Talk:Southern United States

This is part of a WikiProject.

For optional guidelines on contributing see WikiProject U.S. regions

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. ****

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!

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)

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

/media/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%

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.

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 - /media/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: /media/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. /media/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. 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 warm frontal air moves over the lakes and freezes, causing massive amounts of snowfall (Buffalo and Cleveland are the best examples of this). 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/

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.

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 thought it has always been due to the proportion of industry and slaves; has Louisville held as few slaves as St. Louis and seen the same level of industrialization after the war, the two cities would be virtually identical today. 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.

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 /media/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.) 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. That's an extreme, but most of the Appalachian counties had then, and still have today, black populations under 2 percent.

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 links :) --216.227.87.23 09:25, 27 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 - /media/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) - /media/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)