What is the northernmost Southern city? Southernmost Northern city? (homes, weddings)

[StuyTownRefugee]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Not true, because slavery existed in places that didn't necessarily depend on it.

I originally said in an earlier post. Some states like Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, W.VA, were considered Southern primarily agri based, however they weren't Confederate.

Part of the South went Union, mainly the border areas, but other Souths went Confederate. That's where all the confusion is.

A big division of colonies had already steeped in (on the E coast at least) based on economies, products, etc. That's why DC was supposed to be a shared capital originally between a more northerly industrial base and lesser so Southward. That was long before the Civil War.

A division was set during colonial times and after independence and expansion it intensified, usually after a colony wins or gets independence there is conflict. ( Now China with Hong Kong fear, Sierra Leone, etc)

Some relic division still exists on the border as attested by those who post here. But it's colonial and worthless now.

[StuyTownRefugee]

Quote afj131

D.C. is nowhere near as laid back as Richmond is, the climate is not the same, the attitudes and culture of the people in D.C. compared to Richmond are different. D.C. is leans more liberal I'd say, Richmond is conservative. What else needs to be said? I visited both cities and they felt worlds apart from one another. D.C. feels much more closely linked to Philadelphia and Baltimore than Richmond.[/quote]


And nowheres is DC as laid back as Balto is either a little further geographic north. Aside from current political persuasion or architecture we'll assume you did NOT go to either place on a weekend. Weekends in both cities and most of the NE are layback times given to tourists especially in DC and locals in for events rather than rush hour work hours. But even during the week the pace north of DC in Baltimore is also relatively laid back as it seems more in Richmond area and its beltway comparatively to Washington. That has little to do with Southerness, and in DC it seems vacated at night as so many return to the suburbs with horrendous b to b traffic.

Historically most of the first presidents who occuped the White House were Virginians or "Southerners", Richmond is older than DC, much of the capital foundational lay out was influenced by them and easily poured money into their state capital via granting one of the first banks on the Fed reserve system making Richmond a financial center. Finance for the earlly capital came from there and Philadelphia the next center on the early system.

THere were very early liks between Richmond and DC. Later during the war Richmond was also a capital and today has more statues than any other US city EXCEPT DC. There is an old time capital air there in terms of earlier linkages, as British influence can be seen in many colonial homes and buildings there and in the Bahamas, Barbados even.

But Richmond became also a heavy industrial city back then and important rail center to get goods north via DC, rather than just a capital.

But first and foremost many Virginians bringing their influece to the earlier DC during construction, draining the swamp, engineering, etc and occupying the seats of earlier govt left an indelible mark on DC forever linking the development of the two. Jefferson and Washington, Madison, Monroe hired the many architects, surveyors, marble carvers and importers, to design the place.

You can look at the Jefferson Memorial's rotunda and see Southern influence, you can look at the Lincoln Memorial and see Southern influence and many other structures, and Richmond has those similarities.

Both have been capitals of a country though and a lot of old Richmond families like AH Robins, Reynolds Aluminum, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds have had influence in DC over the years.
What constitutes being Southern never constituted being necessarily farmers, cotton pickers, and whiskey distilles, there were other industries such as pharmaceuticals and engineering companies that gave the Confederate South a manuf base too, and much of that was centered around Richmond that paid much to help build the first US capitol and after the War of 1812's burning, its rebuilding.

Balto though to an extent as well does have similar traits as DC, but Richmond does as well but is older and more historically rooted due to the many Presidents that came from Virginia.

[tallylady46]

Originally Posted by ogre

The quoted post suggests one way in which the answer to the original question gets a little tricky. Between regions, there are usually tranisitional zones that have a mix of characteristics. Cities in the crossover areas between north and south are likely to have some elements of both regions. It's a matter of perspective as to which ones stand out. Someone from NJ might seen Cincinnati as kind of Southern, while an Alabamian might feel it's kind of Yankee.

A few posts have mentioned Southern influences in many Midwestern cities. This points out another tricky area, which may be something you have to be familiar with the Midwest to understand. I lived in Ohio for a number of years, in a town which, along with being home to a liberal arts college, and having a small but noticeable portion of the population who were suburban commuters, included light manufacturing among its economic activities. There was a whole section of town that was a distinct neighborhood, inhabited by people from WV and KY who had moved north to seek work in the factories. Over the several years I lived in the Midwest, I learned that the region's history as a center of industry had led to the development of many such enclaves in Midwestern towns and cities. The existence of these neighborhoods, scattered among the large majority of middle-American folks, thus actually seems to be a quirky Midwestern characteristic, rather than an extension of the South much farther north than you might expect.

