"Old South" states and "New South" states

[krazeeboi]

You're almost at a dime.

You are right about cheap operating costs. It's interesting, because I glossed over an article not too long ago that suggested that corporations look to rural areas (which, of course, have low operating costs) in which to locate manufacturing facilities as opposed to overseas. I do think that employers will eventually begin to look at smaller Southern cities and "Old South" cities as well; I do agree with you on that. However, I think that some of our larger/rapidly growing cities have advantages that will always make them attractive places for corporate operations (e.g., Atlanta with its interstate network/airport, the Triangle with its universities, etc.).

[Rardy]

You're almost at a dime.

You are right about cheap operating costs. It's interesting, because I glossed over an article not too long ago that suggested that corporations look to rural areas (which, of course, have low operating costs) in which to locate manufacturing facilities as opposed to overseas. I do think that employers will eventually begin to look at smaller Southern cities and "Old South" cities as well; I do agree with you on that. However, I think that some of our larger/rapidly growing cities have advantages that will always make them attractive places for corporate operations (e.g., Atlanta with its interstate network/airport, the Triangle with its universities, etc.).

[krazeeboi]

I would note that Indianapolis and Columbus are also experiencing New South-like population and economic growth at this moment as well. Interestingly, they are also state capitals that are central to their states with significantly-sized college populations, just as Atlanta is (Atlanta isn't exactly in the geographic center of Georgia, but it's not too far from it).

You're right about cost. But I was pointing out some of the things that will keep some of our cities competitive as costs rise.

[Rardy]

I would note that Indianapolis and Columbus are also experiencing New South-like population and economic growth at this moment as well. Interestingly, they are also state capitals that are central to their states with significantly-sized college populations, just as Atlanta is (Atlanta isn't exactly in the geographic center of Georgia, but it's not too far from it).

You're right about cost. But I was pointing out some of the things that will keep some of our cities competitive as costs rise.

[krazeeboi]

It's interesting you should point out that they're capitals. I have started some research on this and I'm finding that state capitals grow significantly faster than non-capitals. That may seem rather intuitive, but it's also an indication that maybe they keep more than their share of the state's resources... Hmmm...

[Louisvilleslugger]

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!

[Rardy]

Yes, but they also have significantly more untaxable government properties within their borders, too.

[DaltonGA]

Given that "New South" was coined by Henry W. Grady, as part of his boosterism for Atlanta in particular and post-reconstruction South in general, the term New South is somewhat out of context. New South described the emerging industry in the south, textiles, tobacco, furniture and iron and steel. Old South referred to the old agricultural aristocratic economy from before the Civil War. No southern state has an agriculturally dependent economy today, but there are states in which the old aristocracy did maintain political control. Some of those states have prospered and some haven't. Virginia is a state in which the old aristocracy maintained controlled but became more moderate and progressive in their politics while Mississippi and Louisiana's politically influential families, short of being able to bring back the old order, did everything to maintain the status quo. Alabama and Georgia wavered from progressive to repressive until the Post War era while Tennessee and North Carolina followed the example of Virginia.

The industrial economy of the New South did decline, many small towns in the South are still reeling from the decline of textiles, even with Virginia, Danville and Martinsville have lackluster economies. Gastonia, North Carolina has been the less successful sister to Charlotte, once being home to the most textile mills in the nation. The tobacco industry has consolidated and automated and is now experiencing lower national demand for their products, but most of those jobs have been successfully replaced in the Triangle, Richmond and Charlotte regions. Furniture manufacturing has seen more automation and demand swinging with the economy, leaving High Point and Thomasville the less vibrant centers of the Triad. The Triad as a whole is more dependent on textiles, tobacco, and furniture manufacturing than Charlotte and the Triangle, and the feel of the region is more blue collar. Birmingham, Chattanooga, Anniston, and Gadsden all suffered from the national decline of the iron and steel industries.

Even Atlanta has lost its manufacturing jobs, some of which have yet to be replaced. GM closed its Lakewood plant in the mid-90's and will soon close the Chamblee plant. Ford has closed the Hapeville plant. Atlantic Steel pulled out of Atlanta in the 70's, moving to Cartersville, and only to close there a few years back. A legacy of Reconstruction, Fort McPherson is closing, along with Fort Gillem/Atlanta Army Depot under BRAC. Lockheed-Martin will remain the only large manufacturing facility with the core of the metro. The manufacturing base of the cities and towns ringing metro Atlanta seems to be solid, unlike many other Piedmont cities-Southwire in Carrollton, KIA coming to West Point, textile and poultry processing in Gainesville all seem to be secure for now.

[shanthemanatl]

I can volley this one too

That's a good point about untaxable property, but state government employees are typically better educated and better paid than the average workforce. So capital cities get periphery benefits like increased income and residential property taxes, not to mention the benefit of a better-educated workforce, that make up for the loss of taxes on office buildings.

[Rardy]

Rardy, I'd like to know in what state government employees are better paid than the "average" workforce. I can attest to the fact that it sure as hell ain't Georgia!

