Thursday, December 08, 2005
Louisville in panic mode
Here’s the problem: We refused to acknowledge that we are not a southern city. We are not a city of Alabama, Mississippi or Texas. We get lots of snow every year and we are only 90 miles from Cincinnati. Get over it people. We are not some southern, genteel Mayberry. We are a meeting of all points: east, west, north and south. We have a little flavor from all the regions. We were once even called ‘Little Chicago,’ and would probably be on their level of industry and growth if we had joined the winning side during the civil war. But we decided to be stupid and indecisive (as usual and continue to be) and not join either side (remember your history lesson about the border states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri). The snow is a coming sooner or later. Quit acting like you’ve never seen it. Now in Atlanta where on any given summer morning is can be already close to 80 degrees, snow is a big deal. But, come on, Louisville, are we really surprised it will snow in the winter? (Un)Fortunately, we get to experience all FOUR seasons, because we are the nexus of all directions. The Bermuda Quadrangle. The conversion of all geographical trajectories. (you liked that last one, didn’t you?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Louisville, Kentucky is a southern city. Geographically, cuturally and historicall. The other places you mentioned are southern too. However for some odd reason the U.S. now considers Missouri midwest. Kentucky wasn't undeceive. They Kentucky was looking at the situation realistically. The state economy wasn't completely dependent on slavery as further down south. The state was close to the north and more likely to be fighting ground. They basically tried to stay neutral to support their own interest. That why they didn't support the southern candidate or the nothern candidate Abe Licolon.
Tennessee was the LAST state to leave the union and may have done so because it was shielded by Kentucky...However, Eastern Tennessee...sent quite a few soldier to fight for the union.
While it's true that were'll 90miles from Cincinnati... It's also true that Louisille was and is called the gateway to the south. It's also true that for years...Louisville was the economic and manufacturing capital of the south. It boggles me that people don't see Louisville as being a southern city. How many church seminaries do we have? The state at one time was over 20% African American. Our famous export to the word is the southern delicacy FRIED CHICKEN!! Kentucky may be bordered by three northern states...however....when you really look at it. We're a mirror image of our younger sister Tennessee...who just happens to have more people and more money!
P.S. it snow in Richmond, VA; Nashville, TN; Knoxville, TN Raleigh N.C. etc...
Louisville is will and has always been a SOUTHERN City.
Call it a pet peeve but it really annoys me when these people with SOuthern fobia's come on some forums and constently (unsuccessfully) try to make Louisville as Midwestern as Milwalkee or try to rationalize that Louisville is somekind of a blend of every culture in the country. It is really a pathetic attempt by certain people to obliviate this city's obvious Southern History, Culture, and architecture from forumers who might not have had the pleasure of seeing this city's true identity.
Now whereas Louisville is not a deep Southern city like Birmingham or Jackson it's MUCH MUCH more so Culturally, Historically, and architecturally than a upper Midwestern City suchas Minneanapolis or Duluth, Minn. From having the thrid largest collection of Victorian houses in the country in it's most imfamous and historic neigborhood Old Louisville, which the only cities that matches Louisville in this category are Southern cities suchas Savanah, New Orleans, and Charleston. You will not find anything like this in any Midwestern city.
Louisville had one of the largest slaveowning populations in the Nation. The only midwestern city that may have had slaves was maybe St. Louis due to the fact Missouri was a slave state and all the way up to the 20th century was generally considered a Southern state. Not to mention Louisville was constently accussed by Northern cities of aiding the Confederacy. Louisville also was the South's second largest city and it's chief manufacuring center(due to manufacturing and considering Louisville is on the ohio river it made it easy to transport the manufactured goods to other parts of the country) after New Orleans. Also considering Louisville is apart of the L&N (louisville and Nashville) it obviously showed that it has stronger Southern ties, why else wasn't it the L&C (Louisville and Chicago). It really annoys me when these people with the Southern Fobia use manufactoring as a way to show Louisville's midwesterness, asif manufacturing was restricted to the north, They forget Birmingham was another major Southern manufacturing center, that is still on the decline, does that make that Alabama city midwestern NO!!!!!
Also New Orelan, Baton Rouge, and every Texas City not only have larger Catholic populations, But a much larger percent of Catholics than Louisville.
If you compare louisville culture to Deep Southern Cities suchas New Orelans or Birmingham and then compare it to Upper midwestern cities like Milwalkee and Minneanapolis Louisville undoubtitbly has 3x times more in common Culturally, Historically, and Architecutrally with the Southern cities and the only people who deny this obvious fact are the few Louisvillians with Suthern fobias.
You people forget one thing about Louisville...the dialect. The Northern and Southern dialects are both present in the city of Louisville. I know this because I happen to know quite a few people who grew up in Louisville and it is random whether or not their accents will be southern or more Midwestern. Louisville is not a western city by any means. What you describe is more of St. Louis' role. Traditionally the Mississippi divides east and west. St. Louis is where east transitions into west. Louisville is undebatably eastern. As to the comment about Missouri being a southern state, the amount of slaveholders in Missouri were in the minority. Missouri was never considered a purely Southern state by any means. It voted against secession overwhelmingly. The Missouri Compromise meant less than a third of the state owned slaves. It's economy did not depend on slavery and it sent twice as many men to the Union as to the Confederacy. The Midwest is referred to as a cultural crossroads between North and South. If you think in those terms, Missouri fits into the Midwest perfectly, and except for the extreme southern portions of the state, most of Missouri is culturally and geographically more in tune with the Midwest, and the majority of Missourians speak with a Midwestern accent. North of Louisville Kentucky is culturally more similar to Cincinnati and the Midwest. Many free slaves existed in Missouri in addition to owned slaves. Back to Kentucky. For the most part, I would have to argue that except for Northern Kentucky and Louisville, where the Southern culture starts, anything below Louisville is purely Southern. To sum it up, I would say Louisville is not a purely Southern city like Memphis or Nashville, but that it is definitely more tied to the South than St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis. Louisville is definitely where the North transitions over into the South. That to me is what the meaning of "Gateway to the South" represents.
Ultimately I would say that while Louisville does have some Midwestern influence, clearly influence found in almost no other city in the South, it's industry and the fact that the dialect is not completely uniform (you notice the different ways Louisville is pronounced by its residents when you enter the city..there's a sign), ultimately my tendency is to group Louisville more in with the South, however not with The Deep South. Also, about Missouri...while it did not take on an abolitionist stance, it did not show a strong pro-slavery view either even though it was a slave state. missouri was willing to stay in the union with or without slavery. Ultimately, it stayed with the Union, and Kentucky "joined the Confederacy" after the Civil War. My basic stance on Louisville, it is a Southern city with touches of Midwestern culture, and that's a pretty good description especially for it's location right on the Ohio River, and its close proximity to Indianapolis and Cincinnati. Louisville is where the North ends and the South begins. At the same time it is also where the South ends and the North begins.