Great points! But I've known people from southern Ohio without Kentucky or West Virginia roots and they sounded very similiar to their KY/WV counterparts.

But I know what you mean about Appalachian neighborhoods in the midwest. When my husband move from eastern KY to Cleveland in the 1950's, he said the transplants tended to cluster in the same area. Also when we visited some of my husband's remaining relatives in Cleveland (some scattered out to Pennsylvania), alot of them still have that twang after all those years!

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by StuyTownRefugee

I originally said in an earlier post. Some states like Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, W.VA, were considered Southern primarily agri based, however they weren't Confederate.

Part of the South went Union, mainly the border areas, but other Souths went Confederate. That's where all the confusion is.

A big division of colonies had already steeped in (on the E coast at least) based on economies, products, etc. That's why DC was supposed to be a shared capital originally between a more northerly industrial base and lesser so Southward. That was long before the Civil War.

A division was set during colonial times and after independence and expansion it intensified, usually after a colony wins or gets independence there is conflict. ( Now China with Hong Kong fear, Sierra Leone, etc)

Some relic division still exists on the border as attested by those who post here. But it's colonial and worthless now.

Actually, Missouri was never really Southern at all as far as agriculture went. Slave-owners may have attempted to grow some Southern crops here but the agriculture of Missouri has always been primarily Midwestern, principally consisting of corn, soybeans, barley, wheat, hemp (which is grown throughout the Plains and Midwest in addition to the South the last time I checked), etc. Cotton and tobacco only grow in the extreme Southern parts of Missouri. The rest of the border states are another story. Maryland, Kentucky and Virginia all grew and still grow plentiful supplies of cotton and tobacco. St. Louis, Kansas City, and Cincinnati are Midwestern. Louisville is Southern. I just don't get the argument for D.C. being Southern. Historically to me it has never fit into either category, and today it without a doubt behaves like a Northeastern city. what else is there to say?

[StuyTownRefugee]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Actually, Missouri was never really Southern at all as far as agriculture went. Slave-owners may have attempted to grow some Southern crops here but the agriculture of Missouri has always been primarily Midwestern, principally consisting of corn, soybeans, barley, wheat, hemp (which is grown throughout the Plains and Midwest in addition to the South the last time I checked), etc. Cotton and tobacco only grow in the extreme Southern parts of Missouri. The rest of the border states are another story. Maryland, Kentucky and Virginia all grew and still grow plentiful supplies of cotton and tobacco.

I have no idea where that would be in Maryland for cotton, perhaps in Southern Md where it used to be there is still some tobacco. Also as you make Missouri analogous, Virginia would only have little cotton in the extreme Southwest near Tennesse, it's very mountainous north of there (Shenandoah Valley, Blue Ridge Mtns, Skyline Drive, etc) around Bristol and perhaps the Carolina border out west with Tennesee that might be the case.

But heck they grow/grew cotton in AZ and California. I understand even Minnesota has tobacco centers. Tobacco used to be a high cash crop, it was economic.

The North tip of those mtns in Va the other way where it meets MD and WV is known for its apples in Winchester. Just like Washinton State. No cotton, no tobacco, but Virginia is not an agricultural state in this day and age for a long time.

Go figure.

Interesting world thanks for the input.

[StuyTownRefugee]

Originally Posted by american_life

Louisville? Cincinnati?

Washington, DC is named after a Southerner George Washington, plain and simple.

As a national capital it had to take on other regional influences as well as international due to a representative govt.

Consequently it has its own unique educational and diplomatic, social atmosphere. To say it's Northern overlooking its Southern roots and traits and Midwest and Western influences, is short changing the rest of the country.

It's probably the most northern southern city and most southern northern city, since that was the question but that's uncomprehensive to describe a global or world city especially one that is a capital today.

[drowan]

Um,,, Vancouver and Matamoros?

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by StuyTownRefugee

Yes but slavery existed in New York and elsewhere in the NE, but lasted longer in the South, and Maryland's tobacco crops were very dependent on it. The original name for Rhode Island was Blackstone Plantation.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not concerned with whether it existed. I'm not particularly interested with how long it lasted - although I can see where that matters. What I'm talking about is the density, or the extent, or the impact of it.



This map helps illustrate my point. There is a tremendous cultural and historical difference between 1 slave per square mile in one county of Rhode Island, and 15-20 per square mile in Mississippi.

