Will Virginia lose it's southern status?

[Docere]

Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy. History matters.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

But just think... It could get even messier. I live in Greenville, which boasts an enormous international corporate presence, including Michelin and BMW. French and German are very well represented here, and as such, I hereby declare this area to no longer be Southern. Henceforth it shall be a protectorate of either Belgium or Luxembourg, depending on who has the more acceptable tax structure. Further bulletins as events warrant.

ah, no more asheville? i miss visiting. i used to flip a coin at noon on fridays for asheville or new orleans back when i could do those things. about the same distance/time from st. louis and appreciated the social complexities of both...used to like to push the boundaries of the weekend.

i’ve heard greenville is cool, i’ve certainly driven through but not stopped.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Docere

Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy. History matters.

history matters but history dies like we all do. not to be glib, i have a history degree so i appreciate the recording of human endeavors.

but everything goes for better and for worse - us all surrounded by the ghosts of this continent.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Docere

Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy. History matters.

in that case there is no such thing as the south.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Docere

Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy. History matters.

And Constantinople was once the capital of the Roman Empire. So I guess Istanbul's Italian now.

[bossabreezes]

New York, erm, New Amsterdam was a Dutch outpost so clearly NYC is Dutch in culture and this can never change, history matters.

[MonkeyRonin]

The gist of it seems to be that a place can be culturally Southern, historically Southern, and/or geographically Southern. The latter two are of course fixed, but culture is more fluid.

Virginia will always be part of the historic South, while Geographically it's more mid-Atlanic than Southern, strictly speaking. Culturally though, it seems to be more aligned with Northern states now.

Personally, I see it more as being part of the "New South" along with Georgia and North Carolina rather than being "not the South". That, or maybe more accurately its just become an extension of the North with most of the population living in the DC suburbs.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The gist of it seems to be that a place can be culturally Southern, historically Southern, and/or geographically Southern. The latter two are of course fixed, but culture is more fluid.

Virginia will always be part of the historic South, while Geographically it's more mid-Atlanic than Southern, strictly speaking. Culturally though, it seems to be more aligned with Northern states now.

Personally, I see it more as being part of the "New South" along with Georgia and North Carolina. That or its just become an extension of the North with most of the population living in the DC suburbs.

10,000 ft view is i see it as supercharged bos-wash encroachment with some new south dynamics but mostly the former.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The gist of it seems to be that a place can be culturally Southern, historically Southern, and/or geographically Southern. The latter two are of course fixed, but culture is more fluid.

Virginia will always be part of the historic South, while Geographically it's more mid-Atlanic than Southern, strictly speaking. Culturally though, it seems to be more aligned with Northern states now.

Personally, I see it more as being part of the "New South" along with Georgia and North Carolina rather than being "not the South". That, or maybe more accurately its just become an extension of the North with most of the population living in the DC suburbs.

That's my point. Aside being the "heart of south", Virginia population and economic patterns is much more similar to the booming North Carolina and Georgia than with the stagnant Pennsylvania, New York or Massachusetts.

[ardecila]

Worth noting that Virginia was the largest of the 13 colonies, by far. So at the start of the country, it was the 900-lb gorilla that was able to shift the terms of debate and warp the rest of the states around its needs - sorta like California is today.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Worth noting that Virginia was the largest of the 13 colonies, by far. So at the start of the country, it was the 900-lb gorilla that was able to shift the terms of debate and warp the rest of the states around its needs - sorta like California is today.

Actually, this brings up a good point.

California was not part of the US until 1850. It was Mexico beforehand. California has Mexican history, of course, but absolutely nobody would consider California to be ''Mexico.''

History is static but culture undeniably changes. Which is what is happening in Virginia at this very moment.

[pj3000]

What is "southern status"?

[memph]

Why is the 19th century the only part of history that matters? Why wouldn't other (more recent) periods of history also matter?

I think that if in more recent history, Virginia behaves more like a Northern state (culturally & politically), for a prolonged period of time, it will make more sense to group it with the Northeast.

I'm not sure we're there yet. Obviously the borders of any cultural region will tend to be more transitional culturally compared to the heartlands of those cultural regions, and that's true with Virginia.

But while Richmond or Hampton Roads/Virginia Beach are less "Southern" culturally than the rural deep South, that's true of most big southern cities (Atlanta, New Orleans, Charlotte, Raleigh even Nashville).

[Docere]

I think a lot of people defining "Southern" by voting Republican or being "backward." The fact is region plays actually a very minor role in US election patterns - it is not Canada or Belgium. They're pretty much "demographic-driven."

[BG918]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Were they part of the Confederacy?



Did Texas fight for the Confederacy? Did Oklahoma? As for Indiana, I know that lynching Blacks certainly was all the rage there, but were they part of the Confederacy?

