agree with,) and going with version 2. Lasersnake 14:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Misquoting Journal of Economic History,it excludes KY from Midwest

The Journal of Economic History article clearly states (p 926) That "the Midwest is Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri and Minnesota". Kentucky is conspicuously absent. (Midwestern Industrialization and the American Manufacturing Belt in the Nineteenth Century David R. Meyer, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp. 921-937)

Not true. Verify pp. 924 of the study, in the footnotes: "The Midwest is defined as the manufacturing portion of the East and West North Central census regions, plus West Virginia and Kentucky cities along the Ohio River." Furthermore, please note the inclusion and specific mention of Louisville in the Midwestern context on pp. 928, 931, 932.

--Gator87 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Meyer includes all the cities along the Ohio River and all the manufacturing cities in the Midwest. He leaves out all the rural Midwest to get his manufacturing belt. Meyer explictly keeps the state of Kentucky out. He says, to repeat: "the Midwest is Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri and Minnesota". That is the best Gator87 can do--out of thousands of studies he cites one that rejects Kentucky. Wiki can do betyter and Gator87 can do better if he reads a few hundred more books and articles. Rjensen 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL Rjensen, that's exactly what I what I was thinking. Gator tends to nelgect the majority of and more credible sources in favor of ones that sway towards the way he thinks. He claims that the one year study (that was conducted in 1987) he has presented actually has just as much merrit as a more recent, more persist, and MUCH more accurate Southern Focus Study. Then aside from the merrit between the two studies, I've included them both in my edit to the section. He is just trying to make certain that the findings from the Southern Focus Study stating that Kentucky had 79% of it's residence identify with the South is not included in the text. Again if you read my edit, I include the information that was found in his study that states that many Kentuckians may not identify with the state. Then he tries to make me out to be the stubborn Jackass, uhh guess again buddy.

The information that he's presented that claims that Louisville is a Midwestern city, really doesn't state this in it's text, nor is the accessible for most of the users who want to view the source, since it's a JSTOR and you need to register to view the actual source. Plain put this guy is backwards, and his argument is best described with ingorance and bigotry. 74.128.200.135 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not "misquoting/misreding" this study, as pp. 924 does include KY and WV in the Midwest. Again, I repeat, this is stated explicitly in the text, and Louisville is mentioned explicitly in the content of Midwestern cities. Apparently, Rjensen, in his eternal erudition, believes that Dr. Meyer is so incompetent that he would include the largest city in Kentucky in a report on Midwestern cities, comparing its industrial influence to cities such as Detroit and Indianapolis, even if Dr. Meyer strongly believed that Kentucky is not in the Midwest. And as far as Louisvillian's nonsense, he has stated before that he will "not" compromise, is avoiding debate on his POV edits to Cultural Variations, and became enraged (as is his habit) when I posted the Changing Usage study, finding only a minority of Kentuckians using the term "South" to describe their state. He will never accept this study because it fundamentally rattles his highly biased view of this state, and he instead focuses on latching onto other editors' comments because he cannot debate the merit of his "edits" to this page.

--Gator87 05:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gator your argument has become so damn full hypocricy and bigotry, that's it's hardly worth a debate anymore. First of all before you found this study, you wouldn't even acknowledge the signifigance of 79% of Kentuckians identifing with the South, instead you argued that the 21% or so that said they weren't Southern held just as much merrit as the majority. As far as my compromise, check the history and you will see where I left all 4 of our sources in the article (even though the JSTOR link you provided makes no mention of Louisville), But you deleted it. So quite frankly I said F-it, and the war began. So in fact you had the chance end the war before it began, and instead chose to be stubburn. Not only does your edit cancle out BOTH of my sources, But leaves your highly questionable sources acting as final word. As proof of your biased Ignorance is hitting the history page on the article and seeing that you removed my source , which was a map created by DW Meinging which would obviously label Southern Indiana as more Southern as it is attached to Louisville/Kentucky, which in tern would undoubtibly label this state as Southern. Your goal being to make Kentucky out as another Missouri would ultimately fall if my sources remain.

But ya know I would really like to see you answer this question. If you have a study conducted for one year (at the most) in 1987 (doesn't mention any other time period), compared to a study that has been conducted for over a decade that is still being conducted, is more recent, is more persistant, and is more accurate which one would honestly say has more merrit to the debate?

I'm going to guess your response "If the The Annals of the Association of American Geographers (which you didn't even know they conducted it until I mentioned it in my piece)peer reviewed it than it certainly is credible".

My response- Yes they conducted that survey, But you don't even mention that it was conducted for a year at the most. While you have Study that was conducted by UNC for over a decade, to measure which states most identify with the South. Another piece that can be added into this is the Sheldon Reed even breaks down the South into those states that had over half of their residence idnetify with the South, and Kentucky is in there, while the boarder states that you are trying to group this state with were not.

Only 14 percent of Delaware residents think they live in the region, followed by Missourians with 23 percent, Marylanders with 40 percent and West Virginians with 45 percent.

"We found 84 percent of Texans, 82 percent of Virginians, 79 percent of Kentuckians and 69 percent of Oklahomans say they live in the South," says Dr. John Shelton Reed, director of the institute. "Our findings correspond to the traditional 13-state South as defined by the Gallup organization and others, but is different from the Census Bureau’s South, which doesn’t make sense."

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun99/reed16.htm

Gator- Oh you just think Kentucky is all Southern and cotton, my study hold's just as much merrit like it or not

How do ya beat that pss. Louisvillian 06:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My edits do not "cancel" your edits out - my edit currently basically says that "many Kentuckians consider themselves Southerners, and many Kentuckians consider themselves Midwesterners." If I were trying to "cancel" your edits out (and I refrain to say "your" edits, because you only slightly changed what I had written and I have yet to see one useful contribution that you have made to this encyclopedia, other than removing information that you disagree with), I would have said something along the lines of "Some studies suggest that only a minority of Kentuckians would use the term 'South' to describe their state." Of course I never did this; it was my attempt from the beginning to create equity in the treatment of the state's Southern and other factions. The edit also now reads "Northern Kentucky is heavily influenced by the Midwest...Southern Indiana is highly Southern in comparison to most of the Midwest."

Now, your continued assertion that my study was "only for a year." It was published in 1987, but was based on data from a study in the 70's and 80's, using registration cards that were sent it. Approximately 11,689 of the cards were gathered and the distribution was determined to be normal and statistically representative of the United States. The margin of error on the study was at approximately 1 percent or less.

And your last point; "since the study was done in '87, it is an inaccurate portrayal of Kentucky. During the period from 1990-2005, Kentucky made the "astounding" leap from about 3.7 million residents to about 4 million residents. Many of Kentucky's counties actually lost residents, and as you are likely well aware, the vast majority of the state's growth is occuring in the Golden Triange - the most Midwestern region of the state, and a region that is more likely to attract Northern immigration over Southern immigration. Clearly, the state is not changing by "leaps and bounds", so, in reality, any study from the 1970's forward regarding Kentucky is likely representative of the state's population. I never said that the Southern Focus Study holds "less" merit than my study, but the Changing Usage study has been, essentially, swept aside by you because of its findings (not surprising.) And again, while the Southern Focus Study currently presents no choices to residents of Border States other than "Southern" or "not Southern", the Changing Usage study allowed a more flexible selection - thus the agreement between the Changing Usage and Southern Focus studies on the "core South", and the disagreement about the "Border States."

--Gator87 07:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the two studies discussed before, I would also like to introduce more evidence into this discussion. The following paragraph is from an article in the journal Economic Geography: Vol. 67, No. 4. (Oct., 1991), pp. 281-315., published by Clark University. Authors are Brian Page and Richard Walker. The article is From Settlement to Fordism: The Agro-Industrial Revolution in the American Midwest, and the permanent link is here - [28] . From pages 281-282 of that article: "To begin with, there is no consensus among historians and geographers as to the appropriate definition of the Midwest's boundaries...the heart of the Midwest, in our view, is the area lying in the crook of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and up along the shores of the Great Lakes from Erie to Superior. This area includes the entire states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, along with southern Wisconsin and southern Michigan, plus northern Missouri, eastern Iowa, and southeastern Minnesota. For the Greater Midwest, we would add the river cities and borderlands; Pittsburgh and the Alleghenies, Louisville and northern Kentucky, the rest of Missouri, Kansas City and eastern Kansas, western Iowa, Omaha and eastern Nebraska, western and northern Minnesota, northern Michigan, and Wisconsin. The idea of a Midwestern core and perihpery is discussed at length by Garland [53]...Walsh [175] thus includes the states of Kentucky, Kansas, and Nebraska in her defintion of the Midwest, rounding out the 11-state group defined as the Western States in the 1860 census." --Gator87 09:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You claim that you leave my edits in, Well lets that analyze this why don't we.

Your Edit- Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while many Kentuckians consider the state to be Southern, many others do not readily identify with the South or consider themselves to be "Southern", opting instead for the term "Midwestern" or more neutral regional labels [13].

My Edit - *Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while a good majority of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[12] [1]

You claim that you are going for the more neutral bound by including both of our edits, I don't see this compromise anywhere in your text. Notice that you ignorantly take out my source that are clearly more merritable than yours, * The source in this section is the Southern Focus Study . You have yet to explain this action!! This a simply you trying your best to hind the findings of the Southern Focus study that read Kentucky had 79% of it's residents identify with the South. I on the other hand leave your findings and your source along with mines. You claim that your source found more Kentuckians identified with something other than Southern and it's thusly a boarder state, But you have yet to show us the findings for the boarder states that you're trying to group us in with. BTW if you notice I leave the FACT that many Kentuckians consider themselves Midwestern, You however being biased in your own Kentucky is blantly a Boarder state and no more Southern opinion, can not bare to see the findings of the Southern Focus study in this text. You then claim that Kentucky's decent populationg growth in the 90's contributed to the findings in the Southern Focus Study that it was more Southern.

Georgia Population, 1960-2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Total 3,943,116 4,587,930 5,463,105 6,478,216 8,186,453 Change 644,814 875,175 1,015,111 1,708,237 Percent Change 16.35% 19.08% 18.58% 26.37% Arkansas

Population, 1960-2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Total 1,786,272 1,923,322 2,286,435 2,350,725 2,673,400 Change 137,050 363,113 64,290 322,675 Percent Change 7.67% 18.88% 2.81% 13.73%

Texas Population, 1960-2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Total 9,579,677 11,198,655 14,229,191 16,986,510 20,851,820 Change 1,618,978 3,030,536 2,757,319 3,865,310 Percent

Tennesee Change 16.90% 27.06% 19.38% 22.76% Population, 1960-2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Total 3,567,089 3,926,018 4,591,120 4,877,185 5,689,283 Change 358,929 665,102 286,065 812,098 Percent Change 10.06% 16.94% 6.23% 16.65%

North Carolina Population, 1960-2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Total 4,556,155 5,084,411 5,881,766 6,628,637 8,049,313 Change 528,256 797,355 746,871 1,420,676 Percent Change 11.59% 15.68% 12.70% 21.43%

South Carolina Population, 1960-2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Total 2,382,594 2,590,713 3,121,820 3,486,703 4,012,012 Change 208,119 531,107 364,883 525,309 Percent Change 8.73% 20.50% 11.69% 15.07%

Mississippi Population, 1960-2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Total 2,178,141 2,216,994 2,520,638 2,573,216 2,844,658 Change 38,853 303,644 52,578 271,442 Percent Change 1.78% 13.70% 2.09% 10.55%

http://www.censusscope.org/us/s28/chart_popl.html

All states (except Texas) that answered over 90% that the their state is Southern. Their population growth is tremendous, yet it didn't affect the way they viewed their state, So I think you can swash that argument.

• As far as your study being conducted in the 1970's and 60's it states that nowhere, in the text and instead on gives the year 1987 as it's time frame. The Southern Focus study has survey nearly twice as many people, and has been conducted for over a decade, is more recent, is more persistant, and is more accurate. Despite those facts you will still go with your because it leans more towards the way you think, even though the other one clearly more credible.

Your Edit- For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is heavily influenced by Midwestern culture, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is highly Southern in comparison to most of the Midwest, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville.

My Edit- For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [13].

This again shows how hard you're trying to hind the facts that group this state and city in with the South. I cited this claim with a map created by DW Meinings that labels Southern Indiana as more Southern and Northern Kentucky as more Midwestern. Gator who up until recently would only stick to the claim that Northern Ky was more Midwestern and Southern Indiana only had "elements of the South". So to prove his claim wrong I presented a more than credible map coming from this nations most reknown geographer (DW Meinings) that sticks with my claim. just an example of his pure Ignorance.

As far as slavery populations go

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1850_slvden_040701_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1850_slvperc_040701_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slv_041001_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slv_041001_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slvden_040201_400.jpg http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/lincolnimages/us_1860_slvperc_040201_400.jpg

Kentucky may not have had the highest percentage of slaves, as the plantation South did http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_census_1860.htm

The Appalachains have never been blacks areas, mainly to it's infertile soil that couldn't bare crops that slaves were used to harvest. The Southern apalachia region being Eastern Tennessee, all of West Virginia, and Western Virginia were never black and it is slown in my maps [29].

" By 1860 Tennessee's 275,719 slaves represented just under 25 percent of the total population and were engaged in urban, industrial, and agricultural slavery." [30] Tennesse and Kentucky's slave density would have been identical, if it wasn't for the southwestern corner of Tennesse/ Memphis/Southern Mississippi Delta, which was heavily black. The eastern parts of both states were appalachain and sparsely population by blacks.

Mississippi 49% Louisiana 29% Kentucky 23% S.Carolina 46% Texas 28% Arkansas 20% Georgia 37% N. Carolina 28% Missouri 13% Alabama 35% Virginia 26% Maryland 12% Florida 34% Tennessee 25% Delaware 3%

[31]

"The cotton gin allowed the profitable growth of short-staple cotton which would become the antebellum South's pre-eminent market crop. That invention ignited a massive migration of slaveholders away from the Atlantic Coast into Up-Country South Carolina, central and western Georgia, Mississippi, which gained statehood in 1817, and Alabama which became a state in 1819. The result was a dramatic shift in the distribution of the slave population within the South. In 1790 the upper South states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee contained four-fifths of the South's slaves. By 1860 the seven lower South states contained three-fifths of a total slave population of 3,953,760." [32]

"Look at some scholarly experts: Bossism & Reform in Southern City: Lexington, Kentucky, 1880-1940 by Bolin (2000): the title says it all. How about Kentucky Justice, Southern Honor, and American Manhood (2003) by the state's leading historian James C. Klotter. Our Kentucky: A Study of the Bluegrass State edited by James C. Klotter has many references to the state as southern in terms of names, foods, religion, and culture. The famous Kentucky: A Guide to the Bluegrass State. by the WPA Federal Writers' Project 1939. is filled with reference to southerness and none to being Midwestern." Here's a sight stating that Louisvillian Muhammad Ali was the 11th most influenctial Southerner [33]

"Louisville, Kentucky, is an industrial and transportation center of the southeastern United States. Louisville lies on the Ohio River along the northern boundary of Kentucky. It grew up beside the falls of the river, and it is sometimes called the Falls City." [34]

A few sources posted by RJENSEN

Despite Kentucky being "forced" to intregrate, Louisville and Kentucky were losing black population during the Great migration North. Mainly due to Kentucky's push for more segregation and mistreatment of blacks. Lychings were high in Kentucky (higher than the Carolinas and Virginia), which just by looking at the map given earlier one can see that every former slave state has an unusally high lyching rate. Aside from those issues and back onto this topic, You're trying to make everyone think beign being the mediator and I'm being the stubburn mule, But again I included his source in my edit, HE INCLUDES NONE OF MY SOURCES IN HIS!!! So by that rationale who would you is being more compromising. The cold fact remains that the only thing he did to compromise his article in to is this is NOTHING! Louisvillian 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What do your sources add to the cultural variation section? One POV, questionable statement about a "vast majority" of Kentuckians, when my edit already states that "many Kentuckians consider the state to be Southern." By your rationale, you expect to eliminate the balanced nature of my edits, insert your POV commentary, and call it a "compromise" even when my sources directly contradict the usage of terms such as "good majority", etc. So again, to make it clear to all watching this discussion, both of our sources agree fully on the word "many" - both found this - but Louisvillian will insist on pushing all other information out of the way to establish ONE source - his, of course - as the only "true" source of knowledge on the matter, because it presented a majority that he is hell-bent on presenting in the article. In 10th grade English class, students used to learn to avoid superlatives and absolutes when presenting argumentation; are they no longer teaching this practice in America's schools? When two sources disagree on a "majority" but agree on a term such as "many" or "some", how can any sane, rational, and unbiased person believe that it is NOT a common sense compromise to accept the word "many"? To push aside all other sources in an impassioned, one-sided attempt to change the nature of this edit - and all because of the word "majority" - is nothing short of a POV hackjob on this article. --Gator87 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction it states a "good majority of Kentuckians", But you won't even admit that it's the majority of Kentuckians. You claim that both of our sources agree on that the term many, I must disagree. In the Southern Focus study "many" would be Missouri's 23% of their population identifying with the South. Clearly the finding that 79% of Kentuckians or over 3/4th's of Kentuckians identifing with the South would be the majority, a "good" majority. But ya know to analyze your biasness to your opinion, you must hit the history tab on this talk page. Before you found this study you didn't even want to acknowledge the signifigance on 79% of a this state's population identifing with the South, and instead boasted that the other 21% was just as important as the majority. As far as being Hell bent on including this, it's more like the opposite meaning you trying to hind the finding. Again the history tab on this page would clearly show where I have been willing to compromise and incorporate both of our sources here it is

• Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while the vast majority ( have since changed it to a good majority) of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[1] [1] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [2].Louisville, viewed as Midwestern in some analyses ^[2].Louisville is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character. [35]

So with your edit following this one to cancel out my Meining's map and The Southern Focus study's findings, who seems more Hell Bent on proving what, Apparently it's your mission to prove that Kentucky is a Boarder state no more Southern than Missouri or Maryland. I'm not going to fall for your bias vs balance argument, it's nothing more than a mask to hind your true ambitions of labeling this state as a "mixed boarder state" as you so blantly put on my talk page [36] You're making it your goal, to hide any credible source labeling this state as Southern (not Boarder but Southern; though they are countless), and you attempt to do so by introducing some predated hog washed survey. When you send me mesages on my page, stating "Kentucky has been a boarder state for over 150 years", it's quite clear what you're after and or trying to prove, YOU DON"T HAVE ME FOOLED. Louisvillian 02:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly surprised to hear that you don't believe that Kentucky is a Border State - you've been asserting that view since the beginning - and I also really don't care. Kentucky's status as a Border State is such a basic, fundamental, and indisputable fact of elementary school-level American geography that I will not even waste my time discussing it; anybody who will seriously argue that Kentucky is not a Border State is either beyond the point of no return or simply in absolute ignorance about this country's history and geography. If you can provide one single reputable study, a single one, in a peer-reviewed journal that argues decisively that Kentucky is NOT a Border State, I will drop that argument. I'm not worried, because such an analysis does not exist, except on the lunatic fringe. It is true that MO, KY, WV, MD, DE, and OK have different and unique cultural mixes and are not identical replicas of each other, but they are still Border States. Trying to argue otherwise is as pointless as arguing about whether or not green is a color.

You also don't seem to be able to comprehend what "compromise" means, either. When every single study presented here is in agreement that "many" Kentuckians view the state/themselves to be Southern and that "many" Kentuckians view the state/themselves as Midwestern, we've reached another indisputable fact. Instead, you wish to take the viewpoint of one single study - the Southern Focus one - and hold it as sacred, paramount, and above all other information here because of its findings, including my "predated hog washed" peer-reviewed articles. Not a single one of your other verifiable sources says anything about "majorities" or "good majorities" in the state; they simply label it as Southern, a contention that nobody has ever challenged. I'm not talking about polls on UrbanPlanet or SkyscraperCity, before you proceed to post 20 of those here - I'm talking about hard research. Your study found a majority, and mine found a minority; both agree on the term "many." If I had your flawed line of reasoning, I would insist on inserting the phrase "Some studies have found that only a minority of Kentuckians use the term "South" to describe the state" - but I never did this, though my peer-reviewed study found it. As I have shown, there is no shortage of verifiable sources that include Kentucky in the Midwest. You are not fooling anyone else; your actions are POV, and to you "compromise" means "only MY sources matter, and all of YOUR sources are garbage." Added to the fact that your edit added nothing of value to the article and my paragraph, I am not going to allow my sources and edits to be pushed aside to make way for your POV agenda.

--Gator87 03:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

NO NO Gator, Kentucky is a mixed "Southern" state, as is Texas and Virginia. Maryland is a boarder state, Missouri is a boarder state, West Virginia, is a boarder state, and Delware is a boarder state. You want indisputable fact

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx. http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_census_1860.htm http://users.aol.com/cinticwrt/bluegrass.html http://www.unc.edu/depts/csas/more/southernfocus.html

Here I reposted a few credible ones.

When comparing the Southern Focus Study to your predated, less accurate, less persitant one I certainly do hold to a higher merrit than yours, While at the same time I acknowledge your findings that many Kentuckians consider themselves Midwestern and STILL LEAVE UP YOUR SOURCE (you on the other hand can't say the same). Your study found that the South was chosen by the majority of Kentuckians over every other region, and was barely less than half of the population. While my more recent (still being conducted), more persitant and more accurate found that a percent below 80% identify with the South. Acutally if you had my reasoning you would put one study found that Kentuckians identify with the South more than any other region. While another more recent and persistant study conducted by UNC read that 79% of Kentuckians identify with the South.

Again my compromise

• Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while the vast majority ( have since changed it to a good majority) of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[1] [1] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [2].Louisville, viewed as Midwestern in some analyses ^[3].Louisville is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character. [37]

I left in all of your sources and mine, you pushed my sources aside for this

• Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while many Kentuckians consider themselves and their state to be Southern, many others do not readily identify with the South or consider themselves to be "Southern", opting instead for the term "Midwestern" or more neutral regional labels ^[4]. For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is heavily influenced by Midwestern culture, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is highly Southern in comparison to most of the Midwest, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville. Louisville, viewed as Midwestern in some analyses ^[5] and as Southern in others, is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character. [38]

Yet you claim I'm Hell bent on what ever, Well yeah I'am kind of Hell bent on telling the truth. Notice I didn't try to hind anyone of your sources, But instead inserted a finding from my source. You wanting to label this state boarder, would crumble under this compromise. You say that I'm trying tried to push yours aside, apparently my sources were working along side of yours, inserting information from both. Meaning your source found that many Kentuckians may not identify with the South (which I left in), My source stating that 79% identify with the South. AGAIN WHO IS TRYING TO COMPROMISE, and BTW this edit with all of our sources is still on the table. Louisvillian 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"NO NO Gator, Kentucky is a mixed "Southern" state, as is Texas and Virginia. Maryland is a boarder state, Missouri is a boarder state, West Virginia, is a boarder state, and Delware is a boarder state." Truly amazing. Again, to get back to the basics - Kentucky is a Border State, green is a color, and leaves are known to grow on trees. And for the record, it's spelled "Border"...there's no "a" in the word. Or if you'd like to persist and be stubborn, I can provide, say, 8 or 9 dozen scholarly, academic sources that label Kentucky as a Border State; it will take all of 10 minutes to assemble such a list, since approximately 100.0000% of all reputable cultural scholars and geographers are in agreement that Kentucky is a Border State. Of course, you still won't listen. Really, you can shed doubt on the amount of Northern cultural influence in KY all day long, with no problems, because this is and always will be disputed. But when you attempt to say that Kentucky is not a Border State...then, you've lost all credibility, and you're simply not telling the truth anymore. Now, you are entitled to your opinion. But this is just your opinion, and you are dead wrong, as wrong as one can possibly be, in stating that Kentucky is not a Border State. Again, I implore you to back up this asanine opinion by providing a single reputable study that says, beyond doubt, that Kentucky is not a Border State. You can produce plenty of studies that include Kentucky in the South, to varying degrees, but you will never find a respected study or article that negates Kentucky's status as a Border State over the last 150 years. And even if you did somehow find a crackjob scholar who believed this, I could provide 50 times as many sources arguing to the contrary. To be honest, that viewpoint is so far on the fringes that, again, I don't even believe it is worthy of discussion/debate. Even Rjensen, who argued fiercely against the notion of KY as even marginally Midwestern, stated that it is a Border State. In terms of geography, this claim is as ludicrous and insupportable as making that statement that "Colorado is not a Rocky Mountain State."