With my entire family from Kentucky and having spent a significant time in the state while growing up, I find it amazing that there's still so much argumentation going on as to whether or not Louisville is Southern or Midwestern, when it clearly is...neither! I could make points that "clearly" establish the Dixie-ness of Louisville (i.e., a good deal of its inhabitants speak with Southern accents, KY was a slave state), only to have these points countered with equally convincing points that establish the Midwestern/Northern culture of Louisville (i.e., Catholics outnumber Southern Baptists throughout all of Jefferson County, we have a Midwestern climate, and many of our residents speak with no Southern accent at all.) This type of exchange can and often does go back and forth indefinitely, and the arguments on this board just attest to that.
In truth, Louisville is not a purely Southern city, nor is it purely a Midwestern one. My family has its roots in Louisville but I grew up in the REAL Deep South among those rural, poor idiots; growing up, I was constantly ridiculed for drinking unsweetened tea, speaking "Northern", etc. and I was labeled by quite a few people as a Yankee. Yet, had I grown up in Chicago or Cleveland, the residents there would have likely instantly classifed me as a "down-home Southerner" once they learned of my KY roots. Realistically, under scrutiny my family's habits and culture would never, ever be considered Southern, but we know people in Louisville who are as "country" as you can get. As one other person here put it, it's really just a matter of chance.
Why can't the residents of Louisville embrace the unique historical and geographical circumstances that have situated their fine city at the crossroads of two cultures, instead of trying to pigeonhole themselves into one group? The hardcore people on both sides are wrong; those who believe that Louisville is clearly Southern need to spend a week in Birmingham, AL or Memphis, TN to realize just how incorrect they are, while those claiming that Louisville is a city of the North have likely never visited and analyzed Chicago, Cleveland, NY City, Minneapolis, etc. Louisville is, at the same time and NOT mutually exclusively, the northernmost Southern city of the US and the southernmost Northern city of the US.
As far as the state of Kentucky goes, it's somewhat the same, but to a lesser extent and with a MUCH heavier Southern cultural influence. Compare the demographics of KY to those of neighboring "border state" MO and you'll see that while both states are still culturally torn between the South and North, there are clear differences in terms of religion, ancestry, and industry between the two. MO is unquestionably far more Midwestern than KY in every one of the aforementioned categories (and many more), but it's ludicrous to lump Missouri in with the rest of the Midwest when it's largest religious group is the Southern Baptist Convention - NO OTHER "purely Midwestern" state is remotely similar to this. And yes, people in the Southern parts of MO do speak like hicks and would be considered Southern by anybody's definition.
I don't even regard the "Southern Baptist Convention" as relevant to whether or not Missouri is in the midwest...i can tell right now that Missouri is at least certainly less Southern than Midwestern. There is even talk about getting the Southern part dropped from "Baptist" from what i hear because the geographical location of the religion is no longer as relevant to the name. "Southern Baptists" have a clear presence in Illinois, indiana, and Ohio. I even question whether these states should be considered purely midwestern in their middle and southern portions. Clearly Southern Illinois is divided and oddly enough more divided than upper Missouri. I think that the middle and lower halves of these states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio need to be grouped with the portions of Missouri north of the Ohio River a region separate from the rest of the Midwest. The major cities in this area like St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati are solidly midwestern, however the rural areas in this region exhibit the exact same cultural divisions as Louisville, Lexington, Huntington, and Charleston and areas in the upper and middle portions of kentucky and west virginia. Our definitions of the Midwest and South create a problem because they oversimplify the true cultural divides of this country. The U.S. Census Bureau I think should either group the border states in their own categories or consider the region i have proposed. either of these would be more reflective of the truth than the way the North and South are currently defined.
basically...to sum up my previous comment, which is a lot of rambling...the Midwest and the border states as well as the Southern and Midwestern states that touch the Ohio river should be further divided to reflect their culture. the regions starting at the middle of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio and the Missouri/Iowa border should extend down to the Ohio River (in Missouri to the line that drew the Missouri Compromise). This should be included as the "Upper Midland." The lower Midland should be classified as the the upper halves of Kentucky and West Virginia and should end at any point south of their state capitals. This to me is pretty reflective of the differences between the two and I have visited each of the areas included in this region numerous times. The upper Midland would represent areas that have purely Midwestern major cities and split loyalties in their rural areas. The lower Midland would have split loyalties both in the major cities and in the rural areas. the further south you go of the lower Midland, so to speak, you will feel a heavy Southern atmosphere begin to dominate the region, as one person on here put it. To me that is near the most accurate description you can give to a border state and the line between North and South. Because I can tell you now that Kansas City, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus, and Cincinnati feel much the same to each other, but they feel noticeably different from cities farther north like Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago , and no the weather is irrelevant. These cities have a Midwestern atmosphere but the rural regions surrounding them have split loyalties. They are different from Louisville, Huntington, and Charleston...these cities have a more Southern feel in dialect and culture than the 'upper midland', but they still have clearly Midwestern characteristics along with the rural areas around them. Below these regions is "The South." Above these regions is "The North." that is the line in terms of how the culture changes moving from north to south in the eastern and central united states.
Thinking on this one, Missouri is not exactly a purely Midwestern state, but at the very minimum it is border. St. Louis and Kansas City are unquestionably midwestern in dialect and culture, and Catholics are an enormous presence in St. Louis and outnumber Southern Baptists 10 to 1. The Great Migration groups St. Louis and Kansas City with Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit as major immigration areas for blacks. Geographically, they are well above the Mason-Dixon line. I am also a native St. Louisan and can attest that except for maybe the weather, which is extremely random and unlimited in possibilites , i feel right at home in Cleveland and Chicago and extremely out of place in cities like memphis and birmingham. We do not have sweet tea in these cities and nothing even remotely close to the southern hospitality offered by my grandmother's friends in Louisiana (not saying that is bad, i love the South for everything that it is.) the rural areas of Missouri are tricky to classify, especially when you get into the Ozarks, the dialect is clearly not Midwestern but also not quite southern. the Southern baptist convention is trying to get the "southern" removed from its name last I heard. Southern Baptists have a clear presence in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio as well as Missouri and Kentucky. To say Louisville is geographically southern is a load of crap. It is right on the Ohio River and almost due east of St. Louis...as well as 90 miles from Cincinnati and 110 miles south of Indianapolis. it is roughly halfway between Indianapolis and Nashville. I would argue that Missouri culturally tends to lean more toward the Midwest these days, while Kentucky tends to stay more in the middle. I can definitely say that southern kentucky, like southern missouri, is identical to Tennessee. It starts to get tricky once you get into the north central areas of the state though. It is incorrect to say either Missouri or Kentucky is southern, but also incorrect to say either is solidly midwestern. Missouri tends to exhibit more midwestern characteristics while Kentucky more southern ones, but these regions are border for the most part. So basically....if you have not lived in these states or have not visited them or had a decent education about their history, you are not in a position to judge a border state's culture. They were and are called border states for a reason...because their culture varies! Plain and simple.