United States Population in 1850

Here are the slave populations in 1850 in a few of the free states:
Pennsylvania 53,626 (the highest 'free state')
Indiana 11,262
Illinois 5,438
Rhode Island 3,670

Here are the slave states:
Virginia 472,528
South Carolina 384,984
Georgia 381,682
Alabama 342,844
Mississippi 309,878
North Carolina 288,548
Louisiana 244,809
Tennessee 239,459

Now here are the "Border States" - where slavery was legal.
Kentucky 210,981
Maryland 90,368
Missouri 87,422
Texas 58,181
Florida 39,310
District of Columbia 3,687

Kentucky's numbers were surprisingly high, to me. My opinion is that you cannot put Maryland or Missouri in the same camp with the rest of the south. Additionally, what these numbers do not point out is the ratio of black to white. Some of these counties in SC, VA, and MS were over 80% slaves, and you just didn't have that in the border states.

Slavery crops were not just cotton related. Cotton wouldn't grow in Va, as in MD, and like Kentucky produced tobacco. Cotton was Deep South mostly. The Border South practiced slavery like W.VA then fought with the North or was invaded as in Maryland's case and held, Antietam. It previously had existed in Brooklyn, NY and up the coast, but held on longer in NY. There were lynchings in NYC.

www.nydivided.com

The Dread Scott Decision was in Missouri. The border states had slaves too.

Slavery shouldn't be the main criteria used to depict the border South.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I don't disagree with your facts. But as someone from South Carolina, I think the legacy of slavery is, without question, what makes the south different from the north, and from rest of the country.

[StuyTownRefugee]

My point was they had it. SO often, not you per se, people more often than not totally disregard that it existed in the North AT ALL.

Also youre sources are a little before the leading up to the conflict over it even if that is the sole reason, (econmics from it being the other).

Earlier times I'm not sure, but I'd bet there were more in those sugar coated areas before 1840. I recall in history MD let many of its own go before the conflict preludes in anticipation.

Thanks for the info, but you can see the confusion or how one can define the fuzzy areas of where the N or S would begin based on this one criterion. You can see where the concentration in MD 1840 was concentrated highly in Balto the main city and if you ever go there in recent decades, better now, you can see where slavery left its indelible marks.

But as an added remark about the hypocrisy in N/S accusations of slavery I found it ironic almost oxymoronic that a label for a "Free State" would have so many slaves in it. Free State but x number slaves i.e. Penna for 53,000 too many.

Also others made it optional in it being 'legal'. Kinda iffy state of being "free". There's all the hypocrisy right all in there.

Sounds like some employers out there today. LOL!!

Also to debunk another myth many people hold, it wasn't most southerners who owned slaves, but the smalll classes of elite rich. Some states had more % of the elites than others. Your map may also show distribution of that crude form of wealth, as slaves like cash crops were commodities. The richer you were the more of everything you owned, like livestock. No wonder the colonists revolted, probably tired of doing the handywork of serving the elites in England their cigarettes and linens.

Another thing about the DC area too and those surrounding states, history didn't begin in the Civil War in that region when the European empires were running the slave trade and bring them in if slavery is a characteristic. Then that region started out before there was a "South" as simply a colony then came revolution, then another war, then internal war, just like any decolonizing situation. China/Taipei/Hong Kong fears, Iraq, Iran, Africa, Pakistan insurgent factions mirroring the Red and Blue Coats here this country went thru in order to settlement. There should be no shame to anyone N or S the bloody struggles endured to create the WHOLE place.

I was trying to be objective sorry if it did not come across, but this is a wide audience to post to. I live in NY by the way.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by StuyTownRefugee

I have no idea where that would be in Maryland for cotton, perhaps in Southern Md where it used to be there is still some tobacco. Also as you make Missouri analogous, Virginia would only have little cotton in the extreme Southwest near Tennesse, it's very mountainous north of there (Shenandoah Valley, Blue Ridge Mtns, Skyline Drive, etc) around Bristol and perhaps the Carolina border out west with Tennesee that might be the case.

But heck they grow/grew cotton in AZ and California. I understand even Minnesota has tobacco centers. Tobacco used to be a high cash crop, it was economic.

The North tip of those mtns in Va the other way where it meets MD and WV is known for its apples in Winchester. Just like Washinton State. No cotton, no tobacco, but Virginia is not an agricultural state in this day and age for a long time.

Go figure.

Interesting world thanks for the input.

Missouri's agriculture is Midwestern, plain and simple. If you can't see that, I can't help you. There's no way to simply explain that away. Missouri's main agricultural products are corn and soybeans, and those are produced in ENORMOUS numbers. There is virtually nothing Southern about its agriculture. Never has been, never was. Unlike other Southern states, Missouri's tobacco production and cotton production were always confined to the extreme Southern portion of the state. Those are the only places where it grew natively.