Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2011, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,892,595 times
Reputation: 6438

Advertisements

This map is interesting, it shows concentrations of slavery in 1860.





1860 census map shows where Missouri's slave population resided - Kansas City News - Plog

I have been doing a lot of research on this topic because people seem to make a big deal out of MO being a slave state and KS being a free state and a lot of people seem to assume that MO is a southern state. I don't see it. Parts maybe, but MO is not southern IMO at all and after living near Maryland, Virginia etc, I can say that you can really see the southern influence there while MO not so much.

What I keep reading is that the MO side of the KC area didn't side with the confederates as much as people like to think.

I can't find the link, but I read where Kansas City, MO at one time desperately tried to succeed from Missouri and incorporate into Kansas to get out from under the confederacy.

I know there is a lot of confederate history in MO, especially just east of KC in places like Higgensville and Lexington. Then you have historic battles in places like Westport and Lawrence.

But from what I can tell, Kansas City, MO as a city was not on the side of the confederate and I really wonder how much the civil war really did directly effect the Kansas City area other than just being in the way. Anybody know more about this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2011, 01:52 PM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
12,350 posts, read 9,722,262 times
Reputation: 13892
When I saw this thread title, I assumed it referred to the JOCO/KCMO "smack" that is reclaiming its grip on this forum with Samantha seemingly MIA for the moment. I'm resisting getting more involved in the fray in any detail since my KC experience is so dated.

But the forum sorely needs Samantha back, so I hope its just that she's enjoying a nice vacation and will chime in soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 05:05 PM
 
1,881 posts, read 1,010,918 times
Reputation: 1551
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
When I saw this thread title, I assumed it referred to the JOCO/KCMO "smack" that is reclaiming its grip on this forum with Samantha seemingly MIA for the moment. I'm resisting getting more involved in the fray in any detail since my KC experience is so dated.

But the forum sorely needs Samantha back, so I hope its just that she's enjoying a nice vacation and will chime in soon.

IMO.. Missouri is 80% midwestern with a little southern taste.. Obviously as you go into the bootheel and far SE Missouri its more Southern, and as you go north of I-70.. Its really not Southern at all..

As far as the slavery is concerned, I'm glad you brought this up.. I think Missouri and Kansas are more similar than they really want to admit. Sure Missouri has a few pockets of slavery, but lets be realistic.. Outside that pocket east of KC, and the far SE part of Missouri, this is not a slave state at all.. This would be like calling Kansas a liberal state because of a few pockets of democrats around.. Lets get real on this one..

As far as Samantha, I have very much enjoyed the break from faces like and smart aleck responses with no substance on the subject..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 06:07 PM
 
Location: KC
396 posts, read 999,113 times
Reputation: 413
while, I agree not all of Missourians owned slaves. Only a small percentage of ALL southerners even in the deep south owned slaves. And the vast majority of them owned less than 5. According to the map kcmo show just under 10% of the population of Missouri were slaves in 1860. To put that into todays world, African Americans make up about 11% of the population of Missouri today. If that proportionate number of people were enslaved today, would you consider Missouri to be a slave state? Plus remember, the ozarks had almost noone living in them. Plus the land was worthless for plantations, just like upland tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama etc. That's where the poor white people who didn't want to be "enslaved" (Sharecroppers) lived. These characteritics right there do put it in a very similar basket with the Kentucky's and Tennessee's of the world. To be fair, the influx of German immigrants is a large part of what kept Missouri from seceding. Many of them fought for the Union while many others fought for the Confederacy. Missouri is unique in it's connection both with the upper south as wells as the midwest/plains (german) influences. Does this mean KC was all for slaves, no. But they were just down the road. Personally, and you already know this kcmo, it's too bad KC just didn't make the switch and we could all be one big happy family.. right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,892,595 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by pioneer88 View Post
while, I agree not all of Missourians owned slaves. Only a small percentage of ALL southerners even in the deep south owned slaves. And the vast majority of them owned less than 5. According to the map kcmo show just under 10% of the population of Missouri were slaves in 1860. To put that into todays world, African Americans make up about 11% of the population of Missouri today. If that proportionate number of people were enslaved today, would you consider Missouri to be a slave state? Plus remember, the ozarks had almost noone living in them. Plus the land was worthless for plantations, just like upland tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama etc. That's where the poor white people who didn't want to be "enslaved" (Sharecroppers) lived. These characteritics right there do put it in a very similar basket with the Kentucky's and Tennessee's of the world. To be fair, the influx of German immigrants is a large part of what kept Missouri from seceding. Many of them fought for the Union while many others fought for the Confederacy. Missouri is unique in it's connection both with the upper south as wells as the midwest/plains (german) influences. Does this mean KC was all for slaves, no. But they were just down the road. Personally, and you already know this kcmo, it's too bad KC just didn't make the switch and we could all be one big happy family.. right?
But from what I can tell, it seems like many (or even most considering how unpopulated KS was at at time) of the "freestaters" in Kansas actually came from Missouri.

Regardless, I agree and have always thought KC would have been better off if it were entirely in Kansas. Now it would have to be entirely in Kansas. If you move just KCMO to Kansas and leave the MO suburbs in MO, then you risk duplicating the exact problems that have plagued the area in reverse.

I do not like the name Kansas City, Kansas though. I do like the name Kansas City, Missouri. It just sounds better even though it confuses the rest of the world. .