By the way, whoever made the comment about the largest group in Missouri being the Southern Baptist Convention needs to rethink that one. There are 100,000 more Roman Catholics in missouri than Southern Baptists. So basically...this definitely shows Missouri to be more midwestern than southern in religion.
As I stated earlier St. Louis nor Cincinnati are the definiton of Midwestern cities as they are too often considered to have a strong Southern inflence (St. Louis got it's Southern vibe from the black Migration to the North). Cincinnati as called by residence of upper Ohio Cincinatucky is obviously more mix of Southern and Midwestern.
Louisville was (back in the 19th century) actually defined as the manufacturing Captial of the South and the Gateway city to the South. Due to Louisville's location on the Ohio, which helped it to attract to Industry to the area just like other Southern River cities suchas Memphis and New Orleans and even non river cities like Birmingham. Louisville's title as the manufacturing Capital of the South also came into play when the L&N (Louisville and Nashville) (there was no L&C; Louisville and Chicago) was constructed that connected Louisville to Nashville and further South to Atlanta.
Louisville also had one of the largest slave owning populations (there were no slaves in the North except for the southern edge of Missouri) in the country (even though it was just across the river from a free state) which was just a reflection of it's state which had the 3rd largest slave population after (Virginia and Georgia). During the Civil War Louisville was constently under question by the North for aiding the Confederacy, and was by no means trusted by the North. To this day a Confederate monument stands in the City of Louisville.
Now honestly, 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!
Also unlike Midwestern cities Louisville does not have a sigifigant population of Eastern and Southern Europeans (from places like Poland and Hungary) that came during a European Migration period (WWII). Even small Midwestern cities like South Bend and Toledo received a substantial number of immigrants from those areas of the world.
Archtiecturally Louisville's first suburb Old Louisville with it's wrought iron, huge fountains, huge Magnolias looming over the streets and Victorian style architecture that are found only in the most prominent Southern cities of the 19th century like Charleston, New Orleans, Savanah, and even Richmond, NOWHERE in the Midwest. Also Louisville like New Orleans urban areas (at least in the West or older parts of town) are lined with Shotgun houses destintively Southern, found mostly in cities like New Orleans.
Now from this I'm not saying that Louisville is completely Southern, as I said earlier it's large German population is a Northern characteristic. At the same time I've heard some people talk about there heritage in Louisville and when they say I'm German you would think that person was from rural Kentucky or another part of the South (yes this is based on one incident).
As far as Louisville's boom goes yeah we aren't an Austin or Jacksonville, But we are growing at a faster rate than Birmingham (a Deep Southern city). At 4% growth since 2000 for the most part we are in the range of other Southern cities like Memphis and Oklahoma city.
Also on the Southern focus survey taken Kentucky and Virginia tied with 86% of it's residence's identifing with the South, while the other Southern states were over 90%. Maryland and Delaware residences had fewer than 50% identifing with the South. Oklahoma had over 60% of their residences identifying with the South. Even you use to say that Kentucky was Southern, Louisville is not (during your whole Louisville isn't part of Kentucky argument which obviously didn't go to far) You also know that Louisville had over twice as many votes as a Southern city than Midwestern on the Skyscrapercity poll.
Louisville and the state of Kentucky have one of the largest slave owning populations in the South. Kentucky was not a "plantation slave state" most slave owners owned no more than 10 slaves, which ranked Kentucky at number 3 only behind Virginia and Georgia in that category. Like New Orleans; Louisville was a large Southern city which did not have alot of plantations. Louisville pioneered the art of being a large Urban Southern city, along with New Orleans. Gych we've been over this a thousand times when will it end. Having slaves automatically made a place Southern Gych in both mentallity and perspection from Yankees
http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/images/slave_census_US_1860_b.jpg
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
Here's a map of the Baptist population in the U.S. as you can Louisville is shaded in as having a high number of Baptist in iit's population. As for the Catholic population New Orleans has the largest concentration of Catholics in the nation and is still regaurded as a Southern city.
http://www.popvssoda.com/countystats/total-county.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/BibleBelt.png/280px-BibleBelt.png
http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif
http://www.peak.org/~jeremy/dictionary/figures/dialectsUS.gif
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.
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!
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.
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!
I posted the comment above mine and I'am sick of this whole Louisville and Kentucky are in the Middle, Or can't be classified as one region crap. Louisville and Kentucky are SOUTHERN PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Kentucky I think there is absolutely no argument as to why Kentucky or Louisville isn't Southern NONE. Louisville while yeah we aren't as Southern as say Birmingham or Jackson, But have much more in common Culturally and Historically with these Deep Southern cities than Minneanapolis or Milwaulkee. One cannot give any argument to disprove that.
Whatever. As far as i'm concerned, nobody seems to want to believe that there is a region in the United States where it is difficult to tell the cultural identity even though one does exist. as to the opinions of Yankees and Confederates alike....they are both right and wrong. Kentucky may have had slave plantations, but the fact it did not secede and that over 50% were pro-Union simply makes it absurd to say it is Southern. Geographically, culturally, and dialect-wise...it is simply wrong to define it as purely Northern or Southern. If you want to get into political views, Kentucky is a swing state. I'll compromise and call it border. Understand I am not arguing against the fact that Kentucky has a major southern component...I am calling it border for that very reason. But it is not Virginia, Tennessee, or any of the other "real" Southern states. As for the definitions of St. Louis and Cincinnati...there is no major southern element there. True they are not Chicago...but they certainly have about 90% more in common with the Midwest than they do with the South. To call either of these cities more Southern than Midwestern, especially by today's standards...is absolutely ridiculous. Historically, these cities were divided culturally...but time changes things. I'll give you Louisville has a major Southern component, but not St. Louis or Cincinnati. if you've been to all three of these cities...you will notice Louisville is the major outlier by far.
Never mind...essentially from what I am seeing you and I are arguing the same thing in many ways. This is relatively pointless. You could come up with reasons to say Louisville and Kentucky are Southern...but you also could come up with reasons to say it is Northern. It's not worth arguing over. Wikipedia and many other sources define Louisville as the "southernmost Northern city" and the "Northernmost southern city." Google it and you'll get my drift.
