Archived

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

bigboyz05

Was Missouri ever southern?

Recommended Posts

I know this is an odd question but I'm asking it because at one point Missouri was a slave state and I was just wondering did that make it a southern state back then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Not really. Missouri allowed slavery under the Missouri Compromise, which meant that the state had governments intact for both the Union and the Confederacy. Though there was Confederate representation, Missouri never officially seceded from the Union. It was always a Union state. If it weren't for St. Louis's rabid pro-Union atmosphere (then one of the largest cities in the country), the state very likely would have gone to the Confederacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one could argue that there are parts of Missouri which identify themselves as "Southern." Much of the southern part of the state including Branson might well be considered as part of the South. As a border state during the Civil War, Missouri did not secede (as noted above), but there are many cities and towns in Missouri which are Southern in character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Absolutely. Missouri is really a chameleon state that draws from each region it borders. The souther portions of the state may as well be Arkansas, the northern parts may as well be Iowa. Kansas City is more of a western major city vis-a-vis Denver, St. Louis is more eastern in character, not unlike Pittsburgh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually in terms of culture, yes, Missouri was southern...

Before the Louisiana Purchase, Missouri was French. Owned by the French, who dominated trade with the Indians in the area. The French used the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers to trade and transport goods. The largest export to New Orleans was beaver pelts.

Then, the French and Indian war occured. After the war, Missouri, along with the rest of the Louisiana Territory, became Spanish. (France was left with only fishing ports in Newfoundland that they couldn't even live in)

Then, came Napolean along with the War of 1812... Now, during this war, Spain gave France the Louisiana Territory. Which, then France later sold to the United States (after Napolean tried and failed to beat down a slave rebellion in Haiti, mainly to use it to invade America)

Then you had the Corps of Discovery (Lewis and Clark) come along and explore the Missouri river and Northwest Louisiana Territory. Along with Pike (forget his first name) who explored the rest of the west and named it the "Great American Desert".

Well, when the French settled Missouri, they settled mostly along the Mississippi River in historical cities like St. Louis, St. Genevieve, St. Charles, etc...

But after the United States took over, so did transcontinental emigration. This is where Missouri becomes a southern state...

People from North Carolina and Virginia moved west and settled Kentucky and Tennesee, those in Kentucky and Tennesee later moved west and settled Missouri.

The Southerners from these states did not settle mainly along the Mississippi River like the French and Spanish, but settled along the Missouri River valley where there were many plantations and good soil. (They grew hemp for rope, unlike modern uses for it) They of course, used slave labor.

That is one of many reasons why Missouri was once a southern state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^faulty logic. There were tens of thousands of southerners who settled in Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and a number of other states as well. Were all these states southern too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not faulty logic, it's history.

I am actually taking a Missouri History course ATM.

Also notice that I said "culture". Missouri was once culturally a southern state, as it was once culturally French.

In fact, much of Missouri is still "southern". We have far more in common with southerners than we do northerners. (save for far eastern Missouri, which is the oldest part, and was once dominated by the French and other Europeans/ St. Louis in fact had and has an extremely large German population)

Pick up "The Heritage of Missouri" by Duane G. Meyer. It's old but it has a lot of good information in it (that you mostly won't ever use in your lifetime, unless discussing history with someone)

Now when I say most of the state, i'm talking geographically. The French settled (as I said) along the Mississippi River and somewhat along the Missouri River. When the Southerners arrived, they settled the Missouri River to build plantations for hemp. (In fact, one of the most fertile land areas in the world is on the Missouri river near a very tiny town named Malta Bend.)

Missouri became a slave state, but never seceded. However it had many southern simpathizers. In fact, you had ppl like John Brown and the Quantrill Gang, as well as the James Gang (Jesse James and his brothers) who would travel across into Kansas and help promote slavery there.

