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.
I think Oklahoma is the most Midwestern Southern state. Missouri is the most Southern Midwest state. Kentucky is the most Southern state that isn't supposed to be Southern. Delaware is the least Southern state of the states that aren't supposed to be Southern. West Virginia is in the middle.
I'm just curious. Why would you say Kentucky isn't suppose to be Southern? If you look at location (south of the Ohio River), linguistics, traditions, culture, food, it has always been Southern though not part of the Confederacy. What I learned in school and correct me if I'm wrong because I could be wrong, the reason Kentucky did not join the Confederacy is because it had a wise Governor who knew once proclaimed part of the Confederacy, it would have been immediately over run with Union troops and Louisville would have been made an example of, being only short miles from large northern cities just across the Ohio River. It was a matter of self preservation. Kentucky unlike Virginia with a much larger population at that time had very little ability to defend itself. Even with this, the Governor at the time refused Lincoln's order that Kentucky send troops to join the Union.
Anyway, that's a little history I learned in school and again, I'm not from Kentucky so those of you that are born and raised there I'm certain have had better history lessons regarding this than I have.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Kentuckians in the 1860s had odd views on slavery. Most supported it but didn't find it important enough to fight over. A good example is Louisville resident and short term US president Zachary Taylor who owned slaves but opposed allowing the expansion of slavery into new territories. Based on which side Kentucky gave the most troops to KY was 80% Union 20% Confederate. Kentucky is a bridge state that connects south Alabama and the UP of Michigan. Mostly Southern but also a transition state.
I'm just curious. Why would you say Kentucky isn't suppose to be Southern? If you look at location (south of the Ohio River), linguistics, traditions, culture, food, it has always been Southern though not part of the Confederacy. What I learned in school and correct me if I'm wrong because I could be wrong, the reason Kentucky did not join the Confederacy is because it had a wise Governor who knew once proclaimed part of the Confederacy, it would have been immediately over run with Union troops and Louisville would have been made an example of, being only short miles from large northern cities just across the Ohio River. It was a matter of self preservation. Kentucky unlike Virginia with a much larger population at that time had very little ability to defend itself. Even with this, the Governor at the time refused Lincoln's order that Kentucky send troops to join the Union.
Anyway, that's a little history I learned in school and again, I'm not from Kentucky so those of you that are born and raised there I'm certain have had better history lessons regarding this than I have.
Well I am parroting the opinion of many Kentucky natives who argue in favor or their state not being Southern. It's like they are awards of the Southern overtones of the state but still hold in their heart the fact that Kentuckians weren't by heart true Dixie.
It's one of those "well we know where we are and what our history is but we sort of wish it wasn't there". Whereas in other parts of the South you find adamant beliefs of "damn those Yankees"
I think Oklahoma is the most Midwestern Southern state. Missouri is the most Southern Midwest state. Kentucky is the most Southern state that isn't supposed to be Southern. Delaware is the least Southern state of the states that aren't supposed to be Southern. West Virginia is in the middle.
Pretty accurate. No one will deny out of all the Midwestern states, Missouri is the most southern. It also differs because while it's classified as Midwestern, a decent chunk of the state is in the south (25 percent) or so plus the transition zone. Indiana would be next behind Missouri, but only the far southern portions of Indiana and even then it's a transition zone. Most of southern Indiana isn't fully southern like the southern quarter of Missouri is. The southern quarter of Missouri is basically an extension of Arkansas and TN. Southern Indiana is like Missouri is in the northern part of southern Missouri that is a transition zone mix like places like Rolla, Nevada, and even Lexington and Booneville are near the MO river. Southern Indiana is not the south like the Bootheel or Branson, Poplar Bluff are. Southern IN has noticeable Midwest influences still. Plus Mo was a slave state and was claimed by the Confederacy, IN was not and really didn't have many civil war battles.
I'm just curious. Why would you say Kentucky isn't suppose to be Southern? If you look at location (south of the Ohio River), linguistics, traditions, culture, food, it has always been Southern though not part of the Confederacy. What I learned in school and correct me if I'm wrong because I could be wrong, the reason Kentucky did not join the Confederacy is because it had a wise Governor who knew once proclaimed part of the Confederacy, it would have been immediately over run with Union troops and Louisville would have been made an example of, being only short miles from large northern cities just across the Ohio River. It was a matter of self preservation. Kentucky unlike Virginia with a much larger population at that time had very little ability to defend itself. Even with this, the Governor at the time refused Lincoln's order that Kentucky send troops to join the Union.
Anyway, that's a little history I learned in school and again, I'm not from Kentucky so those of you that are born and raised there I'm certain have had better history lessons regarding this than I have.
