Jump to content

hey all you yankees, listen up!


Newnan

Recommended Posts

With just a few seconds of searching, I found this:

SOURCE:  http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761595...an_History.html

I will agree that the basis of the South's economy was agriculture, but this was not all of it.  The South had cities, banks and industry also, although the North was admittedly farther along with industry.  But, the basis of the country's economy in the 1860s was still agriculture and the South produced a very valuable crop - cotton.  Now, this economic system was in part based on slavery, which was sanctioned by the US Constitution, the Bible and human history.  I am not saying slavery was right, just that it was a normal condition for most of human history.  Anyway, the fact of the matter is the South was richer than the North before the Civil War.  This is undeniable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many third world nations have very rich people, and quite few of them, but everyone else is dirt poor. I know your thinking that if the richest counties were in the south, so they must of averaged in the poor, right? I doubt it, slaves were not counted, they were considered property, not people, and most poor whites either lived far up in the hills, or were share croppers, both hard groups to gather stats on, especially in the 1850's. And I would also like to know how they defined "richest." Anyways, the south, besides cotton and tobbaco, was largly economically insignificant, at least from the beginning if the industrial revolution up until relatively recently, maybe the 1950's-1960's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not so. The West, especially California has been experiencing net migration loss out of the state for more than 6 years now. If it wasn't for illegal and legal foreign immigration California would be losing population. The number one region where ex Californian's are heading is to the South.

Places like Phoenix and Las Vegas, while growing are relatively small compared to the population in the South, and they are located in unsustainable environments. ie. they have no water. The growth there is going to stop from that fact alone. Nevada will never be another Florida or Texas or even NC or GA for that matter. In fact every state in the South has more population and most are growing faster. Much faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how the most recent post by MJLO starts off in a tone that questions why argue about the matter, even calls the forumers children.....only to follow with statistics to further the debate. At 31 I have never seen anything like it. WOW!

THis is for everybody who doesn't live in the south: Okay, I'm sure all of you have heard of big ciites in the south Like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, and New Orleans :cry: , But do you still think that the south is still mainly rural? Besides that, what do you think of us? i'd like to hear your opinion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the question that the starter of this thread proposed as the topic starter.

Can we stay on course here?

If you are a northerner here are the questions for you....

Do you still think that the south is still mainly rural?

What do you think of us?

Now I could give me own opinion of these questions and could even go as far as to say "who cares?" but these are questions he wanted answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have to look at hard data,

can you really count Florida as South? almost all of the people there are Transplants, and texas has always been it's own Entity. Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina, are growing quite nicely, Enough to offset the stagnant growth of the deep south Missippi Alabama, and Louisiana.

more than 1000 people move to Arizona every day alone.

Here are some hard stats by region, California is still gaining people.

Growth 2000- 2003 from World Almanac

West

WA up %4

AZ up 8.8 % now the 18th most populated state

NV up 12.2 % an increase of 300k people

CA up 4.8 or 1.6 million

OR up 4

South

GA up 6.1

NC up 4.5

SC up 3.4

VA up 4.3

FL up 6.5

MS up 1.3

AL up 1.2

LA up .6

Here are some Northern ones to, stagnant, but not dead

IL up 1.9

MI up 1.4

OH up. 7 as is PA

NY 1.1

MN up 2.8

WI up 2

IN up 1.9

Mass Up 1.3

don't discount the numbers until you see them, in the past three years, not to mentoin the past decade the west has gained more people than the south, by actual number

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you trying to tell me that the south isn't seeing it's fair share of illegal imigration?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all, but it doesn't need to count those people to show population growth like the West. The point is the South is in no danger of being eclipsed by the few western states with some people in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon I have always enjoyed your posts you bring light and reason to this forum, however in this instance sir, because of my vocational choice, and area of study, I respectfully disagree :)

Miss Celeste, my intent, in my prior posts however ill worded. was never to talk down the south, simply to bring light of what had become tantamount to a regional pissing contest as I often see on here. I still contend that states in the west, and mountain west are gaining population at a rapid rate, more than one with a substantial population already and should not be discounted, when the discussion turned to growth and glamour. It can however be noted, that in terms of Density, many western states have a long way to go.

.