Sadly, there is still a large "old southern" mindset... Kansas City is one of the most segregated cities in the country. (Not white/black segregation as in the Civil Rights era and before) KC has many diverse cultures like other cities, but they aren't mixed in like other cities might be. They are all seperated and "segregated" into their own neighborhoods and areas.

Link on Amazon.com if you are interested:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093315010...5Fencoding=UTF8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're saying is true, but you are either ignoring facts about decidedly northern states, or you just don't realize that some of these "southern" traits aren't southern at all.

I know that St. Louis has always been an anomaly in the state of Missouri. If it weren't for St. Louis, Missouri would be fudgeing Arkansas. You mention how KC's population is very segregated, yet you don't realize that the highest levels of segregation are in Northern and eastern cities. Therefore, Kansas City has some southern and western qualities, but its segregation isn't one of them. Some of the most racially/ethnically segregated cities in the United States include Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore and yes, even New York. The South and West tend to be more integrated in modern America.

And yes, I know that Missouri had many southern sympathizers, but that alone didn't make it and doesn't make it more southern than northern. It draws traits equally from all regions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this thread was if it was ever southern... I'm addressing the past, not the present. Missouri was once southern. I'm not saying it still is. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the Midwestern catagory. America was a lot different in the early to mid 1800s than it is now.

I will not deny the diversity and commonness that Missouri has with other parts of the country. That is the way it is now, but as I understood the thread, it was talking about any point in history.

Missouri was in a sense, divided during the Civil War. The more eastern center parts of the state (St. Louis area) was Northern and against slavery, whereas you had almost the rest of state, (along the MO river, the ozarks, the western and northwestern parts, etc...) that was sympathetic to the South.

You had a raid on the armory in St. Louis during the civil war by southern sympathisers. (who, if i'm not mistaken, participated in the bloody battle at Wilson's Creek)

I also know that northern cities are very segregated, look at NYC... Very divided between blacks, whites, asians, europeans, etc...

_____________________

Also, most of the stuff i'm talking about comes straight from the curriculum (and additional facts taught by my teacher) for Missouri History classes, as well as the book quoted earlier.

_____________________

As said, I'm addressing the past and not the present. Missouri has changed a lot... From a place inhabited soley by Indians, to a French territory, to a Spanish territory, to a French Territory, to an American Territory, to a center for exploration and Manifest Destiny, to a very bloody Civil War battlefield (or no-mans land), to finally a center for manufacturing, trade and farming and a lilypad for cross-country travel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However not in the early 1800s... I could tell you myself, my dad's entire side of the family came from Kentucky.

At that time, before the Civil War, Missouri was a dominantly southern state. But there were areas like St. Louis that were Northern in culture.

If Missouri wasn't a southern state, then the Missouri curriculum for teaching Missouri History and the largest book on Missouri History would all be wrong...

BTW, there were many towns in Missouri, that still flew the Confederate flag well after the Civil War. Not only that, but most of the fighting was done in areas that had sympathy for the south...

IE: Battle of Westport or Brush Creek (What is now the Plaza in KC)

Battle of Blue River (East of the Plaza)

Battle of Blue Mills (Independence, MO)

Battle of Lexington (Lexington, MO East of KC)

Battle of Wilson's Creek (west of Springfield, MO)

etc...

Here is a link to a map that shows the Missouri Civil War Battles. All are in areas that I would consider, at the time of the Civil War and before, to be southern.

http://americancivilwar.com/statepic/mo.html

Now after the Civil War, Missouri became more mixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Absolutely. Missouri is really a chameleon state that draws from each region it borders. The souther portions of the state may as well be Arkansas, the northern parts may as well be Iowa. Kansas City is more of a western major city vis-a-vis Denver, St. Louis is more eastern in character, not unlike Pittsburgh.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. The three metro regions, KC, St. Louis, and Springfield may as well be thousands of miles apart instead of hundreds. St. Louis is blue collar manufacturing and shipping trade very much like Philly, Pitt, or Detroit. KC is a cow town. This place relates more to Des Moines, and Omaho than any Eastern town. Springfield is Ozarks through and through. It is not southern in the cotton plantation way but more of a hillbilly way. Prior to flood control projects this area was very inaccessable from the north but connected by family to northern Arkansas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the most racially/ethnically segregated cities in the United States include Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore and yes, even New York. The South and West tend to be more integrated in modern America.