You have, in your own mind, driven a firm wedge between KY and the other Border States, a wedge that does not exist in reality. Regarding the nature of KY as a Border State, Encyclopædia Britannica clearly states that "Kentucky encompasses a curious mixture of poverty and wealth, ugliness and beauty, North and South...Kentucky life-styles are a little more Southern than those of states north of the Ohio River, but differences are minor and in most cases are the result of smaller populations and a more rural outlook rather than ethnic differences." Accessible at [39]. So is Britannica a "hog wash" source? I suppose so, because it disagrees with your views, and anything that disagrees with your views is either "hog wash", "bullshit", a "mom and pop study", etc. Believe it or not, there is cultural study on the South outside of this one Southern Focus Study...but since much of it conflicts with your narrow-minded view of Kentucky, you choose to ignore it. Why have you not responded to my cites below from The North American Midwest: A Regional Geography that included Kentucky as a Midwestern state? This is one of the premier references for that region. Again, since it is not YOUR view, we must reject it - just as on the Kentucky talk page the phrase "East Central", even though included in dozens of dictionaries and encyclopedias, did not not pass YOUR requirements, so you screamed and moaned to get it replaced before being overturned.

Again, one study, that you wish to establish as paramount to any and all other evidence provided, instead of forming a compromise that is mutually inclusive of ALL verifiable sources. I have NEVER overlooked the Southern Focus Study, because it found that "many" Kentuckians identified as Southerners. Arguing anything else is idiocy. The words "many" and "some" accomplish this, but you will not accept it, again, because you believe that your sources are the only meritorious ones in this discussion. This is not "compromise": this is POV and an attempt to override all other sources - including mine, which disagreed ONLY on terms such as "good majorities".

--70.168.88.158 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets analyze this shall we Kentucky is a border state in the sense that it's "Southern" and borders another region and has traits from that region. However what you are ignorantly asserting is that Kentucky is one with Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia in terms of Southerness. For example on the new map debate, you were the only one opposing the the three tone map, while at the same time acknowledging Kentucky is generally a Southern state; Bigotry. My problem with your argument on Kentucky's regional status is your hypocricy, one minute we're on the same page acknowledging that this state is mostly Southern (this happens mostly when alot of people have joined the debate and have formed the concesus), The next minute you're putting this "mixed boarder state" in my face. Which is it? When someone has to ask you a question like that it's quite clear that your credibility is lost. I don't believe that the numerous dialect maps I have provided, label an area as boarder, either it's in one linguistic zone or the other and in all of my sources Kentucky is in the Southern linguistic zone. On the Historic sources that I have provided, namely the ones involving the Civil War, Quite a few group Kentucky and Tennessee in their own little section, they were the most similar in the most ways. For example the Eastern areas of both states are Appalachain and were very Pro Union. Tennessee was the last state to suceed and was not put into a military district after the war was over. During the war the state was under Union control within a year. The distribution of both states black population were very similar. Kentucky was the only boarder state to vote Democratically during the 1963 elctions. Just to name a few similarities that may have been the cause of this grouping. The cultural maps that I have provided including the one you are so desperately trying to exclude from article created by DW Meinings labels not only this state as Southern, But Southern Indiana and SOutehrn Illinois. Well Gator by all means find these sources that you that you just forgot to show during our earlier debate, It would really help you out, But just prepare for more on my behalf. BTW provide sources that state that Kentucky is CURRENTLY (not Civil War era) a border state (Culturally, not geographically), meaning a Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, or West Virginia.

"We really don't want editing of a serious article by anyone who seems to be unfamiliar with the scholarship on Kentucky --its history, culture, politics and economics. Look at some scholarly experts: Bossism & Reform in Southern City: Lexington, Kentucky, 1880-1940 by Bolin (2000): the title says it all. How about Kentucky Justice, Southern Honor, and American Manhood (2003) by the state's leading historian James C. Klotter. Our Kentucky: A Study of the Bluegrass State edited by James C. Klotter has many references to the state as southern in terms of names, foods, religion, and culture. The famous Kentucky: A Guide to the Bluegrass State. by the WPA Federal Writers' Project 1939. is filled with reference to southerness and none to being Midwestern."

Are you understanding what is being done here Gator, This is a list of state Historians and regionsal Geographers who all categorize this state as Southern, You have found ONE reference. Ironically you claim that on the Midwestern page this is used as a reference, to describe the Midwest, LOL But for some reason the Midwesterners have the questioned the absence of Kentucky from that refernce. One study I presented above list Louisvillian muhammad ali as one of the most influenctiaL SOUTHERNERS!!

As far me holding the more recent, more persistant, and more accurate Southern Focus Study to a higher merrit than your survey, Well I think that just spoke for it's self. The fact that you insist otherwise is another credibility loser for you. Again just a prime example of your stubburness towards your own opinion, is the option I laid out to incorporate all of our sources, But you wanting this state to be diplicted as the appitamy of a border state would again crumble under these circumstances. Then again you can prove me wrong by actually going along with this mroe than reasonalbe compromise. 74.128.200.135 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And again, you ignore my sources; you have no clue what the word "compromise" means, and insist that we take YOUR sources and uphold them as the objective reality. If I were as apparent in my bias and as ignorant about the nature of compromise as you are, I would be insisting on stating that "some studies suggest that only a minority of Kentuckians would identify as Southerners", because I have a study that shows that. Culture is a qualitative measure, not a quantitative one, and it is not determined by one single study. Instead, I chose the middle ground with the word "many" and you swept that compromise aside in favor of your POV analysis. To be clear, I will never accept this mockery of a "compromise", so you can get that out of your head. If I have to pursue this all the way to the level of the arbitration committee so be it, because I am certain that objective outsiders will find that I have found a reasonable middle ground, one that you continually reject. We're talking about TWO WORDS here, and you STILL won't compromise, even though your sources are included! It blows my mind!

Kentucky is a Border State, and green is a color. In location between North and South, behavior in the Civil War (and before), and subsequent culture for the last 140 years, Kentucky is a Border State. In your mind, Border State = non-Southern; not true. That's your definition, and again, you want us to accept it as some type of dogma, though you have provided no sources - not a single one - that argue that Kentucky is not a Border State. This whole "Southern-Border" dichotomy is a figment of your imagination. You have provided sources that label Kentucky as Southern, but none (reputable ones at least, I'm not talking about PBS surveys or votes on CityData.com) that attack its status as a Border State. Kentucky has a heavy Southern element, and I'll be the first to acknowledge heavier than any of the other Border States, but it is still a Border State - many call it the "quintessential Border State", in fact. You won't find sources that argue that Kentucky is a "non-Border State of the South." In the meantime:

1. Fenton, John H (Book): Politics In The Border States: A Study Of The Patterns Of Political Organization, And Political Change, Common To The Border States -- Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky And Missouri. - Hauser Press

Preface: "THIS BOOK is concerned with four of the Border States: Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland. These four were selected because they are contiguous and are typical of the Border State region. In terms of political behavior, the Border States are interesting for their own sakes, resting as they do between North and South and thus providing something of a battleground where the two cultures vie for supremacy." Page 58: "KENTUCKY is a Border State. As such, the political environment is unique, partaking as it does of elements of the cultures of both North and South."

2. Miller, Penny M. (Book): Kentucky Politics & Government: Do We Stand United? - University of Nebraska Press

Page 3: "Only one state stands where Kentucky stands, and geography and a profoundly local historic character shape Kentucky's distinctive political culture. This is the paradigm border state, lying just below the Mason-Dixon line and stretching from the Allegheny Mountains to the Mississippi River." Page 20: "The political history of Kentucky is a battleground for conflicting wider forces and is dominated by its own divisions. Kentucky's "border state" status is more than geographical."

3. Kesselman, Louis C. (Journal article): "Negro Voting in a Border Community: Louisville, Kentucky" - The Journal of Negro Education.

Page 273: "A survey of Negro voting in Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, and West Virginia would help round out our knowledge of Negro voting in the United States...the Southern system of suffrage barriers is virtually unknown in the Border States...Louisville is a fairly typical Border city." Page 274; "The Midwestern influence upon [Louisville] has been demonstrated by its success in desegregating its University and private colleges, public and parochial schools, public libraries, parks, swimming pools, and golf courses without incident."

4. Orfield, Gary and Lee, Chungmei (Article): "New Faces, Old Patterns? Segregation in the Multiracial South" - The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, accessible online at [40]

Page 8: "Our definition of the regions as is follows...South: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; Border: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, and West Virginia" Page 13: "Black students in Delaware and Kentucky, two states which enacted city-suburban desegregation, encounter less racial isolation in their schools than their peers in the 14 other states [of the South]." Page 15: "...most of the states with the highest levels of segregation are in the Deep South, many of which had begun resegregating since the lifting of desegregation court orders. In places that upheld the desegregation orders, such as Louisville in Kentucky, desegregation levels remain high. Kentucky has the lowest segregation levels for black students among the Southern and Border states, with more than three quarters of the students attending majority white schools and zero percent of the black students attending intensely segregated minority (more than 90% minority) schools."

Again, I cannot even believe, really, that one could expect to rationally challenge Kentucky's status as a Border State. It is nonsense, it is a flat out, blatant denial of 150 years of history and culture, and if you expected us to believe that you are NPOV, making a claim along these lines has erased any fragments of credibility that you may have left. I would sugggest that you return to discussing your edits under Cultural Variations, because continuing to say that "Kentucky is not a Border state" isn't going to get you anywhere. That's simply not in accordance with reality, and it's not even debatable.

--Gator87 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But most of all I think I want you to know this: that as we come to what is really a State which is at once an Eastern State--it is in the eastern time zone--it is the first State west of the Appalachians, as you know, to become a State of the Union; it is a Southern State, as we all know, and yet it is the birthplace of both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. And I really feel that here in Kentucky we are in the heart of America and we are mighty happy to be here. [41]

in Kentucky, "which as no one will deny, is a Southern state"; [42]

Kentucky is a Southern state, and she is a Western state [43]

Kentucky is a southern state with a rural tradition. Differences in economic development parallel structural cleavages in manufacturing, agriculture, and [44]

In Kentucky, a SOUTHERN border state, incumbent Democratic Governor Paul Patton won an easy reelection over a token and poorly financed Republican opponent. [45]

Kentucky might be characterized further as be longing to the Old South. [46]

Being a state of Southern traditions with its major cultural, family, and social heritage having come from Virginia, Kentucky nevertheless knew a tremendous love for the old union and was the last to give up hope for a compromise in the Clay tradition. [47] The word Kentucky describes a

southern state of the United States of America, and I believe this fact would be generally well known amongst the UK public.[48]

BBC's Kentucky Minstrels - This popular radio show was a blackface minstrel series produced by Harry S. Pepper and broadcast by the British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) from 1933-1950. The show was an exaggerated depiction of African Americans in the "good ole days" of plantation life in the U. S. South (Kentucky), accentuated with the use of stereotyped racist and sexist humor. The main character acts were played for many years by three African Americans who had left the United States for the entertainment business in England: Isaac "Ike" F. Hatch (c. 1891-1961), Harry Scott (1879-1947), and Eddie Whaley (1886-1961). Hatch was a trained vocalist and songwriter who had been a member of the W. C. Handy Orchestra. He moved to England in 1925. Scott and Whaley had worked together as a comic act touring the United States; they went to England in 1909. [49]

Thesis, Finding Voice for the Lyric Theater: an Oral History (pdf); Brazley and Brazley Inc., the unpublished Research for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Survey and History of the Lyric Theatre; G. A. Waller, Main Street Amusements: movies and commercial entertainment in a Southern city, 1896-1930; articles in the Lexington newspapers: the Herald, the Leader, and the Lexington Herald-Leader; and H. T. Sampson, The Ghost Walks; a chronological history of blacks in show business, 1865-1910 [50]

South Before the War (1891) - This Louisville, KY, production was the first of three set in the South. Produced by whites, the play featured a company of both black and white players. John Whallen and Herman Wallum (alias Harry or Henry Martell), who took the production to New York City, managed the show. For more see A History of African American Theatre by E. Hill and The South Before the War Company Papers at Yale University.

Hawkins, William L. - 1895-1990. Hawkins was born on a farm near Lexington, KY. His maternal grandmother, Mary Scudder, raised him. As a young man, he was a trapper and a horse trainer, but when his girlfriend became pregnant, he was sent to live in Ohio. He began to paint when he was 80 years old; his materials came from junk piles and throwaway material at construction sites. Hawkins also collected photographs that were used in his work. One of his signature techniques was to paint a frame around his work that included his name and the place and date of his birth. For more see Souls Grown Deep: African American vernacular art of the South, vol. 1, by P. Arnett and W. Arnett.

University of Louisville - According to Billy Reed, Executive Director for Communications at the Kentucky Commerce Cabinet, the 1979-80 University of Louisville men's basketball team was the first team to win a national basketball championship with an all-African American starting lineup since Texas Western defeated the University of Kentucky in 1966. The U of L starters was Darrell Griffith, Rodney McCray, Derek Smith, Wiley Brown, and Jerry Eaves. For more see the Commerce Cabinet Press release dated 02/21/05, "Super Bowl MVP Deion Branch Represents Pinnacle of Proud African-American Athletic Tradition at U of L: Cards a Leader in Integrating Southern Sports."

Atwood, Rufus B. - 1897-1983. Born in Hickman. Sixth president of Kentucky State College; led school to become a four-year accredited college; revised and expanded programs. Atwood's papers are located at Kentucky State University. For more see A Black Educator in the Segregated South by Gerald Smith

Foreign Labor - At the close of the Civil War, Kentucky and other southern states were faced with a labor shortage. The slaves were free and labor stabilization was an ongoing issue. Plantation owners across the South led the movement to bring in foreign labor, claiming it was necessary because paying wages for Negro labor had made the Negro prone to laziness and unreliability. Foreign laborers were sought from the North, Europe, and China. Approximately 3,500 persons, including a small contingency of Chinese immigrants, came to Kentucky, most settling in Louisville. It was not nearly enough to address the labor shortage, however. For more information see A History of Kentucky by T. D. Clark; and R. T. Birthoff, "Southern Attitudes Toward Immigration, 1865-1914," The Journal of Southern History, vol. 17 (3), Aug. 1951, pp. 328-360.

African American Librarians - Kentucky was the first state in the South to have trained African American librarians and was also the first to have a library training program for African American librarians (1912-1931). The highest number of African American librarians employed in Kentucky was recorded in 1980, when the number was estimated to be 161. The lowest estimate was 4 for the year 2000.For more see the Bureau of the Census 1980 & 2000 EEO Data Files and Library Service to African Americans in Kentucky by R. F. Jones

A History of Blacks in Kentucky. Volume I: From Slavery to Segregation, 1760-1891. by Marion B. Lucas A History of Blacks in Kentucky. Volume II: In Pursuit of Equality, 1890-1980. by George C. Wright Review author[s]: Broadus B. Jackson The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 60, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 369-371 [51]

In the 1820s the bright tobacco leaves of North Carolina and eastern Virginia, and later Kentucky and middle Tennessee, were cured by using enclosed smoking-sawdust fires to dry the tobacco hung in small barns. Although the modern method of flu-curing tobacco using charcoal heat was invented in 1839 in North Carolina, this method was not widely used until after the Civil War. [52]

10. Woodrow Wilson 11. Muhammad Ali 12. Hank Williams 13. Sam Walton 14. Bill Clinton 15. Tennessee Williams 16. Ted Turner 17. Huey Long 18. Booker T. Washington ;South Polls The Twenty Most Influential Southerners of the Twentieth Century John Shelton Reed [Figures[53]

"See The Kentucky Encyclopedia by John E. Kleber, Thomas D. Clark, Lowell H. Harrison, and James C. Klotter (1992) and The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia by Richard Sisson, Christian Zacher, and Andrew R. L. Cayton (2007). Note the maps that always put Kentucky to the South of the Midwest.

Kentucky Justice, Southern Honor, and American Manhood (2003) by the state's leading historian James C. Klotter. Our Kentucky: A Study of the Bluegrass State edited by James C. Klotter has many references to the state as southern in terms of names, foods, religion, and culture. The famous Kentucky: A Guide to the Bluegrass State. by the WPA Federal Writers' Project 1939"

[54] A map of the Old South, showing the percentage of slaves in each county. clicking on it will enlarge the area the mouse is focusing on. BTW Orleans parish is less black than Jefferson county.

Again my compromise

Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while the vast majority ( have since changed it to a good majority) of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[1] [1] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [2].Louisville, viewed as Midwestern in some analyses [3].Louisville is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character. [28]

How in the Hell is this not compromising? I'm including all 4 of our sources, I left all of your wording in that made reference to your sources. The only thing added in my edit is the finding from the Southern Focus study. Why in the Hell do you have such a problem with keeping this in the article? Please tell which of your sources I'm canceling out. You have provded no sources claiming the state is boarder attacking it's Southern status. As far as me I think the constant reference to the South and this state being apart of it is, is clearly labing what it is, SOUTHERN. Again Kentucky is a state that was border during the Civil War, and is apart of the South and borders another regional and has some of that regions traits, But your assertion that it's just as Southern as Missouri and Maryland is false. Just so you remember the Southern Focus study does not list Kentucky in the border region, But labels it as a head on Southern state. [55]. Again your refusal to go along with this compromise, is just showing your true ambitions, is not to balance the sources, But be bias towards your own opinion (that Kentucky is a border state). If you can actually rationally explain what you're trying to do please tell, But from what I'm seeing you're saying I'm unwilling to compromise, because I insert the findings of the Southern Focus Study stating that 79% of Kentukians identify with the South. I include that your study states many Kentuckians might not identify with the South. However as far as your reasoning goes, you claim that this truely cannot be measured, in yet you claim that you can say a minority of Kentuckians identifty with the South. Depite the 3% range that would clearly reverse it the findings from your study. On the other hand my study shows that no where near half and instead is the vast majority of Kentuckians identifying with the South. However me trying to compromise, I put a good majority of Kentuckians identify with the South, But reguardless of what put you just don't want the finding that it's the majority of the population in the article at all, which coincides with your need to group this state in with the border states. Louisvillian 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat, again, because you have to repeat simple facts 20 times before you get them: There is NOT a dichotomy between "Border States" and "Southern states" - ALL of the Border States are referred to as Southern in some definitions. As I said, I'll be the first to acknowledge that Kentucky is the most Southern of the Border States - but it is still a Border State. You provided sources that label Kentucky as a Southern state, but not a single source that question the notion that it is a Border State. Again, you won't find any; if I am "biased" for acknowledging that Kentucky is a Border State, then so are approximately 100.00% of cultural scholars and American geographers, because they all acknowledge that Kentucky is a Border State of the South-North. It is not an "either-or" choice, with the choices being "Southern" or "Border" - that's a notion that only exists in your head. I just wanted one credible source, a single one, arguing that Kentucky is not a Border State, and you can't produce it. Meanwhle I have Britannica, the scholarly literature, academic journals, and good old fashioned common sense stating that Kentucky is a Border State, sources that you can't logically deny (though I am impressed that you didn't label them as "hog wash" or "bullshit" this time...we're making progress!). Showing that Kentucky is Southern in many definitions does not remove its status as a Border State. And seriously, your first source is a quote from Richard Nixon of all people. And no, culture is not a quantitative measure, which is precisely why I have insisted on the word "many". I did not insert the phrase "some studies suggest that only a minority of Kentuckians may identify as Southerners", even though the Changing Usage study found just that. From the very beginning, I avoided absolutes and superlatives to be fair and balanced in this discussion, because even among scholars the culture of Kentucky is a contentious issue. And to be as blunt as I possibly can, I really don't give a damn as to what you think about the Changing Usage study; you cannot spell "border" correctly, and you expect us to elevate your personal opinions to hold as much weight as a peer-reviewed study, written by a professor of geography, and published in a prestigious academic journal? Unimaginable. Call the study "hog wash", "mom and pop", or whatever else you wish to; this does nothing to diminish the merit of the study, but does make your already highly evident bias shine through brightly. You do not desire a "balance" in the treatment of Kentucky; you want us to view the state as the Province of North Georgia, and to hell with any sources that argue otherwise! If I were so incredibly intent on removing Kentucky from the South, again, why in the world would I have not removed the phrase "many Kentuckians consider the state to be Southern" - which was recognized by ALL of our sources? Furthermore, the very last section of my edit - While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character - was added, by me, specifically to balance the heavy Midwestern influence in the Triangle with the rest of the state. Again, would I have added this phrase were I so hell-bent on removing Kentucky from the South? No! I have presented a balanced analysis of the state, and you have shown us all repeatedly - not just in this discussion - that balance is the last thing that you desire when talking about Kentucky.

As far as my personal beliefs, which you seem to question, I will accept Kentucky as either Southern or Midwestern, but always, always a Border State. This discussion has shown that there are no shortage of sources that place Kentucky in either of the two regions. I believe, through my personal experiences and studies of the state, that it is one of the South, and I have never challenged its inclusion in the South as a Border State. No (sane) people ever question the notion that Kentucky is a Border State, but calling it "Southern" will offend many Southern purists, as TexasReb notes, just as calling it "Midwestern" will many offend Midwestern purists, such as Rjensen. I am not a regional/geographical purist, and I think that the purists are idiots. In fact, in the early days of this page the sole map of the South included all Southern states, including OK, MO, KY, MD, WV, and DE, as the same color and status. That map was changed because many people (and just check the history if you don't believe me) viewed these states - including KY - as only marginally Southern.

Your edits added nothing of value to my contributions (and seriously, they were flagrantly grammatically incorrect) because all of our sources come to the consensus that many Kentuckians view themselves as Southern, and many Midwestern. You chose the ONE questionable point, the phrase "good majority" that is ONLY supported by one single study of yours, and attempted to shove it in, at the detriment and total exclusion of my studies. As both Stevietheman and TexasReb have acknowledged, I am going out of my way to negotiate and be reasonable here, even to the point of debating this purely idiotic notion that Kentucky is not a Border State.

