Talk:Upland South

Second image
Has anyone making these comments spent anytime either (1) living in, or, (2) studying the southern regions of Ohio and Indiana and the southwestern portion of Pennsylvania? These are clearly and obviously part of Appalachia and has incredible southern influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.192.18 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Appalachian ≠ Southern
I've lived in western Pennsylvania, and I'm telling you the Appalachians are a cultural outlier in both the North and the South. Pennsylvania doesn't exactly have a monopoly on hillbillies in the North; you can find them clear up to Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, despite the perception of New England as some bastion of blue-blooded Yankeedom. As for the South, slavery was almost non-existent in the Appalachians, and there was enough anti-slavery sentiment among the general population that the Confederate Army occupied parts of Tennessee to prevent any uprising. People up and down the Appalachians distrusted both the New England Yankees and the Southern aristocrats.

Furthermore, you have the cultural influence backwards. Southern culture has not influenced Pennsylvania, but Pennsylvanian culture has greatly influenced the Upland South, along with Virginian culture. That's where your similarities come from; Pennsylvania and Virginia are the parent cultures, and the Upland South is the offspring.

Upper South/Upland South
Since the article discusses the Upper South in addition to Upland South, anyone fancy knocking up an image of the United States highlighting Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas in a deep colour, and Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia and Maryland in a lighter shade of the same colour, to illustrate the politically defined "Upper South"?. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Kentucky is a Southern state damn!!!! I mean some people here are absolutely determined to put that same funky ass map of what they consider the South on every related article (the maps are based solely on Civil war alliances). I mean what else would be the cause to classify Kentucky with a Midwestern state like Missouri or Midatlantic states like Maryland and Delaware. In the Southern focus study Kentucky TIED with Virginia at 86% of it's residence identifing with the South. SO please tell me why should Kentucky not be the core Mid-South.... Forgive me if I'm a little upset but I think it's fruitless to make an article of another section of the South if you're going to use the same old Confederate maps to classify a states Southerness. If the American South page wants to base the cultural South solely on the Civil War them let them, But this is the upland/Upper/Mid South in this region Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia are the Definitions.


 * I agree.. it's part of why I prefer the term Upland to Upper, although even the term Upper South ought to include Kentucky. A problem with defining region by state lines is, I think, that it tends to come down to state politics at some point in the past.  Sometimes the Midwest is still defined by the terms of the Ordinance of 1798.  So yea, I agree, although I also think it could be nice to have a state map of the Upper South, even if it is impossible not to do it without controversy.  It's funny you mentioned Missouri as being Midwestern rather than Upper South, as the parts of Missouri I've been through (the southern parts, Ozarks) felt as Southern as the parts of Kentucky I've been through.  Missouri certainly felt different from Kansas at least.  In any case, I agree that the states most fully in the Upper/Upland South should be Tennessee and Kentucky, at least. Pfly 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * to define anywheres southerness (or any attribute for that matter) you cant just go by state lines, gotta break it down into counties and even past that into, towns, neighborhoods and land plots. i know for example neighborhoods,towns even individual roads or streets that has quite a southerness to it thats surrounded by many yankee settlements nearby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.158.204 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I added one of the "funky" maps showing the political state-based Upper South. I know these maps tends to generate controversy, hopefully this one won't be too bad. I opted not to use the striped lines and simply described the definition used and mentioned "definitions vary". The only serious arguments against the map I can think of are on including Missouri and not including Maryland. Missouri is the wild card state, belonging and not really belonging to a whole range of regions, but based on Civil War era regionalization, from which the term Upper South ultimately dates, Missouri is clearly part of the region. Its founding as a state is also strongly bound up with the Upland / Upper South. Maryland seems much more of a stretch, especially in modern times, and it didn't fit the simple definition given in the caption anyway. I thought about drawing a colored line around the states that did secede (ie, all except Kentucky and Missouri), but decided that would not be helpful. The text describes it all anyway. The secession definition is just one of a variety of definitions of the Upper South. Before the Civil War the Upper South simply meant the northern part of the South that was not so heavily involved with cotton production. Pfly 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the Climate zone map as that is as relevant as political and cultural factors. Feel free to tweek the wording or size, just wanted a map to show (and this one is from the article on the climate in the U.S.A. - not made by me) that the Humid Subtropical climate actually does go up into southern Ohio and the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area. Thanks.
 * Nice climate map. Pretty spot on. Chic3z (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for map
Seeing the "citation needed" added to the map of the Upper South, I added two references. The online reference has info about "states that did not secede during the Civil War until after the Battle of Fort Sumter", but is limited to CSA states only (Kentucky and Missouri left out). I added to reference to Meinig's book, which has tons of information about the Upland/Upper South, with both Kentucky and Missouri definitely part of it originally, and Missouri becoming increasingly identified as a Midwestern state in more recent times. The same user, anonymous 74.128.200.135, added another "citation needed" to the map, even though there are two references already in the caption. The edit summary says "source does not make specific reference to states that are apart of this region". Nothing was posted on this talk page or on my talk page. I don't understand the edit summary -- both references do specific references states, especially the book, which is full of info about the region.