Wow...amazing how much disagreement there is regarding Kentucky's position and Louisville's. Kentucky was no more divided than the rest of the South....that first off is a load of crap. Explain why if it was not so divided that the governor attempted to keep Kentucky neutral multiple times, but the Kentucky legislature, which was elected by the people of Kentucky, mind you, AND pro-Union, overrode him EVERY time. I will give that there were a great deal of Southern sympathizers in Kentucky, possibly well up to half of the state. It is definitely true...Louisville was a major area where slaves were sold and there were many slaveholders in Kentucky. KEntucky's position as a border state indicates a divide in opinion on slavery, as well as split cultural loyalties. Louisville and Kentucky by all means are not Midwestern....I would be more tempted to group them as either border or Southern. Louisville is also different from Kentucky, just like Kansas City and St. Louis are from a lot of rural Missouri. Kansas City and St. Louis i would argue are solidly Midwestern today..historically they were border cities. The state of Kentucky as a whole I would agree is more Southern than Midwestern, but Louisville's position right on the Mason-Dixon line and especially it's close proximity to Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and its geographically central location between Canada and the Gulf of Mexico makes it absolutely ludicrous to call it a purely Southern city. Its commerce is just as tied to the Midwest as it is to the South, and the dialect of its residents is not uniformly Southern, but rather a mix of Midwestern and Southern. Louisville's economy and its downtown area may be booming....a lot of other Midwestern cities like Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Cleveland are also experiencing this same type of "renaissance." i will agree that Louisville has a lot in common with the South, much moreso than any other Midwestern city. Religion-wise, it is definitely more in with the South. But there are simply too many Midwestern characteristics to dub this city Southern. i'd give it maybe 60% southern, 40% midwestern. The rest of Kentucky is pretty much like a border state. The further north you go, the more Midwestern the culture, dialect, etc. becomes. The further south you go, the more Southern it gets, and i definitely would say that rural Kentucky outside of its major metropolitan areas (Louisville, Lexington)...is today very Southern. Louisville may be called "The Gateway to the South"...but that does not mean "The South" literally starts full strength there. Look at St. Louis. It is called "The Gateway To The West." But the city itself still has much of an Eastern feel to it, and is a far cry from Denver or Kansas City. However the further west you go, the less Eastern the feel is. in much the same way, Louisville is essentially where the Southern influence first becomes significant, and starting at this point, you will begin to lose the Midwestern feel to the southern one. Kentuckians and especially those living in north central kentucky need to realize that while they may have a lot in common with the rest of the South, they also have a lot more in common with the Midwest than the rest of the South, MUCH more than any Southern state, to the point where it is sometimes included (by wikipedia and other sources) in the midwest in addition to the South. that's all I have to say on this matter. i would certainly not include Kentucky in the midwest, but I'd also hesitate to say it belongs with the other Southern states given that it borders 3 Northern states (Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio) , two border states (missouri and West Virginia), and two Southern states (Virginia and Tennessee). I rest my case.
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. Let's compare Kentucky to Missouri the area known as Little Dixie 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 understand that Kentucky has Midwestern culture however the Southern Conponent obviously overpowers the Midwestern element. The term boarder state nowadays is such an unsatisfying term. You have Missouri which during the popular use of the term was considered a Southern state. You have Maryland which was considered also considered somewhat Southern. West Virgnia which was always wierd, But if I had to label it anything it would have to be Southern. Nowadays Maryland is more like a Bos-Wash suburb with a few Southern accents in the rural areas. Missourians will throw a BF as soon as you label them Southern. Kentucky on the other hand has over 80% of their residence's idenitifing with the South according to the Southern Focus Study. Which actually tied with Virginia in the percentage and was just behind Texas. The other Southern states all have over 90% of their residences identify as Southerners.
http://usadeepsouth.ms11.net/texas.html
Oh also dude have you ever heard the twang in the accents of St.Louis rappers (Nelly, Jibbs, Chingy). The blacks in St.Louis obviously show most of their parents/grandparents weren't from there, with that Southern grammer. I think that St.Louis kinds got a Southern identity thing when black came from Missippi and Alabama during the Migration.
Also, if calling Kentucky midwestern would get me shot...then saying that Missouri, especially starting at St. Louis and going North, is Southern by today's standards...you would get shot for that as well. For a historian, you sure seem to have little if no knowledge about the people of Kentucky or the city of Louisville and where they came from. If the Civil War doesn't tell you where Kentucky stands, especially the north central areas and extreme northern areas, then you essentially are rewriting history and saying that a border region in the United States, or at least a region that exhibits many Midwestern characteristics in addition to southern ones, did not exist and never has. sounds real professional to me. Maybe you need a new career.
BTW I gave a few maps including dialect that label Kentucky and Louisville as Southern, But just in case you've missed them here they are
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
A few dialect maps, from credible sources that prove that Kentucky has the Southern accent.
And here's a nice little map that shows which states voted red or blue during every election. Kentucky only voted with the Midwest maybe twice.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/ElectoralCollege2000-Large-BushRed-GoreBlue.png/300px-ElectoralCollege2000-Large-BushRed-GoreBlue.png&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide&h=201&w=300&sz=66&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=fLbl_kSEtTVr-M:&tbnh=78&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3DU.S.%2Bred%2Band%2Bblue%2Bresults%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
It was also a Kentuckian who surrendered Fort Sumter to the Confederacy in humiliation. And yes, I will agree that Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Southern Ohio exhibited Confederate support, but this was generally in areas in the extreme southern portions of the Union states (example Marion, Illinois the citizens tried to secede their county from the union) Nevertheless, these areas, Southern Illinois in particular, supplied enormous amounts of men to the Union....these areas were also border regions and still are today. By border, i mean there is a divide in culture, I'm not declaring 50-50 everywhere. But there certainly are enough discrepancies to distinguish them from the Deep South or Virginia and to establish a relationship with the North. How strong that relationship is depends....there are some patches that identify more with the South than others. These areas were not solidly southern. Climatalogically speaking, Kentucky is DEFINITELY not the same as Tennessee. You name me one place in Tennessee that averages 16 inches of snow per season besides one that is in the Smoky Mountains or Appalachian Mountains, or has both bitter cold winters and hot summers. This is much more representative of the kind of weather that central Illinois, central Indiana, central, Ohio, and the upper half of Missouri get. The southern areas of Kentucky yes are similar to Tennessee, and the central areas at times are too, but the weather is rather random.
When all else fails go for the climate. Well I'm no meteorologist, When I ride down to Atlanta I don't start to notice a change in climate or forestry until I'm between Chatanooga and Knoxville. Once I hit Chatnooga it's all pine needles on the grounds. As for climate when I watch the news, I only see like a 0-5 degree tempature difference between Louisville and Nashville. Memphis is another story that's Delta country.