--Gator87 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gator the fact remains that you continue to call this state a border state, But you still claim that it's more Southern than Midwestern. You claim that you were the first to comply with the proposal to label Kentucky as a generally Southern state, now here are stating that it's border along with Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and Missouri. HYPOCRICY. The fact is that they label this state as nothing more than Southern. I have provided books authored by rural Kentucky African Americans, who describe their up bringing IN THE SOUTH. There is no differentiation between Kentucky and the rest of the South, they're not border, not mixed, But SOUTHERN. Hell I've even provided a link by the Southern Focus studies findings that ranks Louisvillian Muhammad Ali as the 11th most influential SOUTHERNER (that is obviously attacking the border status) WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING about I along with RJENSEN have provided more scholars, Geographers, and Historians who label this state as Southern than you can ever dream of finding that label this state as anything other.

Look at some scholarly experts: Bossism & Reform in Southern City: Lexington, Kentucky, 1880-1940 by Bolin (2000): the title says it all. How about Kentucky Justice, Southern Honor, and American Manhood (2003) by the state's leading historian James C. Klotter. Our Kentucky: A Study of the Bluegrass State edited by James C. Klotter has many references to the state as southern in terms of names, foods, religion, and culture. The famous Kentucky: A Guide to the Bluegrass State. by the WPA Federal Writers' Project 1939. is filled with reference to southerness and none to being Midwestern.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-3822?articleTypeId=1 Kentucky is apart of Upper South according to Britannica

I mean are you serious all you're doing is repeating the source of your information, as if it holds so merrit over mines. Than in two of your sources I have found text that state that Kentucky is a "Southern state". If your going to hold your sources above my own at least give an explanation as to why you're debumping my sources, rather than repeat where they came from. I can do the same damn thing, only my list would be much larger than your own. I have also provided a quote by Abraham lincoln, in which he states this state is indeed a Southern one. Then this still doesn't include the linguistic maps I have provided that while every other "border state" with the exception of the Kentucky and the Southern half of West Virginia are included in Northern regions.

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx. or the cultural maps and the Mening's map obviously being the most credible map http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/Spartanburger/thesouth.jpg http://www.popvssoda.com/countystats/KY-stats.html

Then when ever you're at a lost of words you insist that I'm trying to make Kentucky out as the long lost sister of Georgia! Which just goes to show that you have a narrow perception of the South. You tend to pigeon Hold the region into Georgia and Alabama, while forgetting about Tennessee and Virginia. While you hold Missouri and Southern Ohio as the quentessential Midwestern states. Another thing I'm noticing is you calling Missouri a "border state" instead of saying what the state really is Midwestern!!!! I could have an army of St.Louisians and people from KC who ready for war at the mentioning of that statement. This goes to show that the region known as the "Border state" is long gone. Missourians most indentify with the Midwest, Maryland residentis most identify with the Northeast, Kentuckians most identify with the South and always have.

The damn fact that you won't even acknowledge that a predated one year study holds less merrit that a fuckin decade long, much more persistant, and more accurate, study shows how biased you are to your own damn opinion that's it's worthless to debate with you otherwise. It's imply Freakin logic and apparently your to biased to see it. Then with this changing usage study, Are you aware that when you say "some studies" you referring to either a study conducted for one year in 1987, or another one that has been conducted for over a decade now and is still being conducted. The Southern Focus study which has been conducted for over a decade now found that 79% (no where near half) of Kentuckians identify with the South. Your study found that 47% of Kentuckians identify with the South (which logically has a larger margin of error) while the other 63% of the population was split between three other regions. You despite this you refuse to admit that it's much more likely that a good majority of Kentuckians identify with the South.

Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while the vast majority ( have since changed it to a good majority) of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[1] [1] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [2].Louisville, viewed as Midwestern in some analyses [3].Louisville is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character. [28]

I don't understand how and how you can argue against a this compromise that includes both of our sources. The fact that you're fighting so damn hard to exclude the both of my sources, which include a Meining's map and the finding that 79% of Kentuckians identify with the South, obivously shows that you're trying to hide information from the viewing public. Your ignorance bias vs balance satance ins nothing more than an excuse for you to use your information and only your information to label this state as the predated term of border. I repeat it's nothing more than a disguise put on by yourself to present a false message of neutrality. As far as the it has been proven both sources are just as plentiful, stating that Kentucky is either Midwestern or Southern, I'd say Get the Hell out here. The only credible source that you have provided that states this, The Agro-Industrial Revolution in the American Midwest, which was used to counter about 8-10 credible sources presented by RJENSEN. That's exactly what he ment when he said not too many historians and Georgraphers consider Kentucky as the Midwest, just the number of sources provided to state Kentucky is Southern proves this.

Louisvillian 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You still don't understand that there is no "Border State - Southern state" dichotomy, never will, don't understand the word "compromise", never will, and still expect to curse, act like a baby, and expect the rest of us to bow over to your sources and viewing on things, because you've been able to do this on other sites. No. Get that out of your mind

Kentucky is a Border State. As I was the first to acknowledge, it is the most Southern of the Border States, but still a Border State. You haven't provided a single source that says otherwise. I will repeat, again (though you can't understand it), that providing sources that label Kentucky as "Southern" do not discredit its status as a Border state.

And again, you don't understand that culture is a qualitative, not quantitative, measure. I don't care. Or that there is no one study that serves as an irrefutable point of reference for a region. To that end, if you insist on having the 79% figure in the article, so be it. I'll just balance it out with other sources that argue otherwise. Whether doing this or using the word "many", the results are the same in either event.

As for my sources, every single one has come from a university, encyclopedia, or academic journal on this page...so, again, I really could care less what you, in your eternal omnipotence, think about them. When on my side I have dozezns of such cites, including Britannica which states that cultural differences between Kentucky and states north of the Ohio are "minor", I really don't feel the need to substantiate myself to Internet trolls.

--Gator87 05:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Then, of course, there is the fact that 2% of Marylanders call themselves Southerners (for Delaware the figure is 0%)."

comment made by yourself

Yet you're claiming that Kentucky's 47% identifying with the South (was damn near half; which was the largest chunk of the pie) ultimately labels it as border state!! You continue to proclaim that Kentucky is the most Southern "border state", rather than just say it is a mixed "Southern state" (which you had no problem admitting when the concensus was going against your opinion on the last talk page). You then rant below about Maryland and the Mason Dixon Line, saying that it's "dead", THE TERM BORDER STATE IS DEAD!!! Missouri is clearly a Midwestern state, yet you continue to claim that it is "border". While it does have Southern influence the state as a whole is Midwestern NOT BORDER. Well you seem to be doing a good job labeling Maryland and Delaware off as Northeastern in your rants below, in which you are further tearing the term border into pieces. Well if you feel Kentucky or Virginia are not "Southern states" and would rather lump them into a dead category of mixed states that have overwhelmingly chosen to be in one main region (while some states may have signifigant opposition the good majority has spoken), than go ahead and feel free to think this.

If you feel that sources that while not acknowledging the term border, BUt rather states that Kentucky is Southern or is "THE SOUTH" (with no differienation between Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, or Alabama) and does not at all go against your argument then feel free to think that way. Rather than seeing it as a source that just refers to Kentucky as "THE SOUTH" and nothing less, then again it's your opinion and I will not/can not fight it.

I agree with you that the exact percentage of the 4.2 million Kentuckians opinion of the issue will never be determined, But the Southern Focus Study has come damn close, with a 3.6 margin of error. There is also a map created by the most reknown expert in the field, that can shed some sort of insight as to where cultures overlap and are the strongest. On that map Kentucky with the exception of the area immediately bordering Kentucky is well within the Southern cultural boundary. The map also shows that Southern Indiana and Southern Illinois/little Egypt is more Southern than Midwestern. If you personally choose I could care less.

]http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg\

Well I really wasn't debumping your most recent studies, all except for two (in which you really couldn't spare) that state that "Kentucky is a Southern state". Despite Britanica stating that their is minor cultural difference between Kentucky and the Northern/Midwestern states, they still didn't place Kentucky in with those state..HHMMMM instead they labeled Kentucky in with the South and more specifaclly the Upper South, while not following the Census Bureau Definition and including Maryland and Delaware. I again must say that the number of reliable sources you've found (LOL that actally state what you claim they do) cannot compare to the number of mine. As far as the article's concern I'm fine with your/My NEW compromise that includes all of our sources and information. The only problem is this shady editing of the Meining's cultural map that I continue to notice is dissapearing. The claim that Southern Indiana is more Southern and Visa versa for Northern Ky and the Midwest is verified with the Meining's map presented and there is no reasonable explanation to remove it, But that's my piece on this whole situation, we for the most part have settled the article dispute.

Louisvillian 04:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you, in your eternal wisdom, have swept away the notion of Border States, while not a single historian or cultural scholar agrees with you. Good work! When history rewrites itself - i.e., Kentucky joins the Confederacy, becomes a Dixiecrat bastion, segregates as viciously as Alabama/Georgia/Arkansas, is never included in the Midwest in any sources, and has 90%+ of its population identify with the South in credible sources - well, then you'll be able to attract some believers to your asanine worldview. Until then, the rest of us aren't going for it. You're a foul-mouthed obstructionist troll, and with comments like that, patently ignorant when it comes to culture, one who was spelling "border" with an "a" up until recently.

And again, you want your sources to trump everything else, to match your worldview. So, I just balanced them by mentioning other analyses of Southern Indiana and Northern Kentucky, because, believe it or not, there is not one universal analysis of those Border regions. Shocking, I know! But balance, in dealing with these regions, is key. Because they sit at points where cultures collide, the only people who believe that there is "one" true view of them are the bigots, and hopefully Wikipedia won't become a ground for bigots to lay out their agendas anytime soon.

--Gator87 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well to start off I like the extra information that you put into the article, I think it gives it more dept.

LMAO If a spelling error is going to be your main argument to discredit my sources than at the end of the day it's your ignorance that is shown.

"I-think-it's-Two-Hundred-Years-Ago-And-So-I'm-Going-To-Base-Logic-On-The-Political-Realities-Of-1860-Syndrome"

Funny how you can disregaurd the signifigance of the Mason Dixon line because of how long ago it's prominence was but at the same time you hold the fact that Kentucky was for five years out of it's 300 year history considered a "Border state", rather than being called what it was before the war "Southern".You are quick to refer to those three states (or Deep Southern states in general) while totally ignoring the mild (in comparison) attitude towards desegregation found in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia which was much like Kentucky's. You are quick to compare Kentucky's less abrasive attitude towards desgregation to Georgia and Arkansas, But neglect the fact that this hostile attitude towards this action was almost nonexistant in the North.Ordinances were even proposed in Louisville to restrict blacks to certain neighborhoods, This extreme was again found nowhere in the North. You forget facts like Kentucky was a state that had one of the nations highest lyching rates (higher than Virginia, and North Carloina) which was a darker Southern characteristic [56]. All of these discriminatory actions eventually led to the Great Migration of blacks leaving "THE SOUTH" (as my sources so frankly put it) and Kentucky along with Louisville loss black population along with the rest of the South. While the "border state" of Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland gained from the South's loss.

"Not many historians, geographers or state experts call Kentucky Midwestern." That has truely been shown in this debate when 8-10 more than creidble sources have been presented to claim Kentucky is Southern or is "THE SOUTH" while you may provide one credible source to claim it's Midwestern.

Your argument my friend is Hypocritical and full of Bigotry, and changes stances in state according to the concensus.

Louisvillian 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

John H. Garland verdict: Kentucky in the Midwest region

I would now like to present evidence from a widely cited study of the Midwest (it is actually included on the Wikipedia page for the Midwest as a source. This is The North American Midwest: A Regional Geography JOHN H. GARLAND, Department of Geography University of Illinois, 1955. Before I summarize this information, I would like to, once again, emphasize strongly that I have never argued for the notion of Kentucky as a "primarily" Midwestern state; however, editors such as Rjensen and Louisvillian have viciously attacked the notion that there is any type of a link between this state and the Midwest, so I find it highly important to find sources that strongly link the state to the Midwest, or flat out include it in the Midwest. Fortunately, this is not difficult to do.

In the preface, Garland states that "The Midwest is definitely a nodal region with a clearly defined structure. It consists of an inner zone of several diverse regions, in one of which is embedded the second largest metropolitan core in the country, surrounded by a periphery of several diverse regions in which lies the indistinctly defined regional boundary." Again here and consistent in the scholarly literature is the notion of the Midwest's boundaries as difficult to delineate; while there is little doubt that the "core" of the region is centered around Chicago, the "beginning" and "end" of the Midwest are not easily established. While the regional purists and the bigots wish to use the Ohio River as the sort of "magical cut-off" for the region, the academic literature suggests otherwise.

In a table on page 7 of the work regarding coal production in the Midwest, Garland includes the following in his defintion: Western Pennsylvania West Virginia Ohio Kentucky (divided, in the table, into E. Kentucky and W. Kentucky) Indiana Illinois Michigan Wisconsin Minnesota Iowa Missouri Kansas Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

On page 19, regarding the climate: "Over the entire Midwest, summers are warm, and, during the hottest weather, regional contrasts are often surprisingly small. Indeed, the highest temperatures experienced are almost as great in North Dakota (with a record of 121°) as in Kansas (122°) and are higher than in Kentucky (114°). Central Michigan has occasionally been as hot as Kentucky..."

On page 24: "The month of most frequent occurrence of tornadoes in the Midwest shows a progressively northwestward shift ( Fig. 16 ). In March tornadoes are most frequent in Kentucky, in May in Illinois, in June in Wisconsin, and in July in North Dakota."

On page 29: "The density of rural settlement in the Midwest is relatively uniform. Except for variations toward the margins and certain isolated "islands" of population density, most of the region has 5 to 25 persons per square mile. The density is greatest in the southeast where considerable portions of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and lower Michigan have 25 to 50 persons per square mile."

On page 53, in the footnotes: "[The Midwest] here defined for statistical purposes to include the East North Central and West North Central groups of states, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, plus the states of West Virginia and Kentucky." A table on page 54 includes the entire states of Kentucky and West Virginia in a tabulation of Midwestern income.

On page 63: "Among these outlying cities, food-products specialization, including extensive distilling in Peoria and Louisville, is greater than elsewhere in the Midwest."

There are dozens of other relevant citations in that book, but I picked just a few in the name of space. The book is available at Questia.com and through libraries; I am attemtping to locate a free version of it online, though I am not sure if it is available. According to the index, Kentucky is mentioned on 21 separate pages in this book; Louisville on 11 pages; and Covington twice (though Covington is mentioned many more times in the context of Cincinnati.) According to Rjensen, "no" scholars of the Midwest touch the state. How many more citations from highly reputable sources do I need to provide before the thinly veiled ignorance and unsubstantiable bias of this argument becomes apparent? If this does not substantiate my edits to the Cultural Variations section, I can hardly imagine what will be convincing enough for the likes of Louisvillian and Rjensen, short of the Census Bureau relocating the state - and even then, I dare say, given the strength of their opinions and biases, that they would not be moved. And to think, all of this "controversy" is because of an edit stating that "many" Kentuckians consider themselves and their state to be Midwestern - something that should be clear by now, just as many consider themselves and the state to be Southern! I cannot fathom an alternative view. --Gator87 10:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A Texan's viewpoint

>>I think a lot of us have sorta stayed out of this one, hoping that the Kentuckians will settle the dispute amongst themselves. Personally, as a Texan, I don't have a "dog in the fight", yet, as my own native state is also one with variations in culture and such, I have followed the thread (as best as possible) with a lot of interest, and certainly a respect for the parties involved in the disagreement. And by extention, without coming down solidly on either side, see merits in both sides.

>>With that said -- and if indeed other editors are being asked to offer opinions -- and again, emphasizing my absolute respect and regard for those involved and the cases stated, I believe that Gator is attempting to be very reasonable in all this.

>>I have found nothing in his arguments that state to the contrary that Kentucky is mostly regarded as a Southern state...pretty much in the same class as Texas and Virginia (although yes, with natural historical differences and varying answers to the two surveys).

>>I don't say this lightly, and it was with a lot of thought that I even decided to comment at all. Anyway, as a Texan and layman of Southern studies, I often have found myself passionately arguing the case for its "Southerness" with "purist" friends/distant cousins in the Deep South who exclude any state but Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina! LOL Sooooo, I very much empathize with where Louisvillian is coming from. At the same time, it would be foolish of me (and fooling myself) to say that Texas is a twin of Alabama.

>>Now, I hasten to add I am not suggesting Louisvillian is doing anything of the sort as concerns the matter at hand, but just to put forth my own credentials and past experience in similar controversies. In fact, I can't OVERSTATE how impressed I am with Louisvillian's meticulous research and all. (BTW--I am still a novice in many ways to Wikipedia, and got your messages, but not sure how I can reply..can you give me some guidence on this?)

>>I am going to back out now, but just wanted to make a few observations that, admittedly, other than saying I think Gator is doing the best he can to compromise, doesn't really solve anything either... TexasReb 16:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and duly noted. I would encourage any others who are considering contributing to check the "Cultural Variations dispute" thread...this discussion has never been about the primary geographic region of KY, but instead, it is about an incredibly small difference in two versions of a paragraph, one using absolutes and superlatives such as "most" and "good majorities", and the other (mine) attempting to compromise with words like "many" and "some."

--Gator87 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky in other encyclopedias - seen as a Border State

I wanted to consolidate some of the information posted in this and other discussions regarding how Kentucky is represented in other encyclopedias (unfortunately, most of them are pure pay sites.) Here are some brief excerpts from three that are at least partially free:

1. Encarta, accessible at [57]

Kentucky, state in the east central United States, bordering the Ohio River…Located on the border between the historical U.S. regions of the North and the South…

2. Britannica, accessible at [58]

Actually, Kentucky encompasses a curious mixture of poverty and wealth, ugliness and beauty, North and South…Kentucky life-styles are a little more Southern than those of states north of the Ohio River, but differences are minor and in most cases are the result of smaller populations and a more rural outlook rather than ethnic differences…

3. Columbia Encyclopedia, accessible through [59]

Kentucky (kəntŭk`ē, kĭn–), one of the so-called border states…Antislavery agitation had begun in the state in the late 18th cent... Soon Kentucky, like other border states, was torn by conflict over the slavery issue.

Again, note the lack of superlative/absolute statements when speaking about the state. If not directly by the phrase "Border State", most references will treat the state as a mixed, transitional area. --Gator87 14:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Southern States

Any slave state at the time of the Civil War, so:

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia. Here is a regional map of the United States:

Southern United States

I liked the map posted by the last user, with a few changes. Here they are:

Now, to clarify my opinions, let me say a few things:

Kentucky

KENTUCKY IS A SOUTHERN STATE IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORLD AND TO SAY OTHERWISE IS ALMOST INCONCEIVABLY RIDICULOUS.

There is simply no justification for calling Kentucky a border state. Too many people on this site are living in 1861. Take your heads out of your rear-ends and look around; Kentucky is obviously Southern, per endless polls and studies cited in this page.

A STATE SECEDING OR NOT SECEDING IN 1861 DOES NOT MATTER IN 2007. Culture, not arbitrary political borders, define region. Come back to planet Earth.

Oklahoma

A slave territory in 1861 (not that that should have any significance at all here), Oklahoma was long thought of as Western but has slowly morphed into part of the South (Carrie Underwood, an Oklahoman and country-music icon, is testament to this). Solidly Red and Evangelical, has essentially the same culture as neighboring Arkansas (which I intensely hope we can all agree is Southern).

Oklahoma should not be striped on the map.

Maryland and Delaware

Once again, it seems that many contributors are suffering from "I-Think-It's-Two-Hundred-Years-Ago-And-So-I'm-Going-To-Base-My-Logic-On-The-Political-Realities-Of-1860-Syndrome."

Yes, Maryland and Delaware were both slave states--halfway through the 19th Century. If I have to hear the saying "Mason-Dixon Line" one more time I am literally going to scream. GET OVER THE MASON-DIXON LINE. Throw it out the window. It's dead. The Mason-Dixon Line hasn't been relevant since the moment Maryland failed to secede in 1861, and now it is merely an imaginary border that lies between three states of almost identical culture.

Maryland and Delaware are both EXTREMELY NORTHERN. Baltimore is a huge city with heavy industry, much of which leaks into Delaware. Delaware itself has become Philadelphia's driveway. Overwhelming majorities in both states live in urban areas (most dramatically in Maryland). Add to that, Maryland is one of the Bluest states in the entire Union, more stalwartly Democratic than even Connecticut and Rhode Island. The accent, the food, the religion, all of it points to the North. Then, of course, there is the fact that 2% of Marylanders call themselves Southerners (for Delaware the figure is 0%).

2007 people, 2007.

Have you studied Kentucky, ever visited the state, and ever spoken with residents on non-rural Kentucky...or (since you said this is "your opinion") are you basing this assumption on stereotypes and presentations of Kentuckians on TV? Likewise, Oklahoma is solid red in this map of yours...it is also a Border State. Civil War history has played almost no part at all in the discussions/debate that have taken place over the last several days...that's what the "historic" map is for, but trust me, there most definitely are cultural nuances in all of the Border States...even "super Northern" Delaware. I don't think we're changing the map system again, since there was a multi-month discussion about it.

--Gator87 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

>>So far as the map system goes and the colors and labeling used, I agree 100% with Gator about leaving things as they are. We debated/discussed this for months before finally settling on something that everyone (even those disputing on other issues) could generally agree on. TexasReb 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to keep finding and discussing reputable research and when we are able, to use this research to improve the sections of the main page on cultural variations and on the border states, but I agree that questions about the map have been discussed at length and the research presented on this discussion page supports keeping the map as it is. Lasersnake 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a life-long Kentuckian, but I also am a Southerner. Kentucky is most definately a Southern state. Kentucky culture is certainly Southern. If I were to travel to Tennessee or to Mississippi, the culture and customs would stay similar. If I were to travel one state north, to Ohio or to Indiana, the culture changes significantly. That's my opinion. The only part of Kentucky that anybody could conside "midwestern" or non-Southern, is one county -- Jefferson / City of Louisville. Gcarlisle 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree that Louisville and Jefferson County are more Southern for a number of reasons, But if that's your opinion. Louisvillian 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do find it interesting that nobody has ever seconded your position about Louisville being more Southern than Midwestern. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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. 4.224.48.191 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually here was some elses input on the subject on the last talk page. [60]

you want opinion well here's a few responses to a thread (in the Midwestern section) on skyscrapercity

"For those who say Louisville is not the Midwest"

gych "Or at least partially Midwest, check out the city's racial history. It was the first city in America to have black libraries. This is no typical "southern city." Here is the link, a good read:" (original Post)

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050924/NEWS0102/509240380/1008/NEWS01

TheKansan September 25th, 2005, 10:36 PM What the hell do black libraries have to do with being located in the midwest? Louisville is not a part of the midwest, end of story, it doesn't matter what the architecture is like, it doesn't matter if they have black libraries, it doesn't matter if the people use a midwestern accent instead of a southern one. Tulsa is also not part of the midwest. Pittsburgh is not midwestern either. Topeka is midwestern, St. Louis is midwestern, Chicago is midwestern as well.

