This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement articles
Author is sidestepping proper journalism by 'faking' citations that do not lead to authentic references but to more - what may not be called otherwise - than spin and propaganda. Cleanup necessitated.
Previously I had posted a lengthy explanation of why I thought the article was misleading. However, after further reflection, I was able to make some small changes that addressed most of my concerns. There does seem to have been a problem with an earlier editor drawing on a source to define "Deep South" that used the "Deep South" label as a sort of arbitrary category, so that states were included or excluded for reasons that have little to do with the original meaning of the term. I suspect there are remnants of that in the article, but I've doctored it enough that I believe it is essentially accurate now. Ftjrwrites (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In presidential elections, the Deep South has tended to vote for the Republican candidate since 1964, the most notable exception being the third party campaign of governor of Alabama George Wallace in 1968." I think this is innacurate. This ignores Jimmy Carter in 1976. Bill Clinton also carried most of the "Deep South" in 1992, and a smaller part in 1996. Overall, I think it is too weak to categorize as a trend (although wait 20 years and it will probably be a safe call). State legislatures in the "Deep South" are generally dominated by Democrats, often with a Dem:Rep ratio of 2:1. The governors of these states tend to alternate between Democrat and Republican. The safest characterization is to say that Republicans, who had been shut out since the civil war, became a competitive force in the Deep South in the second half of the 20th century." Mauvila 01:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll buy that. Before my edit, it just said "the deep south tends to vote for the republican candidate in presidential elections", with no qualification or time period, which seemed pretty ludicrous to me. It may be well be better gone altogether. Of course, being from Tennessee (not really Deep South, except maybe West Tennessee), where the state legislature ratio is more like 1.15:1 or 1.1:1, it would be easy to lose perspective. That's where I think that things will really change. I don't think that there'll be one Southern state where there is a 2:1 D:R ratio in the South in 20 years, even though in most it's been Democratic majorities for 130 years since the end of Reconstruction. Unless there is another hugely popular Southern candidate, it's hard to see the Democratic Party carrying more than one or two Southern states within the next twenty years. Rlquall 03:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1976 Presidential electoral votes by state. (Red = Democratic)Dystopos 5 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
Allow me to expand on what I tried to say 2 years ago, in reference to "since the 1964 presidential election the Deep South has tended to vote for the Republican candidate." Here are the electoral votes from the AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC & TN:
So it looks to me like over the course of the 12 elections since 1964, Republicans dominated the electoral college 6 times. Democrats dominated once. The vote was split R-D 4 times and R-I once. And, of course, these were almost all "all or nothing" votes, not representative of the significant minority votes. Perhaps its time to expand upon our generalizations and look at more direct party affiliation and direct voting data. --Dystopos 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (updated 19 November 2008)[reply]
role of racism. If it is really true that shift from Dem to GOP was due to civil rights, shouldn't there be a more explicit note that this implies racism ? ON the other hand, perhpas the civil rights shift is part of a broader thing, eg you realy have a huge cultural divide between the liberal NY/MA/CA type areas and the south, and the civil rights act served as a catalyst.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (being from boston, where there is a famous picture of an american flag being used to spear someone durign busing riots, we know that racism ain't just in the south)[reply]
The post-WW2 era was the catalyst for many changes in the Deep South. One of these was the erosion of the one-party Democratic solidarity, and the consequent freeing of the electorate to develop the two-party apparatus which generally characterizes the rest of the country. It is, however, just one of many aspects of modernity which have incrementally appeared in the Deep South and which are interrelated. Segregation, for example, was incompatible with economic development. Consider the impossibility, if you are a contractor, of trying to employ the best workers to build a stadium where White and Black athletes will both play and both races will buy tickets, if you have to house and feed your crews separately. One-party states belong in dictatorships. The rise of a competitive two-party political behavior is one of the most profound and pronounced demographic changes in the Deep South. Richard David Ramsey 20:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure there is a two-party system in the South, and it seems to me that the region is becoming more rather than less Republican over time. Several things you need to factor in; first, the vast majority of the Democratic votes in the South come from the black vote, which goes Democratic in the hope of gaining protection from the threat (real or imagined) of the white majority. The white majority that dominates the South is clearly Republican.
