US Regions - Missouri

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here are the two regions materialized on maps, in order to avoid confusion (light shades mean hypothetical).

Midwest :

Outer South :

Please try to think about these options out of their context : the question isn't about the regions themselves, just about Missouri.

[Franzl]

Missouri is definitely more "outer south" than "midwest".....except for the bigger cities, rural Missouri has a lot of Southern features, especially if you look at religion.

[bullmoose88]

Voted Outer South.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I've reversed myself several times on this issue, but I think that culturally Missouri is closer to the Outer South, so that's how I voted.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The cities are very Midwestern and make up the bulk of Missouri's population.

[muon2]

The cities are very Midwestern and make up the bulk of Missouri's population.

This is the key, and I place it in the Midwest. While it's true that half the land area reflects southern tendencies, there just isn't much population that way compared to the two big urban areas. I could point to IL where over half of the counties share more politically and culturally with KY than they do with MI, but that large area has less than a quarter of the state's population, so of course IL should go north.

Anyone visiting Kansas City would place it clearly with the other plains cities like Omaha and Minneapolis/St Paul. St Louis has a minority population that suggests a Rust Belt city on the Great Lakes, and its politics are a match as well. The voting behavior of urban whites in both cities also better match northern cities than southern ones. In fact notice how much closer to a swing state MO has been in the last few elections than any other state to the south of it.

Whether you are going on politics, demographics, or the majority population culture it's in the Midwest. Only when you look at history of 150 years ago and those small populations that still reflect that history could you consider it southern.

[angus]

red region, given your options, but it's not really like that.  Neither option fits in terms of political culture, educational attainment, voting proclivity, etc.  But with only those choices, the red region is slightly better.

See, for example, http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/10regionsus.JPG
for a better political regions map.

[Antonio the Sixth]

See, for example, http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/10regionsus.JPG
for a better political regions map.

Well, I'm trying to make political regions that don't split States, which is certainly more difficult but also more useful politically. Plus, this map is pretty awful when you see the amount of enclave and non-contiguous regions.

[opebo]

The cities and thus most of the population is 'Midwestern', as others above have stated, but it is dicey.  The rural areas are absolutely Outer South (with some small exceptions - the Missouri Rhineland).  I'd say its a 60/40 decision.. not an easy one.  On balance Midwest.

[angus]

See, for example, http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/10regionsus.JPG
for a better political regions map.

Well, I'm trying to make political regions that don't split States, which is certainly more difficult but also more useful politically. Plus, this map is pretty awful when you see the amount of enclave and non-contiguous regions.

awful to make, in that it requires some knowledge of county-level politics, but not in any other way, unless you assume that political cultures are necessarily contiguous.  In France, they may be, but the US has a history of surprising mobility (Jefferson predicted it would take a thousand years for settlement and communications to reach the west, but the Golden Spike was hammered in Promontory Summit, Utah Territrory, on May 10, 1869.  A mere four score and two years after the first state ratified the Constitution.)  And the idea of political culture being being non-contiguous has been around for about 80 years.  For example, in Jacob Elazar's widely used academic model, San Francisco is more like New York than it is like Los Angeles. 

But your point about not splitting states is well taken.  To that end, Missouri should go with Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota.  Texas with Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico.  Arkansas with the Upper South/Appalachia, etc.  The Deep South, which usually means the four states of SC, GA, AL, and MS, stand alone.  (I noted your misuse of the proper noun term "Deep South" in another thread.  It refers not to latitude--Hawaii, after all, is at 17 degrees North latitude, Florida at 25, and Texas goes to 26, but none of those are "Deep South" states.  The term originally refers to the four states with the highest percentage of slaves.  Louisiana doesn't go in the group because even though it have high a percentage, Louisiana's culture was not originally Anglo, and the Franco-American culture persists enough to give it a different flavor than the other four.  And of course DC is a district carved from a state, but not a state.  Also its high black population isn't a direct result of planting, but rather an indirect one.)  Moreover, be careful with Pennsylvania.  It should probably go with WV and VA and OH, but not with NY and NJ.  Unlike Missouri, its two large population centers do not dominate the state's politics.  UT and CO go with Montana et al.  California belongs by itself.

All this I base on the dominant political culture, and not on geography.  And don't get too hung up on trying to be contiguous with your regions, even if you don't want to split states.  In one case it'll be difficult not to split a state and still keep it contiguous:  Michigan.  (Unless you put Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana all in the same category that will be an impossible task, owing to the fact that Michigan itself is discontinuous.)

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I'm reversing my position again. I can't take back my vote in the poll, but I'm beginning to think more and more that Missouri belongs in the Midwest.

This may be a mistake, but I am using the Missouri River as the dividing line, and including St. Louis City and County and Jackson County (Kansas City) with the northern portion. I consider the northern portion "Midwestern" and the southern portion "Southern." The northern portion (with the addition of the urban centers) consists of about 60% of the state's population, therefore Midwest is the better fit.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tough call, but I chose the Outer South, simply because the region would be incoherent without MO. Of course, excluding my vote and counting Vazdul's reversion, this is a perfect tie so far.

[Brittain33]

Tough call, but I chose the Outer South, simply because the region would be incoherent without MO. Of course, excluding my vote and counting Vazdul's reversion, this is a perfect tie so far.

If it matters, I mentally flipped my vote to Plains from Outer South after Muon's post. Not that I want to set myself up as the Ben Nelson of this forum or anything.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Missouri is definitely more "outer south" than "midwest".....except for the bigger cities, rural Missouri has a lot of Southern features, especially if you look at religion.

Quite true, and some folks there have a semi-southern accent (you'd have to hear it).