STLgasm September 25th, 2005, 10:41 PM The thing is, residents of Louisville do have southern accents. I personally think St. Louis has a lot of characteristics in common with East Coast cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia. Does that make St. Louis an East Coast city? No. Louisville is a southern city, even if it has some Midwestern qualities

SRG September 27th, 2005, 05:01 AM When I was in Lousiville the locals pronounced it "Lou ahh vul". Take what you want from that. Sounds like a pretty Southern accent to me, though the city definately has some major Midwestern accents like any other city stradling the Winn Dixie Line.

The anti-cheesehead September 27th, 2005, 05:06 AM Why do you want Louisville to be midwestern so bad? Is the south that bad? Is the midwest that good? For what it's worth, I've always thought of Louisville as a southern city.

NovaWolverine September 28th, 2005, 07:18 AM Haha that's funny, at least put a picture of chicago up there, not nyc during a blackout or whatever that is. But still, by no means is the midwest some liberal, vibrant, technologically and socially advanced place and the south is just shit. Which you already know of course.

Louisville is southern, period. Even places that resemble east coast cities like StL., if you really put them next to eachother, you'd find that they really are much different and that it has more in common with a city like Detroit or KC or Chicago.

Tulsa is southern too.

There is a such thing as a midwestern accent, it really is nothing like you all said, but there is a twang that's distiguishable if you're not from the midwest.

And despite these boards being havens for liberals, there's plenty to be proud about being a southern city.

IMO while there's a midatlantic on the east coast that definitely transitions from north to south, that's what southern ohio and indiana and illinois are.

card04 September 29th, 2005, 12:39 AM I never said that Louisville isn't southern, all you have to do is look at a map to see this. What I have said is that culturally it has a strong midwestern influence. I have lived in the midwest and the south, that is why I asked that question. Personally, while there are differences, both regions are similiar. To say that Louisville is midwestern is false, to say that it has no midwestern influence is false as well. While you can't really compare it with Chicago, you can easily see similiarities between Louisville and other mid-sized midwestern cities, such as Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Dayton, Oklahoma City, etc. I would even go as far as saying that you could see similiarities between Louisville and St.Louis, even though it is a lot bigger. On the other end you will see more similairities between Louisville and other southern cities. Being a southern city, this would only be natural. I am not saying that Louisville is not southern, or not even half midwesten, just that it does have a lot of influence from that region. Also I don't hate being southern, or have a obsession with wanting to be midwestern. The fact is I am proud to be southern, I plan to keep it that way. I am only trying to be factual about Louisville's culture.

NaptownBoy October 6th, 2005, 05:20 PM I think that sometimes people just have to stop and accept the situation, in this case the argument that Louisville is a southern city. Yes, Louisville has a lot in common with midwestern cities, but it has a whole lot more in common with Southern citites as well. Similarly Indianapolis has a lot in common with East Coast and Southern cities but is undoubtedly in the Midwest because of its geographic and culutural influences. I always considered each major city to have its own unique identity-and Louisville's is simply a blend of regional influences. But I always considered Louisville to be unquestionably southern, though.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/index.php?t-260883.html "Is Louisville Southern or Not" Thread in the Southeastern threads of ssc

tennreb March 2nd, 2006, 03:30 PM It's definitely not deep South. It depends on whether most of their residents have a strong association with the South. Do the vast majority of students go to Southern colleges, especially those leaving Kentucky? Does it have a laid-back vibe? In most Southern cities, most residents are one or two generations removed from cotton.

teshadoh March 2nd, 2006, 04:08 PM It's both as is Washington. I think it depends on how comfortable the forummer is about discussing Louisville, if he feels he gets more discussion from a midwest board rather than a southern board then so be it.

JivecitySTL March 2nd, 2006, 04:15 PM I personally consider Louisville to be southern. Not only because it's located in a decidedly southern state (KY), but also because when I visited there, I really felt like I was in the south. Not the deep south, but the mid-south.

Naptown March 3rd, 2006, 12:06 AM It's both as is Washington. I think it depends on how comfortable the forummer is about discussing Louisville, if he feels he gets more discussion from a midwest board rather than a southern board then so be it. Sorry, I don't consider Washington southern. Especially when you look at architecture, culture, transportation, etc.

Louisville is Southern, but it has a good Midwestern mix to it.

shane453 March 3rd, 2006, 02:02 AM I'd say southern; just listen to its residents speak, look at some of the plantation-style homes. But remember that there is no cultural line that defines with any precision the border between south and midwest, so border cities and states are likely to be difficult to classify. Even in the Civil War people couldn't figure out if Kentucky and other border states were part of the south or the north...

Ian604 March 3rd, 2006, 03:22 AM I think of Louisville as Southern with a hint of midwest, but the further west you go in Kentucky it seems it picks up more of a midwestern feel. Lexington and Central Kentucky feel Southern but Covington and other parts of Northern Kentucky feel like small town New England to me. Weird differences for towns that are within an hour from one another.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php?t-323638.html

And here you clearly see that that a 90-95% margin of people on this forum (along with other dimilar forums) refer to Louisville as a Southern city number one with a lesser Midwestern element. 74.128.200.135 03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is actually from Louisville would *never* say that Louisville is "Southern, period". ABJECT NONSENSE. Louisville has long been far more Midwestern in culture than Southern. Louisville was a major stronghold of the Union in the Civil War. Since WWII, Louisville has been organized much like other Midwestern industrial cities. Louisville is consistently included in Midwest organizations. One can argue from history that Louisville was more Southern from the 1880s through the 1930s, but 1940s industrialization changed everything, and we haven't turned back since. I refuse to submit to the anti-historical, anti-realistic position that Louisville is Southern. We have got a few Southern graces, to be sure, but that's about it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well again Steven with my hand on the bible in my home church of Bethel Baptist (W. Garland) I'am a born and bred Louisvillian. As far as Louisville being far more Midwestern in culture, what do you have to prove this??? Where could you have come to that conclusion???

Maybe it was from Louisville like every other Southern city Loosing black population to true Midwestern cities like Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and even St.Louis. [61]

May be it could be the fact that Louisville has a huge Baptist population that is matched nowhere in the Midwest [62].

Maybe it could be the fact that just about every linguistic map groups this city's dialect in with the South.

http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.jpg Northern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.jpg Midland accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/nomid.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/somid.jpg South Midland example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/north.wav http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.jpg Southern accent example http://www.acoustics.org/press/141st/south.wav

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx.

Maybe it could be from the constant Bellsouth phone company or the Direct car insurance commerials airing nonstop in Louisville and through out the South [63] Aside from the Mid-South Paranormal convention being held in Louisville's Waverly Hills. Aside from the Hip Hop culture in Louisville being apart of the "Dirty South Movement" and one of Louisville's premiere rappers (KD) label being called "Mid South Records" [64] (That's not even mentioning mulit platinum selling group Nappy Roots theme of Kentucky), I really must not know what I'm talking about because according to you (who are you to decide that) "I'm not a native Louisvillian" (in all seriousness your argument is a joke).

maybe it could be the fact that Louisvillian Muhammad Ali was ranked the 11th most influential Southerner in the Southern Focus Poll [65]

Maybe it could be the fact that Louisville's only Civil War monument for the past century has been one honoring the Confederacy. [66]

Maybe it could be the fact that Louisville had one of the largest slave and slaveowning populations in the nation, Unlike St.louis, which was also in a slave holding state. [67]

Maybe it could be the Louisville's lack of Southern and Eastern Europeans that came to every Midwestern city (even the smaller ones like fort Wayne) in signifigant numbers, But not in Louisville.

Maybe it could be the fact that Birmingham Alabama was another major Southeastern manufacturing center than had population trends identical to Louisville's since the 1950's.

Louisville 2000 - 256,231 1990 - 269,063 1980 - 298,451 1970 - 361,472 1960 - 390,639 1950 - 369,129

Birmingham

1950 326,037 21.8% 1960 340,887 4.6% 1970 300,910 -11.7% 1980 284,413 -5.5% 1990 265,968 -6.5% 2000 242,820 -8.7%

Aside from America's most reknown Geographer, creating a cultural map that details the regions of the U.S. grouping not only Louisville, But Southern Indiana and Southern Illinois in with the South, I really don't have much of an argument (sarcasim). [68]

LOL WHO KNOWS?

I also find it funny that yolu feel no Louisvillian feels Louisville is Southern, jut from looking at the responses I posted on the SSC board you will see different.

Louisvillian 18:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and on the Birmingham Rustbelt thing here's an interesting source that ranks cities by the biggest population drop during 1960, Louisville is not on the list, But Birmingham is. I would however guess that Louisville was immediately following Birmingham.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Kwinone/B2.jpg Louisvillian 00:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a map which details the high school graduation rate for each U.S. county, and sadly it's apparent once you get south of the Ohio it drops http://www.illinoisatlas.com/us/education/jpg/us_county_hsgrad.jpg Louisvillian 04:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From the point of view of defining the South, loosely and in just one aspect, that high school graduation map is fairly interesting. But unforutnately, it really doesn't do anything for the argument that Louisville (or in fact, the rest of Kentucky's Triangle) is a highly Southern region, because graduation rates in the urbanized areas of the Triangle aren't out of line with what's seen in most the rest of the country (orange, meaning 80-89% range). Warren, Daviess, and McCracken counties are also in that same range, not surprisingly. The rates in E. Kentucky are depressingly low but, unfortunately, not really a surprise. And nobody is going to waste their time addressing those 65 other hyperlinks because the exact same ones, and accompanying arguments, have been posted here about 2 dozen times before verbatim (and as I pointed out earlier, on other Internet forums as well.) --Gator87 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you never really have addressed my maps during the debate and instead took bits and pieces of studies (that ironically labeled Louisville and Kentucky as Southern), and would find abnormalities that Kentucky and Virginia might have with the rest of the South. Secondly regaurdless of where else they have been referenced these sources are still more than credible and have not been refuted.

On the graduation rate map I was moreso trying to show the profound difference in the percent that Kentucky and every state below the Ohio River have in the rural areas, moreso than was trying to show similarities between Louisville and South. However Louisville like every urban area have higher graduation rates than their rural counterparts. One thing I did notice was that Louisville like most other Southern metorpolitan areas have groups of counties that have a realtively low graduation rate unlike Northern cities. Louisvillian 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you amuse yourself by thinking, I and/or others have addressed every single source in that cornucopia of hyperlinks that you keep wasting space by pasting here over and over again; "addressing" is not the same as "refuting", and I am not going to waste my time fielding the exact same points/arguments over and over again, and I don't think anybody else will. Likewise, you cannot "refute" the dozens of sources that I provided that challenge your worldview about the state and it's principal city. For one thing, half of the text that you just posted are personal opinions of people on 'Net forums - by the grammar, some of them either very uneducated or teenagers - about this city. And? This type of argument goes both ways - I provided a link earlier to a CJ editorial in which a majority of actual residents when polled chose a Midwestern preference over Southern, just as other "pop culture" sites like urbandictionary (on which there is a voting system) prefer a Midwestern definition. There are "popular opinion" polls and surveys that go both ways. Simple. In the Changing Usage study, about 65% of Kentuckians in the Triangle region chose the term "Midwestern" over "Southern", and only about 47% of Kentuckians picked the term Southern as a first choice, though the number was at 82% in bordering Tennessee. Are there studies that would come up with different numbers? Absolutely. Does this "refute" my study, or others? Absolutely not.

And really, this is exactly the point - there is a world of difference between the urbanized areas of Kentucky's Triangle region and the rest of the state, and everybody from the state knows that. The very first line in the Culture section of Kentucky's page states just that - "Defining the culture of Kentucky is difficult because the contrast between the Golden Triangle area of the state, which is largely urban, and the rest of the state, which is largely rural, is so stark." What goes for Kentucky on the whole does not go for Louisville, Covington, and to a lesser extent even Lexington; anybody from the state knows that perfectly well. In a predominantly rural, Baptist, impoverished state this region is predominantly urbanized, Catholic, defined by German and Irish immigrants and industrial wealth, engaging in more commerce with Northern cities than Southern ones. It is precisely because of this region that you will find some definitions that include Kentucky in the Midwest. End of story. You can twist the definitions all that you wish, but that's all there is to it; there are similarities between these counties and the rest of Kentucky, but they are outweighed by the differences.

Regarding the lower grad. rates in some MSA counties; is Atlanta a "Northern" city because wealthy suburban counties like Gwinnett, Dekalb, and Cobb have grad. rates in the 90-99% range? Is Miami-Dade County your vintage "Southern" county because it has a relatively low grad. rate for an inner urban county? Nonsense. Nor can be Louisville be deemed "Southern" simply because some outer, exuberan counties in the metro have lower than average grad. rates for MSAs - especially when there is nothing abnormal about the rates in the core county, Jefferson. There are arguments that can be made for Louisville being "Southern" in some definitions, but this isn't one of them. --Gator87 07:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You have addressed my linguistic, but you have yet to refute them with sources of your own! What better way to refute biased and ignorant opinion than with hard evidence, and that's exactly what I posted. The irony with Steve is that when you're just aruging with him using no facts he'll deny anything you throw out to him (even if it's common knowledge), But when you throw surveys and facts in his face then he just shuts up, and that's what I intended to do. Reguardless of how many times I have posted this information it makes it no less credible. Then with the shear amount of sources I've brought into the debate there's no way to logically deny or refute these claims (such as Louisville's dominant Southern dialect).

Well Steve attempted to make the argument that my opinion was just unheard of for "Louisvillian", so I posted the two threads that skyscrapercity has had on this subject and the vast majority of the opinions on those threads are in favor of Louisville's Southern culture being more Dominant. As far as that editorial (key word), the only reason I discredited that, was because you included in your 10 reliable sources list as to why Louisville is a Midwestern city (LOL ironically Steve skipped out on using these sources for the assertion on the Kentucky page). Another thing is that Editor didn't even mention "a poll" it was they merely stated that a concensus was in favor of Louisville being a Midwestern city. He/she didn't mention where the debate was taking place, just stated that there was "a debate" in general. Further more you called me a "troll" earlier for posting on the Velocity blog site (Louisville in Panic Mode). Well I'll tell ya I posted maybe 5 comments on there (but you'll never know this due to the ananonymous option), But it seems as though the majority of people on that blog (which do to the ananymous option shouldn't be taken too seriously) are stating that Louisville is more of a Southern city (Hell two people jumped in defense of that claim after your BS post, in which I was not able respond to).

The Changing Usage study states that no where in it's text. LOL you admitted to over exaggerating that claim when you tried to specify this during the Article debate.

You like Steve and that guy loser (as he proclaimed) from that black table site have this crazy dillusional idea that Louisville is just not Kentucky. I will say however that Louisville being one of the nations largest urban areas and a fast growing metropolitan area is refreshly different from the the rural atmostphere of most of Kentucky. The same argument is also made about Atlanta and Georgia (which there is a starx difference just due to the shear size of Metro Atlanta). Germans (Irish is more of a Midwestern) immigration was also concentrated in Eastern Texas and Richmond (along with the Texmex influence is why Richmond and other Texas cities have larger Catholic populations than Louisville).

As far as Industry being Midwestern argument goes BAM [69] Oh and please provide evidence that states the Louisville does most of it's business with the North.

I must contend that the Northern Kentucky area is the only area of the state that one can say is acutally more Midwestern in culture.

No Atlanta is not a northern Metropolitan area, But it is an Bustling Metropolis of just over 5,000,000, in which it would only make for this city (or cities on par with it like Miami, Houston, Dallas, ECT.) of that stature to have an above average (for the region) percentage of high school grads as well as college grads. By this comparison I meant look at Memphis, Nashville, Richmond, New Orleans, Charlotte. Now look at Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Cleaveland, ECT. you will have to blind to not see the pattern. Southern Metro areas only have 80-89% high school grads in the counties IMMEDIATELY surrounding the central county. You can again ignore this comparison, or accept it (which would be a first).

LMAO You can continue to simply lie and say that you have addressed and discredited all, most, or LOL even half of my sources (in which Texreb has complemented me on their shear numbers and reliablity), But they are all in archives, so you're the one looking like Jackass at the end of the day. But whatever Louisvillian 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In making the "troll" comment I was referring to your habit of going from site to site and specifically attempting to challenge/remove any information that would link Louisville, or any other part/region of Kentucky, to the Midwest. If that's your obsession, it's fine with me, but it will not stand (and has not worked) here. Earlier I noticed that you attempted to, by posting on editor's personal pages, form a sort of coalition; isn't it interesting that none of them posted here, with the exception of Rjensen (who is being tried for sockpuppetry?) Isn't it interesting that TexasReb said that I did a more logical job of compromising? Regardless of their opinions on a debate, Wikipedians do not take well to angry, insult-hurling, obstructionist trolls, such as your fit on the Kentucky page regarding the East Central edit; you can scream and curse all you want, and it will not change anything here. In the future, you would be well-advised to remember this before attempting to change something on the site. --Gator87 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well just as you and Steve had formed your pact of ignorance, I caught wind of that and called on a few old allies in the debate. In which I only called on 3, and every single one has written back to me these comments

Hi Louisvillian, I would be happy to join you the debate on the Southern United States article, as far as I'm concerned if the census bureau considers Kentucky's a southern state than it is a southern state, I never have quite understood others proclaiming that It is not. - thank you Astuishin 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Louisvillian"

I'd be more than happy to help you with your concensus. I truly and strongly believe that Kentucky is a Southern state, as does the majority of the population. And I empathize with your frustration, as I've often experienced Texas being called a non-Southern state as well. --Stallions2010 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We both know that Rjensen actually held on to his promise (Not to put down the other 2 at all). As you read the comment all of the comments are at encouraging the notion that Kentucky is a Southern state, if you weren't to busy trying to twist the situatation into what it wasn't you would've noticed this concensus.

Trolling around what sites a Louisville blog "ON THE SUBJECT", I check out Urban Dictionary (just to see what it's about) and there is already some user denouncing any Southern aspect of the state, so I make my stance, and I respond to an Editorial/someone's opinion and hell it could have been yours.

LOL but I have noticed something this page everyone with the exception of maybe one of the old talk page, has stated that Kentucky is definantly a Southern State, even "Steve" has stated this. That's all I wanted to show. As far as pulling this "it won't work here" crap PLEASE I think it's safe to safe to say I've proved my case which was backed with countless reliable sources, that out number yours 3-1, so don't try that I'm pulling the strings crap, we all know the truth here.

Again Texasreb has complemented me on my shear number of reliable sources. He simply felt that your compromise was the easiest to work with, which contrary to what you're trying to make it out to be he has always stated that Kentucky is a Southern state. Even then I still had a slight majority of people backing my compromise, reguardless the matter is oer and done with cheers! Louisvillian 20:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cotton as a measure

Since we've been digging up all sorts of interesting measures here, take this for what it's worth (because you can't deny the importance of the cotton economy in defining the South). Notice that even among the non-cotton states of the Upland South, there is still a significant range, all the way from more than a quarter of the farms in NC to being virtually nonexistent in KY:

TABLE 7.7 - Ratio of Cotton Farms to All Farms

Mississippi: 82.9%

Alabama: 80.4%

Texas: 70.5%

South Carolina: 70.0%

Louisiana: 69.6%

Arkansas: 69.2%

Georgia: 67.4%

Oklahoma: 42.3%

North Carolina: 27.6%

Tennessee: 27.3%

Florida: 9.5%

Virginia: 2.0%

Kentucky: 0.2%

SOURCE: Regionalism and the South: Selected Papers of Rupert Vance. Contributors: John Shelton Reed - author, Daniel Joseph Singal - author, Rupert Bayless Vance - author. Publisher: University of North Carolina Press. Place of Publication: Chapel Hill, NC. Publication Year: 1982. Page Number: 101.

OKLAHOMA

I have come to realize that people who like to exclude Oklahoma as part of the south are the very people who have spent little to no time there. It never ceases to amaze me how uneducated some people are when it comes to southern culture. 90% of Oklahoma's settlement came from the old south. Oklahoma's culture is a mirror to Arkansas. Anyone who has spent five minutes in Southeastern Oklahoma knows that Oklahoma very well belongs in the south. It also amazes me that people like to leave Kentucky out. How can anyone in their right mind think that these two states are anything like Iowa? The South and the Confederacy are two different things. Settlement patterns show where and how the culture came to be. There is a reason for the census to conclude where the South lies.

I would recommend for those oponents to do a little more research.

I'm not sure where the gentlemen above is getting his data, but ridiculous arguments about cokes and pop don't cut it when we want to look at the settlement patterns.

Here is a valid study done by the University of North Carolina.

CHAPEL HILL – Ask even educated Americans what states form "the South," and you’re likely to get 100 different answers. Almost everyone will agree on Deep South states -- except maybe Florida -- but which border states belong and which don’t can be endlessly debated.

Now, the Southern Focus Poll, conducted by the Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, provides strong support for including such states as Texas, Kentucky and Oklahoma in the South. On the other hand, West Virginia, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware and the District of Columbia don’t belong anymore, if they ever did.

Fourteen polls, surveying a total of more than 17,000 people between 1992 and 1999 show, for example, that only 7 percent of D.C. residents responding say that they live in the South.

Only 14 percent of Delaware residents think they live in the region, followed by Missourians with 23 percent, Marylanders with 40 percent and West Virginians with 45 percent.

"We found 84 percent of Texans, 82 percent of Virginians, 79 percent of Kentuckians and 69 percent of Oklahomans say they live in the South," says Dr. John Shelton Reed, director of the institute. "Our findings correspond to the traditional 13-state South as defined by the Gallup organization and others, but is different from the Census Bureau’s South, which doesn’t make sense."

The U.S. Census Bureau includes Delaware, D.C., Maryland and West Virginia in its definition.

"Clearly some parts of Texas aren’t Southern – whatever you mean by that -- and some parts of Maryland are," Reed said. "But sometimes you need to say what ‘the Southern states’ are, and this kind of information can help you decide. Our next step is to look inside individual states like Texas, break the data down by county, and say, for example, where between Beaumont and El Paso people stop telling you that you’re in the South."

A report on the findings, produced by UNC-CH’s Institute for Research in Social Science, will appear in the June issue of the journal "Southern Cultures." Reed, who directs the institute, says the results should interest many people including survey, marketing and census researchers.

"Personally, I think they ought to be interesting too to ordinary folk who are curious about where people stop telling you you’re in the South as you’re travelling west or north," he said. "Where that is has been kind of hard to say sometimes."

Perhaps surprisingly, 11 percent of people in Utah, 10 percent in Indiana and slighter fewer people in Illinois, Ohio, Arizona and Michigan claim to be Southerners.

"That’s because in the early part of this century millions of people left the South, and their migration was one of the great migrations not just in American history, but in world history," Reed said. "Their children may not think of themselves as Southern, but they still do."

The UNC-CH sociologist said he was surprised that 51 percent of Floridians describe themselves as Southerners even though 90 percent know their community is in the South.

"Florida is the only state in lower 48 where most people living there weren’t born there," he said. "In fact, most of them weren’t born in the South, much less in Florida."

Because of the South’s growing economy, only between 90 and 80 percent of residents of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia and the Carolinas said they are Southerners, the surveys showed.