Unlike St.Louis Louisville is actually apart of the South (Offically) and has always been. St.Louis before advanced transportation was a real trek from Baltimore. It was a milestone of a sort and was dubbed Gateway city to the West. I agree Louisville doesn't explode with Southern culture as soon as you cross the river, But it's notible change from Indianapolis and Chicago. Like one poster said it's the first city where the Southern culture becomes the main component.
I already gave dialect maps showing that Louisville is considered Southern by language experts. Louisville has a prodominantly Southern history. Has proudly displayed some rusty Old Sign proclaiming it the "Gateway city to the South" for decades. AT it's early stages was actually the South's chief manufacturing center and distributor of goods, you know with the L&N (Louisville and Nashville). The only Midwestern argument I've heard was Louisville's Catholic population. Despite New Orleans, Louisiana having the highest concentration of Catholics in the country is still considered a Southern city. Louisville is heavily Union and has a large German population. Other than those 2 things every thing else points South. I would say Louisville is like a good 70-75% Southern and 30% to 25% Midwestern.
No I think my job is seccure as of now thanks! Kentucky does have traits from the Midwest, But for one to say that "Kentucky is a Midwestern state" is ludecris in my book. Again while Kentucky does have Midwestern traits the Southern traits are prominant here. This also applies to Louisville. You know if over 80% of residents in a state identify with the South in a regional study (The Southern Focus Study) than what would that tell you about the state??? It has a "bit" of an identity crisis (afterall the other Southern states had over 90% of their residents identify with the South), But with over 80% of the residents identifing with the South they consider themselves Southern. On a poll on Urbanplanet.org over 3/4's of people say Kentucky is more Southern than Midwestern.
About the Civil War Kentuckians had so much Union pride that to so show their gratitude after the war they erected two Union monuments that fine and dandy only problem is that there are over 70 Confederate monuments (including one in Old Louisville) around the state. Tell me is that more Indiana or Tennesee... obviously Tennessee. Some of you say this is call pigeonholing , But I mean if that's not Southern than I don't know what is. Virgnia is no more Southern than Kentucky, yeah it held the capital of the Confederacy, but unlike Kentucky it was also the shielded, by another slave state. It was second to last to suceed right behind Tennessee, which ne I remind you was not put into a military district during reconstruction unlike the rest of the Confederacy. Again how is this Midwestern please tell me.
Kentucky, however Southern it may be today, did not legitimately secede from the Union. However, I personally think that defining a state's culture based on the position it took in the Civil War, especially those of the border states, is not an accurate way to say what they are today. Missouri and Kentucky are prime examples of this. Both were border states during the Civil War, but after the war Missouri pretty much joined the Midwest while Kentucky favored the South. As you approach the Ohio River in both of these states, however, you will detect the remnants of the cultural divisions these states used to exhibit. I will give that most of Kentucky needs to be grouped in with the South. The cultural changeover doesn't happen immediately upon crossing the Ohio River....you need to get at least 50 miles north or south of the river before you are in the Midwest or South. Louisville, Lexington, and areas within 50 miles of the Ohio River should be considered Middle Border. Culturally, speech-wise, and climate-wise, these cities definitely are neither purely Midwestern or Southern. Rather they are the confluence of these two cultures.
While these cities are mixed in culture, climate, and speech the SOuthern element tends to be the prodomiant element.
Cincinnati is located within a climatic transition zone; the area is at the extreme northern limit of the humid subtropical climate. The local climate is basically a blend of the subtropics to the south and the humid continental climate to the north. Evidence of both climatic influences can be found in Cincinnati's landscape material and fauna (see: Southern magnolia, Sweetgum, Bald cypress, and the common wall lizard).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati,_Ohio
Here's a passage from the Cincinnati article on Wiki, Cincinati is a mix of Northern and Southern climate.
Louisville is located on the northern limit of the humid subtropical climate. Summers are hot and humid with mildly warm evenings. The mean annual temperature is 56 °F (13 °C),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville
while Louisville is the Northern extent of Southern climate.
http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif
http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF
http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif
http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html
http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf
http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx.
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF
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
While Louisville is considered by Linguistic experts as Southern, Every map on here groups us in with the South.
Here are a few maps that show that people around the country generally consider Louisville a Southern city. Though I as a native Louisvillian knows that Louisville does have Midwestern infleunce, But I that influence doesn't measure up to it's Dixie counterpart.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/Spartanburger/thesouth.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/ydgudl.jpg
I grew up in Louisville and now reside in L A. Trust me Louisville is a predominately southern city. I consider myself southern, especially now that i live on the west coast and everyone points that out to me. I still have my Louisville "southern" dialect. I don't meet anybody who says, hey you must be from the midwest. I agree with some posters that some people that reside in Louisville have some sort of phobia about anything southern, so they rationalize it away. I think Louisville is rich in culture and diversity that can only be found in "southern" river cities.
Louisville? A southern river city? Now that is debatable. I can definitely state for a fact that Louisville is quite different from Memphis and New Orleans....in terms of river cities, it is much more resemblant to the midwestern river cities like St. Louis and Cincinnati. Louisville has elements of both the Midwest and the South as does Lexington. Hell...you forget that Lexington is home to Henry Clay...the famous NEUTRALIST. Kentucky is a border state and this especially is apparent in the Northern and North central areas of Kentucky. It has elements of both the Upper South and the Midwest in it, at least as far as the central, north central, and northern areas of the state around the Ohio River. It has an in the middle feel to it similar to the lower Midwest, West Virginia, and Virginia. I'm also skeptical of the 80% identification with the South...I know at least 35 people from Kentucky, and most are willing to compromise its culture. Kentucky may be more in line with the South, but there are simply too many Midwestern characteristics for Kentucky to be a truly Southern state. However there are also way too many Southern traits for KEntucky to be called a truly Midwestern state. It really shocks me how determined people are to place Kentucky in the South when its history, culture, and geography clearly tell a story of division. (yes it is south of the Mason-Dixon but borders it and is halfway in between Canada and the Gulf of Mexico).Climatologically, Kentucky is half in the Midwest and half in the South. As the person who started this whole debate pointed out, snow is not that uncommon for Louisville, and it is a fact that Lexington by January averages about 5 inches of snow. Name me one southern city outside of Kentucky (and no, Missouri does not count) that gets this much snow and is not in a mountain range. The dialect in Louisville and Lexington, as two people have already pointed out, is clearly not entirely Southern. Politically Kentucky has historically been a swing state. So while yes Kentucky has a lot of Southern elements to it, it has enough Midwestern elements to distinguish it from the rest of the Upper South. It is a border state, a meeting of Appalachia, the Midwest, and the South.