Second, a lot of the Democratic clout is simply the Democratic institution taking a long time to die. The Dems were the ruling party in the South for two hundred years, and many of the people who grew up in that era are still alive today; you can't expect such a life-altering switch to occur overnight. But more and more of these people are dying off, leaving room for new generations who grew up knowing the Republicans as the defenders of Southern values against the hedonistic, unpatriotic, secular culture of the North - thus paving the way for a complete one-party system within a generation, like the old one but with the GOP in charge instead of the Dems.
Finally, the focal point of Southern identity since the seventies has shifted from race to religion; conservative Protestant (preferably Southern Baptist) identity politics, violently opposed to the religious diversity and liberalism in other parts of the country. And the religious right, ie the Republican Party, happens to be attached at the hip with white Southern theology. I could see them losing influence in the Midwest, the Southwest and the Far West as time goes by, maybe also in fringe states like Virginia (getting bluer), Texas (immigration) or Florida (decline of the right-wing in Cuban-American politics). In the Deep South? Not for at least another hundred years, and not without a cultural revolution even more profound than the civil rights movement. 147.9.224.127 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image used in this article shows states that not not match any of the lists given in the text of the article. In particular, nowhere in the text is South Carolina described as a "Deep South" state, but it's marked in red on the map. This is somewhat confusing. I would consider South Carolina to be a properly not-at-all-borderline Southern state (as opposed to, say, Kentucky and most of Florida), but I'm only a Southerner by descent and not totally aware of the distinctions. Perhaps the point is that it's meant to give you some kind of idea but that exact distinctions vary? -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we mean by "deep South" the Cotton Belt, then the map is pretty accurate.Ezratrumpet 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Query - I'd like to change the phrase that claims that the Miami area is "completely free of any Southern cultural influence." This seems unlikely given the pervasiveness of ethnic foods that are traditionally "Southern." It also seems unlikely that any area of the United States could totally escape the influence of any other American culture. I know anyone can edit - but I'd like to bounce it off of those of you who have more invested in this page than I do. Thoughts? Ezratrumpet 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the phrase. Ezratrumpet 19:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Florida is more "Old South" than many may think. North Florida is a given, but the Big Bend and Southwest parts of the state still are largely Old South. Areas south of Miami are also very Southern, as is most of the coast north of Palm Beach.
There are large pockets of northerners, primarily in Tampa/St. Pete, but no one would confuse those cities with anything up north.--Thresher 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're no doubt right, and it would help not to have to rely on original research for whatever we end up saying about it. --Dystopos 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is Arkansas being called a border state? If anything, Arkansas is part of the Deep South, not a border state. As a resident I should know. Any state that borders Louisiana is not a border state. It's an insult to cast Arkansas in the same category of being as Southern as Kentucky. All of Arkansas culture, history, and geography point to be categorized in the Deep South. Need I remind you of governor Orval Faubus and the Central High School Crisis? Or that Arkansas was one of the only states that voted for George C. Wallace for president? Or that Arkansas is part of the Black belt, cotton belt, and Bible belt? Any state that has a Lee County or a Robert E. Lee day parade should be counted as part of the Old South, if not the Deep South. Arkansas' as well as Tennessee's removal from being called "border states" would be accurate and appreciated.Longstreet09 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the border state link goes to Border states (Civil War), which does not list either Arkansas or Tennessee as border states. I don't much like the use of "border states" as a major region of the US. I prefer contrasting the Deep South (or Lower South) to the Upland South (or Upper South). The term "upland" contrasts nicely with "deep", not only with north-south connotations, but highland-lowland. The Upland South could include the Appalachians and Ozarks, and arguably the Piedmont and interior plateaus and hills. This Upland South region is often distinguished from the Lower or Deep South in many fields.. history, geology, ecology, economics, etc. If I find the time I'll try to make a page for it (doesn't seem to be one now). Arkansas, in this dual regionalization, would seem to fall into both regions, with the southern and eastern parts of the state being "lower" in both elevation and historical/cultural ties, while the northern and western parts being "upland" Ozarks and Ouachitas. Here's a random map showing the basic idea: http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg ..maybe I'll get to making an Upland South page, but regardless, I agree that the border state link for AR and TN is self-contradictory. Pfly 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed that reference for Arkansas and Tennessee. It just didn't make sense. Historians have written numerous times that the border States were the current group that is now listed. How TN and AR got into that originally shows someone was asleep at the wheel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.GeorgesCross (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tennessee is a border state. It was the last state to secede, and it was the first state to re-enter the Union. The eastern third of it remained unofficially with the Union throughout the American Civil War and, unlike Middle and West Tennessee, became predominantly Republican in the 19th century, a virtual anomaly in view of its surroundings (there's even a congressional seat over there which has never been represented by a Democrat). Although Jim Crow played a role in Tennessee politics (the Ku Klux Klan began in Pulaski, and Dr Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered in Memphis), the state has not generally manifested the kneejerk racist appeal which was so prevalent in the neighboring states to the south. Tennessee has always used the single primary plurality party-nomination election structure typical of most of the rest of the country. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, AND ARKANSAS use runoff primaries (earlier openly referred to as "Democratic white primaries"), which bolstered the one-party system while systematically preventing Blacks from getting elected in a time when the Democratic primaries were "tantamount to election." Tennessee has never used the system, which is virtually unused outside the South. I have lived in Tennessee.