"If you want to define the South as where people say it is, now we have a better sense of it," Reed said. "For the most part, it confirms what I already suspected, which is why I’m glad to see it. This work shows something we wanted to show, but haven’t been able to before."

Note: Reed can be reached at (919) 962-0781. E-mail: john_reed@unc.edu. Dr. Beverly Wiggins, associate director for research development at IRSS, can be reached at (919) 962-2350. E-mail: bwiggins@irss.unc.edu

Contact: David Williamson, (919) 962-8596.

Here is the real map of the regions:

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j151/kryan74/250px-Map_of_USA_showing_regions.png http://www.census.gov/prod/1/gen/95statab/preface.pdf

>>Most of us here have been "doing our research" for months, are quite familiar with the Southern Focus Poll, and far from lax in the area of Southern studies. So far as Oklahoma goes, I live in North Texas about 30 minutes from the Red River and am in the state occasionally for one reason or another. Further, no one is excluding Oklahoma from a generally Southern status (and yes, I agree about the southeastern area known as "Little Dixie"). However, as the map is intended to indicate relative degrees of "Southerness" as generally defined by credible sources, as well as general perceptions, it nonetheless must reflect that Oklahoma is certainly not historically, culturally or perceptually in the same class as Mississippi, nor even in the second tier with its Texas neighbor.

>>In fact, I even addressed the question on Oklahoma on a now archived discussion. Here it is:

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 TexasReb 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)''

>>So far as the early settlement patterns mentioned, here is an excerpt from www.okhistory.org/enc/settlement.htm

Settlement patterns also demarcated political divisions. Midwestern Republicans flocked to northern Oklahoma. Texans and other Southern Democrats took up the cotton lands of the bottom and uplands north of the Red River. Midwesterners brought Republican "bloody shirt" politics as far south as Guthrie. Southerners carried Democratic "yellow-dog" propensities into the territory as far north as Oklahoma City. The southeastern area of Oklahoma became known as "Little Dixie. On the eve of statehood the Oklahoma Territory occupied the western part of present Oklahoma, while the older Indian Territory occupied the eastern area. Just prior to statehood the Indian Territory nations, one by one, were pressured into accepting severalty agreements to create allotments and to destroy their reservations. When Oklahoma became the forty-sixth state in 1907, it could have been described as a patchwork quilt of destroyed Indian reservations. Its citizenry consisted of southern cotton farmers, midwestern wheat farmers, and western cattlemen, with minorities of American Indians, African Americans, and ethnic Europeans.

>>As can be seen, and I noted in my earlier post, certainly some areas were dominated by settlers from the South and that impact remains to this day. But overall it wasn't anything like 90% and, unlike in neighboring Texas and Arkansas during their own settlement and formative days, it wasn't the undisputedly dominating trait and influence.

>>I say none of this in a condecending nor insulting vein. Rather just the truth as I see and have researched it. And I defintely don't see it disputing that Oklahoma is more Southern than not. TexasReb 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Texasreb. I actually wasn't refering to your posts. I liked what you had to say. I get just as angry when people try to exclude Texas. My biggest issue is with the map. The map is blatently false. Oklahoma should always be included. I also have a problem with people who say the south is east of the Mississippi. That theory would exclude Loosiann and Arkansas. I would argue that it is the dominating influence today. You cannot go anywhere in Oklahoma, with the exception of the panhandle, where you will not here the famous "drawl" and use of the contraction "y'all." The Oklahoma accent more closely resembles Arkansas than it does Texas. I hold a Bachelors in Geography and have studied the settlement patterns of Oklahoma. 90% is not as far fetched as you might imagine. Sweet tea and grits are common in Oklahoma; especially south of OKC.

I also aknowledge that by no means is Oklahoma in any way to the same degree as say Alabama in degree of Southerness. Like I said before, I find it silly that when defining the southern states, Oklahoma is striped; like it is really unclear. Any fool that spends time in Oklahoma knows that it is not a question to what is the dominant culture there. I find the striped map ignorant and frankly insulting.

>>I sincerely appreciate your compliments about my posts, and I really do understand where you are coming from as concerns Oklahoma and, the football rivaly not withstanding, I like the state and its residents (again, I grew up and live 30 minutes from the state and over the years have spent quite a bit of time there). However, I still think you may be misunderstanding the whole concept behind the three-toned map which, I emphasize again, evolved out of months of discussion/debate among people who are very interested/knowledgable as concerns Southern studies. I may or may not agree with all of the editors here, but I have come to respect their ability to put together a coherent argument and back up their opinions with credible research. (BTW -- if you are interested and havent yet, you can go to the "Archive 1" and follow its development).

>>Back to the point though. I had the notorious honor of first suggesting it, but the whole idea was to come up with a map which reflected "degrees" of "Southerness" as the former two-colored one didn't quite do the trick and was the source of too much disagreement. The discussion over Kentucky was really what triggered the idea. Most modern day definitions of the South accept it as part of region, so it didn't make sense to stripe it in the same class as say, Maryland. On the other hand, it didn't make sense either to put it in with Georgia. As another example, while my native and home state of Texas was never excluded from the South up until sometime around the early 1960's, certain changes afterwards took place that had the effect of distinguishing it in many ways from its former Confederate sisters. So, what came out of it all, after much kicking it around and contributing, was a three-tiered system.

>>This coloring level took into account MANY facets (all well-reseached) of the individual states' history and culture. These included settlement patterns, dialect, traditions, religion, topography, population demographics and outside migration, and yes, things like the use of "y'all" and calling a soft-drink "coke." It also took into account general perceptions, not only intra-state, but those held in other Southern states, and extending out to the nation at large

>>Now then, as concerns Oklahoma in particular, you said something like "it should always be included." However, if we take into account the larger criteria (mentioned above) upon which the map was based, it overshadows what we as individuals might think "should" be done. For instance, I think Texas "should" ALWAYS be included in the South, and have good reasons for saying so. But the fact is, looking at the bigger picture, I must acknowledge there are good reasons why it ISN'T always. Things such as the hispanic population boom (largly recent, and largely illegal), topography, and certain post-War characteristics that made the state unique, have the effect of offsetting the state a bit. On the other hand, when taken as a whole, Texas is USUALLY counted as a Southern state by most sources; very much so by its own citizens and -- for its membership in the Confederacy if nothing else -- its is generally accepted by most people in other parts of the South.

>>In fact, I think it might have been you (let me offer a friendly suggestion to sign your post! LOL) who said something like that the Confederacy shouldn't weigh in as determining the boundaries of the South. I might agree to SOME extent and that is what the historical map is for. Nonetheless, there are things which descend from the Confederate experience that DO count for a lot in what is considered Southern today. That is Confederate holidays, the prevelence of monuments on courthouse lawns, citizens' perceptions of the Confederate Flag and its display (I speak of legitimate display and pride, not from hate-groups), high schools named after Confederate heroes and the use of "Rebels" as the mascot. Etc. I do believe that these things are much less widespread in Oklahoma than in the red and dark red states.

>>I still stand by my own research that shows while certainly Southern migration to Oklahoma was considerable, perhaps even a slight majority, the influx of Midwesterners was very heavy also (I speak of course of anglo settlement) and, in areas north of Oklahoma City and west of Tulsa, is the dominating influence. This is borne out on dialect maps, regional identification studies, etc. And then there is the unique Native American history and its influence on Oklahoma. Texas is the other state most associated with "cowboys and Indians", but the influence of the latter on its cultural and political history -- myths of "Walker, Texas Ranger" not withstanding -- is negligible. From its earliest anglo settlement, Texas was "annexed" by the South.

>>Anyway, it is ALL the above things and many others that go into why Oklahoma is a border state and one in which most sources usually put it in a class which can be loosely defined as, on the whole, "often" or "sometimes" included, but not quite "usually" or "almost always."

>>I have gone on far too long, so will wind this up. But first, I want to say in the strongest terms possible, that NONE of this is intended to be condecending nor insulting. On the contrary I speak in the most respectful way possible and extend the same respect to your own research and opinions even if they are different than mine. And finally, I would say without hesitation that of most of the other striped states (Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware) Oklahoma is easily the more Southern. The imprint made by settling Southerners was and is widespread in southern and eastern parts of the state. I personally put it in roughly the same class as West Virginia. Not as Southern as Texas, Kentucky, or Virgina, but certainly more Southern than not. TexasReb 16:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. We will agree on the level of southerness. I have no problem with that. I do think that you should include the old map along with your newer maps. The old map was not a source of contention among folks that get left out with the new maps. The "level of southerness" map is fine as long as you include all states that are considered southern. I am asking you to put the old map back at the top. Then if you want to go further into the discussion, you can include the other maps. I think that this will make folks in Oklahoma and Kentucky happy and more willing to share there information. I have a plethra of Oklahoma history not well known in major circles ie. plantations and Civil War cemetaries in Oklahoma. Please take my request into consideration. As for the football rivalry: I think most Oklahomans are happy to have a great rival like Texas. kryan74

Here is a link to the old map that will end this debate and make everyone happy.

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j151/kryan74/245px-Map_of_USA_highlighting_South.png

>>Thanks again kryan for a courteous reply. Your suggestion of adding a third map that shows the U.S. Census Bureau's definition of the South sounds reasonable to me, so long as it is clearly labeled as such. After all, that defintion starts off the "Geography" section near the top of the article itself and a map to illustate it could be considered appropriate. I think it should be put up for a vote, but I have no objection whatsoever to including it if the others don't. What do the rest of y'all say? TexasReb 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't even have to use the census map. We could use the U.S. Quarterly map that has all the Confederate states plus Oklahoma and Kentucky. I really don't think anyone from Deleware would mind. LOL

Also. I was one of the scholars that worked on the "Do you speak American" project funded by PBS. It has the most acurate dialect map of the United states and I could get permission to use it if you would like.

Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html

Thanks Texreb. I hope my suggestions are helping end some of these debates. Kryan74

There is already a very good wikimap of the Southern Dialect region on the Southern Dialect page. It pretty much matches the PBS map exactly. Here is the map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Southern_American_English.svg I would suggest just using it to save everyone some time Lasersnake 13:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

MMM sorry Lasersnake but that map is faulty. Look how much of Oklahoma and Florida it leaves out. I know the southern dialect reaches just north of Orlando. According to that map only people in southern Oklahoma have a drawl. As a native Oklahoman, I know that is not the case. We really need to reject these false studies as it breeds ignorance.

I discussed the map with the wikiuser who made it on the Southern Dialect discussion page. He told me that he used noted Dialectal Linguist, Bill Labov's TELSUR project as the model. Here is the study he based it on. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/MapsS/Map1S.html http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/home.html We had a long discussion about the map, and he pointed at that unfortunately, data was only collected from the larger cities indicated by the data points on the map. What that means is the isoglosses are approximations. I tried to convince him to move the isoglosses around to include part of MD, more of OK, etc, but he brought out the excellent point that there is just no data from those areas and thus the shaded area will always be an approximation. To argue about moving the lines north or south a few dozen miles is spurious at best. I am interested in this PBS study you worked on. What dialectal traits did you use to define the different "regions" How many samples did you collect? Was the data published in any way other than just the map on the webpage? I don't doubt your methodology, but if we are going to compare the two maps, we need to be able to inspect the data from which your map was made. I tried to click on the link for Drs. Cynthia G. Clopper and David B. Pisoni of the National Speech Project but it was broken. Lasersnake 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was Dr. Labov that I consulted with when samples were taken in Oklahoma. I got apologies because the data was incomplete when the present map was made. Samples were not taken anywhere north of Norman and only one sample was taken in Norman. The map was changed shortly after data was taken from places as far north as Guthrie. The updated map in on the PBS project page. The Midland accent is prevailent in places like Ponca City but still has traces of the southern Dialect. It is concluded that Texas south is different than oklahoma south. Oklahoma's dialect more closly resembles the South Midlands dialect which stretches from Tenn through Arkansas into Oklahoma and North Texas. The South Midland accent is a member of the "Rful" dialect. The "Rless" dialect is rare and found in coastal southern areas. "Rless" is actually closer to the original dialect that originates around the Virginia area.

Here is another link you might try. http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/map/map.html

The two circles in Texas indicate "Texas South." kryan74

Interesting stuff. Can you make Wikimaps? If not, I would suggest pasting this part of the thread on the Southern dialect discussion page and seeing if the original map maker would be willing to adapt the map to the more complete research. I was also wondering why there was a grey area around Western PA, Western MD, and northern WV? Was there just no data from these areas, or is dialect pattern there too transitional to clearly label it one way or the other?
Lasersnake 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is an intersting question. I think that it might have to do with that being Omish country but I could be wrong. I haven't made a wikimap. If you give me instructions on how to post that data I would be happy to do it. Thanks Laser

As far as I am aware, the Amish live in South East PA, through Central PA, and into Ohio. I don't believe any Amish are in WV or Western MD.

I wish I knew how to make a Wikimap. I think you need to download some software package from wikipedia and use it. Learning how to make maps is part of my long term wiki-devlopment programs, but for right now I have enough other content I am adding to other pages. I think your proposed changes are valid though
Lasersnake 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Florida: Part of "The South"

Based on most of the characteristics people commonly seem to use to define The South (which I could not currently enumerate for you :-), my perception -- and that of lots of people to whom I talk -- is that Florida is not part of The South. Discuss.  ;-)
--Baylink 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Florida is the South. Just because of cultural variations, you can't exclude it. The northern parts are definitely more Southern in nature than the southern parts, but the state as a whole is more Southern than not. Sure, Miami may not exactly whistle Dixie, but Florida as a whole does. --Stallions2010 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As a long-time resident of Florida, I think that we have treated the state well on the new map system and with the writing in the Cultural Variations section as well. I would definitely say that on a whole Florida is definitely not "Southern" by most cultural definitions - and it's really only the North Central and Panhandle regions that are "Southern", it is by no means just Miami that has seen change and immigration. Orlando, Tampa, Daytona Beach, Sarasota, etc. etc. etc. are all Northern/international enclaves and have been for decades in most cases. But geographically what else could Florida possibly be other than Southern? Kind of at an odd position. Culturally it is in about the same position as Maryland, but geography dictates otherwise. It is Southern because of its location and heritage, not in any way because of its modern culture. --Gator87 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main notable cultural difference which would keep Florida from being considered "the south" would be the fact that it will NOT rise again.

West Virginia not Confederate

At the risk of stirring up a very touchy hornet's nest, I thought I'd point out that the first map on this page (the "historic southern united states") contains what looks like trans-Allegheny Virginia, along with a caption indicating that this "state" belonged to the Confederacy. I haven't read the entire discussion on this talk page, but from what I have read it seems that nobody has taken issue with this. Strange, considering West Virginia sprang into existence in 1861 [I mean, 1863--see addendum below], and was certainly not a Confederate state! I'd change the map to reflect this if I could (or at the very least to reflect the existence of West Virginia, post-1861), but I unfortunately have no idea how to do that. Anyone else feel like jumping in here?

(By the way, I'm not claiming that West Virginia isn't a southern state, so please don't anyone jump down my throat about that, alright? I agree with whoever it was above who said that culture counts for more than historical geo-political boundaries when it comes to this kind of thing. Of course, looking at it that way, we could come up with another category for western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, southwestern Virginia, and eastern Kentucky called "Northern Appalachia" or "Coal States" or some such thing... But that would probably just start more problems than it would solve.) Buck Mulligan 04:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not saying that West Virginia was never a Confederate state, as my over-zealous post above (wrong date and all) would indicate. I'm saying that the map in question is misleading because it treats trans-Allegheny Virginia as though it were a still-extant state, and so effectively denying the fact that West Virginia even exists, never mind why it came into existence in the first place. Okay, then... Buck Mulligan 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The map says that "The states in red were in the Confederacy." What is now known as West Virginia was part of Virginia until 1863. Virginia was part of the Confederacy in 1861. Therefore from 1861-1863 the region in question was still part of Virginia and thus part of the Confederacy and thus is red on the map. The article has significant content describing the seccession of WV from the rest of VA. Please read the content and see if it discusses the issue to your liking.
Lasersnake 13:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the article before I posted my original message, and I have no problem with what the article has to say about the West Virginia issue. It's the picture that I find misleading. Again, while it's true that the geographical area which eventually became West Virginia did belong to the Confederacy, it's also true that West Virginia the state never did. Anyway, I think the problem can be taken care of with a slight adjustment of the caption, which I will make. Buck Mulligan 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

>> As I recall, the question of how to "color" (if at all) what is now West Virginia on the "historic map" was one we all had some trouble with. As Laser said, we finally decided to make the map reflect pre-1863 status. Anyway, Buck, the "note" you added does clear things up a bit more. TexasReb 15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, and Buck's edits brings up a larger concern. The historic map shows the current US state boundries, except those of WV. Would it be better to use a map that shows the states' and territories' borders as they were in 1860?
Lasersnake 15:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. I noticed that the Confederate States of America page contains a pretty cool animated map that not only reflects such things as the fact that most of the west and midwest consisted of territories rather than states at the time of the Civil War, but also shows very clearly when various states seceded from the union, when they officially became confederate, when they were admitted back into the union, that kind of thing. I must say it's a pretty cool map. Anyway, perhaps we could copy it from them and display it someplace on the Southern U.S. page. On the other hand, this article isn't really supposed to be about the Civil War, per se, so maybe that won't be an idea that agrees with everybody. Still, anyone who's curious ought to go check it out. Buck Mulligan 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

>> Personally, I strongly side with keeping the historic map the way it is and then perhaps, as Buck suggested, putting another map reflecting 1861 WBTS boundaries elsewhere (Perhaps in the "Civil War" topic). For one thing, when the concept of two maps was proposed and accepted, the idea was to give those states in the Confederacy special recognition as being those which not only truly cemented the idea of "The South" in popular and national mindset, but still today has an emotional meaning for residents within. As well as being the traditional and historic "Dixie." TexasReb 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is not to change any states in the historic definition, just to have the map template be a map of the US in 1860 as opposed to a map of the US in 2007. This means VA/WV would be united, and the Rocky Mountain and SW states would be shown with their territorial boundaries before statehood. This map template would be more historically accurate and wouldn't change the map's content since it was decided that the defintion of the "Historic South" was the Confederacy in 1860.
Lasersnake 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

>> I understand what you are saying and acknowledge your points, and perhaps I didn't really explain my position well enough. What I meant was that still today, in 2007, the 11 states of the Old Confederacy remain the "traditional and emotional South" in the minds of many. And is what is properly defined by the term "Dixie." (more on that one in another thread). In fact, some scholarly sources retain that basic 11 state definition to deliniate "The South."

>>Too, the map as it is illustrates well the part of the "Geography" section which reads: "The popular definition of the "South" is more informal and is generally associated with those states that seceded during the Civil War to form the Confederate States of America. Those states share commonalities of history and culture that carry on to the present day"

>>For those reasons, to keep a map titled "Historic Southern United States" offsetting the CSA states is valid and appropriate within a present day map of the country. So far as WV goes, I think Buck's qualification explains away any confusion...

>>Of course, something showing the 1861 situation is appropriate, I just believe it should be located elsewhere on the page...perhaps in the Civil War section. TexasReb 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think the reasons for keeping the template for the "Historic South" as a 2007 map are valid. The decision was well thoughtout and as you said, Buck's comment explains the most confusing aspect of the map. Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind the map.
Lasersnake 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Slight revision

>>I too made a slight revision on the introduction of the main article. I added "south central" to "southeastern" as to the geographical location of The South. I hope that meets with everyone's approval. If not though, it isnt something I will make an issue over! TexasReb 15:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

>>Something kind of interesting I came across yesterday while going thru some files, was a little "survey" Dr. John Shelton Reed took of 68 of his students at UNC at Chapel Hill. They were given a list of the 50 states and asked to answer yes or no to the question "Is this state Southern, all in all?" With certain interesting exceptions, the answers pretty well coorespond to the map we have of the "Modern South." I might add that the published result didn't include the actual affirmative percentages for each individual state (which would have been interesting to see), but rather by a broader classification scale. To wit:

>>Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina and North Carolina were included by "over 75%". Texas, Virginia, Florida, and Kentucky were considered Southern by a majority (over 50%), while Oklahoma, West Virginia, Missouri and Arkansas were accepted by some (Maryland and Delaware didn't register on the "meter"!)

>>Yes, you read right..Arkansas was placed on the "third team" so to speak, and Dr. Reed himself noted this strange anomaly, although he didn't say if he actually asked them about it. (I mean, other than a few Deep South purists out there, I know of few if any definitions that exclude Arkansas from the South). Anyway, this basically informal survey was done in the late 80's or early 90's I think, and the only thing I can figure is that maybe it might have had something to do with negative perceptions of either or both of the Clintons. I don't mean to get political, but I think the theory might have some validity...

>>Oh well, just a note in passing! TexasReb 14:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like an interesting study, Texasreb, and if it was conducted after 92, then you might be right about the Clinton thing. But on the other hand, I don't know if we're ever going to get a real consensus around here regarding what counts as a "Southern" state and what doesn't, no matter who's in the White House. Part of it might just be that most of the states in question are so damn big; people from one end of any given state are often very different in their attitudes and lifestyles than people from the other. Northern Virginia, where my family lives, is in some ways (mostly cultural) not much like southern or south-western Virginia. So maybe, given the choice, people would be more likely to say that eastern Arkansas is more southern (drive five minutes out of Memphis and you're in Arkansas, after all) and western Arkansas is more ... What? Western? Anyway, I'm thinking that this kind of feeling is probably what's behind some of the controversy we see around here.

To put it into a different kind of perspective, all of England and Wales would just about fit into the geographical space occupied by Virginia and Maryland--and yet: if you know anything about the English (and the Welsh), then you know that they have a seemingly endless array of quite distinct accents, with differing vocabularies to go with them, and that they differentiate themselves as people in terms of geographical distinctions that, to a North American, seem almost hilariously minute--the south of England, the west, the south west, the midlands, the northern midlands, the north of England, etc. Hell, people from Cornwall, an English county one square mile smaller than Long Island, have their own language--and not in the way that a dialect can be like a different language; Cornish is totally incomprehensible to an English speaker, and in fact has dialects of its own. And most of Europe is like this. At least eleven seperate languages (not dialects, but languages) are spoken in various regions of the Iberian peninsula, a smaller geographical area than the state of Texas.

So in a way, it's not too surprising that we'd a have a bit of trouble categorizing a place like Kentucky, straddling two or three cultural/geographic divides as it does. But like you said, this is really just a note in passing. Buck Mulligan 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Historic Southern United States map

I think we should get a new map for the Historic Southern United States.

However, I don't think we should change the definition that we have. Our definition is good, but shouldn't we show the United States as it was during the Civil War? West Virginia and Virginia are put together, but that's the only part of the United States that is shown as it was in the 1860's. The map should be compliant with the one at the following link:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MAP/TERRITORY/1860map.html

Changes should be made to the western section of the United States. For example, most of Arizona and New Mexico and a small portion of Nevada should be combined into the New Mexico Territory; Kansas and part of Colorado should be combined into the Kansas Territory; etc. These territories don't necessarily have to be labeled, but they should be compliant with the map of the United States as it was in 1860. Also, the caption for the Historic Southern United States should be slightly altered to tell that the map appears as the United States was in 1860, at the onset of the war. A reader would be confused by West Virginia and Virginia being one entity, but the rest of the states that weren't states at the time of the Civil War maintaining their current boundaries.