Back to the topic at hand, I am fascinate by southern culture and reverence The major cities of the south hold little interest for me, because to me they are no different than any other bustling metropolis. It is a common misnomer up here taught in the schools, that the civil war was faught over slavery. I have learned, that the southerners were not going to be told how to run their economy and their lives, by a bunch carpetbagging merchants with no class. I have also read that even Abraham Lincoln said, the war was not about slavery, but rather keeping the country pieced together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leets, I want to address the thing you said about sprawl in the south. You're right, we do have it, but it's not as bad as people think; and no offense or anything, but I don't think people up north should be talking about sprawl anyway. The NE is home to the American Megalopolis. The cities up there SPRAWLED out so much that they grew together. Anyway, I don't think the south's sprawl is that bad. I've never seen any of those developments where you have hundreds of cookie cutter houses around here. Another good thing is that  a lot of southern cities, especially Atlanta are experiencing a rebirth in their urban core. In the past few years the city of Atlanta's population started rising again after a 30 year downward trend and countless condos, apartment, and mixed use building are popping up. Atlanta's downtown is finally starting to have life again and I'm sure other cities are too. So, the south isn't as sprawling as you think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, the North is definately not as sprawled out as the South. A lot of the suburbs up North, atleast in the Tri-State area, grew around mass-transit rather than the car (L.I. suburbs began to grow when the Long Island Railroad was built and expanded as commuter rail), although some parts were such as some NJ suburbs. Why do you think so many notherners move to the south? Because some people don't want to live on top of one another (even in the suburbs) and they want more for their money. And the only way you can live in a subdivision (or have some space) is that you have to be wealthy (unless you want to commute for an hour and a half/two hours everyday). People up North also like the fact that they can be in a subdivision or residential community, which are rare in certain parts up North, especially the Tri-State area. Most suburbs are towns, and there is usually always more than one way to get out of the street your on. Most of the suburbs up North are older and more electic and less cookie-cutter (even though those do exist too, though not that much unless your out in the country). And I don't know where in the South you live, but it is full of cookie-cutter developments except for the older parts (like Myers Park, Dilworth, and Eastover parts of Charlotte and in-town Atlanta) - the difference between the North and the South is that the North was much more populated and most of its growth occured a long time ago, where as the South has recently been growing and therefore you have much less older homes (obviously) and a lot more cookie-cutter ones. Look at a map on Yahoo and you can clearly see the North is a lot less sprawled out than the South.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read some very interesting approaches. I had not heard about the South being richer than the North before, that is pretty interesting. Yet, I read that someone wrote that the South was more "aristocratic"? What do you mean by that? I'look for the one that wrote that later. :ph34r:

Edit: rusthebuss, sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady,

I do have to give you one thing, your fun to chat with.

Westinghouse Blvd. was named for the Westinghouse Corporation is what I was told, I'd be interested if it was for some other reason.

Home Depot is in Pittsburgh, just not a Home Depot Blvd. (not yet anyway but wouldn't be surprised if there was one day).

I looked over the internet some for some papers or articles on the military/industrial/tech firms that moved from Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Boston, Chicago and Philly in the 1950's and 1960's at the urging of the Pentagon, I know for a fact it happened and I encourage anyone to do their own digging. Maybe I am connecting the wrong dots but it's amazing that the Pentagon urges tech and industrial firms to move south and then all of a sudden Atlanta gets 2 pro sports franchises, the airport is huge and it becomes a major metro. Coincidence?

Can we all agree that at the very least the South was made by Yankee sports money. The Milwaukee Braves, the St. Louis Hawks (St. Louis although "southern" some is more an industrial mid-west city), the Minnesota NorthStars, even the expansion franchises are of "yankee" sports, the first Basketball and NCAA Basketball games were in the north, the first football and pro-football games were in the north, and baseball and hockey are no-brainers, NASCAR has many southern roots but anyone from Indianapolis would certainly make a case they had something to do with it (though that is Indy circuit and not pure stock car).