Am I missing something? Perhaps anon user 74.128.200.135 could reply here with something more specific? I posted a note to User talk:74.128.200.135 about it. I'd be happy to supply a reference for whatever it is that still needs one, just tell me what it is. Region maps based on states can be controversial, as I mentioned above. If the map is unacceptably controversial, let's just remove it. Pfly 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The only problems I have is the contradiction between this, page, and the Southern U.S. page. On the map of the "current" South Missouri is a "ify" Southern state and that statement is cited with two sources. Now on this Missouri is definantly considered Southern or /Upland Southern (according to the map). The source that you cited the map with, made no mention of specific states that are included in the region. And I'm not trying to be a jackass or anything and I'm sorry if I'm coming off as such. I just related Wiki pages to reflect each other. I feel that a two tone map is in order for this page those states that are definantly apart of the Upland South and those states that are sometimey. Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia seem to be the states that are always included in this region by different sources so they should be dark red. Missouri, Arkansas, and North Carolina are ify and vary from reference to reference. 74.128.200.135 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, gotchya, thanks. I reworded the caption of the map of the Upper South to clarify that it is based only on a specific historical issue, which is also explained in more detail in the main article's text -- that it is just a map of those "slave states" that did not secede until after Fort Sumter (and counting Kentucky and Missouri for their attempts to secede). Being so specific and historically based, the map doesn't contradict the Southern U.S. map, which is meant to be more general in scope, if I understand right. The caption here also mentions that this is just one definition among many -- it just happens to be one of the few that is specific enough to be mapped by state so easily. But I'm still not sure whether the map does more help than harm, and often consider removing it. For readers who don't read the full text, the map may give a false impression -- that these states are in fact the Upper South, when they are just one definition among many. So... what do you think?  The caption could be clearer on these points.  We could not have a state-based map at all.  Personally, I don't care whether the map stays or goes -- not having it may be better.  But I'm reluctant to try to make a more general map using multiple tones, stripes, etc.  The non-state-based map on the page seems to already give readers a general sense of where the region is located. Pfly 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see Missouri being being more categorized as a Midwestern state than a Southern state, but where do you put Arkansas or North Carolina? I have always thought of North Carolina as an Upper South state, and I guess Arkansas is somewhere in between the Upper and Lower South. But I guess it would be wise to stripe those three states. As for Kentucky, I think it's solidly an Upper South state.ArkSoutherner 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'am actually for the political definition of the Upper South. I feel that most people (who even care) generally include Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee as the Upper South. North Carolina and Arkansas on the other hand are states that are dangling the Deep/Upper South Line. Missouri however is again my main beef with the map. This state while it has Southern qualities is overall Midwestern, But the Political maps states otherwise. This situation is kind of similar to the old mapping scale in which they only used to the U.S. census bureau's definition of the regions and made no real effort to detail the degree of a state's regional identity, by shading the entire region one shade of red. One big problem with that on this article is that the Upper SOuth is not an "official" region of the U.S., but at the same time the Deep South isn't either, But they still have a political map detailing the "general" acceptance of the state's that constitute that sub region. 74.128.200.135 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather see the page's content improved (it could use it!) rather than debates over whether a certain state is or isn't, or sort of is part of the region. This page already has a non-state-based map (which I think is more useful and accurate than a state-based map, fuzzy edges and all), and the text describes how states like Arkansas, for example, are "sort of" part of the region better than a striped-style map would (the Arkansas Ozarks are upland/upper, while the Arkansas Delta region is not -- a striped state would not show that). The political map is unnecessary since the text describes the region by state in detail, and there is a better map at the top of the page. Also the political map is misleading since it is based on Civil War era stuff. I made and added the political map, with some reluctance, unsure whether it would help or hurt -- I'm going to take it out now. I wouldn't mind a political map being here, but am afraid of the kind of endless debate that dominates pages like Talk:Midwestern United States, Talk:Southern United States, and Talk:Mid-Atlantic States. Perhaps someone can help with the content? The history section could really use more information about what happened between the early 1800s and today (a lot happened!). Pfly 17:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. I love how Kentucky (I mean, come on, KENTUCKY) is not included in the South but Maryland (I can't even begin to convey how ridiculous this is) is. Kentucky is a Southern state, and Maryland is a Northern one. Wikipedia's definitions of these regions is an embarrassment to encyclopedic study. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.2.205 (talk • contribs).