What do y'all think? --Stallions2010 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I raised this same point about a week ago in the thread "West Virginia not Confederate." TexasReb gave a detailed reason for why the current US map, and not the historic one is used. Read it and see what you think. I agree with you that a historic map would be better, but there are good reasons for keeping it the way it is too.
Lasersnake 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I read it. And this is probably the first time ever I'm disagreeing with TexasReb. :) The thing is, we, as people with a large amount of knowledge about the South, understand the historic map. However, readers of this article, who are new and researching this topic, would not. We have explained the reason why West Virginia and Virginia are combined in the caption, but I believe it's much better to change the map to the 1860 boundaries.

The United States has changed quite a lot over the past one and a half centuries, as has its boundaries. We could combine TexasReb's idea with Lasersnake and I's idea. We could have a map of the United States as it was in 1860. The current caption reads:

"Historic Southern United States. 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. (Note that this image depicts the original, trans-Allegheny borders of Virginia, and so does not include West Virginia, which seceded in 1863 to join the Union. See image below for post-1863 borders.)"

However, this is confusing because of the last statement. It seems that all borders, not just Virginia's, are those of 1860. With a change, the caption could be slightly altered to convey the idea that all of these states share commonalities to this day, but also that all were in the Confederacy, and therefore, the map is not of the United States as it is now, in 2007.

My ideas may seem a bit confusing. If you don't understand something, please reply to this and ask. Also, Lasersnake, TexasReb, and I are the only ones contributing to this. Anyone else have ideas...? --Stallions2010 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the guy who started the latest discussion about West Virginia, I think I understand your position, Stallions2010. The trouble is, even the map you linked to is misleading, since it shows West Virginia as a separate state in 1860, which it wasn't. Anyway, I revised my annotation to that map's caption to clarify that the post-1963 thing only refers to the Virginas (and I also reverted the work of Bierstube Katzen Keller, who removed the map altogether—and whose screen name,oddly enough, seems to translate into something like "barroom cat cellar"—though that also meant reverting a legitimate edit concerning Appalachia, but he can always put that back in). I still don't see what the problem with adding another map would be (see my comments above), but, at least in the meantime, hanging onto this one seems like the right thing to do, in my opinion. Buck Mulligan 06:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

>>Yeah, Stallions, this DOES seem to be the first time we ever disagreed! :-) But *looking around* it looks as if my comments disappeared! LOL. At any rate, Buck's revision seems to me to clarify even better the Virginia situation. And again (at the risk of sounding like a broken record!) a map of 1861 could be added, I just vote on putting it next to the "Civil War" section. And keep in the original "historic map" the way it is for reasons cited in the earlier thread...and then again on a post which seem to have got 'et up! *grins* TexasReb 12:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Missouri and Kentucky DID Secede From the Union

The Southen States article says that Missouri and Kentucky failed to secede from the union but allowed slaves. Missouri seceded on October 31, 1861 and Kentucky seceded on November 20, 1861. The 12th and 13th stars on the confederate flag represent Missouri and Kentucky as a Confederate State. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobertEdmundLee (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

It has stated by quite a few Historians that towards end of the war, (I don't know about Missouri) that with the amancipation of Slavery that Kentucky felt cheated by the Union, and was said to have suceeded. Reguardless I feel that Kentucky's situation was most similar to Tennessee's. 74.128.200.135 02:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Missouri and Kentucky did not officially secede. Though both had rebel governments that supported the Confederate cause and claimed secession (note that the legitimacy and legality of these governments has been fiercely debated by historians, especially in the case of Kentucky), the legitimate governments of those states (meaning the ones that were actually voted into power by the citizens, not a group of slave-owning malcontents) rejected secession. A majority of citizens in both of these states rejected secession. The Confederacy never had any real control over either of these states; I'm not sure about the situation in Missouri, but in Kentucky the Confederate forces never really had control of anything other than the city of Bowling Green, and even then they were essentially forced out of the state by 1862. Both states participated in the Union election of 1864 (which would have been quite impossible for states no longer in the Union), and neither underwent Reconstruction. Furthermore, Louisville and St. Louis - both with large abolitionist German populations - were strongholds of the Union army, and about 65-75% of the Civil War troops in these states fought for the Union army. --Gator87 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with most of what you said reguarding Kentucky's Confederate rebel situation. I only have a little beef with your Statement that Louisville was anywhere near as German as or Unionist as St.Louis and or Cincinnati [70] [71] Even Evansville attracted a larger concentration of Germans during the migration during Louisville. The Galveston and San Antonio areas of Texas also attracted a larger concentration of Germans than Louisville. Richmond (the Capitol of the Confederacy also did too. Now I also must agree that Louisville and Northern Kentucky played major roles in kepping Kentucky in the Union, But Eastern Kentucky like Eastern Tennessee and the Western half of Virginia (which has since formed it's own state) were also key players in very much Union Stronghold's (mainly due to the lack of Slaves). The Appalachain area of Tennessee was also the reason the Tennessee was under Union control not to long after the Southern ends of Kentucky. 74.128.200.135 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It never ends with you and your knee-jerk reactions, does it? Please tell me where I said that Louisville had AS LARGE a German population as Cincinnati or St. Louis in absolute terms, especially considering that Louisville has never been as large as either city - I said that it had a LARGE German abolitionist population percentage-wise during the Civil War (and after, of course), which it did, as did other border cities in the war. Again, Louisville and St. Louis were two of the major Union strongholds in the Border States and have always had similar (read it: SIMILAR, NOT IDENTICAL) demographics, hence my mentioning of them in the same light since the earlier poster erroneously stated that Missouri and Kentucky did secede. The map at [72], though from the years after the war, clearly shows that areas in N. Kentucky were the only areas in "the South" to attract concentrated German immigration. To quote from [73]: "One of the main reasons for German settlement in Kentucky was the development of manufacturing interests along its Ohio River border, principally in Louisville, Covington and Newport, and to certain settlements of agriculturalist Germans in counties along the northern border of the state. The relatively small number of slaves in counties along Kentucky’s northern border was another reason Germans moved into this part of the Bluegrass State. While slaves accounted for about 20 percent of Kentucky’s total population of 1,150,000 in 1860, they aggregated less than 8 percent of Louisville’s population and less than 2 percent of Covington’s and Newport’s. It is noteworthy that approximately 50 percent of Kentucky’s native-Germans lived in Louisville, and the cities of Covington and Newport (combined) contained almost 20 percent of the Bluegrass State’s German population."

That being said, I am not going to compare Louisville to Confederate cities because Louisville was not a Confederate city. Period, end of discussion. The city was one of Kentucky's hotbeds of abolitionism, largely due to the volumes of German immigrants it attracted, its low slave populations, and ties to Northern markets; it produced notable abolitionists like James Speed. It was not Richmond, nor San Antonio, nor Norfolk, or anything similar, in terms of its Civil War behavior. On Wikipedia it is treated as a quintessential Border city in the war. If you don't like it, I would suggest that you change the content at Louisville in the American Civil War.

And it is truly, absolutely insane to claim that cities like San Antonio and Richmond have the same types of overall German-American heritages as Louisville. They don't. German ancestry, percentages

1. Cincinnati - 19.8%

2. Indianapolis - 16.6%

3. Kansas City - 15.4%

4. Louisville - 15.2%

5. St. Louis - 14.5%

6. San Antonio - 9.0%

7. Nashville - 8.8%

8. Richmond - 6.0%

Not to mention areas of Jefferson County such as St.Matthews and Jeffersontown that are extremely, heavily German (in the range of 25% or so I believe.) But this is pointless, because everybody knows the story of Kentucky and Louisville in the Civil War.

--70.168.88.158 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From the way I read it seemed as if you were making the notion that Louisville's German population was the main reason in which the Kentucky did not succeed, which was the case for St. Louis and Missouri.

The fact that you are showing the current demographics without any kind explanation behind them is kind humorous. Why does Louisville currently have a larger percentage of Germans than St. Louis (which without a shadow of a doubt was much more German than it during the migration)? Could it be from the blacks who relocated to the city during the First Great Migration to the North (in which Louisville was bypassed)? St. Louis was indeed a hotbed for poor Southern blacks during this period as were most Midwestern cities. Which is why St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cleaveland, and Indianapolis ECT. have majority black ancestry (within the city).

[74]

Here's another map detailing German density during this period, as you can see Richmond, San Antonio, Galveston, and Even Memphis (hence their version of German town) are shaded on the highest level of density.

"the exodus of sharecroppers from the land was responsible, too, for a major increase in the black population of southern cities ..." (17) Atlanta, Birmingham, New Orleans, Memphis, Norfolk and Louisville, were a few of the Southern cities which absorbed African-Americans displaced from Southern agriculture."

[75]

"Black migrants in Louisville consciously chose to remain in the South because they viewed it as their “Home.” In defining the South as “Home,” Black migrants demonstrated that neither their lives, nor their conceptions of the South were wholly defined by racial oppression or their resistance to it, rather they infused the South with their own meaning. Throughout the period African-American migrants were at the forefront of the city's civil rights movements, their political action was intimately linked to their decision to remain in the South." "The actions of Black migrants in Louisville, whether political, social or economic, are illustrative of the ways in which they claimed the South and “the city” as their own, while working to make it a better place for African-Americans to live."

Luther James Adams, University of Pennsylvania

[76]

In San Antonio's case, Hispanics (Mexicans) began to lead that city (demographically). Louisville was not a Confederate city, But did have Rebel sections of town. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Jeff59c/quickies/CivilWarSWCnty.jpg

You continue to clinge to Louisville's relatively low "percentage" of slaves, and claim that it was just "unheard of" in the South. If you had bothered to do a bit more studying you would know that Orleans Parish didn't even have slaves representing 10%[77] of it's population (Jefferson county was 11%). These were urban Southern centers. Both of cities were the two largest Southern cities and were truely the only "large" cities in the South. These cities were not entirely focused on slavery, But at same time, it played a signifigant role in both cities' economies and social climate.

BTW I thought that the Highlands area was the German area of Louisville? Louisvillian 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Louisville's German numbers are perfectly valid, in both the inner city and the county as a whole. You will not find another single urban "Southern" county that has county-wide German ancestry in the same range as Jefferson County, KY, except in high-growth Florida counties where most residents are essentially relocated Midwesterners and Northeasterners. Suburban counties are different, because they tend to have lower minority populations and thus tilt the figures somewhat; but look at the urban core counties and find just ONE in "the South" with German ancestry as high as Louisville. Just a single one. I said county-wide, NOT just in reference to the inner cities which, as you stated, are often majority black. Not in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Richmond, Nashville, Memphis, Charlotte, etc. etc. will you find similar German ancestry ranges - higher than 15 or so percent. I saved you the trouble, actually:

German ancestry, county-wide

Jackson County, MO: 16.7% German

Jefferson County, KY: 18.2% German

Marion County, IN: 17.0% German

Franklin County, OH: 19.9% German

Hennepin County, MN: 22.8% German

and, on the other hand:

Davidson County, TN: 7.8% German

Shelby County, TN: 5.3% German

Henrico County, VA: 9.1% German

Bexar County, TX (San Antonio): 8.6%

Harris County, TX: 7.2%

Dallas County, TX: 6.6%

Mecklenberg County, NC: 9.5%

Fulton County, GA: 6.0%

Jefferson County, AL: 4.9%

Travis County, TX: 12.0%

Oklahoma County, OK: 12.1%

Pulaski County, AR: 9.0%

This is hardly some random anomaly, and it's also by no means some sort of a "litmus test". However, it disproves the idea that Louisville's intricate German heritage is "common" in the South. Simply not true. A few scattered "Southern" cities may have received somewhat substantial numbers of German immigrants, but it's not the same.

Louisville's relatively low percentages of slaves weren't "unheard" of among slave states - especially for a border city - but they hardly support this notion of the city being "marginally Unionist." You cannot compare Louisville's German populations to other Southern cities consistently across history...the fit just isn't there. On the 1872 map, only the upper rim of the South (or lower rim of the Midwest, depending at how one looks at it) received higher influxes of German, and this it is shaded darker than portions further south. The Germans are relevant here because they tended to despise slavery, given how they viewed it in relation to the serf system of their homeland. The border states generally attracted fewer Germans because of the legality of slavery; when they did settle in these states, the Germans by and large chose cities like St. Louis, Louisville, Covington, etc. for economic opportunities and because of a general identification with the culture.

Yes, Louisville had a Confederate section of town. Yes, Seattle, Washington has a Confederate memorial monument. And? There is no good reason to rewrite history to over-state the importance of a few dissidents. Recognizing the city's Confederate influence would be one thing, but attempting to marginalize its importance/affinity for the Union in the war would be another entirely. --70.168.88.158 07:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Louisville German - 20% Black or African American - 19% Irish - 14% English - 11%

So now are you disreguarding the actual migration period of Germans into America, or are you basing this argument off of current ancestry demographics that have been munipulated by over a century and half other migrations? Look at the counties that Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Indianapolis, Kansas city, and Gary, all of the counties that those cities lie in have a majority black ancestry (stemming from the black migration period). During the actual migration period Galveston, SanAntonio, Austin, Richmond, Oklahoma city, Charleston (SC), ECT. were all German magnets. With the Texas cities however you probably know that they were vying with Hispanics for the top spot. You can also see the clumps suburban counties in Texas that are majority German in ancestry (which where they originally settled). Richmond, Virginia (independent) also recieved a substantial amount of Germans and irish (which was more Midwestern) which can explain why their diocese is more Catholic than ours. Louisville's blacks are also vying with Germans for the top spot with 1% marginal difference. [78]

[79] 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.

American Ancestry

http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US130.GIF

Percentage http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US130B.GIF

Louisville also does not lack the American ancestry that also tends to characterise the Mid- South.

You are clinging to this "Louisville's relatively low slave percentage of slaves" argument. Again the South did not have only had two truely large cities New Orleans and Louisville (due mostly to their locations). These cities relied on slavery but to a much less degree than rural counties that you continue to compare Louisville to. Jefferson county, KY had slaves represent 11.6% and Orleans Parish, LA has salves make us just 8% of it's population.[80] Despite those relatively low percentages the the numerical slave populations in both cities were the the largest. St. Louis on the otherhand had slaves represent less than 3% of it's population and had less than 10,000 slaves, unlike Louisville which was less than half the size of St. Louis. Baltimore only had slaves represent 6% of it's county population. Again[81] feel free to zoom in on every county you'd like. Your explanation along with my demographic figures showing St. Louis had slaves represent only 2% of it's population might be why St. Louis was much much more of a German magnet than Louisville was. [82] Here are two very good maps that able you to zoom in on the target much like the slavery maps, detailing both German and Irish settlement.You're also claiming that the German migration was only limited to the upper rim of the South, when I just gave you a maps that showed that they were heavily concentrated in the Heart of Texas.

I can't even find a picture let alone a story about the monument, with the exception of an Alabama transplant who complained about the defacing of the monument. In that artucle it states that 11 Confederate veterans were buried in Seattle. We all know that this city had no ties with the Confederacy and wasn't even established,until 1865 ans was unincorporated from 1867- 1869. Louisville on the other had sections of the Community that were Confederate. Here's the article again

[83] "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: [84] The property was worked by slaves. "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... [85]

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.." Louisvillian 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bexar county, TX- German - 10%

Daidson county, TX- German - 10%

Oklahoma county, OK- German - 13%

Mecklenberg County, NC- German German - 12%

Pulaski County, AR- German - 11%

Travis, County- German - 13%

Cincinnati- German - 29%

St. Louis- German - 27%

BTW here are some different numbers Louisvillian 16:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In the business of reposting pages of arguments verbatim agian, I see, because you posted you first paragraph a day ago, and the Sue Mundy one a few months ago. Again, nobody is going to answer the same arguments 25 times, so keep wasting space here. I have no idea where you got those numbers at the bottom or if you just made them up, but they aren't accurate in the cases of Bexar, Davidson, Oklahoma, Mecklenberg, Pulaski, and Travis counties, where you have over-stated the German percentages. My source is [86], which pulls information directly from the 2000 Census. None of those Midwestern counties that I cited have African American reported as the majority ancestry, but rather as the plurality (meaning the largest individual group, but still not a majority). And as you yourself said, Jefferson County is fairly close to fitting in that mold also - a few percentage points. German immigrants were not, and are not "heavily" concentrated in the heart of Texas - there are plenty there and there was some historical signifiance, but it is by no means "heavy". Florida has far, far larger German ancestry percentages than Texas due to migration.

Scotch-Irish percentages, and Irish percentages? Nothing odd there either (data from [87]:

Percent reporting any Irish ancestry

Jefferson County, KY - 13.1%

Jackson County, MO - 11.4%

Marion County, IN - 10.6%

Hamilton County, OH - 13.6%

St. Louis County, MO - 15.6%

Percent reporting any Scotish-Irish ancestry

Jefferson County, KY - 1.8%

Jackson County, MO - 1.8%

Marion County, IN - 1.3%

Hamilton County, OH - 1.3%

St. Louis County, MO - 1.5%

United States or "American" ancestries tend to be higher, but not enormously significantly so (and it should be noted that only one county in Kentucky has a lower "American" ancestry percentage than Jefferson - Kenton, which as 11.3%):

"Percent reporting any United States or "American" ancestry

Jefferson County, KY - 11.4%

Jackson County, MO - 7.0%

Marion County, IN - 9.5%

Hamilton County, OH - 6.4%

St. Louis County, MO - 5.1%

Obviously, history has changed the immigration picture, especially in Texas which now has Hispanics as a plurality. Regardless, it is not accurate to say that "Louisville had different migration patterns from Midwestern cities." Other Southern cities may have had somewhat low slave populations, but their modern day demographics are different. Again, you have not, and you will not find a single one with those percentages (close to 20%) of German ancestry - outside of some counties in Florida.

Seattle does have a Confederate monument - [88]. So does St. Louis - [89], so does Kansas City - [90] , and so does Baltimore - [91]. I will repeat myself for the 50th time about this Confederate monument which, again, is about to be converted to one also honoring Union soldiers due to general outrage in the city: And??? It shows that Louisville had (and unfortunately, still has) Confederate sympathizers. Nothing else. They existed in other border cities as well and, in some cases, in pockets far outside of the South. It is not a litmus test for a city's status before or after the Civil war. As the topic below is discussing, Confederate flags can even be found in rural parts of states like Pennsylvania - simple presence of these things does not define a city's character.

If we're talking about the heritage of the Civil War, it is interesting to note that Kentucky is not among the list of states with state-supported Confederate license plates issued by the Sons of Confederate Veterans group, which both Tennessee and Virginia have. That's certainly not some "litmus test" either, but it's interesting.

--70.168.88.158 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

LMAO you never responded/refuted this source along with most of my other ones. If I can recall you were stating that Louisville was just a Union city and what so a friend sent me these excerts, I post them and you reply with absolutely nothing , and changed the subject back into rather or not to put a star next to Louisville [92] LOL will these assertions of you countering all/most/ or even half of my sources ever end? The old debate is all in the archives for all to view.

[93] This site designed for U.S. ancestry is where I got those numbers from. I meant to say that African Amercians made up the largest ancestry group, rather than the majority. As far as Texas goes yes Germans were heavily concentrated in the Central Region of the state, and I have given 3 maps detailing this [94] [95] [96]. It seems as though you are still ignoring the more 150 years of migrations that this nation has had and how it affected these cities demographics since the German migration. Just look at the Great Lake cities/counties and you see that the largest ancestry their are african americans, due to the Great Migration.

American

Louisville 11.3

Nashville- 11.9

Knoxville- 15.7

Lexington- 11.7

Chatanooga- 16.7

Richmond- 15%

This was the area where American ancestry was the most concentrated

English

Louisville- 10

Nashville- 9.4

Chatanooga- 9.8

Lexington 12.4

Knoxville- 12.1

Richmond is 11.2% Irish Virginia Beach is 12.4% Irish

(all of these are going by your source) With just about every major Virginia city being independent, you can't really compare them to the counties, But just with common sense you can see that these areas in generally are highly German and are or are almost on par with Louisville. Making reference to my sources (which actually show German figures higher in just about every city) The Old city is broken down by ancestry in this order. Black or African American - 33%

German- 16%

Irish - 12%

English - 8%

Richmond, VA German 15%

Knox county- German 12%

Virginia Beach German 14%

It should also be interesting to note that St. Benard Parish (next to New Orleans) is 17% German, and that area has the heaviest concentration of Catholics in the nation. Which is also interesting "religious denomination", we both know that quite a few Southern cities are Catholic, ( and quite a few more Catholic than Louisville) but there is not a single Midwestern city with a Baptist population that matches that of Louisville [97] or other Southern cities.

As far as county goes well no, with Richmond being an independent we can't really do that, But Richmond is 15% German.

If you want to talk Civil War than it's interesting to note that there are over 70 Confederate monuments in Kentucky while compared to only 2 Union monument. It should also be interesting to note that Louisville for the past 100 years has only had one Civil War monument and that one was honoring the Confederacy. While St. Louis, Cincinnati, Seattle have all had Union monuments before or around the same time the Confederate monument went up. Louisville after a century has decided to honor the Union as well, bringing the state total to LOL 3. Kansas city- "15 Confederate prisoners of war who died in Kansas City" [98] Louisvillian 18:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not generating a single Southern city with the modern-day ancestry mixes of Louisville. As I said, it won't be found outside of Florida (or perhaps Northern Virginia, which usually isn't considered "Southern" either.)