I have also lived in Arkansas. I'm a little restive over designating Arkansas as not of the Deep South, for the reasons others have given. Much of Arkansas, particularly in the Delta region and the southern part of the state, is so closely akin to neighboring Louisiana and Mississippi that you cannot tell the difference without looking at the state highway markers. At the same time, however, the Ozark people are a lot like the mountain people of East Tennessee, and the mentality of the northern and western parts of the state begins to be more like the Midwest. The schools and universities are accredited by the North Central Association, not the Southern Association.
I could go on, but in such a mix I feel that the map for this article needs to shade Arkansas (but not Tennessee) the same as Florida and Texas, not firmly Deep South yet not quite border state either. Is this recommendation a useful compromise? Richard David Ramsey 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is Louisiana striped...? I always considered it to be part of the Deep South. And I agree, the part about Tennessee and Arkansas being border states is pretty absurd.ArkSoutherner 17:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Texas part of the Deep South? In eastern Texas and the Dallas/Fort Worth area, the southern heritage is clearly visible. I'm not sure if it is included in this region, though.--unsigned comment by User:Stallions2010
Did you try reading the article? The answer is no. At least not usually. There's not a "Certification Board for Deep South Statehood" or anything. --Dystopos 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of East Texas differ very little from Mississippi and Alabama, and should probably be included in the definition "Deep South" (John Shelton Reed includes portions of it in his definition in the book "1001 Things Everyone Should Know About the South") By the way, as a bit of trivia, although it is often used in history books to refer to those 7 states which initially formed the Confederacy (South Carolina thru Texas), the term Deep South is actually of early 20th Century coinage. At first, it was used to refer to north Louisiana, Mississippi, the southern parts of Alabama and Georgia (excluded the mountainous north), and the Florida panhandle. This area was seen to be the part of the greater South where Old South and Confederate traditions lived most strongly. Later, it became expanded in scope and today generally means the 5 states from Lousisiana to South Carolina. However, as Dr. Reed says in the above mentioned book" "The Deep South is roughly coextensive with the old cotton belt, a long arc extending from eastern North Carolina thru South Carolina and west into east Texas, with extensions along the Mississippi. This area can still be defined by locating rural counties with populations more than 25% black. South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana are commonly considered the Deep South states, although parts of these states don't meet the criteria and parts of adjoining states do. Many things thought of as Southern, from alligators and spanish moss, to peculiar voting habits in 1948 and 1964 are found in their most concentrated form (sometimes only) here."
TexasReb 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Texas is greatly different than Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi or even Louisiana. With the exception of CERTAIN parts of East Texas most of Texas has its own regional identity although most of their southern characteristics were actually brought by settlers from Georgia and ALabama. This is present in much of the towns named after for their settlers former homes especially in Northeast Texas. Dallas is somewhat strange, to label it as southern is too specific it still holds elements which seperate it. For example in comparison with cities such as Birmingham or Atlanta, Dallas is pale in comparison with southern characteristics through history and culture and contributions to modern day southern culture. You must remember nearly all of the south was a backwood conservative region for most of the 60's and 70's while Texas and Florida prospered. Atlanta's growth which has been truly expansive and miraculous only started in the late eighties but also we are seeing much of Atlanta losing its southern heritage. Most of us remember the Forsyth county which dominated the media about a decade ago, county citizen pledging they would not change and would allow any "Coloreds" to move in. Now the county has grown 117% and has a significant hispanic and black population as well as transplants from Ohio, Michigan, and New Jersey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.43.11 (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the intro paragraph is the phrase "post colonial expansion". perhaps this can be edited (at least, the word 'post' ought to be changed), as the actual term post-colonialism is completely unrelated to the usage of "post colonial" in this article. 71.198.153.155 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although Florida is geographically the southernmost state, it is sometimes excluded from the Deep South due to the large amount of Northern migration to the state that has occurred since World War II. However, parts of the state, especially the Panhandle and the northern regions can be included in the characterization, with an unofficial "Southern" line possibly "drawn" around the area near extreme northern Hillsborough County, Florida, jutting northeast to above Orlando and surrounding counties; below this line, the culture tends to be more "Northern" due to said migration...