KY population was mostly southern. However like the other northern southern states it was not full fledge secession like VA, KY, TN, MO, MD. (VA Tn eventually approved secession) Remember the northern southern states did not immediately accept secession like the deep south. Kentucky's population many supported the union and most of it's politicians were pro union and against secession and KY really didn't want to be in the civil war and wanted to stay out of it.
This actually is total opposite from Missouri. Many of Missouri's lawmakers wanted secession even though the constitutional convention at the time was mainly against it (voted it down). Because of this and the fact that Missouri's government was pretty open about wanting to join the Confederacy caught Lincolns attention and the Union Army moved swiftly into Missouri causing the lawmakers to go on the run and not allowing the Missouri State Guard and Confederate help to come in time to support the cause.
Because of this, The Union army was able to win the battle of Pea Ridge and gain control of most of Missouri for the rest of the civil war and kept it under union control. If Missouri and the Confederate won the battle of pea ridge, Missouri would have went under Confederate control and likely been labeled an official confederate state as the lawmakers who fled would have been considered valid and themselves would have likely voted on secession.
Yes, Missouri lawmakers on the run held a vote to secede, but it's disputed by historians because if they even had enough present to hold a quorum, and if they even had the authority to do so. That is why it's disputed that Missouri was a legit confederate state or not, and by most including the Union was not considered seceded.
If the governor of Missouri, Claiborne Jackson would have not been so over the top about joining the Confederacy and instead acted like the KY governor, he might have got what he wanted and got Missouri under Confederate Control.
Btw the numbers are sketchy but it's something like 100-110 thousands from Missouri for the union side versus 50-60 thousand for the Missouri State Guard and Confederate army. However a lot of the union army from Missouri were men from other states who were brought to Missouri and placed in Missouri regiments even though they were not Missourian's, they were still called Missourian's for the union army so they numbers actually could have been pretty even then. Missouri truly was a split state for both sides at that time and had a lot of bloody warfare.
Kentuckians in the 1860s had odd views on slavery. Most supported it but didn't find it important enough to fight over. A good example is Louisville resident and short term US president Zachary Taylor who owned slaves but opposed allowing the expansion of slavery into new territories. Based on which side Kentucky gave the most troops to KY was 80% Union 20% Confederate. Kentucky is a bridge state that connects south Alabama and the UP of Michigan. Mostly Southern but also a transition state.
I agree. Kentucky being the fringe of the south was more tolerant towards blacks compared to states to the south. They passed a state version of the civil rights act before any other southern or border states. I think Missouri passed theirs two years after them in the mid 60s.
Sure KY had segregation to an extent, but it was nothing like the deep south and you hardly ever heard KY mentioned regarding the civil rights era.
It's funny how KY is more southern than the state of Missouri today, but at the start of the civil war Missouri was more pro confederate than Kentucky was. Kentucky was never in real danger of leaving the union. Missouri barely stayed under union control and nearly went under confederate control. Why do you think Lincoln was so determined about Missouri?
History from 150 years ago bears little relevance to modern demographics. Most folks in the U.S. consider Kentucky to be southern and Missouri to be Midwestern, although there are significant exceptions within each state.
I'm not entirely sure about Kentucky, but MO has trended Midwestern in my life. The fastest growing areas are along I-70, which is Midwestern. Even Springfield is slowly changing, especially among Millennials and the influx of migrants from KC and StL. Outside of small towns, the southern-lite accent isn't nearly as common in the younger generation. Time will tell.
The biggest shift in my life has been Florida and Virginia. Both were once considered southern. Of course, they will always be geographically southern, but the culture has shifted dramatically over the past 50 years.
I agree. Kentucky being the fringe of the south was more tolerant towards blacks compared to states to the south. They passed a state version of the civil rights act before any other southern or border states. I think Missouri passed theirs two years after them in the mid 60s.
Sure KY had segregation to an extent, but it was nothing like the deep south and you hardly ever heard KY mentioned regarding the civil rights era.
It's funny how KY is more southern than the state of Missouri today, but at the start of the civil war Missouri was more pro confederate than Kentucky was. Kentucky was never in real danger of leaving the union. Missouri barely stayed under union control and nearly went under confederate control. Why do you think Lincoln was so determined about Missouri?
Good post. Ky also had an albeit very small and conservative abolitionist movement. Nothing compared to the northern states but this was unheard of in the deep south.