 * Have you read the article Upland South? Does it says that Kentucky is not part of the South? Before you condemn an article as the dumbest thing you've ever seen, it may help to read it first. Otherwise you may embarrass yourself. If reading is too much trouble, just look at the map and try to remember which state is Kentucky and which is Maryland. Pfly 06:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think it's dumb that Maryland is a southern state, one can also argue that it's dumb not to label Kentucky as a mid-west state. If one is included, they both are included, period. 69.251.26.101 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Southwestern PA
I thought I was the only one that noticed the Upland Southern influences here in Southwestern PA, it's interesting someone else did too as far as the map goes (and do they have a source for it though?) But I have to wonder if they're confusing Southern culture and Appalachian culture because there are minute differences in the two. Second officer 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This source talks about the Ohio Valley as part of the Upland South however: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/TURNER/chapter5.html, but it really defines this region before the common post Confederate definition. Second officer 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not to enthusiastic about the map on this page either, or rather it's defintion of the Upper South. I'm not to sure if this map is better then a political one that shows the state's generally included in the region. Now there was issue with it a while back, But maybe a two toned map like the one of the Deep South page should be used. The reason I say that is because the main problem I had with the old Political map is that Missouri was considered a state which is always included in the region, in which it is rarely especially when there is an option to put it in the Midwest. State's like Arkansas are often thought of as the Deep South and it be shaded to indicate this. I love the rest of the article however and PFly has done a wonderful and thorough job on it. Louisvillian 17:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards
There are Pennsylvania influences in the Upland South, not Upland Southern influences in Pennsylvania. Most of the Upland South was settled by Pennsylvanians, Virginians and Carolinians. The Pennsylvania influence and the relative dearth of slavery legacy are the two clearest differentiators between the Upland South and the Deep South. For that matter, Pennsylvania influence along the Great Wagon Road explains the cultural differences between the Shenandoah Valley and Tidewater regions of Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBR96A (talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Pennsylvania in the upper South? Really?
First of all, I think that this article is overall well-written and useful. But the inclusion of any portion of Pennsylvania in any manner as part of the "upper South" - even shaded the same color as parts of Georgia (!!!) - is one of those major factual inaccuracies that occasionally surface on Wikipedia. I think that the terms "Appalachian" and "upper South" are being uncomfortably interchanged in this article; much of the upper South is in Appalachia, but the two terms are not mutually inclusive. If we are going to include every part of Appalachia as within the confines of the upper South, Upstate New York and points north might as well be included. Southwestern Pennsylvania is indeed an Appalachian region; but to compare the history, social norms, and culture of Pittsburgh with those of distinctly Southern cities such as Knoxville, Tennessee or Pikeville, Kentucky is simply not accurate. This can be factually verified with outside sources; besides, as a Pennsylvanian this is common sense to me. The same almost certainly applies to Ohio as well, but I'm not qualified to speak regarding that state. Parts of Ohio are Appalachian, but I've never heard a qualified person refer to Ohio as "Southern" in any context. --65.222.20.131 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The original map I made for this page, here, was edited to include more of SW PA by a user who seems to have left wikipedia some time ago. My map ends more clearly at the PA line, more or less. The points about Appalachia, Ohio, etc, are reasonable. But as far as I can see there's no firm universally agreed upon definition. My map is generally based on similar maps and descriptions of the Upland South in Meinig's books cited. Pfly (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even include northern West Virginia in the Upland South, for that matter
Northern West Virginia is historically and culturally more similar to western Pennsylvania than it is to southern West Virginia. It has a much stronger industrial legacy and ethnic European heritage than southern West Virginia does, and there was virtually no support for slavery there. In fact, you have to be south of U.S. Route 50 to even possibly be in the Upland South. Along and north of there, you're in the North, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBR96A (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Southern OH, southern IL, southern IN, and southern PA in the "upland south"
This has to be the most ridiculous article on Wikipedia...everybody knows that the Mason-Dixon line is the boundary. In fact, it is culturally as well. Ripley, Ohio, for example, still proudly touts its history as an Underground Railroad stop...Cincinnati as well. I saw this bogus term being referred to in the Cincinnati, Ohio article. It's actually disgusting. If anything, the areas that have cultural ties to the South have diminished rather than increased...(see Maryland, delaware, BosWash megalopolis). In fact, I bet a southerner would be offended by the idea that they have ties with areas near Pittsburgh and Harrisburg... The only justification provided for this is the fact that parts of Ohio and presumably other states are in geographic areas that are more associated with the South...even that is subjective. However, this article goes on to state that the actual South has cultural and historical ties with the southern North, which is 1. utterly subjective and 2. complete baloney. Also, note that about half the military enlistees in West Virginia and Kentucky joined the Confederate army. If anybody can get proof of this happening in Ohio in significant numbers maybe this article should make a note of it...it seems unlikely to me. In summation, there may be a difference between the Upper South and the Lower South but this so-called "Upland South" that includes southern parts of the NORTH simply doesn't exist. This article needs to be flagged. Is there any flag entitled, "Complete B.S.?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.23.139 (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully and strongly agree with you, particularly regarding the inclusion of any part of Pennsylvania in this article even in the most mercurial sense. I'm a lifelong Pittsbugher. There is NOTHING Southern about this city and region at all. Tell a lifelong Pittsbugher that they're in the "Upland South" and they would either think you were on some illicit drug, a stupid idiot, or punch you in the face. I cannot emphasize enough that there is NOTHING at all "Southern" about this city, and yet we're included on this map along with parts of Alabama. Pittsburgh and Northern Alabama in the same cultural map!!!! My ancestors died fighting for the Union, and they would be turning over in their graves knowing that some idiotic Wikipedia editor had taken the intellectual liberty to rebrand them as slave-holding Southerners.