Look, I know that the thought of being associated with the South in any way whatsoever makes any self-respecting Floridian's balls itch -- unless that Floridian is one of the old guard in the central part of the state or descended from one of those old Everglades clans where were there before Ms. Tuttle ever flounced on down. In which case they hate Black and brown people just as efficiently as any Georgia cracker ever could. However, history and geography are where it's at. Florida is... where, and in the Civil War Florida fought for... whom? There's little escape in more modern history either as when it comes to elections, Florida's voting patterns have been as repellent as Mississippi's. The only difference is your lunatic conservatives have an equal chance of having a Spanish surname.

If it makes you feel better, I assure you that the smart set in Atlanta, Charlotte, et cetera, as with Miami, just cannot compute the thought that a place might be Southern and have their signage in Mandarin at the same time! However, as I said, I think the whole argument is just silly. History + geography = Southern (or not).

Texas was part of the Confederacy. Oklahoma wasn’t a state but some of the tribes in Indian Territory sided with the Confederacy.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The gist of it seems to be that a place can be culturally Southern, historically Southern, and/or geographically Southern. The latter two are of course fixed, but culture is more fluid.

Virginia will always be part of the historic South, while Geographically it's more mid-Atlanic than Southern, strictly speaking. Culturally though, it seems to be more aligned with Northern states now.

Personally, I see it more as being part of the "New South" along with Georgia and North Carolina rather than being "not the South". That, or maybe more accurately its just become an extension of the North with most of the population living in the DC suburbs.

I agree with the first two paragraphs, but disagree with the third. The only reason Virginia is lumped in with North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia is because of the old, antiquated Confederacy connection people keep peddling.

From a "human connection" perspective, Virginia is culturally, economically, and socially tied to the North. Northern Virginia is an urban appendage of the North (no different culturally from Maryland, which everyone treats as obviously Northern). And like a chain Richmond is linked to Northern Virginia, and Hampton Roads is linked to Richmond.

That's the Virginia urban crescent. And with the growth of Virginia, that urban crescent is coalescing into a single urban region:



Conversely, there are very few ties between Richmond and Raleigh (not even a rail connection, which wasn't even on the radar until recently). In fact, there's a gigantic mental wall between the two, because from Richmond to Raleigh (2.5 hours) there's a whole lot of nothing. I could see Virginia as part of the New South if its urban landscape were a part of the "Piedmont Atlantic" megaregion above. But Virginians don't orient South, but North.

[pj3000]

^ stop posting that stupid fucking map

[JManc]

I've been all over Virginia. That state still oozes the South. It's cultural which should never ever go away and I suspect it won't beyond the NoVa area...which even that still retains much of its southern roots. Along with DC. I think we need to move past the stigma of the south = backwards/ confederacy.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Docere

I think a lot of people defining "Southern" by voting Republican or being "backward." The fact is region plays actually a very minor role in US election patterns - it is not Canada or Belgium. They're pretty much "demographic-driven."

"Demographic-driven" in what sense? Although whites tend to vote more Republican a lot of the whitest states are fairly liberal (Minnesota, Vermont), while Republican states like Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida are among the ones with the most non-whites.

Not that presidential election party preferences are the only things that should be looked at, Mississippi and Montana are both very "red" states but Montana is more about Libertarian small government conservatism while Mississippi is much more socially conservative.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Were they part of the Confederacy?



Did Texas fight for the Confederacy? Did Oklahoma? As for Indiana, I know that lynching Blacks certainly was all the rage there, but were they part of the Confederacy?

Look, I know that the thought of being associated with the South in any way whatsoever makes any self-respecting Floridian's balls itch -- unless that Floridian is one of the old guard in the central part of the state or descended from one of those old Everglades clans where were there before Ms. Tuttle ever flounced on down. In which case they hate Black and brown people just as efficiently as any Georgia cracker ever could. However, history and geography are where it's at. Florida is... where, and in the Civil War Florida fought for... whom? There's little escape in more modern history either as when it comes to elections, Florida's voting patterns have been as repellent as Mississippi's. The only difference is your lunatic conservatives have an equal chance of having a Spanish surname.

If it makes you feel better, I assure you that the smart set in Atlanta, Charlotte, et cetera, as with Miami, just cannot compute the thought that a place might be Southern and have their signage in Mandarin at the same time! However, as I said, I think the whole argument is just silly. History + geography = Southern (or not).

Parts of Florida did actually fight for the Union against the Confederacy. The only part of South Florida that was populated at the time (Key West) stayed with loyal to the Union and was an important union base against the confederacy, basically allowing the union to blockade the South and prevent the South from doing much business in and out of the Gulf of Mexico.