Last edited by kcmo; 03-03-2011 at 07:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 06:46 PM
 
398 posts, read 993,998 times
Reputation: 391
kcmo,

Kansas City, Missouri was occupied by Union troops during the Civil War. It was a Union city. They had a prison for Confederate sympathizers in Kansas City.

Missouri was a slave state, but it never officially seceded from the Union. Missouri also abolished slavery during the war. According to an article on Missouri in the Civil War that I linked to below, Missouri supplied about 110,000 troops for the Union Army and about 40,000 troops for the Confederate Army.

I don't know if Kansas City ever tried to secede from Missouri and join Kansas during the war, but I do know from studying Kansas history that prior to Kansas becoming a state, when different maps were being considered for the final state borders, one of the proposals was to include the area in Missouri from where the Blue River begins at the Missouri River to where it crosses the state line. That would have included all of modern urban Kansas City within the state of Kansas. It's really too bad that that border wasn't adopted. I don't have a map of it, but I've seen the map in Kansas history books.

These are some good articles about the status of Missouri in the Civil War, about Border States in general, and about Bleeding Kansas:

Missouri in the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Border states (American Civil War) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bleeding Kansas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lawrence Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People probably think that I'm obsessed with Civil War history based on my username. I'm not. Free State is just one of the many nicknames of Kansas, along with Jayhawk State, Sunflower State, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 07:03 PM
 
398 posts, read 993,998 times
Reputation: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
But from what I can tell, it seems like many (or even most considering how unpopulated KS was at at time) of the "freestaters" in Kansas actually came from Missouri.
No, this is just not true at all. I will give you a pass because you never went to school in Kansas. They make us take Kansas history class in Kansas public schools, so we learn about the free state and Bleeding Kansas history.

The abolitionists, or free staters, who came to Kansas were mostly from New England and other northern states. One of the main groups that sponsored them was the New England Emigrant Aid Company, founded in Massachusetts in 1854, the same year Kansas territory was opened for settlement. The New England Emigrant Aid Company founded Lawrence and Manhattan. Amos Lawrence was the company's secretary.

These were the people who made Kansas a free state. Period. I'm not saying that there were no pro-Union Missourians who went into Kansas. There probably were, because Missouri did have some pro-Union support. But if it had only been Missourians moving in, Kansas would have been a slave state. And that would have possibly led to the defeat of the Union in the Civil War and the end of the United States of America, because if the Confederacy had taken control of Kansas, they might have spread slavery into Colorado and the rest of the mountain west.

Link: New England Emigrant Aid Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,892,595 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeStater View Post
kcmo,

Kansas City, Missouri was occupied by Union troops during the Civil War. It was a Union city. They had a prison for Confederate sympathizers in Kansas City.

Missouri was a slave state, but it never officially seceded from the Union. Missouri also abolished slavery during the war. According to an article on Missouri in the Civil War that I linked to below, Missouri supplied about 110,000 troops for the Union Army and about 40,000 troops for the Confederate Army.

I don't know if Kansas City ever tried to secede from Missouri and join Kansas during the war, but I do know from studying Kansas history that prior to Kansas becoming a state, when different maps were being considered for the final state borders, one of the proposals was to include the area in Missouri from where the Blue River begins at the Missouri River to where it crosses the state line. That would have included all of modern urban Kansas City within the state of Kansas. It's really too bad that that border wasn't adopted. I don't have a map of it, but I've seen the map in Kansas history books.

These are some good articles about the status of Missouri in the Civil War, about Border States in general, and about Bleeding Kansas:

Missouri in the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Border states (American Civil War) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bleeding Kansas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lawrence Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People probably think that I'm obsessed with Civil War history based on my username. I'm not. Free State is just one of the many nicknames of Kansas, along with Jayhawk State, Sunflower State, etc.
Interesting. Thanks for the info. I knew about the potential state border locations that bounced around east of KC before being nailed down where it is now. But there was a move to succeed from Missouri long after the state line was in place and the city was more established. I will try to find where I read that but remember finding it very interesting when I read it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 08:31 PM
 
1,472 posts, read 2,406,823 times
Reputation: 1175
Even though Slave Numbers had nothing to do with being a Confederate State if Gen.Sterling Price would have had the backing and reinforcements needed there would have been no question as to Missouri being a Confederate State.My ancestors fought under the Missouri Battle Flag along with 60,000 others.

They owned Slaves which many of their Kin still live in the Cooper County area.

brushrunner
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 08:47 PM
 
398 posts, read 993,998 times
Reputation: 391
The main thing is that Kansas City, Missouri was a Union city. It was not under control of the Confederacy. The city was controlled by the Union Army. Pro-Confederate guerrilla fighters like William Quantrill and Jesse James lived in the rural areas around Kansas City, and Confederate armies tried to take control of Kansas City, but they did not succeed.

The Union won the Battle of Westport. If the Confederates had won the Battle of Westport, they might have taken control of Kansas City, but they didn't win the battle. The Civil War definitely affected the Kansas City area. The Battle of Westport is called the Gettysburg of the West. It was one of the largest Civil War battles west of the Mississippi River. Bleeding Kansas, which has as much to do with Missouri history as it does Kansas history, directly led to the Civil War. Bleeding Kansas was like a mini-Civil War in the Kansas-Missouri border area.

In 1860, Kansas City only had 4,000 residents. Leavenworth was the primary city in the region, with about 7,000 residents. Lawrence had 2,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top