104 replies to this topic

[ATLBrain]

davidals, on Jul 18 2007, 06:16 AM, said:

Ok...to just confine things to cities, howsabout another definition of "old South" and "new South"?:  Major cities (or cities exerting some regional/national influence at cultural and/or economic levels) pre-WWII as Old South, and cities that were small (or tiny) until the postwar years -

Old South:
Memphis
New Orleans
Birmingham
Louisville
Mobile
Savannah
Charleston
Wilmington
Richmond
Atlanta

New South:
Charlotte
Raleigh
Nashville
Huntsville
Columbia
Greenville
NoVa metro
Lexington
Fayetteville (AR & NC)
Atlanta

I don't know how I'd class Atlanta, which maybe shoots a hole in my categorization - Atlanta was very small in population pre-Civil War, though it (by virtue of location) was still a regional center, and it has held on to (at least) some of it's older mystique while also reinventing itself.  This could be true of other cities - witness the dramatic rebirth of Charleston or Asheville during the last 20-30 years, after several very moribund decades.

If you take that approach which I tend to agree with, then you must include Knoxville.  I can't believe that some of those cities are considered "major" while Knoxville isn't listed.  It has a metro area rapidly approaching 1 million.  Including many hi-tech companies in Oak Ridge, it has the Pellissippi Technology Corridor and the University of Tennessee.  Somebody above hit the nail when it was mentioned that education has a lot to do with (what I think you mean by) New South.  It's the second fastest growing large city in TN (behind Clarksville).

[krazeeboi]

^I don't think his list was exhaustive.

[beltwayboy07]

Good list, now what about texas?  And Louisiville is not in the South (only Southern Kentucky can be even considered for that)!  And if you added Greenville in there, why did'nt you add Norfolk?

And I think your categorization should be pre/post Civil War... that fits much better.  Just about every city on the list was established before the Civil War.  So maybe even pre/post Mexican War (LOL!)!

Columbia, SC was the largest inland city in America (or CSA) in the 1850's and 1860's!

Edited by beltwayboy07, 20 July 2007 - 11:43 AM.

[kjice2]

why is Hampton Roads not on the list.  THE Nation began in Hampton Roads. every thing began here

[Alabadrock]

I think the reason why he didn't include some cities, was because they just didn't instantly pop in his head.  I doubt he was intending to make a definitive list.  Probably just the cities he thought of at the moment.

[krazeeboi]

Geesh y'all, I just got finished saying that his list probably wasn't exhaustive. So please, get over it.

And Louisville is very much Southern.

[Alabadrock]

I'm beginning to wonder if there's any point to these arguments anymore.  We've all established that we don't believe some cities are Southern.  I think it's going to be pretty impossible to say which city is more "Old Southish" than another.  Let's just accept that every city is old, and most all of them are also new.

[912]

beltwayboy07, on Jul 20 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

Good list, now what about texas?

texas may be in the south, but it's definately not a Southern state.

[BrandonTO416]

The entire south will remain solidly in the old south if it keeps voting for people like Bush and it will continue to be the old south if radical religiousity continues to be a factor at any level.

While many of you will disagree, most people outside the south feel the same as I do.

Edited by heckles, 21 July 2007 - 09:24 AM.

[ATLman1]

fromsc2tx, on Jul 21 2007, 07:52 AM, said:

texas may be in the south, but it's definately not a Southern state.

I think Texas is a Southern state, maybe not so much west Texas but east Texas sure is.

[Aporkalypse]

ATLman1, on Jul 21 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

I think Texas is a Southern state, maybe not so much west Texas but east Texas sure is.

Having lived there a while, I agree.  People's attitudes in Houston and Dallas really are pretty decidedly Southern, the main difference is the large Latino population.  Rural East Texas and North Texas are Baptist, Bible-Belt cities indistinguishable from Arkansas or North Louisiana.

[HAMMETTM]

ATLman1, on Jul 21 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

I think Texas is a Southern state, maybe not so much west Texas but east Texas sure is.

I agree. The southern accents and culture in East Texas are similiar to those of the southeast.

[krazeeboi]

Here's one thing that lends credence to the notion of entire states being more "Old South" or "New South." While this report is a bit dated, it shows the states that experienced a net gain of single, college-educated young professionals (age 25-39) from 1995-2000. All of the states that I classified as "Old South" states, which were South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky, experienced a net loss of this coveted group, while the "New South" states, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas, all experienced a net gain (see page 7 for a graphic). Even when you look at net domestic migration rates for top metropolitan areas, none of the Old South states have a metropolitan area listed (except Myrtle Beach, which surprised me a little; even then, the gain wasn't really that much).

I think it's pretty telling that you can find metropolitan areas that have more of an Old South vibe in New South states, but it's much less common to find New South metropolitan areas in Old South states. For the most part, you really can't find anything resembling NoVa, the Triangle, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Nashville, DFW, or Houston in SC, AL, MS, LA, AR, and KY--in terms of population, growth rates, and local economic composition and growth.

[Rardy]

krazeeboi, on Jul 24 2007, 11:09 AM, said:

Here's one thing that lends credence to the notion of entire states being more "Old South" or "New South." While this report is a bit dated, it shows the states that experienced a net gain of single, college-educated young professionals (age 25-39) from 1995-2000. All of the states that I classified as "Old South" states, which were South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky, experienced a net loss of this coveted group, while the "New South" states, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas, all experienced a net gain (see page 7 for a graphic). Even when you look at net domestic migration rates for top metropolitan areas, none of the Old South states have a metropolitan area listed (except Myrtle Beach, which surprised me a little; even then, the gain wasn't really that much).