In any event, before you went into one of your scripted-and-rehearsed tangents because somebody *dared* compare Louisville to another border city (imagine that!), this discussion was about the status of KY and MO in the Civil War. And yes, people know that the state of Kentucky, which received influxes of Confederate veterans, realigned somewhat with the South after the war. That was resolved. No historians, none at all, question the status of Louisville either, or the amount of Confederate sentiment in the city. Thus, I'm still not sure what we're attempting to show with the Confederate monument, which only survived to modern times because of a rather vocal minority - and it barely survived even then, and only in a reduced form after it was almost bulldozed to make way for a road (hardly sounds like proper treatment of a "city treasure", does it?) It's a laughable attempt to overplay the extent of Confederate sentiment in this city, as Confederate monuments are found in about every border city - and even an odd location such as Seattle - and it's about to be converted in any event. People have been calling for the monument to be removed for the last 50 years, and anybody from the area knows that quite well. It is not a litmus test. --70.168.88.158 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

UUHHH last time I checked Richmond and Virginia Beach were Southern cities, and I have yet to hear those cities being grouped in the NOVA area of the state. I know that Louisville has similarities with St. Louis, and an older regional bond with Baltimore, But those cities have always kind of edged away with the South (especially St.Louis) unlike Louisville. From your source it also contradicts the notion that St. Louis county is of majority German ancestry, But unlike other Midwestern cities (their county's) St. Louis has a majority black ancestry (rather than having them make up the largest percentage) that has only gained during the Great Migration North, in which Louisville like other Southern cities lost black population. However I'm not going to get back into that right now. On Kentucky recieving an influx of Confederate veterans, UUUHHHH when? I have heard from quite a few historians however a theory that a good section of Kentucky's Confederates moved further South earlier in war which weakened the numbers latter estimated. I have a heard believing this Southern propaganda crap, that was forced onto Kentuckians, as some have attempted to argue. As far as the Confederate license plate dispute I have just did a search could come across no such conflict (in Kentucky) I did however see two seperate articles reguarding Maryland and Virginia and which two state judges found it uncounstitutional to can the license plate. On the Louisville's Confederate monument and it's destruction goes, It's the first and largest (state) Civil War Monument standing in the citiy's first suburb, despite a few poltical agendas to get rid of it apparently a great deal of public opinion was against the proposed action and was able to override it. Does that public opinion stand for anything to you? Apparently not! Anyway I see you're trying to get this article back on track so do so. Louisvillian 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

Just wanna get this out there. Even though Pennsylvania is not geographically considered to be part of the South, I would have to say that southern Pa in towns like Chambersburg, Pa and Fayetteville, Pa are largely influenced by the Southern culture; for example the Confederate Flag is often flown outside of some houses and at some sporting events. I know that it is north of the traditional south, but in culture I would say that it could be influenced to some degree by the south. You could possibly stripe it on the map of modern definition. --Wikihermit 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's stretching it, for a couple of reasons. First, you may have noticed a certain amount of discord around here concerning the status of "border states." Pennsylvania, on the other hand, borders a border state. The other issue is just practical: If you think about it, just about anywhere you go you're going to find elements of what you're calling "Southern culture," but I'm not sure that's even the right word for it. Most folks I know would just say what you're seeing is a good ol' boy thing, which you'll find everywhere. A few years back, I was at a wedding in Little Falls, a little town in upstate NY, and let me tell you, that bunch was about as "good ol' boy" as anything I've seen back in Virginia (apart from that odd Rachel Ray accent that everyone has). But nobody's going to be adding New York to our list anytime soon, I'm pretty sure.

As far as southern influence goes, you're probably right that the south influences the way people in the rest of the country behave, but then again, this page isn't called "Places Influenced by the Southern United States." I'll admit I'm a bit mystified when I see the confederate flag being flown in places like Pennsylvania (and yeah, I've seen it too), but I've seen stranger things—that very flag being worn on t-shirts and jacket way up in Montreal, where I now live, for instance (!!!). When I'm in a good mood I kind of just raise an eyebrow at that sort of thing; when I'm not, I just want to shake some sense into these people. I mean, really... But flying (or wearing) a flag doesn't make you southern, any more than wearing pants fifteen sizes too big and saying things like "yo" and "nigga" makes you ghetto.

My feeling—and, as always, I hope anyone who feels differently will chime in—is that, if anything, the Pennsylvania page might benefit some from this insight into the Pennsylvanian character, but the Southern U.S. page is pretty well complete. Buck Mulligan 04:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling PA "Southern" would be a big stretch. Alot of the cultural traits you talk about fall more under the label of "Appalachian," of which a huge chuck of PA is part. Interestingly enough, the great migration of people to the Southern Highlands came through PA so there is great continuity between rural PA and the rural mountain south. The line between Southern culture and Appalachian culture is hard to determine. In the opinions of many, they are one in the same. Some say to be part of Appalachia, you have to part of the South. I personally, think this opinion is too narrow. There are alot of similarities between the various Appalachian portions of the Eastern States, whether Northern, Southern, or border that justify a common grouping.
Lasersnake 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

>>I agree 100% here. Intending no disrespect toward the original poster, the fact there may be some Confederate Flags displayed in southern parts of Pennsylvania is hardly indicitive of the area being influenced by Southern culture. As Buck noted, Battle Flags can be found in some form or fashion in most parts of the country (and apparently in Canada! LOL). In my own travels out of the South, I have run across the same thing and in 99% of the cases when I inquired about it, it was indeed more of a good ol' boy type thing, or "Dukes of Hazzard", or just because they thought it looked cool! LOL In almost none of them was there anything mentioned about an historical context or true emotional attachment to Southern culture, the exceptions expectedly being a handful who were displaced Southerners!

>>Anyway, again as mentioned, there are probably few places that don't contain some elements of Southern culture. The extreme southern parts of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio particularly come to mind...as does (mentioned in the article, in fact)the area around Bakersfield, California which was settled by a lot of depression era Texans, Okies and Arkies. If we were to start stiping every place so impacted, then we would have half the country looking like a candy cane!

>>We've pretty well defined the South and border South, and I personally can't see anything we could, should, or need to add to it. TexasReb 12:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think would need to be adding states like Ohio, Pennslvania, New Jersey, Indiana, and Illinois on the map.

Confused

hi i think you made a mistake b/c i see on the page that you have maryland + pennsylvania + delaware as southern states. i guess no one noticed it. just wanted to tell you, well okay thanks i'll fix it for you haha wrong states —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.73.90 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

>>LOL I am a little confused myself on what is being said. Far as I know, Pennsylvania was never striped. Now, Delaware and Maryland are, largely because the U.S. Census Bureau includes them in their definition of "The South" so therefore they fit the criteria for the defintion of those states so "colored"...which is being "sometimes/occasionally considered Southern", whether or not most in the other Southern states agree or not. TexasReb 12:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? Maryland's not part of the South...

>>Personally, I agree with you on a gut level. BUT, as has been pointed out many times and in many places in the present discussion thread and in the one archived, a FEW sources (notably the U.S. Census Bureau) counts them as part of the South. Therefore, Maryland (along with Delaware) fits the criteria for being stripped on the map as "Sometimes/Occasionally" considered Southern. TexasReb 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dixie

>>There is something I have been thinking about lately and want to run it past my fellow editors. It concerns the Wikipedia article on "Dixie." There is a textual reference and connecting link to it in the Southern United States piece, but the former really contains very little beyond a bit of history on the song by the same name. This seems a bit out of joint, since while the article here refers to Dixie often being a synonym for the traditional South, nothing is said there which clarifies or expounds on that truism. Do y'all think that maybe we might begin to "flesh out" the other to reflect such?

>>First of all, of course, we would have to mostly agree (just as we finally did on the maps here! LOL) on just exactly "Where is Dixie?" Historically, traditionally, and properly speaking -- and any dictionary backs it up -- it is the 11 states of the Old Confederacy. YET...over the years the term has evolved somewhat in popular mindset into something a bit more defined by perceptions of where the image of "moonlight and magnolias" are very rooted in reality, and where Old South and Confederate traditions live most strongly and are most widely celebrated. In other words, more limited than the South itself and with more mecurical boundaries. The easy deliniations are places like west Texas, northern Virginia and a good part of Florida. Strictly speaking, they are all a part of Dixie, but could they really be included anymore?

>>Let me emphasize the above point by referring to the one of the above I know most about: West Texas. In doing research and going thru old newspapers and such, it was not uncommon at all, up until the mid-1900's at least, for the term "Dixie" to be used quite frequently in business listings or attached to sporting events in that area. The reason being, quite simply, the settlers to the area came from East Texas and other parts of the South, and they (many being Confederate soldiers) and their descendants brought with them that mindset that they were as much Dixie as anybody. Over the years, for one reason or another, that faded, so that now, as John Shelton Reed once put it, somewhat sadly, that the term "Dixie" in far western parts of the South has no more currency than it does in Iowa (that of course, is a bit of exaggeration...but the main point is valid).

>>Anyway, what do you all think about maybe bringing the Dixie article up to snuff, starting with a little sharing and opinions on defining it (that is, in a modern day context...we know what it is historically).

>>By the way, when I mentioned the only thing contained in the article now is song-related, I didnt mean to imply there was anything wrong with that, as I plan on doing a little expanding on that particular facet of Dixie myself. In fact, I once wrote a three-part article on the history of the song from its origins to its modern day useage. If any of you are interested in reading it, here is the URL: http://usads.ms11.net/dixie.html (this goes to Part I. The links to the next segments are contained at the end of the piece itself). TexasReb 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Map in the Politics Section

What the hell, that thing looks ridiculous. Look, we can include Maryland and Delaware as being "part of the South" to humor those not living in reality, but only on a token basis. We're not actually supposed to try and integrate the two states into Southern society when they really don't belong!

That being said, the map of Southern electoral votes is completely absurd. You've got this big red mass with a tiny little speck of blue at the top that obviously doesn't belong, but we're just going to pretend like Maryland and Delaware aren't two of the most heavily Democratic states in the whole damn country.

Now, let's see, politically, who would be a closer match to Maryland and Delaware? Why, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island...

Oh, all Northern states.

Like I said, I'll pretend, for the sake of mollifying the hard-liners, that Maryland and Delaware are "border states." Everyone knows, though, that they're actually not, and including them in an article about Southern politics, when their own political sentiments are so flagrantly Northern, is silly. Somebody please fix or remove this map, as it's misleading.

Nanaszczebrzeszyn 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Nanaszczebrzeszyn

Whoahhhhh there, buddy--take a deep breath and relax. If you've looked at the rest of this talk page then you already know that major changes to the article, especially when they have to do with what is and isn't going to be included in the South, tend to require a heck of a lot of talking-through. Now, let's have a look at what you're saying...

Basically, you seem to think that, because most of the South leans rightward, politically, while Maryland and Delaware are more left-leaning in their voting records, therefore they're not southern. That's a pretty narrow definition of what southern and what's not, my friend. Suppose Louisiana started voting blue--what then? They're not southern anymore? There's a lot more to being a southerner than voting for the Grand Ol' Party, and showing that the south is a varied and multifaceted place is the whole point of this page. If you want sterotypes, you can check out any number of other websites. Besides which, there are more black people in the south then anyplace else, and they tend to vote blue. So are they not supposed to be southerners anymore, either? If we took what you're saying to it's logical conclusion, then we could put up a map of the "south" that excluded all the counties that vote Democratic... but then we'd have a map that looked like a slice of Swiss cheese.

Finally, there's nothing "flagrantly northern" about voting blue. People vote Republican up north all the time, and for all kinds of reasons, and people everywhere have a tendency to vote differently depending on whether they're electing somebody at the municipal, state, or federal levels, because different issues come into play. For that matter, southern Democrats and Republicans tend to be quite different from their northern, western, and midwestern counterparts, because--again--they're concerned about different issues. It's a huge country, after all.

If I'm not speaking for everybody on this issue, I expect we'll hear plenty more about it, but in the meantime I'd ask you to leave the map up there as it is. Buck Mulligan 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Southerness" of Maryland and Delaware have been discussed ad naseum. Please look at the archived discussion pages. There have been multiple peer reviewed studies presented and debated that indicate that Maryland and Delaware "Sometimes/Occassionaly" can be considered Southern. If you have any new data you would like to present for discussion, feel free.
Lasersnake 12:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The "red vs. blue state" voting pattern should actually be "urban vs. rural areas." If you examine the voting patterns in all states, north, south, midwest, and west, they all exhibt the same pattern; urban areas tend to vote democrat and rural areas tend to vote republican. Maryland is dominated by the population in its central I-95 region for national level politics, and many of the people living in that area are economically tied to the federal government for jobs. Remember, before the expansion of the federal government in the 50's, most of Maryland was rural. It is in their best interest to vote for the party traditionally associated with government spending. Also, unlike most other southern states (with the exception of Georgia through Atlanta), Maryland has a large *middle class* black population. I stress middle class because voting rates tend to increase with income. However, remember it is a winner take all system, where 49% could vote one way and 51% vote another way, and the 51% carries the state. In Maryland's case, a small number of counties tend to vote democrat, but because of their large population (and the county wide winner take all system), democrats win the state (except in local elections). But anyway, check out this map which is a good reflection of the popular vote throughout the country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png

As far as the map in the politics section goes, in my opinion it is somewhat redundant to show a sea of red, but oh well...

>>So far as the "Modern Definition" map goes, which in turn relates to the "voting patterns map" about the only thing I can add to this particular thread is that I was one of those who, initially, was decidedly against including Delaware at all. And barely accepted Maryland.

>>However, after -- operative term here -- QUITE A BIT of discussion, spanning a goodly length of time, I came to agree with the majority of fellow editors -- all educated and objective when it comes to Southern culture -- in that the fact the U.S. Census Bureau includes them, warranted, as Laser put it, being striped as "Sometimes/Occasionally.

>>I am not going to go over that one again...the issue is settled. MY point here is, I get a little irritated when people come in and start critisizing when it is obvious they haven't read a damn thing previous by way of either the entirety of the present thread, nor that "Archived" I think that is the underlying point both Laser and Buck were making and I back it up 100%

>>Ok..that is my rant for the evening! LOL TexasReb 00:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hate to say it, but I think the original poster has in fact read the archive. If you look at the article history, the political map was added by Sunlight07, someone who has been arguing against including Maryland in the article for several months. Is it coincidence that as soon as a person opposed to the inclusion of Maryland posts a map that points out some of its differences from other southern states, another poster from "*Asstree*, AL," who goes to school in D.C. and has been in trouble from Wikipedia before according to his profile, steps in to argue against Maryland's inclusion because of that map? Further, following the IP addresses of the most recent people who have most called for Maryland's removal all point to a single college in the D.C. area, the city where Sunlight07 has stated he goes to school. I may be way off, and if so, I apologize, but it can all be verified in the Archive and using DNSStuff.com. Basically, I believe we have one person who is attempting to assert his will by pretending to be multiple posters.

Yeah, I looked at his user page and saw that "Asstree, AL" thing, too, so I followed the Google links, and I came up with nothing but blatantly farcical pages. But then again, I (like him) also used to go to a college in the D.C. area, and I knew plenty of folks who'd have been proud of websites like those, if websites as we know them existed back then (gosh... 13 years seems like such a long time, when you look at it that way). So who knows--I'd say a bit of self-parody in one context isn't beyond the pale for somebody who otherwise has strong feelings about what it is to be southern. Hell, I joke about southern, northern, and everything else all the time, but I also take it seriously when it seems like it really matters. But maybe that's giving this guy too much credit. Actually, I'm starting to wonder if he's the same guy whose edit I reverted about three weeks ago after he removed the southern states map (Bierstube Katzen Keller--it's under the talk section about the historic map).

Anyway, as for him "asserting his will": on this page at least, nobody seems to be able to assert his will unless he can convince other people that what he's talking about makes some kind of sense--which pretty much means he can't just assert his will. And damn, guys, it makes me kind of proud. Civilization in action, you might say. Buck Mulligan 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now hold on. That would be like saying that Nancy Pelosi, the current Speaker of the House and a Baltimore native who lived in Maryland until she was a grown woman, is a Southerner. Come on. How many people would actually say that?

For that matter, how many people would describe House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, Senator Barbara Mikulski, or Senator Benjamin Cardin as Southerners? That being said, I'm surprised at the level to which Maryland politicians have suddenly become front-and-center; two Senators, the House Majority Whip, and the Speaker, are all Marylanders by birth. It's pretty cool stuff.

Nanaszczebrzeszyn 22:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Nanaszczebrzeszyn

Oh, and P.S., I am not some other user. Because of course, there's only one college in the D.C. area. And it's very small.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well, since you said you aren't the other poster, you *must* not be :) But, more to your point, so Jesse Jackson is not southern (born in Greenville, SC), but George W. Bush (born in New Haven, CT) is because of their political views? I'm from Charleston, SC, and, while not politically affiliated, certainly agree with the Dem. party on many issues. Guess I can't be southern either.

This discussion is getting us nowhere. I really don't care whether you're one person or many people, Nanaszczebrzeszyn. The point is that you can give us examples of southerners you don't think most people would think of as southern until the cows come home, and you're still not contributing any relevant new information to the discussion.

And anyway, as Texasreb pointed out: The real political division in the U.S. takes place along urban/rural lines, not state lines. If you think Red = South and Blue = North, then your south includes most of the midwest and west, and your north includes Illinios, Michigan, Minnesotta, and the entire west coast. Pretty nonsensical.

P.S., Good luck with your "Asstree, Alabama" hoax. Buck Mulligan 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(Looks like it was actually an anonymous user, not Texasreb, who posted a link above to the voting patterns map. My bad.)Buck Mulligan 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because a place is Republican or Democratic doesn't decide if it is in the North or South. New Hampshire and Ohio are both normally Red States, and they are both Northeastern states as well. Although New Hampshire voted Democrat in the 04 election, they probably just didn't like Bush.

++++++++++ One last point; look at the 1996 presedential election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1996

You'll note that Maryland wasn't the only southern state to vote democrat. What about 1992? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1992

How about 1988? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1988

Note, Maryland voted Republican. 1984? Same (as did everywhere else): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1984

My point is that the whole media "Red vs. Blue" hype is just that, hype. The so called "division is recent, just the last two elections. States can, and often do, vote for opposite parties each election. Trying to base what is and isn't southern off of two elections doesn't seem to be the best method to me.

A quick note: This discussion, apart from being futile, is getting very difficult to read. Guys, please sign your posts. You folks who can't, for whatever reason, sign in under a user name, at least come up with some name for yourself and write it at the end of your messages. And please offset your comments from the last comment before yours by using colons. If you don't know what I mean, just hit the "edit" button and look at this comment of mine--it's indented one space, so you know it's me and not a continuation of the last person's thought. This all probably seems very anal-retentive, but it's very annoying to try to figure out who's saying what, otherwise. Thanks.

That aside, I think we're all in agreement about the larger issue of the political map. Unless our friend from "Asstree" can come up with something relevant to say, it looks like we can put this one to bed. Buck Mulligan 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion about defining the South on a blue state versus red state basis is COMPLETELY absurd. Just because a state votes Democratic does not mean it is not Southern by any means. Arkansas Democrats virtually swept every state office this year--by landslides, too. I guess this means by some of you peoples' definitions Arkansas is not a Southern state anymore?ArkSoutherner 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not personally regard either Maryland or Delaware as Southern states. I don't really know how to explain that; they're just not. The Red State/Blue State thing kind of applies, I guess (because none of the Southern states actually vote Blue in presidential elections), but it's more of a cultural thing. Let me put it to you this way: among most of the people I know, the debate is not whether Maryland is a Southern state, but whether Virginia is. Now, I believe that Virginia is part of the South, but many disagree with me. Maryland, on the other hand, is pretty well Northern.

Southern states never vote Democratically is Presidential elections? Bill Clinton won Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, West Virginia, and Missouri (If you count Missouri as a Southern state.)ArkSoutherner 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

Any chance the state names could be added to the map? I'm from the UK, my knowledge of US geography isn't that good, and I had to go to another article to find out which states were which. 86.136.199.169 18:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 63.101.179.35 06:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

>>Hmmmm...not a bad idea! What do y'all think? I never really considered that there are those not from the United States who want to read about our Southland, and do NOT know which states are which....

>>PROBLEM is, as I see it, is how it could be done in a way that could be easily read on the map itself?? It might not be too much a chore to ABBREVIATE within the boundaries of the individual states such something as "TX, MS, TN, NC," etc. BUT...it goes back to square one in that someone might not know what the abbreviations mean! LOL The other possibility is to add them to the captions of the maps theselves...but the hang up there is that the taglines are fairly lengthy anyway and, even if we did, it comes down to that the full state names would be "disassociated" from the map itself!

>>Anyway, I think our English friend has a good idea...I just dont know, right off the bat, how to implement it! I will be thinking on it though...and meanwhile ask the rest of you all to do the same.... TexasReb 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 15:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good idea and yet a difficult one to implement. If you look at [this section] of the United States article, you'll find that it contains a map of the country with all states labeled, but it's also about three times the size of our current maps. Is there some way to shrink down the image as it's displayed on the page, while allowing for it to spring up full-sized when clicked-on? I suppose there must be some way to do this, but I'm a bit computer illiterate, so if other people like the idea, then somebody else will have to put it up there.

Basically I think that, whatever we decide, we should definitely try to put something fully labeled into the article. It's nice to know that people from other countries are interested in learning something about the South, especially with world political opinion what it is, these days. Buck Mulligan 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Basketball College

I understand rivaly but if you are going to include Ky and NC as Basketball states it only makes since to inclue the University of Louisville, they are in the top 20 all time winning, top 5 most NCAA appearances, and Top 10 Most championships. They are a part of Ky's basketball culture (like it or not) and should be included in this context. I readded them and added a reference. 63.101.179.35 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Never really thought about Kentucky's best Team 74.128.200.135

• I'm not sure what you meant there but I readded the information about the Louisville Cardinals. In the context of the paragraph it makes perfect sense to included them number 4 in over all ppearances in NCAA (more than Duke) and 2 Championships as Many as Duke and UNC. Leave sports bias at the door.M-BMor 10:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia?

Sorry, but can Virginia really be considered a Southern state? I mean, with Northern Virginia and everything, it doesn't really seem like it makes much sense. I would call Virginia a border state, with the Northern quarter or so being Northern and the southern three quarters or so being Southern. But you can't really say that Loudoun, Fairfax, or Arlington counties are Southern. What does everyone here think?

We've been through this already, and the answer is yes: Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky are all southern states on this page (forgive me, folks, if I'm leaving out a state or two). Please have a look at the archived talk page. Buck Mulligan 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Loundon, Fairfax, Arlington, and Prince William do not a northern state make. Most of the state south of Interstate 66 speaks with a southern accent (and even some people north of that line do) and consider themselves southerners. Southern three-quarters of the state = more than enough to make a Southern state. Do transplants to Raleigh, Cary, and Charlotte make North Carolina northern too? 71.48.140.3 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Kentucky yes, Virginia maybe, Maryland definitely not. Anyone else have thoughts on Virginia? I'm really kind of on the fence. What if we called it a Border State, since it's split the way it is? That would seem to make more sense than labeling the whole state as part of the South.

If we mark Virginia a "border state" then Florida should be de-colored entirely. Southern culture and dialect is far more present in Virginia than in Florida. The fact that Florida is located in the South doesn't make it southern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.48.140.3 (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• Um, no Virginia actually borders a Northern state, whereas Florida doesn't. Florida has Georgia and Alabama to its north and the Gulf of Mexico to its south, whereas Virginia shares a Potomac boundary with Maryland.

Which means absolutely nothing. The South has to end somewhere. Virginia is the South (culturally, linguistically), Maryland is not. Just because a minority of Virginia's population in NoVa doesn't speak with a Southern accent or consider themselves Southern doesn't make Virginia a border state. 71.48.140.3 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• • This article is about a geographic sub section of the US. Although there is more to the article than that, unless you can point to reliable sources that state that Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Florida, and whatever other state you wish to exclude from the article are never considered part of that geographical area, my question is, what is the basis of your argument?

Agreed with the previous poster...This is a fascinating debate, one that we have had countless times already. I encourage everyone to look in the archived discussion to see all of the data that has already been presented and discussed about what states can be considered "Southern." If anyone wants to present any new data or articles to add to the discussion, feel free. I think at this point anecdontal observations and opinions will not add much to the debate.Lasersnake 12:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

>> Ditto on the comments by Laser and the other poster above. TexasReb 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One more vote for Southern state. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but Virginia is plain not a Southern state. It's partly southern, but the northern half or so is so influenced by Maryland that there is almost no Southern culture left at all. The Southern accent does not pervade there, nor does traditional Southern food. Confederate flags in the area are taboo. It's also worth noting that Northern Virginia gave the Democrats the Governor's Mansion in 2005 and a Senatorial seat in 2006.