At the same time New Orleans is the most unique city in America, so most definantly it's unique to the South, Yet it's still considered Southern. That city has the largest concentration of Catholics in the U.S. and has French ancestry (which is unheard of in the South).
Louisville and Kentucky like every other Southernn city and state lost black population (which characterized the South in those times) during the Great Migration unlike Cininnati and St.Louis, in which that event characterized the cities we see to day. Louisville was and is no where near as German or Catholic as these cities are. Louisville's black population will in 2 years be the largest ancestry in the city.
http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg
According to Meining's (reknown cultural geographer and map maker) maps the only area in Kentucky that was not within the Southern regional boundary were the three counties immediately South of Cincinnati. Hell on that map the Southern areas Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri were all within the regional boundary. He also made a distinct thick black line (which was the only area where it was used) between the South and the North indicating that those regions differed greatly from the South. However one would notice that while Louisville was firmly tucked under the Southern cultural boarder Cininnati and St.Louis are directly on top of it, which is a good indication that those cities are influenced by the South. I'm quite certain that when one thinks the Midwest those 2 cities would not directly come to mind (while I'm aware Louisville isn't the first city when one thinks of the South). I also notice that every single time Louisville is compared to the Midwest those are the only two cities that one person compares them to completely ignoring Minneanapolis, Detroit, Cleaveland these are Midwestern cities too. Just from doing simple research and doing a bit of comparing and contrasting culture (the Mint Julep Southern culture surrounding The Kentucky Derby), Dialect (with real evidence not opinion), Architecture (Old Louisville, and Shotgun houses to name a few), and History (Pre, during, and after the Civil War) that Louisville is more Southern than Midwestern.
As far as a "True Southern state" is concerned other than Kentucky not suceeding what else is it lacking? Kentucky was undeniably Southern before the Civil War having the 3rd largest slaveowning population in the Nation and being a leading producer in Tobacco along with North Carolina and Virginia. Kentucky being the only boarder state in the Union to vote Democratic during the 1864 elections. Kentucky having over 70 Confederate monuments compared to 3 (Louisville after 150 years finally decided to honor the Union, while it's had the states largest confederate monument in it's first suburb for over 100 years) Union monuments. Kentucky having practiced Jim Crow laws along with exclusively Southern states. Regaurdless having lived in Georgia (the Deep South) for a 4 years I can tell you that there are not to many signifigant differences between the states. Virginia is also boarding half way between Canada and The Gulf of Meixco, yet it's still considered Southern. Well Richmond, Nashville, Memphis, Raleigh, Va beach, Norfolk are all Southern cities that average more than 5 inches per year.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762183.html
Louisville as well as Richmond, Atlanta's , Houston's, and certainly not New Orleans are not entirely Southern in dialect, But the stronger presence seems to be ackwoledged in every dialect map citied on this page which is why they are all grouped in the Southern dialect range.
As far as swing state goes
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/ElectoralCollege1908-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1908-Large.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/ElectoralCollege1904-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1904-Large.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/ElectoralCollege1900-Large.png/800px-ElectoralCollege1900-Large.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/ElectoralCollege1888-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1888-Large.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/ElectoralCollege1884-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1884-Large.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/ElectoralCollege1880-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1880-Large.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/ElectoralCollege1864-Large.png/450px-ElectoralCollege1864-Large.png
The only boarder state to vote Democratic
Kentucky's Governor at the time of the Civil War also made this famous quote
"I say emphatically Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern states."
As far as Appalachia goes, that range streches from the foothills of Birmingham to upstate New York, I would definantly same there is some sort of division drawn between that range and that meinings map I posted ackwoledges that division with the Thick Black line that seperates the North and the South. The best term is Southern Appalachain (remember the Hatfeilds and the Macoys), in which Eastern Kentucky is also included in on Wikipedia. Kentucky is indeed a mix of cultures, But it certainly has more Southern influence than Midwestern infleunce plain and simple.
Though I’m mainly concerned with Louisville, I want to start by addressing part of the last post regarding a statement made by the pro-Confederate governor of Kentucky, Beriah Magoffin. The governors of Missouri and Delaware also tried to push their constituencies into the Confederacy, with little success. The Kentucky General Assembly – elected by the people and much more representative of the entire population than one man with an agenda – was overwhelmingly Unionist and quickly switched from a position of neutrality to one of supporting the Union when Confederates invaded the state. Magoffin was outnumbered and, in the grand scheme of things, powerless to do anything. He ended up resigning in 1862 because of this. And of course, somewhere in the range of 65-75% of Kentuckians ended up fighting with the North. All historical facts. In all truth, if one is going to attempt to argue that either Kentucky or Louisville are Southern the Civil War era should really be the LAST place to turn to!!! If we were only going by Civil War loyalties it would be logically next to impossible to argue that Kentucky is Southern, so I don’t see why people who want to prove this point keep attempting that line of argumentation.
I’m always amazed at the sheer amount of rage that some Louisvillians tend to display when the city’s identity is questioned – and to be honest, it’s almost always the folks who view the city as a relic of Dixie. The same can be said of people who are convinced (how, I do not know????) that Kentucky is the equal of Tennessee or Georgia. And they are outraged quite often on Internet forums, because this inaccurate portrayal of Louisville – “it’s the same as Memphis, just slightly more to the north” - is usually soundly rejected by people familiar with the area, as well as visitors from “pure” Southern areas such as Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, etc – i.e., the guys that fought for the CSA. Common sense aside – Louisville is a city that receives more snow annually than Cincinnati, served as a Union stronghold in the Civil War, is over two times closer to Chicago than New Orleans, and locals often don’t even mention the name “Kentucky” when identifying their home – I’ve noticed some interesting patterns in their argumentation. Yes, Kentucky is a Southern state primarily (border state, to be exact), and since Louisville just so happens to sit in this Southern state geographically, it will often be lumped in geographically with the South. Of course, it’s rarely mentioned when this argument is made that the Census Bureau considers Baltimore, MD and Dover, DE to be “Southern” also, since the states of Maryland and Delaware are below the Mason-Dixon line – in Kentucky, of course, this is the Ohio River. A city’s geography oftentimes is not at all indicative of its culture; and again, in terms of geography Louisville sits at pretty much the same latitude as St. Louis and is closer to Chicago than to New Orleans, Birmingham, or Atlanta, so I’m not even sure that it’s geography would be considered “Southern” from an analysis not based on historical cultural regions of the USA. Miami, Florida is the southernmost major city geographically in the country…clearly, it’s location is not at all a measure of its culture.