I think it's pretty telling that you can find metropolitan areas that have more of an Old South vibe in New South states, but it's much less common to find New South metropolitan areas in Old South states. For the most part, you really can't find anything resembling NoVa, the Triangle, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Nashville, DFW, or Houston in SC, AL, MS, LA, AR, and KY--in terms of population, growth rates, and local economic composition and growth.

While that report seems plausible, I take issue with it for one simple reason.  Apparently the "New South" states, according to that definition, are the most populated states in the South.

The New South according to that report: VA, NC, GA, FL, TN, and TX - the largest 6, and the largest for several decades now.

Old South: LA, MS, AL, SC, KY (though I dispute KY can even be considered in this discussion) - the smallest 4/5 based solely on population.

Furthermore, the largest city in these "Old South" states is New Orleans (pre-Katrina).  All of these "New South" states have cities larger than NOLA.

Do larger states grow faster?  Almost always in the South, especially when considering net migration which looks at raw numbers instead of percentage growth.  More population means more resources, activities, and attractiveness - almost a "winner-take-all" theory.  

This entire theory of "New South" seems obsessed with growth which can be misleading.

[krazeeboi]

Rardy, on Jul 24 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

While that report seems plausible, I take issue with it for one simple reason.  Apparently the "New South" states, according to that definition, are the most populated states in the South.

That gets to the issue here. Why are they the most populated? Because, by and large, they have been ahead of the curve economically. People will flock to where the jobs are. The Old South states have lower populations because they have also historically had less economic growth.

[Alabadrock]

krazeeboi, on Jul 24 2007, 11:09 AM, said:

Here's one thing that lends credence to the notion of entire states being more "Old South" or "New South." While this report is a bit dated, it shows the states that experienced a net gain of single, college-educated young professionals (age 25-39) from 1995-2000. All of the states that I classified as "Old South" states, which were South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky, experienced a net loss of this coveted group, while the "New South" states, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas, all experienced a net gain (see page 7 for a graphic). Even when you look at net domestic migration rates for top metropolitan areas, none of the Old South states have a metropolitan area listed (except Myrtle Beach, which surprised me a little; even then, the gain wasn't really that much).

I think it's pretty telling that you can find metropolitan areas that have more of an Old South vibe in New South states, but it's much less common to find New South metropolitan areas in Old South states. For the most part, you really can't find anything resembling NoVa, the Triangle, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Nashville, DFW, or Houston in SC, AL, MS, LA, AR, and KY--in terms of population, growth rates, and local economic composition and growth.

I think that report is probably as close as we'll get.  But, in the end, I don't think there's a real answer.  I think you have to look at Metro areas for the answer.  States, IMO, can't be grouped into New South or Old South.  Metro areas, though, can.  In Alabama, for example, Huntsville is obviously a New South metro area, it's impossible to say it isn't, while a metro area like Gadsden or Florence would most definitely be considered Old.  

Like you said for the most part.  But, it is possible to do so.

[krazeeboi]

^True. Huntsville was actually one of the exceptions I was thinking about. But it still has a ways to go in terms of perception and notoreity as a truly "New South" metropolitan area along the lines of Charlotte or Orlando. But it's well on its way.

The best way to look at things here may be along a continuum. Some states will definitely fall more towards the "Old South" end of the spectrum, and some will fall more towards the "New South" end. Some will fall more in the middle (e.g., my own state). For those that fall more towards the "New South" end, I still think there is a marked difference in the way they generally do business as opposed to the others. Education is one such indicator.

[Rardy]

krazeeboi, on Jul 24 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

That gets to the issue here. Why are they the most populated? Because, by and large, they have been ahead of the curve economically. People will flock to where the jobs are. The Old South states have lower populations because they have also historically had less economic growth.

What about Louisiana?  Between the 1930's and the 1980's, Louisiana was HOT economically and in population growth.  The oil bust in the mid-80's wiped it out.  

So is this limited to only recent population growth?

[krazeeboi]

This isn't so much about population growth as it is about those states that have been able to reinvent themselves economically and stay ahead of the curve; population growth is but a result of that. South Carolina was riding high at one point too, with a good amount of jobs and low unemployment--when manufacturing was still king. We failed to prepare for the shift away from manufacturing towards a knowledge-based economy, and now we're struggling to play catch up. So for the most part, we are indeed speaking recently--like within the past 20-25 years or so.

[Temeteron]

Greenville, on Apr 19 2007, 02:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure how easily we can classify entire states as "new south" or "old south."  I think more in terms of metro areas, and in South Carolina alone, I would consider Charleston more "old south" and Greenville and Columbia more "new south."  In Georgia, Savannah is more "old south" while Atlanta is "new south."

I think there are too many variances in attitudes, customs, and vibes within a state (in most cases, at least) to classify it as one or the other.

I have been born and raised in Columbia, although I've lived in Charlotte and Boston for a little bit, and I've traveled to several other states and countries, and SC by far is one of the most "Old South" states I've been too.....and Columbia is nowhere near New South in my opinion except for that little piece of 6 or 7 blocks that is known as the "USC Campus"