In fact, I'm removing the map from this article, and will continue to do so until somebody can provide a peer-reviewed source that includes Pennsylvania in the South. Just a single encyclopedia article, from ANY encyclopedia in the entire world, that calls Pennsylvania a state of the Upper South. I dare them to try and find one. --67.171.69.122 (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored an older version of the map that doesn't go clear up to the Pittsburgh area, the map was drawn based on the description in the article, which I agree needs better sources. Kmusser (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I've been meaning to address this page, but haven't the time. Much of it, including the map, does need to be better sourced. I made the map and most of the page way back before I knew how it do do citations well. For what's it's worth, until I find more time, the map is based almost entirely on a map in Meinig's Shaping of America books. I used to have a copy online to link to, but can't locate it right now. Perhaps Meinig is depended upon as a source too much here, but if nothing else his work should count as a strong reliable source. There are plenty of sources besides Meinig that explore the early settlement of southern Ohio as being strongly southern in nature. I'll try to find more. The bit about Cincinnati, however, was added some an anonymous user a long time ago. I haven't seen this specific city cited as southern before, and Meinig's map does not include it in the Upland South. So I'll remove that bit. The rest of the regions defined are backed up with the references given. Pfly (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if only to remind myself later, there's a wealth of sources to be found from a simple google search on "Upland South", especially on Google Books, like this. Sources date from very recent to quite old, and use the term variously--some for a small geographic region, some large, some focused on things like the "Ohio Valley". Anyway, some sources that look useful include, this, this (chapter 7 esp.), this old classic by Turner, this one about architecture, this old one from the Ohio Historical Society, and this one about the Midwest (interesting section titled "Upland Southerners"), among others. Pfly (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania was my principal concern. All of this talk about "influence" needs to be put clearly into context. If we're going to be that vague, you can surely find "Southern influence" in every state in this country from California to Maine, and if that's the (ridiculously and completely open to interpretation) standard Wikipedia uses why shouldn't we color the entire map green? I'm sure that some people from Dixie moved to Alaska to work in the oil industry - does this make Alaska marginally part of the Upper South? If I'm not mistaken, didn't hordes of Southern people move to Bakersfield, California? Should that city be marked as a green outlier on the map?