As someone who works for the Department of Labor, salaries in the private sector are almost always higher than those for comparable positions within state government. Is it really different where you live?

[Temeteron]

Well...since it's my volley:

Indianapolis and Columbus have better interstate networks with as good an airport as any employer would need...

And Boston and New Jersey have much better universities...

There has to be another variable. I offer to you, pure and simple, COST.

As long as the South stays cheap, we're in good shape. But, let costs rise, and we're the next Rust Belt. And that's particularly true of the New South right now.

[krazeeboi]

Possibly. You'd be surprised at the growth that's going on in Boise these days.

[Rardy]

But where would people move to then? The Plain states??? Can you imagine in 20 years people leaving the South because taxes are too high and migrating to the Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming

[shanthemanatl]

Sure - CS employees often make less than industry standard when you look only at salary and not benefits. I'm in public administration myself, so I know quite well. However, you have to compare total packages.

I wasn't comparing specific CS jobs to the industry standard for that specific field - I was comparing the average civil servant to the average employee. Basically, compare the average civil servant to your state's average income and you'll see the distinction.

[redjeep77]

Yeah actually Kentucky is the South.

[shanthemanatl]

I have never considered kentucky to be in the south. it's always just been one of those stakes like west viriginia that doesn't belong to the northest, midwest, or south.

[Louisvilleslugger]

I have never considered kentucky to be in the south. it's always just been one of those stakes like west viriginia that doesn't belong to the northest, midwest, or south.

[urbanvb]

Interesting article. DC is hardly the south (only 7% consider themselves southern) but years ago it had a pretty heavy southern influence. Migration can really change an area and its mindset.

[InitialD]

Just curious, if NC and VA were to end up becoming "blue states" does that say they are more "New South?" Are NC and VA becoming more "Mid-Atlantic" than "South," at least in regional and national perception?

[tombarnes]

A case could easily be made that Virginia and North Carolina are becoming more "Mid-Atlantic" in outlook than what could be seen as traditionally "Southern." Having said that, the "New South" really refers to that part of the South which was not the "Old South"- traditionally Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The southern and eastern counties of Maryland could well be considered to be part of the Old South. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky,Tennessee and eastern Texas and parts of Florida and Arkansas are the "New South."

[teshadoh]

I admit I used to dismiss the idea of NC being 'Mid-Atlantic'. I guess old habits are hard to die & growing up near NC, there was nothing at all different about the state than there was in SC, except until the 80's the big NC cities were only a hair larger than the big SC cities. Now that has completely changed & NC, like VA is becoming a metro oriented state with suburban Charlotte & Raleigh being the trail blazers in shifting the old traditional demographics.

Otherwise, besides Florida, I view the 'new south' being more tied to growing metro areas rather than specifically states. Though GA has Atlanta, for example, Georgia is still definitely a deep south state. Politics in Georgia are not oriented around metro issues & as the voting / polling has indicated - it is still a typical 'red state' (though maybe marginal this year).

tombarnes - I understand your argument regarding what 'new south' is. But in this case, it is referring to the Henry Grady speech in Atlanta in the late 1800's. There he announced the rise of a 'new south' that would embrace industry & move away from it's agrarian dominance.

[NcSc74]

This election kinda shows what states are shifting and those who are still old south.

[krazeeboi]

^In some ways, yes. Florida has always been a different kind of animal, but VA and NC are particularly intriguing cases in this year's election, having gone blue for the first time in several years. But remember that Clinton also turned some Southern states blue, including Arkansas (obviously), Louisiana, and Georgia.

SC is something of an interesting case here. Although it went for McCain, it did so by only half the percentage points that the state went for Bush in 2004 and probably had the least amont of counties that voted more Republican this year than in 2008 than any other Southern state (NC and VA are close contenders here also). And interestingly, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana (along with Oklahoma and Texas) had more counties that voted more Republican this year than in 2008. Associated maps can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11...TION_RECAP.html

[teshadoh]

^ But it isn't just the president election, it's senate & congress, where democrats made gains in NC & VA, besides FL. That isn't the case with SC & GA, where the election was closer - but based on the voting records overall on senate & congress, those are still red states & will be so for a while. It's still early to call VA, NC & FL blue states in the sense of traditional blue states like CA & NY - but they are at least solidly purple verging on blue.

That said - the point of bringing up political affiliation isn't neccessary the intent of simplistically calling blue states more progressive. But the clue is determining who is voting republican - there are republicans nationally that are traditional fiscal conservatives, where in the northeast, midwest & in the west they do exist. But in the southeast republicans are a peculiar animal & without going into detail, I believe the republican vote in much of the south is a pro 'old south' vote, representing 'traditional southern' values.

I think demographically FL, NC & VA are becoming far removed from the remainder of the south & though GA & SC are on their edge of influence - they aren't there yet.

[krazeeboi]

With large swaths of the South going for McCain just as strongly as they did for Bush in 2004 or even turning redder, does this relegate the South, specifically the "old South" states, to the political margins in national elections? This article from the NYTimes would suggest so.