A common argument is that since Louisville had slaves, it cannot be considered Midwestern or Northern. Again, the hypocrisy becomes clear when looking at, say, contemporary Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware. Indeed, Kentucky did have the largest slave percentages of the Border States, but its slave percentages were nowhere even remotely close to those of the other Southern states. As of 1860, slaves made up about 24% of the total population in KY, but only about 11.5% of Jefferson County’s population – hardly an “overwhelming” percentage when slaves were a plurality or majority across much of the South. It is true that the existence of slavery did somewhat alter the social structure and general ideologies in the area, but they were never in line with the South. The Union would not have won the Civil War without Kentucky, and the Union presence in Louisville helped keep the state firmly aligned with the North. After the war, of course, is another matter due to the influx of Confederate veterans to the area, as well as mistreatment of Kentuckians during the war. That oft-cited Confederate monument appeared during this era, and it too is often used as “proof” of the city’s “Southern-ness.” I’m not buying it. Again, it’s never mentioned that St. Louis has one of these things, as does, believe it or not, Seattle, Washington – not the first place that comes to mind when I think of the South! The Seattle monument was vandalized a few years ago…just as the Louisville monument has been, many, many times. And of course, the Louisville monument is about to be converted into a Freedom Park honoring Union soldiers as well. This conversion is being made as a compromise because many, many locals want the thing removed. I am one of them; having ancestors that fought for the preservation of the Union, I consider that monument a disgrace to our city. Many others share my opinion, and this attitude is hardly Southern at all.
Louisville’s demographics are unquestionably Midwestern. Largely German and Irish with Catholics outnumbering Baptists, the city is completely out of line with what one considers traditionally “Southern”. Recently other cities in the South have seen large amounts of migration and shifts in their demographics, but this was HISTORICALLY the case for Louisville – no city in Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, the Carolinas, Tennessee, or Virginia followed this profile historically. Coastal Louisiana is an outlier in this regard not just from the rest of the South but from the rest of the US because of its unique French Catholic culture, but it never received the German, Irish, and other European immigration that Louisville and other Midwestern cities saw. So if one wishes to argue for the Southern element in Louisville, it must be admitted that the ancestral background of the city is definitively an anomaly among Southern cities.
Being the only “true” city in a highly rural, impoverished state, Louisville has long drawn in residents from other parts of Kentucky looking for a different, perhaps better, life. These residents have brought their Southern habits and parlance with them, strengthening the Southern elements of the city. But of course, on the other hand many Northerners have been attracted to the city because of its (relatively) mild climate, affordable housing, and less stressful atmosphere (when compared to, say, Detroit, Chicago, or Cleveland.) However, Northern immigrants outnumber Southern immigrants in Louisville. This is a quantitative fact. Is Louisville a “Sun Belt” city? Hardly, and even then, this is not seen in most Sun Belt cities (except for Florida and Texas, and some suburban areas in Georgia and North Carolina.)
Louisville’s industrial economy – rapidly converting to a service-oriented one today, as are most industrial cities to stay afloat – was also more Midwestern than Southern. What city is often called the “ONE true industrial city of the South?” Birmingham, of course. Birmingham was an anomaly among Southern cities, and the truth is that the ONLY reason that Birmingham developed industry was because of its highly unique geography, the only place in the entire world where all three resources needed to make steel can be found in the local soil. So to group the industrial history of Birmingham in with that of Louisville, St. Louis, and Cincinnati is quite inaccurate and not telling the full story. Birmingham was truly an anomaly of location; Louisville developed the industrialized economy that was clearly much more in line with Midwestern cities like St. Louis than with Nashville, Memphis, or other Southern cities. Before the decline began, about 45% of Louisville’s population (city proper) worked in industry. Other than Birmingham, the anomaly, percentages like that would have been found nowhere else in the South, but they were the norm in the “industrial Midwest.” It’s evident which group Louisville fits in with.
Are there plenty of Southerners in Louisville? Absolutely. But they do not dominate this city in the manner of Memphis or New Orleans. Plain Midwestern accents are heard just as often, and in my experience more so, than Southern ones, and a huge number of Louisvillians – some polls/surveys indicating a majority – do not identify themselves, or their city, as Southern. A split border city, just by proximity alone Louisville is much more in the Midwest than South, and a variety of cultural aspects in the city seem to confirm its Midwestern identity. It’s interesting that people in the Northern Kentucky region have long ago accepted the reality that their area is Midwestern, though many Louisvillians – a shrinking minority – continue to hold on to the misguided belief that this city is indistinguishable from Nashville or Memphis. They need to “get over it”, as the first post in this blog states. I am a Louisvillian and I do not speak like most Kentuckians, I do not vote like them, I do not share their culinary habits, I do not act like them, think like them, or identify with their mentality. I’m not saying that their habits are “wrong” or “bad”, but they are beyond doubt quite different from the lifestyles commonly observed in this city. Many Louisvillians, like me, refuse to be pigeonholed in with the rest of Kentucky simply because our city just so happens to be located directly south of some river. So what?? I don’t think that people in Wilmington, DE are self-identifying as Southerners just because they happen to sit on the opposite side of the Mason-Dixon line from Philadelphia. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then…well, we know how that goes. And if the state’s largest urban areas are split, what must this reveal about the state in general?
Louisville is indeed a Southern city indeed.
I strongly, strongly agree with the second to last post. In addition, I have relatives in Kentucky, so I know the state quite well, and I have to be honest, once you reach the north-central area, you feel like you are beginning to enter the lower Midwest....there are still elements of the South present, such as sweet tea, but the accents, climate, and landscape all begin to change right around when you hit Lexington. Louisville and Lexington as well as the rest of north-central and northern Kentucky really do have an in-between feel to them...Southern Kentucky is entirely different. And honestly, this makes perfect sense. Lexington and Louisville are practically in the Midwest for crying out loud...Louisville is only 100 miles south of Indianapolis, 90 southwest of Cincinnati...Lexington is only 80 miles south of Cincinnati. These are not purely Southern cities at all....now I have nothing against the South, mind you...I also have relatives in Tennessee and Louisiana....they refuse to include Louisville or Lexington in with the rest of the South. And frankly I don't blame them....the history of these two cities is unlike the rest of the Midwest and the rest of the south. Louisville and Lexington are border cities...plain and simple...and Kentucky is half in the Midwest half in the South. The Ohio River does not dictate perfectly the cultural divide...if that were the case, Maryland and Delaware would be very Southern...when clearly they are much more Northern...West Virginia would be the same but that state is culturally divided too. Kentucky is no different. Generally the northern half of the state tends to lean more towards the Midwest, while the southern half tends to lean more toward the South. Louisville and Lexington being at the half-way marker obviously explains why they are not completely Southern or Midwestern. Neither of these cities are at all like Richmond, Virginia. They are just as linked to the Midwest as they are to the South....their history, culture, and speech patterns are reflective of such despite the fact that so many Kentuckians cannot bring themselves to realize this.