This state was one of the first to outlaw slavery, and was once the most industrialized. In the name of God, our southern border is THE Mason-Dixon line! Placing Pennsylvania in with states like Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and even West Virginia is nothing short of a revision of history by overzealous "scholars", if they can be called that. In everything you can think of - cuisine, history, agriculture, industry, accent, ancestry, architecture, economy, climate, and on and on - this state is quintessentially Mid-Atlantic, which is ultimately a derivative of Yankee culture, not the culture of Virginia that dominated the upper South. That's true in every county from Greene to Wayne.

Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois likely have no place on this map either, but I'll leave their questionable inclusion up to people from those states to repudiate. At least with Pennsylvania removed, the map is more accurate. --67.171.69.122 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not up to us to decide these things. Wikipedia is based not on personal opinion but on reliable sources (see Reliable sources, if you haven't already). Like I wrote above, this map is based on maps and text by D. W. Meinig, a very reliable source. There are probably other good sources that differ in various ways. If you want to bring some up and discuss changing the map, by all means do so. And yes, the article's text could certainly be improved in many ways. Over the years since I wrote it up nobody has bothered to work on it, so it remains just a rough start. There's been lots of talk about the map (or maps: there used to be a second one), but very little about the text, and next to nothing constructive done by anyone but me. I don't really have the time these days to put much more work into it. If you think you could improve the article, please do! But make sure to use reliable sources (and footnotes ideally, see Footnotes). Personal opinion, even with "in the name of God" prefixed, is not a reliable source. Also, in the future I'd appreciate not being called "some idiotic Wikipedia editor". Thanks. Pfly (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, and over in Mid-Atlantic States you have people screaming about how there's "no way in hell" that Pennsylvania is a Mid-Atlantic state - there's a reason we rely on reliable sources rather than personal opinions. Kmusser (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is clear, looking at the history of this page, that this map has always generated a great deal of controversy, and most if not all of that controversy is in relation to including states regarded universally as Northern as being part of this "extended South" notion. I am well-aware of the reliable sources orientation of Wikipedia, but why is the consensus nature of Wikipedia being ignored here? The consensus thus far seems to be that Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania are not in the Upper South, but are rather Mid-western or Northeastern, respectively.  I count Encyclopedia Britannica as a reliable source, and their definition of the Upper South does not include Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, just Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia - see http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/37/4837-004-94895150.gif .  This site from Tulane University mentions Tennessee, Virginia, and Arkansas as being "Upper South" in the context of being more split on the secession issue - absolutely no mention of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Background/BackgroundUpperSouth.html. Or a Washington Post article that includes Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina in the region while excluding these 4 Northern states - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800939.html.  Or this site, drawn from an article in a research journal, that defines the Upper South as the Virginia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, and Kentucky - http://www.african-nativeamerican.com/Tri-rac.htm.


 * It seems as if one sole work by D.W. Meinig, though it may be a great source, is being given disproportionate weight here. The Upper South as it is commonly defined, including in all of those sources above, were those slave states north of the Deep South that either remained in the Union or were more reticent about secession.  A map reflecting that, instead of including half of the Midwest (and Pennsylvania!) in the South, would be backed by more sources and likely not lead to endless debate.