There are plenty of Southerners and natives (I am 5th generation Manatee County native) South of Hillsborough County. Yes, we have our share of snowbirds, but so does the entire state including North Florida. (Lived there too, thank you).
Florida excluded from being called Deep South? Our boys died in the Civil War too. I don't know what transplant gave you this info on the unofficial "Southern line", but its bogus.
00:17, 23 July 2006 --magialuna 66.82.9.61 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Fix the article: rewrite to emphasize that "deep south" is a cultural definition, and, over time,the area falling under this definition changes, and, this definition is really not restricted by state boundrys, eg the flordia panhandle is deep south whereas hilton head island in south carolina might not be; research triangle park in NC is probably not "deep south" whereas most of the blue ridge mountain area is, Cinnamon colbert (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Florida is becoming less unique in the South, as states such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia also have similar splits.
70.125.198.158 (talk)
Founding members of the Confederacy as "Deep South"[edit]
>>Regarding the following definition on the "article" page:
South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana (Seven of the founding members of the Confederate States of America)
>>It appears that someone has added North Carolina to this list. I have no quarrel with this if those from the above states want to keep it. However, if that be the case, then the parenthetical phrase concerning the founding of the Confederacy needs to either be eliminated or the wording changed.
>>In fact, TEXAS was the seventh state to secede from the Union, and complete the list of those which had a hand in the initial formation of the Confederate States of America in Montomgery, Alabama. Like the rest of the "Upper South" (Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee), North Carolina initially rejected secession and did not join up until after the incident at Ft. Sumter made the situation either/or. This is NOT intended to disparage the Tar Heel State's commitment to the Confederate cause as, on the contrary, it fought bravely and nobly. Rather, it is just to point out a factual error contained within the said definition.
>>On a related tangent, I might suggest that another criteria of Deep South be added. The new one to be made of the seven original Confederate States (South Carolina thru Texas). Although the actual term "Deep South" did not come into being until well into the 20th Century, many history books use it to refer to the above states (in that era, the designation "Lower South" was used).
>>I of course realize that few consider Texas -- as a whole -- a Deep South state today, nonetheless history books include it in their definition (albeit non-existent in the day)when referring to secession and the War. TexasReb 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All three of these states are definitely part of the Deep South.
I would definititely include Louisiana, although there could be some question about certain parts of south Louisiana where the Cajun and heavily Catholic influences do not quite fit the mold of "Deep South." As to Texas and Florida, I also agree except would tend to limit it to East Texas and the Florida panhandle. TexasReb 12:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Texasreb you are incorrect,Louisiana is part of the deep South. Southern Louisiana has a great Catholic influence, how does this change its standing as a Southern state? In New Orleans there was a huge population of Free People of Colour that owned $2 million dollars in real estate in the 1820s, and in the 1840s they even owned more. So is does this make New Orleans not a Southern city? Also they article is poor with little or no valid proof! Also Texas is not part of the south, it is a western states.--Margrave1206 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe if you had read my post correctly, you would see that I agreed Louisiana is a Deep South state. However, I said that certain characteristics of southern Louisiana do not completely fit the general perceptions of Deep South. Note I said *Deep" South, not the South per se, as you seem to have misunderstood or misread. Also, Texas is unique, but it is *not* a western state if by the West one means grouped with such as Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, etc, having very little in common with any of them. Texas is essentially a Southern state, in history (charter member of the Confederacy), settlement patterns (settled overwhelmingly by folks from other Southern states both before and after the War), religious demographics (Southern Baptist church is the largest protestant denomination), speech (one of many sub-varities of what is broadly known as "Southern American English"), politics (part of the original Solid South originally democratic and now republican) customs and traditions (Confederate holidays, foodstuffs, black-eyed peas on New Years Day, etc). Of course to be sure given its history and large size, Texas taken as a whole is not a *typical* Southern state, but Southern in origination and in the important ways. TexasReb (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are no doubt well intentioned, Texasreb, but you ignore a few facts, such that the first shot of the American Civil War was ordered by that rambunctious south Louisiana Cajun Catholic General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard. South Louisiana (I live there) is definitely in the Deep South, geographically and spiritually, and indeed represents part of the diversity of the Deep South. There is something wrong with discrimination, wherever it has occurred, but there is nothing wrong with being from the Deep South. If you doubt this, go over to Jennings (it's in Jeff Davis Parish) wearing your Texas-whatever sweatshirt and ask a few people, Black or White, Catholic or Protestant, why they don't want to leave. Richard David Ramsey 19:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate your opening remark, I am still not sure exactly the nature of your disagreement with my earlier post. In fact, I clearly said I DO consider Louisiana a Deep South state. However, I do stand by that there are parts of southern Louisiana that do not fit that general perception of Deep South (such as the large French Catholic influence as opposed to the heavily Southern Baptist population in some of the other Deep South states). This was not intended as an insult, just an observation. I mean, there are areas of north Alabama and Georgia which have an "mountain South" aspect which too is a bit different from other parts of the those two states. It doesn't mean they aren't Deep South though...