Regarding the Ky dialect here is an interesting link;
http://web.ku.edu/idea/northamerica/usa/kentucky/kentucky.htm
They actually have recordings of dialects around the country. Just listening to the dialects throughout the state of Ky including those from Louisville it is painfully obvious this is a culturally southern state. Listen to woman from Louisville (kentucky 5), that is the native tongue. Listen to the woman from Carrolton which is half way between Louisville and Cincy, that is the native northern Ky tongue. One of the things I here mentioned is that people in Louisville do not uniformly speak with a southern dialect. The truth of the matter is that they don't speak uniformly southern in Nashville (I lived there for 2 years), Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte etc. We live in the age of electronic media and a very transient population. This dilutes many of the original regional accents. There is no true native midwestern twang in Louisville. There IS a greatly diluted native accent due to an influx of people from all points. Don't get me wrong Louisville is not Memphis or New Orleans, and Memphis and New Orleans aren't Raleigh and Norfolk. Point being they are all somewhat unique. But all of those cities do share a southern culture. Geography and climate really don't have much to do with what I am talking about. I'm talking about culture. The ruling classes of Kentucky have their historical roots in Virginia and North Carolina. Virginia is the cultural mother of the south. Thats why people get into a tizzy when you question their regional identity. This is old and deep.
I agree that the three KY counties bordering Cincinnati would actually qualify as being midwestern. Basically these are Cincinnati suburbs. The most telling thing about Louisville, especially regarding a southern dialect is southern Indiana. Yep we have to drag some Hoosiers into this. Come on, drive over the bridge and visit the small towns in the knobs. I would say its a tad bit Kuntry over there. In my opinion the indigenous dialect tells the tale. Lets just be honest, travel north, south, east, or west of Louisville and people talk plum country including multiple generation Louisvillians. That does not exist in St. Louis, Indianapolis or, Cincinnati. The difference between Louisville and those close by cities is very very distinct especially given their close proximity. The major industry of Louisville has been for the most part distinctly southern, Tobacco (Brown & Williamson until very recently), Bourbon, Horse Racing, L&N railroad, and FRIED CHICKEN. Now there could be an argument that is why Humana is in Louisville. Louisville has never been and never will be a deep southern city. That doesn't mean it is not southern. To me it looks like this; Cincinnati and St Louis are the very southernmost culturally predominate midwestern cities (putting a heavy emphasis on dialect). Louisville is the northernmost culturally southern city (heavy emphasis on dialect, architecture, cuisine).
The best thing about this debate is that it shows and demonstrates Louisville's uniqueness.
Actually, in terms of architecture I would disagree about Louisville architecturally and Lexington as well. Yes it is true...everything you said about Louisville and Lexington gives them a Southern flavor. I am not even going to argue that these are not Southern cities....however what isn't mentioned is Louisville and Lexington also had railroads connecting them to Indiana and Ohio. In fact...Kentucky (the northern parts of it and its urban areas of Louisville and Lexington) is just as linked to Indiana and Ohio as it is to Tennessee. Louisville and Lexington stand out from the rest of Kentucky. And just because a dialect isn't native...that's like saying because Missouri was a border state during the civil war, it can never be considered midwestern...we all know that is a lie. Louisville and Lexington have a lot more Midwestern dialect than Nashville....I am not buying that either of these cities should be excluded from the Midwest or the South...especially having been to both. Louisville and Lexington have their own entities in my opinion...they have very Midwestern feels to them. I actually hear many more midwestern accents around here than Southern in the urban areas....even with the older folks. Louisville and Lexington have traditional ties to both the Midwest and the South...look up their history...it's undeniable. And the Confederates when they took over Kentucky after the Civil War tried to wipe out all links Kentucky had to the Midwest. It is rarely mentioned that Lexington was linked by railroad to three C's of Ohio (Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland). There was also the Chicago, Indianapolis, and Louisville railroad. The Civil War...Kentucky was a split state...not ALL Kentuckians sided with the Union with the intention of keeping their slaves...surely they should have foreseen the consequences of siding with the Union. Now...for arguing for the South....Louisville and Lexington in terms of the Great Migration were not anything like the Midwestern cities of St. Louis or Cincinnati, who welcomed blacks with open arms. Louisville and Lexington lost their black populations during then. The tobacco, bourbon, Louisville-Nashville, horse-racing...yes...those are unquestionably southern. However...Louisville and Lexington were industrial like the Midwest....as another argument was mentioned. As far as I am concerned, there are many, many ways to argue that these two cities are either-or. Kentucky not-so-much. The state overall as a whole might as well be whistling Dixie....I am reluctant to say that Louisville and Lexington are just like the rest of Kentucky...there is too much controdictory evidence to just argue that Louisville and Lexington are just like "Nashville, Memphis, or any Southern city." That is a lie....a big one. If I were to argue for anything...yes...overall..these cities are probably more Southern than Midwestern...but they are Southern with major Midwestern components to them. That's how I'd rule it. THis is what makes them unique in my opinion. Geographically....if not for the Ohio River...Louisville and Lexington are centrally located. Does that mean they aren't culturally Southern? Absolutely not. However, it certainly doesn't mean there is no Midwestern component to them. You cannot minimize it...I don't really feel like I'm in the "true South" until I am south of Louisville and Lexington. But I certainly know when I am in Louisville and LExington that I'm not in the Midwest anymore either.
I am late in this game but the Civil war argument is missing a component. Check this out...
http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/kyflag.htm
The legislature was pro-union. The governor, however, was pro-confederate. The citizens, however, we divided. As far as the rest of the argument, you won't convince either side of the argument either way so it's pointless.
Oh and about the snow.... how many times have we gotten 16 inches? Hek, how often does it actually snow? And when it does, how often do we get more than a dusting?
I have noticed that alot of people say that Louisville is midwestern because of the Catholic community. My part of town is overwhelmingly mostly Baptist. For every Catholic church there are probably three or four Baptist or other Christian Church. I don't understand the German immigrant thing either. Most of the people I know have had Irish decent. Maybe it just depends on where in Louisville you live?
Louisville is without a doubt a Southern city. The numerous points mentioned above confirm the cultural and historical relationship that Louisville has with the South (particularly the Upper South), much more so then the points of it being Midwestern. However it's simply unrealistic to say that Louisville is 100% Southern, But if you had to draw the line between the North and South it only makes sense to place Louisville South of that line.
Post a Comment