--67.171.69.122 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like you're actually agreeing with the article - the article makes a distinction between "Upper South" and "Upland South", and what you're describing as Upper South here is the same as the article describes as Upper South, "Upland South" is a term based more on physical geography rather than culture and includes bordering portions of states to the north while "Upper South" is more culturally based and does not, considering that the article makes a point of making that difference, I don't see the problem. Kmusser (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and there used to be a map of the Upper South based on whole states. That map was the subject of much or most of the debate on this talk page. I removed it long ago. Such maps tend to generate endless argument on Wikipedia (you can see it on the Commons here; and yes I know it has "issues", there was a caption explaining why those states are shown). I think it would be better all around if there were two articles, one on the Upper South and one on the Upland South. The two concepts are closely related but perhaps confusingly so. Lots of commenters on this talk page seem to have confused the two ideas, even though I tried to explain the difference right at the start of the article.
 * Also supporting a two article idea, the Upper South seems to usually be used in a state-based political sense--arising as a concept in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Upland South, in contrast, seems to usually be used as a cultural and historical term, based in part on physical landscapes rather than the politics of state lines. Two articles could make these things clearer. When I began this page long ago I chose to combine the two related concepts and explain the difference in the text--not because it ought to be this way but because it was less work for me. Also, back then I still had the notion that working on regional geography article would be fun (I quite like regional geography). Sadly, I soon came to realize that on Wikipedia such articles are hotbeds of flaming argument, personal attacks, and so on. I quickly got tired of it and now only follow this article and, for some reason, the New England article (whose talk page also has quite a bit of ranting). Anyway, just explaining why I began this page intending to improve it but stopped after becoming frustrated with regional geography articles in general. In short, I would say that if this page is confusing in combining Upper and Upland South notions, perhaps the best thing would be to split them into separate pages. There's some interesting history regarding the origin of the idea of an Upper South, politically. The Upland South page could be expanded with cultural things, such as architecture patterns. I could even see an Upper South page being made and the Upland South page being changed into an Upland Southerners page--more focused on the people, culture, their history and geographic spread over time. But, I don't have the time to do it (or the inclination at this point, really). So it's just an idea that might be worth considering. Pfly (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if a good deal of this argument is about the Civil War and slave era boundary. The fact of the matter is that there are not hard fast barriers separating people of one state form another. If you went from Michigan to Georgia you may very well see a large shift in culture, architecture etc but no boundary is that solid when the subject is culture or even geography. The claim that southern Ohio (my birthplace) is in the Upland South is not in any way a claim that the entirety of Ohio is a southern state from the Civil War. The idea behind making the description is that between the deep south and the north (I don't know a technical name for the region) is an area of relatively similar cultural identity or physical similarity (which I believe is more of what this article is getting at) that can be described as the Upland South. It is in no way a claim to a certain status in Ohio. What I can say is that the history of Ohio does indeed bear out that Cincinnati, at least, does have a history of ties and similarity to the South in various ways despite general shifts over time. The other issue to take into account is that naming regions is an approximate thing. Southern Ohio could be part of the Upland South and also part of the Midwest because there is not a solid black line separating the two.128.223.147.11 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you've got it. One of the things I found fascinating in Meinig's book (vol. 2) was his in-depth study of the Civil War era disintegration from a geographical and geopolitical viewpoint. In the decades leading up to the war there was a great deal of talk about "peaceful seession". In 1839, for example, John Quincy Adams said that if it came to separation, it would be better "to part in friendship...than to be held together by constraint." In the 1840s there was an vivid example of such a separation when the Methodist Episcopal Church--the largest US denomination at the time--tried to peacefully separate into northern and southern sects. Despite the desire to split peacefully and years of effort, "setting the line of division" turned out to be a nightmare and soon led to bitter contention, rivalry, and confusion. In a large border zone between the far North and South each church was to vote for which side they wanted, but rather than a clear boundary emerging there was infighting, geopolitical chaos, isolated enclaves, and a long lasting "festering antagonism". Similar schisms into mutally hostile bodies occurred among the Baptists and, to a lesser degree, the Presbyterians. After describing these things Meinig writes, "If such moral and philanthropic bodies [churches] found negotiated separation to be a confounding and embittering process, what prospect was there that the whole American society could manage it?"


 * Cincinnati is in no way, shape, or form part of the Upland South today. While it was originally settled by Appalachians much the same as Kentucky, & much of Southern IN & Southern OH, subsequent immigration overwhelmed this southern influence. By 1840, 30% of the city's citizens had been born in Germany, and the biggest immigration waves came after that. Cincinnati's German heritage, heavily Catholic population, and lack of Southern Baptist population clearly group it in with the Midwest rather than the Upland South.  This shows in the Central Midland accent of the city's population.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.191.128.2 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In a speech before Congress around this time Daniel Webster said, "Where is the line to be drawn? ...We could not separate the States by any line, if we were to draw it. We could not sit down here today and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country." By 1860 the political parties had fragmented into a threefold geopolitical division of the far North, far South, and "Border". If the question of "where to draw the line" was difficult before 1860, it got worse during the process of secession and war. West Virginia was broken off from Virginia, Unionist East Tennessee nearly broke away from the rest of the state, the state governments of Missouri and Kentucky disintegrated into "mutally hostile bodies". As Meinig puts it, in the months following Lincoln's call to arms and the second round of secessions, "It was soon evident... that the residual United States was not going to come apart neatly at the seams along existing state boundaries, and certainly not along that long juridical divide between slaveholding and nonslaveholding states. Rather...the United States would be ripped apart, jaggedly, along line determined primarily not by formal votes for or against secession but by local militias, guerilla bands, and armies." His book contains a number of interesting maps showing the patterns and process. One shows the far north (New England, NY, MI, WI) with the label "Yankee Land", and the far south (SC, GA, AL, MS, FL, LA, TX) as "Secession Land", and the large area between as "Borderlands" crossed by a number of "fracture lines". One line is the Mason-Dixon and Ohio River. Another is marked "Northern limit of Upland South", which runs from southwesternmost PA though the center-north of OH, IN, and IL, to hit and more or less follow the border between Iowa and Missouri. This line is more or less follows the "southern margin of Lincoln's majority, 1860" vote by county. The label Copperheads is placed across central Illinois and Indiana.