Dont forget Boston!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Culturally, I think the United States begins to transform right along the Nebraska Iowa area. I think once you begin moving into Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, etc. the character of things changes. It still isn't quite the same as the deep south of Mississippi or Georgia, even if it is considered "southern," but no area is exactly the same as another, even in the south. Once you move up toward Michigan and Wisconsin, I think everything is likely to be quite different than Oklahoma or Kansas. The transitions are gradual, of course, and the changes aren't total, but change in a subtle way, until there are little similarities, just like the journey from Southern Georgia up through the east coast. By the time you get to North Carolina or Virginia, the transition has begun in earnest, and by the time you hit Maryland, it is profound, and by the time you are in Pennsylvania, there is far less commonality with Georgia. Missouri is like that, I think. It's in the midst of the transition from deep southern Texas to the northern plains, which are markedly different. It is, however, impossible, in a vast nation such as the U.S., to have huge swaths of exactly the same culture. Even in the deep south, the people in different areas are different. None of this is a bad thing, of course. Makes it all the more fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to screw things up even more - my father has property 45 miles north by northwest of st. louis along the mississippi river that has been in our family since before the civil war, which has both confederate and union civil war veterans buried on it which are related to me. this area was and is heavily connected to st. louis by agriculture due to the river and railroad and productive bottomland (that youre not supposed to develop...). st. louis also had business and cultural ties to the south through neccesity - and suffered because of this, not as the kansas city region did ala by being burned by union troops, but by having been prevented its connections to the south during the civil war, which arguably ended real competition between chicago and st. louis. theres some complicated history there.

possibly - seems like some of the earlier st. louis business folk had southern ties, and as the industrial era immigrants came into power, etc, those southern ties were obliterated until the wave of african americans started migrating to urban areas further north, which brought some 'southerness' back with their culture, certainly different than the rich white folks with ties to other rich white folk further south sort-of-thing as before.

just to make clear, im not making the argument that st. louis was at one time southern anywhere close to the sense of new orleans.

my family is also from 'the south,' virgina via kentucky very early 1800s.

virginia + kentucky + tennesse = average pre industrial missourian whitefolk lineage ..thats my dads side. my mothers side is industrial era german immigrant, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say there's plenty of towns in S.W. Missouri that are southern.

Take a drive through Monett, Freistatt, Purdy, etc and you will see distinct southern features such as authentic southern homes, american flags on every light pole, and plenty of chevy's. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand while people say Missoura is southern when it isnt. It's like saying that Louisville is Midwestern or Cleveland is northeastern!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand while people say Missoura is southern when it isnt. It's like saying that Louisville is Midwestern or Cleveland is northeastern!

Have you been in Monett, Washburn, or Branson? These towns have southern architecture as well as plenty of other southern features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you been in Monett, Washburn, or Branson? These towns have southern architecture as well as plenty of other southern features.

Where did that come from? No one is denying that there are "Southern" towns in Missoura. Missoura (yes, I prefer to spell it this way instead of Missouri) as a whole is a Midwestern state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did that come from? No one is denying that there are "Southern" towns in Missoura. Missoura (yes, I prefer to spell it this way instead of Missouri) as a whole is a Midwestern state.

I'm just asking if you've been to any of these towns. Don't take it personally. I was mearly pointing out that these towns have southern feels to them, not that they implied the state as a whole is Southern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just asking if you've been to any of these towns. Don't take it personally. I was mearly pointing out that these towns have southern feels to them, not that they implied the state as a whole is Southern.

That exactly my point! The towns feel southern, and are very different from the rest of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.