I do disagree that KY was never in real danger of leaving the union, this is true at the outset of the war but what is overlooked is what happened to KY during the war. One of the primary reasons Kentuckians supported the Union was to preserve...yes preserve the institution of slavery. Kentuckians viewed the Confederacy as being unstable and risky and as pointed out, they had Union Guns pointed at them from three northern states, Louisville would have been reduced to rubble had they seceded and they knew that. But they believed the best way to preserve their conservative Victorian slave holding society that had a very rigid racial and social hierarchy was to stay with the Union. It was the slave holders that made the argument to stay in the Union. When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation all of that changed, even though it did not impact loyal states they saw the writing on the wall. In Louisville and Lexington people began openly supporting the Confederacy in public which drew the ire of the Union troops stationed in KY. Union recruitment from the native population went to about zero, so the Union made up the deficit by freeing and enlisting the slaves which further infuriated the white Kentuckians. KY had the second largest African American Union enlistment only behind Louisiana. Basically what happened is that the Union lost KY but by that time it was of no material consequence given the military presence. By the end of the war there was virtually no support for the Union, with the exception of immigrants. After the war KY was the most reactionary southern state and experienced the most violence similar to the partisan violence in MO. This was a function of not being under Reconstruction, the lynchings, the klan, all of that happened in KY first.
Good post. Ky also had an albeit very small and conservative abolitionist movement. Nothing compared to the northern states but this was unheard of in the deep south.
I do disagree that KY was never in real danger of leaving the union, this is true at the outset of the war but what is overlooked is what happened to KY during the war. One of the primary reasons Kentuckians supported the Union was to preserve...yes preserve the institution of slavery. Kentuckians viewed the Confederacy as being unstable and risky and as pointed out, they had Union Guns pointed at them from three northern states, Louisville would have been reduced to rubble had they seceded and they knew that. But they believed the best way to preserve their conservative Victorian slave holding society that had a very rigid racial and social hierarchy was to stay with the Union. It was the slave holders that made the argument to stay in the Union. When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation all of that changed, even though it did not impact loyal states they saw the writing on the wall. In Louisville and Lexington people began openly supporting the Confederacy in public which drew the ire of the Union troops stationed in KY. Union recruitment from the native population went to about zero, so the Union made up the deficit by freeing and enlisting the slaves which further infuriated the white Kentuckians. KY had the second largest African American Union enlistment only behind Louisiana. Basically what happened is that the Union lost KY but by that time it was of no material consequence given the military presence. By the end of the war there was virtually no support for the Union, with the exception of immigrants. After the war KY was the most reactionary southern state and experienced the most violence similar to the partisan violence in MO. This was a function of not being under Reconstruction, the lynchings, the klan, all of that happened in KY first.
I did want to add the exception to this is Eastern KY.
History from 150 years ago bears little relevance to modern demographics. Most folks in the U.S. consider Kentucky to be southern and Missouri to be Midwestern, although there are significant exceptions within each state.
I'm not entirely sure about Kentucky, but MO has trended Midwestern in my life. The fastest growing areas are along I-70, which is Midwestern. Even Springfield is slowly changing, especially among Millennials and the influx of migrants from KC and StL. Outside of small towns, the southern-lite accent isn't nearly as common in the younger generation. Time will tell.
The biggest shift in my life has been Florida and Virginia. Both were once considered southern. Of course, they will always be geographically southern, but the culture has shifted dramatically over the past 50 years.
Totally agree about VA and FL. Florida was once more a lot southern, however Florida has always had some outside influences though from the north not common in other southern states. Missouri was also once more southern as well. I can't argue about the southern accents in younger generations.
Springfield I would consider a sun belt city as it's seen growth.
I've never lived in Springfield, but would you say the city is growing due to the presence of the university bringing in people who are not local to the area?
I can't argue Missouri has trended more Midwestern, at least in the urban areas.
Overall in the state the noticeable southern influences are still there though as 1/4 of the state is in the south still and about 1/4 of it is still in that transition zone.
Religion southern Baptist still edges out as the majority, politically the state comes off as pretty southern at the state level especially in recent years with abortion, gun laws it's been going way right. One attribute to that possibly is the re-districting after the 2000 census since the Republicans got control of the Missouri house and senate finally and changed the districts up. The way the districts are set up now heavily favors southwest and southern Missouri, the most culturally southern and conservative parts of the state. Since a lot of the lawmakers now come from that part of Missouri it makes sense their style of politics are the major players now.
When Missouri was democrat at the state level the districts were set up to favor the two urban areas which are more northern in character. Now the districts are set up to favor southern Missouri which obviously has more southern character to it. I will say the Republicans of Missouri are much more to the right at the state level than ours here in Florida right now. Here in Florida can't even get licensed open carry to pass year after year while Missouri passes permit less concealed carry.
Overall while Missouri was more southern years and years back obviously, I don't think there is any huge shift. The rural areas of the southern half of Missouri are in that transition zone or in the southern quarter are still southern. But I agree about Springfield there might be a shift and you also have the two main urban areas of KC and Stl.
Another state you forgot to mention is Texas! I think we are beginning to see a culture shift there with the influx of Hispanics and others. Notice this election Hillary did better there than she did in Missouri! Republicans in their house and senate don't hold the huge super majorities like they do in Missouri.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