 * In short, it was one thing to legally demarcate the line between free states and slave states. That alone was hard enough for the nation to maintain. To transform that line into a separation of national sovereignty was simply not possible to do peacefully. I think in the aftermath of the Civil War the boundary line between North and South became more strongly defined because of the war and the secession of states. Despite the messiness of the actual Civil War separation the old line that legally divided slave and free states seems to still be widely held as the boundary between North and South to this day, as if it had always been without question--and not merely with regard to the history of slavery, but as a kind of set-in-stone cultural boundary. That line was never a strong cultural boundary. I can only guess that such a notion comes from the lingering national trauma of the Civil War and the historical politics of slavery. Now I've entered the realm of personal opinion, but I would suggest that the "line of separation" is today even harder to set down than it was in 1850. Anyway, sorry for going on. I guess everyone has to rant from time to time. My apologies! Pfly (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's get Oklahoma in this article. The bias is just too thick to bear. Anyone who knows anything about geography knows that Oklahoma hosts part of this region. Let's get with it people. Missouri but not Oklahoma? Good God —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryan74 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Long belated reply. Oklahoma is mentioned. I'm not sure if it was before this comment or not, but it is currently anyway--"upland" Oklahoma anyway. Pfly (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Upper South vs. Upland South
I think this article should be split; Upper South and Upland South are two completely different concepts. Redirecting Upper South (a state-based political grouping that includes all of NC and Virginia) to Upland South (a terrain-based cultural grouping that excludes the Virginia Tidewater and most of NC) just makes for one hopelessly confused article where there could be two simple ones. There's no such confusion present in the Deep South article. CarolinianJeff (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur and have added the appropriate tag so as to gather feedback. -- Kendrick7talk 00:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I arrived here from Plantations in the American South via the the current wording "Tobacco was the major cash crop in the Upper South, the original Chesapeake Bay Colonies of Virginia and Maryland; and in parts of the Carolinas." This article doesn't cover that concept of the "Upper South". There's another concept in play with the "Upper South" redirect. Marksville, Louisiana currently links via "one million [slaves] were transported to the Deep South from the Upper South in the first half of the 19th century". Algonquian peoples is another article with a link to Upper South that isn't appropriate for this article. Incoming links to Upper South need to be examined and disambiguated, but there is certainly a need for an article that covers an area northeast of the Applachians (the Upper South as opposed to the Deep South). Plantdrew (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Upland South. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100305000208/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Crops_and_Plants/Field_Crops_Harvested/07-M191.asp to http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Crops_and_Plants/Field_Crops_Harvested/07-M191.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100305214454/http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/culture/ancestry.gif to http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/culture/ancestry.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100522053048/http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif to http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What do I think of the Totally Teenage Twins?
I think the Upland South in North Carolina is really southern and not Upstate Raleigh so it's going to be really hard to make me Monterey again since we are the Upland South. --I Have Always Been a Twin (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Contradictions
The “as a cultural region” section is badly written, starting by asserting cultural differences across a range of specified areas but then either failing to provide any detail or asserting (as for example with cuisine) that there aren’t really any differences. Someone familiar with the sources could usefully edit some sense into this? MapReader (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the map based on real sources or is it conjecture?
I don't understand how Western Maryland is included in the "Upland South" here yet places like Southern Maryland, the Eastern Shore, and Slower Lower Delaware aren't included.--DruidLantern8 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Map is inaccurate
By definition "upland South" cannot be west of the Mississippi River (hardly "upland"). I also question whether you can call the Ohio River valley the upland South. Did it have the same culture? Citation please.

In other words, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, the west of Kentucky and Tennessee, and most of Alabama except a little NE corner, are not part of the Upland South, or Upper South either, abd should not be colored. If I knew how I'd fix it myself, buf I don't. deisenbe (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)