Northern Virginia's Democratic tendencies are meaningless to this discussion. Arkansas is much more so a Democratic-leaning state than Virginia, yet few would argue that it's a border state.71.48.140.3 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lord. Apart from agreeing with everybody except the previous poster, I want to emphasize my agreement with the point Lasersnake raises regarding the substance of the objection we're seeing. Discussion and dissent are always healthy and welcome, but if somebody's objection amounts to little more than a variation on "awww--c'mon guys, you all know what I mean" then that's not very helpful to anybody. Neither is "I'm sorry, but...this is really the way things are."

And to whoever just posted the remark about elections: READ THE DISCUSSION THREAD! We've been through all this before, and you don't even have to look in the damn archive! ...Sorry about the tone, guys, but it's hard to keep civil when people just hop into the middle of a discussion when they obviously haven't bothered to read what's been discussed before. Buck Mulligan 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, but you can't seriously call Northern Virginia part of the South. I mean, hell, there's actually a group of people in the legislature who want NoVa to secede and then be annexed as part of Maryland. This should be a sign to you.

• • Maryland and Northern Virginia are part of the South, geographically. You may not consider them to be Southern culturally (but, blanket statements about an entire state are generally fairly ignorant), but that does not change the geography, which is the entire point of this article. As has been pointed out before, North Carolina's major cities are seeing a heavy influx of northerners. Does that make the Triangle no longer part of the South? Maybe culturally, but certainly not geographically. But, so far you have not even given the first bit of evidence to back up the removal of Maryland and Virginia. Again, what is the basis of your argument, other than "I don't like it?"

• Northern Virginia is NOT part of the South; it's nothing but a bunch of Yankees now. It's just not part of the South anymore. And the whole North Carolina argument doesn't work; North Carolina is surrounded by Southern states, while Virginia borders Maryland. This is why West Virginia is also thought of as a border state: it touches Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

• • But, by your own argument, Virginia is not Southern. Thus, North Carolina is *not* bordered by Southern states on all sides. Thus, North Carolina is a border state. Thus, North Carolina is not part of the South. Thus, South Carolina borders a Northern state, thus it is a border state, thus it is not part of the South. Thus Georgia... Hmmm, where are we going with this? Oh yeah, do some research. I know, it is easier just to give an opinion. Guess that is the burden of the dissenter.

• • No, tard, no. Virginia borders a Northern state, hence it is a border state. North Carolina borders a border state, hence it is...North Carolina, a Southern state. Your argument doesn't work. I don't think anyone would try to say that Arkansas is a Northern state simply because it borders Missouri (a border state).

If a state bounds a Northern neighbor (like Virginia) and then sees a sudden influx of population from that Northern neighbor (like Virginia), then it is reasonable to argue that the state in question is a border state (like Virginia).

"It's nothing but a bunch of yankees now" is not an argument. Neither is "It's just not part of the south anymore." Furthermore, one reason W. Virginia is considered a border state is that it borders the northern states and the midwest, sure. But another reason, one more relevant to the issues covered on this page (and again: READ THE DAMN TALK PAGE, people), is that it split during the civil war and joined the Union.

Hmmm... now, let's see... where was the capital of the Confederacy located for nearly the entire period of time that there was a Confederacy? Oh yeah: In Richmond, Virginia! How silly of me to forget! So we've got history (CSA), geography (Mason-Dixon line), and culture (no matter what might be happening in NOVA, the entire state--NOVA included--generally has more in common with southern attitudes and culture than it does with New England, The midwest, etc.).

So once again: Come here with a real argument, and read the talk thread (including the archive). Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time. Buck Mulligan 02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Let me help guide the original poster. Since the main thesis seems to be "Virginia borders Maryland, thus it is not Southern, because Maryland is not Southern," your first burden of proof seems to be proving that Maryland is always considered a Northern state. From there, you can work on Virginia. Until then, you are just giving opinion, and I, and hopefully everyone else, will be silent until you start to *prove* your opinion is true.

• Northern Virginia is full of Marylanders and other transplanted Northerners--I should know, 'cause I'm one of them! I think of Virginia in general as Southern, but most of my Virginia friends don't agree with me...:(. That being said, Northern Virginia is definitely different than the rest of the state. It's not completely Southern like most of VA, but it's not identical to MD either. It really is like a border state--right in between!

Now, speaking of different cultures...I've spend the last few weeks introducing our neighbors to steamed crabs, crab chips, raw oysters, and, of course, scrapple!!! (which they actually liked!) I haven't been to a Waffle House since coming here, but I'm itching to go!

I tried grits (which I'd thought was a type of meat up until last week) and did not like them very much, but I'm told they taste better if you add butter and sugar and things like that. So, I really like VA, especially NOVA, and would definitely agree that it is a border state. It's got just the right mix of North and South to be right for everyone!

Oh, and P.S.: If there's a list of Southern foods or Southern recipes on here, I'd be very grateful to have someone point it out to me. I'd like to try my hand at some true Dixie dishes

• I'm a bit confused... Are you suggesting that Virginians aren't familiar with crabs and raw oysters? I think you may have run into some very unusual Virginians... Why didn't you visit one of the Waffle House locations in Maryland?

• I don't think we have those. I actually had never heard of Waffle House until I came here! (here being NOVA). So embarrassing!

• Sweetie, NOVA is not Tidewater. And while my friends are fantastic, they are seafood-impaired. I mean, I actually had to teach them not to eat the devil. Now, come on, that's pretty bad. And the reaction to oysters was not very positive...<:O, but they liked the crabs a lot!

• • Just curious, are you from Tidewater Maryland (Anne Arundel and south, Eastern Shore), Virginia (Hampton Roads, Eastern Shore), or elsewhere? Where were your friends in NOVA born? When I lived in Maryland (Annapolis) and Virginia (Fredericksburg) you could commonly get anything from crabs to frog legs, turtle soup, and gator tail in many seafood joints. BTW, shrimp and grits with corn bread is where its at :)

• Oh, great!!! Well, I'm from Anne Arundel County, and I absolutely love it there! Turtle soup I've heard of (though never had), but frog legs? Gator tail? You must have been eating in some pretty wild places! I didn't know they made that! Did you think that Anne Arundel was the best or what?

Now, most of my NOVA friends are actually from NOVA, which is so weird because it doesn't seem like the place you would actually grow up. Maybe I'm just prejudiced for my state, though :)

I really am going to try grits again. You see, the first time I ate it, no one told me that you're supposed to put things on it, so I ate it plain and thought it was terrible. I really don't see what all the fuss is! But I'm open-minded and really want to experience Southern foods, so please let me know what some are!!! It's soooooo different down here, but I really like it! Plus, people don't notice my accent here as much as they do in the rest of Virginia, so I don't stand out so much. It's really nice to be able to blend in a little!

So, let me know about those Southern foods!!

• • To be quite honest, I am surprised you are from Anne Arundel county and that you consider NOVA more "Southern" than home. Edgewater? Mayo? Deale? Shady Side? Heck, Janet Owens, your previous county executive, is the descendant of Benjamin Welch Owens, winner of the Confederate Medal of Honor. There is a statue of him in Shady Side. Taney was from Anne Arundel County... There is a statue in downtown Annapolis recognizing the city's role as a slave port. Things must have changed since I was there last. But, yes, there are Waffle Houses in Maryland. Check out their website. Southern food? Check Wikipedia :)

No, I'm really from there. I grew up in Pasadena and everything. And I knew about the Taney guy, but you're talking about stuff that happened so long ago. I mean, I knew Maryland had slaves and everything, but...eew, that's a weird idea! That's so weird that some people in Maryland supported the South! Now there's kind of a rivalry between North and South, so I don't think Marylanders would support the South today. Not that I don't like it, though :) Oh, and did you know that they don't call dip eggs dip eggs? How odd is that? I was talking with some friends of mine and got so confused!!!

Are you sure about the Waffle House thing, though? Cause I lived in Maryland my whole life and never even knew about them. It was so funny, the first time I saw one I didn't realize they were part of a chain, and I thought it was just this quaint diner or something! I really want to go to one!

• Waffle House update:

Yeah, I just entered in my old zipcode (21122) into the Wafflehouse location-finder, and it said No Results Found!!! Maybe you were wrong about them being in Maryland. But it said on the site that they have some locations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, so maybe it's possible.

• Okay...well, glad to see you're enjoying yourself. And by the way, no, NoVa is not the South.

Well, I mean Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, the two icons of the South were both from Virginia, and Virginia solidly supported the Confederacy. Virginia deverses to be called a Southern state, and has much stronger Southern ties than Kentucky. (which did not join the Confederacy.)ArkSoutherner 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the Wafflehouse thing: both Pennsylvania and Ohio have more Wafflehouse restaurants than Maryland (according to the official Wafflehouse site). It's interesting to note that Southern influence really is more prevalent in central Pennsylvania than in any part of Maryland.

I live in Allegany County, Maryland and don't find it odd that we support the South. I feel that Maryland, in most places, is very southern. I've seen countless Confederate Battle Flags and Stars & Bars flags in my area and it definitly doesn't feel much different than places I've traveled to in northern Georgia and southern Alabama. I'm not sure where the fella that said we don't call them dip eggs was at. All I've ever known is either scrambled or dip eggs. Also, with the Waffle House deal....I just passed one a few days ago on my way out to Hagerstown.--USMarineCorps1989 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Old South; New Definition

The definition of the "Old South" on the main page has been changed. The old definition included the original slave states among the first 13 (except Delaware). The new definition takes out Maryland and West Virginia (part of VA back in the days of the "Old South") and adds KY, TN, AL, MS, and FL. The new definition does include a reference, some article from 1936 about the emergence of Metro Communities in the South. The old defintion did not a have a citation. The big problem with this revision is the new defintion does the match the wikipage devoted to the "Old South." Unfortunately the "Old South" page lacks references as well. My understanding of the "Old South" was that it refered to the original slave states that were the "seed stock" for the Southern culture that spread to the Gulf and Inland Southern regions. I am going to try to find some good references to back this up. What does everyone else think?Lasersnake 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool with me.Louisvillian 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went to dictionary.com clicked on "encyclopedia" and typed in "Old South." I found a wonderful article describing the Old South in detail. I was about to copy the URL and post it here when I noticed the source of the infomration..............Wikipedia! Dictionary.com uses wikipedia as its reference source. I found nearly every other reference search result for "old south" went to wikipedia too. We have to be careful folks, apparently we are the standard for information on this topic :) Anyway, I wasn't able to find any good source defining the "Old South" online or in print. I will try to spend some more time next week on this. Hope everyone has better luck than I did.Lasersnake 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

>>The ONLY problem -- and it is a minor one -- I have with the new definition of "Old South" is that the original source backing it up stems from a school of thought that, later, became a bit discredited. The original thesis was by a man named Howard Odom, and he was the author of "Southern Regions of the United States"...in which he divided "The South" into a "Southeast...Old South" and "Southwest" (The actual state divisions were pretty much covered by the one to which Lazer provided the link).

>>BUT...this was an era when the idea of a "New South" was also taking hold...one defined by economic possibilities, and not culture and history. What it DIDN'T take into account was just how strong the latter two criteia figured in to defining the South.

>>Another way to put it is that it made a PROJECTION that never came to fruition. That is, that the idea of "The South" was mecurical and unimportant and that New Mexico and Arizona would become a part of something unemotionally called the "Southern Region". A modern day analogy, I think, is to try and make the "Sunbelt" a coherent region..."

>>OK..enough of my ramblings. The only thing I would say is that adding East Texas to the definition of Old South only makes sense. The rest of Texas? No. But eastern Texas, in the day, was pure cotton plantation county and pure Lower South. TexasReb 01:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the new definition. The "Old South" should refer to the south as recognized in the 13 colonies. Futher, here is a speech by D.H. Hill of the Army of Northern Virginia delivered in Baltimore that, as far as I know, coined the term "Old South" that contradicts the new definition:

• http://www.civilwarhome.com/oldsouth.htm

• Further, if you follow one of the links currently on the page (sorry, don't remember which one, but will locate it if need be), you will read the author's opinion that Southern culture was birthed in the Chesapeake, which makes sense, since that is where the first settlements were in the South (i.e. Virginia, which included land south till Florida in the early colonial days, and Maryland, which was also settled mainly by Viginians). Heck, look up the origins of "cracker" and you will see Virginia and Maryland as sources of the word :)

>>The above is a good point, so let me run something past my fellow editors. What if -- again, just a thought -- if another "definition" on the "Other Definintions" in the opening article section were added? That is, something like "Colonial South"...or whatever? Yeah, yeah, I know that this thing has the potential to get totally unwieldy and "other definitions" stretch for miles, BUT I DO think there is something to be said for it. For example, many today think of the Old South being the part of the region at least reasonably settled prior to the WBTS, and where some form of plantation and/or agrarian existence was the norm. On the other hand, sure, there is much to be said about the Old South being what are known in the history books as the "Southern Colonies." (Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia).

>>Thoughts, y'all...? TexasReb 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 15:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A Colonial South or Southern Colonies would be a good definition to have. My biggest issue now is that the definition of "Old South" on this page does not match the defintion of "Old South" on the Old South wikipage. If we can't find any sources for the definition on the Old South wikipage, we may want to consider changing or deleting it. I am not really thrilled about the new "Old South" definition on the this page. I don't really see the functionality of it. But without being able to find a better source to change it, I am kind of left without a leg to stand on.Lasersnake 12:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with the current definition. I'm in the process of looking for a source with a better definition of the Old South region. Not only does the current source use an odd definition of "South" that includes desert Southwestern states in the region, it also straight-out contradicts the Wikipedia page on the Old South, which states that the "Old South" is basically the South as represented in the 13 Colonies. I believe I have a section in a geography textbook to back this fact up. --Gator87 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was think maybe it might be better to change the same of this region and the "Old South" article to the Colonial South, since this is the time period alot of you are meaning to refer to. 74.128.200.135 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• My point from the link above was that from a speech in 1887, the first usage of "The Old South" that I know of (please correct me if there is an earlier), Delaware and Maryland were included. For example, "...defeat of Tarleton at Cowpens [South Carolina], all fought by Southern troops on Southern soil. In the last fight the victory was won when almost lost by the cavalry charge of William Washington, and the free use of the bayonet by that peerless soldier, your [Maryland's] own John Eager Howard." Cowpens was fought by troops from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. And, from the War of 1812, "All, too, readily concede that the brilliant land-fights of that war were in defence of New Orleans, Mobile, Craney Island and Baltimore, all fought by Southern troops on Southern soil." He goes on to state "But the unmaritime South claims, among the naval heroes of that period, Decatur, of Maryland; MacDonough, of Delaware... A very large proportion of the naval heroes of the war of 1812 came from Maryland. [The war of 1812 was what set Maryland as the United State's principle naval state]"

• Ok, done beating a dead horse. So, even though this is not a scholarly paper, but rather a speech from a former commander in the Army of Northern Virginia, it is clear that he includes all of those states, and others, in "The Old South." I guess it comes down to, do you want a modern, i.e. "what everyone thinks they know," or historical definition of "The Old South." I think the current article opts more for the latter.

• Oh, and while I am at it, ignore the trolls. They seem to go away faster that way :)

Thanks anon#70. You succeded where I failed. Good work finding the sourceLasersnake 15:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia

Just wanted to add my two cents to this debate. Historically, there is no question that Virginia was a Southern state. During the Civil War, it was probably the most important state of the Confederacy. Now, as many people have pointed out, things have changed quite drastically since 1865. However, to state that Virginia is "plain not a Southern state" is inaccurate.

The truth of the matter is, Virginia is neither fully Northern nor fully Southern. In the northern part of the state, the considerable influence of Maryland is significant enough to create a very Northern atmosphere. In the southern part of Virginia, the solid Dixie states of Tennessee and North Carolina help to perpetuate the Old Dominion's status as a bastion of conservatism and a full-fledged member of the South.

In other words, Northern Virginia, only a river away from Maryland, has found its traditional culture almost entirely replaced; while Southern Virginia remains much the same as it has been for decades. Virginia is a border state in the truest sense of the phrase: half North, half South, and wedged directly between the two regions. In my mind, that is how it should be treated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.50.176 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Except that Northern Virginia is a minority of the area and population of Virginia. It's not a border state, it's Southern. 71.48.140.3 14:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, no, you Northern Virginia is not Southern.

YES IT IS!

You can say it as much as you want, it doesn't make it true! Having been through the REAL South, I know what it looks like, and NOVA doesn't even come close. A town like Pulaski, Virginia is in the South, but Fairfax or Leesburg are not. There is simply no cultural connection as of the 21st Century (by which I mean to hint that stupidly retorting with a smug grin, "Well, Virginia fought for the Confederacy" is not adequate proof that it belongs in the South).

NOVA really is a mix between North and South, but it's coming to resemble Maryland much more closely than the southern part of its own state. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

And, to be quite truthful, Wikipedia has really lost a lot of credibility with me on the regional issue; the same website that stalwartly maintains Northern Virginia, an area not even remotely Southern, as part of the South, has the gall to somehow argue that Kentucky, one of the most Southern states in the Union, is part of the Midwest!

It makes me want to bang my head against the computer screen! I mean, the Encyclopedia's definition of the South is almost comically incorrect!

So, for the record, Northern Virginia is Southern, but Kentucky isn't. Okay.

I thought that we were supposed to define things based on relevant facts, not on bureaucratic ideology (or whatever the hell it is that has led to these bizarre classifications). Ah! I'm like half laughing, half tearing my hair out.

It's almost like someone just sat around one day and was like, "We're gonna throw some random states in as part of the South and we're gonna take a few out."

So, I officially decree that from now on:

• Ohio, Louisiana and Arkansas are part of the Midwest
• Maryland and New York are part of the Upper South
• Texas is actually in the region known as "Upper Mexico," since, after all, it once belonged to that country (this is why arguments such as "Virginia fought for the Confederacy!" sound so retarded in 2007).

Or (and I love this one), "Virginia's below the Mason-Dixon Line!"

Yeah. And so are Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Now, unless we're going to say that these states are somehow part of the South (which I honestly wouldn't put past some of the people on this Encyclopedia), we need to think of better reasoning here.

• I completely and totally agree. The reasons given to explain why Virginia is not a border state have been inadequate to say the least. I'm reminded of when I was a child and my father would respond to a question concerning why I had to do something with, "Because I said so."

It's just a complete denial of logic, the ignoring of hard facts and cultural realities in favor of tired platitudes and ridiculous statements about the Mason-Dixon Line. To say that Northern Virginia is still Southern defies the sanity.

Contrary to what you think, there has been a great deal of discussion about what states to include in the Southern region and how to deal with parts of those states that have experienced significant in-migration from other areas of the US. Please follow the link at the top of the page to the archive to review this information. The article as it stands now mentions very clearly all of the issues you bring up about NOVA. If you feel you have anything new information or comments that would benefit the discription of VA on the main page, feel free to add it.Lasersnake 12:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a very pragmatic person, and believe in calling things as they are, without indulging in silly technicality debates.

Northern Virginia is clearly not Southern, and an article about the South should reflect that. However, I am seeing on this page a tendency to lump Northern Virginia in with Maryland, something that I would strongly caution against; while Maryland had undoubtedly played the most important role in bringing Northern customs into NOVA, the two areas still have significant cultural differences.

You wouldn't say that Georgia and Texas are the same, just because the two are Southern. Similarly, there are different kinds of North, and Maryland and Northern Virginia both have very distinct identities (as do Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, etc).

Metros

If the San Antonio metro is going to be removed then the Baltimore metro needs to be removed also because Maryland is hardly ever considered a southern state. I guarantee you that more people will think of San Antonio being more southern than Baltimore.--Mphifer254 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it can't be done this way. You cannot make an article using opinions based on an unofficial definition of the south. If the state is highlighted in red or deep red, ever metro in the state needs to be included. If one day it becomes a universally understood fact that San Antonio, El Paso, and Miami are no longer in the south then they can be disincluded. Until then, for the sake of fact, they need to remain.--Mphifer254 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, Texas is probably the iconic definition of the South. Then again, these are the same people who insist that Virginia couldn't possibly be a border state...

WOW

This article is perfect! But the talk page is nothing but flames, flame wars, and shit like that!

>> Point is acknowledged, BUT, as Paul Harvey might say there IS a "rest of the story." LOL If one reads the Archives and the present thread, it is easily discernible that that there are long-time contributing editors who, even in disagreement, keep it on a civil level. It is THAT fact which, over time, made the article, as you put it (and THANK you!) "perfect". It took a while to do so, and we are still trying to find ways to improve it and all...

>>To the point though, MOST of the "flames" you mention are ignited by people who really haven't contributed much, article wise, but can find continual fault with that contained within. TexasReb 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

NorVA

I think it should be mentioned that NorVA is increasingly Democratic, and recently threw two major statewide elections to Democrats. NC can also be seen as trending Democratic, although that can be disputed. But if Dole loses her seat, IMO that just proves NC is going in the same direction as Virginia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.170.110 (talk • contribs) May 17, 2007.

Polotics don't matter whenever a state is Northern or Southern. Virginia and North Carolina will always be Southern no matter who they vote for in the 08 election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.5.249 (talk • contribs) May 18, 2007.

North Carolina is a Southern state, just a Southern state that might be more liberal than normal. Virginia, on the other hand, is ripe for transformation into a Northern region due to its proximity to Maryland. Politics alone can't change a state's region, but politics as a part of culture, combined with culture's other aspects, can do that. As Virginia continues to fall under the influence of Maryland, as more and more Marylanders migrate across the Potomac, Virginia will become more Northern.

Virginia being called Northern is a bunch of bullshit. Virginia is ultra Southern.

Major Metropolitan Areas

I removed Baltimore from the list because it is not even remotely southern in geographic or culture terms. Plus cities such as St. Louis or Kansas City were not included despite the fact that on the map Missouri was stripped. I kept Washington D.C on the list because of it's ties with Virginia.

I also added Birmingham, and Tampa to the list.

• • I reverted your changes. Besides, D.C. is wholly on land donated to the federal government by Maryland. I suppose I should also ask, what are your sources to back up your claims? If none, do not make major revisions to the article.

Well when I am talking about D.C I mean the metropolitan area which includes Northern Virginia and West Virginia. Maryland along with Washington D.C even though they allowed slaves, were officially in the Union during the civil war and don't have much if any influence of southern culture, aside from maybe the eastern shore. Plus these cities are tied to the BosWah metro so they have little in common with the south.

If we are still to include Baltimore on the list then you should also add St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri to the list since southern culture also influences those cities. If this is the case maybe we should include all metro areas in these border states. Kcar 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I saw Baltimore back added to the list, I added St. Louis and Kansas City to the list since I think the general consensus here is to add all major cities that are in shaded or stripped states. Plus these cities have the same southern cultural influence as Baltimore, which is very little. Kcar 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dixie Request

>>I have a request for all my colleagues/fellow editors. To wit, I just added a new section to the "Dixie" article, as relates to a "geographic" location. It is raw and new, but I would sure appreciate opinions on it. And if they are critical? Well, I don't take that personal, rather, welcome!

>>AND contributions, etc, to "flesh it out." After all, "Dixie" is mentioned in the opening reading on the Southern United States page, and there needs to be, I think, a real connection between the two.

>>Anyway, please check it out and thanks in advance, y'all! TexasReb 14:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)