Being from Pittsburgh I have no ill-will towards the south, I know how it feels to constantly compete with a "big brother" that keeps thinking its superior (Philly and or the whole "East Coast Megalopolis from Boston to DC). With West Virginia so close (on both the west and south) and many happy times in WV (birthplace of General Stonewall Jackson just a few hours south of Pittsburgh), I don't mind a strong south. Just looking at all these dinosaurs in Pittsburgh reminds me that the wealth went somewhere, in the 50s and 60s to the sunbelt in the late 70s the largest transfer of wealth in world history when industrial Europe, America and the PacRim sent trillions to the middle east (a discussion for another day).

The south did a huge amount to attract and retain that capital, just stating the facts as I've learned them, that capital came mainly from the NE and Industrial mid-west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, the North is definately not as sprawled out as the South. A lot of the suburbs up North, atleast in the Tri-State area, grew around mass-transit rather than the car (L.I. suburbs began to grow when the Long Island Railroad was built and expanded as commuter rail), although some parts were such as some NJ suburbs. Why do you think so many notherners move to the south? Because some people don't want to live on top of one another (even in the suburbs) and they want more for their money. And the only way you can live in a subdivision (or have some space) is that you have to be wealthy (unless you want to commute for an hour and a half/two hours everyday). People up North also like the fact that they can be in a subdivision or residential community, which are rare in certain parts up North, especially the Tri-State area. Most suburbs are towns, and there is usually always more than one way to get out of the street your on. Most of the suburbs up North are older and more electic and less cookie-cutter (even though those do exist too, though not that much unless your out in the country). And I don't know where in the South you live, but it is full of cookie-cutter developments except for the older parts (like Myers Park, Dilworth, and Eastover parts of Charlotte and in-town Atlanta) - the difference between the North and the South is that the North was much more populated and most of its growth occured a long time ago, where as the South has recently been growing and therefore you have much less older homes (obviously) and a lot more cookie-cutter ones. Look at a map on Yahoo and you can clearly see the North is a lot less sprawled out than the South.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Believe it or not, there are a lot of towns surrounding southern cities that are considered suburbs, but are also communities all their own. I happen to live in one, Newnan. Its full of rich history and a close knit community and we dont tie ourselves to Atlanta very much at all. Not all suburban or metro areas are sprawl down here, we have our own communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been my observation that development built in the North since WWII sprawls just as bad as anyplace in South. In fact the subdivision began in NY State. Western Chicago sprawls to the horizon and is as car oriented as anyplace in the United States. It may be the worst conglomeration of sprawl in the entire country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true, the north sprawls uncontrollably in many parts (look at northeastern New Jersey outside Newark, Paterson, Elizabeth, etc., Westchester County, NY, and all around Boston all the way out to Worcester) and in a lot of cases, the sprawl in the north is lower density than the sprawl in the south and west (look at LA's sprawl, its the densest in the nation...). I think as an overall rule though, what the south considers part of its "urban cores" in the city limits themselves are much more sprawled than what the north would consider its urban cores.

Just look at a map of Atlanta vs. a map of Boston and you can see the disconnectivity/sprawling street pattern in Atlanta begins very close to downtown, whereas Boston has a much more dense/gridded street pattern all around it:

atlanta.gif

boston.gif

The fact of the matter is, however, sprawl is sprawl whether your in the north south east or west, and the only major difference is that in the south/west some of the sprawl is contained within the city limits of the core city, whereas in the north the the core city limits are older and smaller, therefore most of the sprawl is located technically outside the city limits. It's still sprawl though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's that Yankee money everyone was looking for:

charlotte_sat.jpg

This is the Westinghouse, Westinghouse Blvd. in Charlotte was named for (it is the biggest bad boy on the Blvd. so I doubt it is mere coincidence). Here is the link to the Facility page:

5101 Westinghouse Blvd. Charlotte NC

Found a great piece (goes back to reconstruction and the early 1900's so not the 1950s stats I was looking for) that describes to what extent Southerners were chasing Yankee money:

In sum, Northerners had indeed reconstructed the Southern economy, one they now controlled . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's that Yankee money everyone was looking for:

This is the Westinghouse, Westinghouse Blvd. in Charlotte was named for (it is the biggest bad boy on the Blvd. so I doubt it is mere coincidence).  Here is the link to the Facility page:

5101 Westinghouse Blvd. Charlotte NC

Found a great piece (goes back to reconstruction and the early 1900's so not the 1950s stats I was looking for) that describes to what extent Southerners were chasing Yankee money:

http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture02.html

I had to sit through about a half dozen of "sunbelt economics" "sunbelt history" classes to get out of college all you guys should email my old professors and let them know they were wrong about the military/industrial/tech infrastructure moving south in the 50's and 60's ;).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You really ought to do your homework

That factory is Siemens-Westinghouse and that particular location makes reactors and other power generation equipement for Duke Energy, the biggest Energy company in the world based here in Charlotte. If you ask me this is a case of yankees chasing Southern money. It it weren't for Duke that plant would not exist. And even then the Germans had to buy it to keep it afloat. :rolleyes:

And while we are at it, I will point out that Charlotte's Nucor, another home built company and the other componets of the steel business base here, was pretty much responsible for the decline of the old Steel industries in Pittsburgh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metro I'm surprised you had no thoughts on the academic resource I hotlinked. I was looking forward to discussing some of the more far reaching and intellectual points of this topic.

http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture02.html

As far as the Westinghouse complex in Charlotte and the Blvd. Lady raised a terrific question that the Blvd. may have just been named for local Herb Westinghouse or something. I wanted to know myself that what I was told by locals was true, that Westinghouse came down to Charlotte in the 50's and built that section of the metro up--along with the help and advice of southerners.

Duke Power definitely is one of the complexes chief clients (they are using lots of it now that they are serving much of Ohio through Cinergy) but not the only one, and since Westinghouse pretty much put the Savannah River Nuclear Labs on the map a few hours to the south, I suspect the plant up until recently had as a focus supplying its DOD contracts at Savannah River. Siemens didn't exactly "keep it afloat" they and BNFL bought the Nuclear and Defense arms of the conglomerate in the mid-90s when Westinghouse turned its attention to becoming a pure broadcasting and entertainment company. It's really nice that even after 10 years they keep the name Westinghouse with Siemens, guess the company still has tons of unused goodwill from generations past.

Haven't heard much from Nucor recently, how they doing? The mini-mills of the south though definetly innovative in the 1980's weren't the ones that made Big Steel go from a Fortune 10 company to a true Fortune 500, it was the illegal dumping and slave like labor practices of the asian economies.

Though I love looking at that massive Pittsburgh export, anybody with around 50 mil could build something like that, I'm more interested in our opinions on the overall academic conclusions that the north was instrumental, maybe even vital to the south's rise as an economic power.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PghUSA: You keep stating that Ted Turner is a northerner because he was born in Cincinnati, but this is simply not true. While he was born in Cincinnati, his parents are from the South and were up there working at the time. When Ted was 8, they moved back to Georgia (the South) where they were originally from (the South).

This is all I could find to document this: http://www.adherents.com/people/pt/Ted_Turner.html

As for sprawl, I think this not a Southern or Northern problem, but an American one. No one is blameless on this front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read some very interesting approaches. I had not heard about the South being richer than the North before, that is pretty interesting. Yet, I read that someone wrote that the South was more "aristocratic"? What do you mean by that? I'look for the one that wrote that later.  :ph34r:

Edit: rusthebuss, sorry

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was talking back during the revolutionary war and the civil war era. There where more plantations and such in the south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to get a broader view of the world. Rather than asking what people think of you why don't you broaden your own horizons?

Traditional 'Yankees' live in the maritime New England states not including Maine.

'Yorkers' live in New York state, some parts of eastern Pennsylvania, western Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Virginians live in Virginians and should never be called Rebs.

Rebs live in Georgia, Alabama, northern Florida, norther Mississippi, two spots in Arkansas.

Southerners live on the coast of South Carolina, North Carolina (but don't confuse Tarheels or Free Carolinians with the Charleston crowd), southern Mississippi, southern Alabama (in spots), central Florida, large patches of Texas, all of Arkansas, a bit of Oklahoma and some parts of Ohio - okay - all of Ohio but don't ask me how they got there.

Then you have the westerners. They live in the western half of Texas and the rest of that bunch of states all the way to the Pacific Ocean.

When you get comfortable with your neighbors then you can start baiting the Yankees - but let me tell you - you don't want to mess with those folks and you probably won't meet a real live one here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.