[opebo]

Missouri is definitely more "outer south" than "midwest".....except for the bigger cities, rural Missouri has a lot of Southern features, especially if you look at religion.

Quite true, and some folks there have a semi-southern accent (you'd have to hear it).

For sure.  We usually call it a 'hick accent' or 'country accent'.   Or even 'hoosier accent', though that's kind of inaccurate and a St. Louis thing.

But there are definitely, in terms of population, more 'midwestern' people than 'outer-south' people in Missouri.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tough call, but I chose the Outer South, simply because the region would be incoherent without MO. Of course, excluding my vote and counting Vazdul's reversion, this is a perfect tie so far.

If it matters, I mentally flipped my vote to Plains from Outer South after Muon's post. Not that I want to set myself up as the Ben Nelson of this forum or anything.

Well, plains wasn't an option.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bump.

This poll is pretty close so new votes would be welcome.

[Del Tachi]

To strip Missouri of its southern roots is preposterous!  Missouri is not Midwest, its part of the Outer South!  Here are the reasons why:

-If you are familiar with electoral history, since Reconstruction Missouri has been voting more with TN and WV than it has been with IL.  It hasn't voted with Illinois since 1996, but has voted with Tennessee in every presidential election since 1960. 
-Missouri was admitted as a Slave State and even though it never seceded from the Union, it vehemently fought for the Right to Bear Slaves (i.e. Dred Scott).  All of these other "Midwestern" states were staunchly abolitionist.
-Even though it may be true that most of Missouri population is centered around the Saint Louis and Kansas City areas, these urban centers are still awfully far away from the urban centers of the Midwest (Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis).  In fact, St. Louis has a lot more in common with Memphis then it does Chicago or Detroit.

[Vepres]

Tough call. The Kansas city area has more in common with the plains than anything, but it does have southern roots. Much like Texas, Missouri is a transition between multiple regions (3 if you consider the plains separate from the upper Midwest). I voted outer south, but upon reading Muon's post, I changed my mind.

[opebo]

...In fact, St. Louis has a lot more in common with Memphis then it does Chicago or Detroit.

Every thing you said was quite correct, except for this point.  St. Louis has had lots in common with the northern-Midwest cities - lots of German, Italian, and Irish immigrants (though probably a bit less of the Slavs).  We had lots of car factories, and other heavy industry, and a number of national company headquarters, and thus a fairly decent income level.  Only over the last 30 years, as the city has entered precipitous decline, has it started to resemble poor Memphis.

[Torie]

Midwest. Both its major towns have a Midwest feel, and the only real Southern parts are along the Mississippi north of the St. Louis exurbs, and south of Cape Girardeau, and in the southwest corner (where Harry Truman was born), west of the Ozarks, which are their own little thing.

[Del Tachi]

...In fact, St. Louis has a lot more in common with Memphis then it does Chicago or Detroit.

Every thing you said was quite correct, except for this point.  St. Louis has had lots in common with the northern-Midwest cities - lots of German, Italian, and Irish immigrants (though probably a bit less of the Slavs).  We had lots of car factories, and other heavy industry, and a number of national company headquarters, and thus a fairly decent income level.  Only over the last 30 years, as the city has entered precipitous decline, has it started to resemble poor Memphis.

Demographically speaking, St. Louis has A LOT in common with Memphis.  Both Memphis and St. Louis developed as port cities on the Mississippi River, something that Chicago and Detroit cannot claim.  From a racial standpoint, SL is nothing like Chicago.  Chicago’s population is essentially split up into thirds (white, black, Hispanic) while St. Louis and Memphis have significantly smaller Hispanic populations (less than 10%) and are instead dominated by African-American culture, cuisine, and music.  St. Louisians are much morel likely to chow down on Fried Okra then they are Deep-Dish Pizza.  St. Louis was not a city where new ethnic groups from Europe arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries and today the white population in the city is dominated by young, well-off, Yuppies and not European ethnic groups like Italians and Jews.  Also, St. Louis has escaped the major population decline that begin to effect Chicago and Detroit in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Based on your assumptions about Memphis, I can obviously tell you have never been.  In case you didn’t know, the per capita income in Memphis is higher than it is in St. Louis ($37,200 to $34,000).  Also, the city’s location at the intersection of two major interstates (I-55 and I-40) and on the banks of the most important river in the Western Hemisphere make it prime real estate in the business community.  FedEx, AutoZone, ServiceMaster, and International Paper (all Fortune 500 companies) call Memphis home.  Also, Memphis is home to the pharmaceutical/healthcare firm Schering-Plough Corporation, serving as the company's research and development center.  In 2000 Inc. magazine rated Memphis in the top eight of the 50 best major U.S. metro areas for starting and growing a business.

[Brittain33]

Warning: nitpicking of data ahead with no agenda.

Also, St. Louis has escaped the major population decline that begin to effect Chicago and Detroit in the 1950s and 1960s.  

St. Louis's population has fallen further than Detroit's by percentage over that time period, which is quite a feat and hard to match in another major American city. Chicago has fared pretty well by comparison, having stabilized at about 25% below its peak, at least some of which can be accounted for by people having smaller families (as in Boston.) The only distinction between Detroit and St. Louis, I would say, is the continued presence of a substantial white population in the city of St. Louis. St. Louis should be the model of U.S. urban population decline, and the fact it isn't testifies to how far it has fallen out of the public consciousness.

For the record, I think many parts of St. Louis are lovely and it has cultural institutions left over from when it was a much larger city. Much like Cincinnati, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By metro area, it's about $4,000 higher in St. Louis than Memphis. The difference is due to municipal boundaries that exclude wealthy suburbs from St. Louis but include them in Memphis.