As to your statement "there is nothing wrong with being from the Deep South"? I agree completely. Matter of fact, I am proud that East Texas is also often considered part of this sub-region. My family lines go into the Deep South and my family tree is fertilized with the blood of my Confederate ancestors. I am a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and have spent a lot of my adult life writing (even been published some) and passionately defending and revering the South and our common history and culture. I take a backseat to no man in my love of the South and things Southern. And further, I apologize to no one for the privilige! I hope that clarifies things a bit. TexasReb (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General Beauregard was a white Creole, not a Cajun. 69.171.160.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Florida and Louisiana I thought of as being in the Deep South, but I have never known any one to include Texas as a state in the Deep South. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a whole, Texas is VERY seldom included in definitions of the Deep South (except when applied in the historical sense as a charter member of the original Confederacy). However, when the term is applied to interstate regions, East Texas is quite often included. As it should be. TexasReb (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I was stationed in Memphis in the early 1970s, I heard the term 'Mid South' used rather often, but it was used interchangeably with 'South' to refer to the region. Is this term still in use today?LorenzoB 05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the Urban Deep South was a mess and I've tried to fix it a bit. I took out references to cities in Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee. These aren't in the Deep South. In the section on communities enriched by newcomers, I replaced Jacksonville with Tampa, as more representative of this trend. Jacksonville's large military population generates some diversity but it is more representative of the Deep South's more entrenched cities which did not receive discussion in this section (though they probably should have been addressed.) Jacksonville ought to be grouped with Savannah, Charleston, Pensacola and Mobile as cities that have seen modernization and prosperity in recent years, but have more held more stubbornly to their Deep South cultural legacy than the other areas.
I got the impression that this section was originally lifted from something discussing the New South in general and not focusing on the distinctiveness of the Deep South.Ftjrwrites 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits have greatly increased the amount of original research, unverifiable conclusions, uncited claims and POV. This article really needs to be overhauled with reference to published sources rather than our own understandings of this shifty term. --Dystopos 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urban areas in Southern states such as Atlanta, Georgia, Orlando, Miami, and Tampa, Florida, in the post-war era have also absorbed waves of migrants seeking economic opportunities and warmer climates. This migration, according to some, has diluted some distinct cultural traits of the region. Thus, they are not considered a part of the Deep South. On the other hand, the blending of diverse cultural traditions is integral to the South's distinct urban cultures, such as in New Orleans, Louisiana, Birmingham, Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama, and Jackson, Mississippi What is wrong with this article? Just because people move to Urban areas they are no longer Southern? Who wrote this? --Margrave1206 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article of this length and on this subject should include multiple sources, preferably inline citations, especially for some of the characterizations and blanket statements:
In recent years, the term has been used loosely and often perjoratively to refer to states in this general cultural region without regard to the term's historically defined limits.
Because the culture of large areas of Florida and Texas have been changed by migration patterns of the last half-century, these states are often no longer included under the term. However there are certain parts of these states, such as East Texas and the Florida Panhandle. that retain cultural characteristics of the Deep South.
Any vaguely defined area within the South that is characterized negatively by anti-intellectualism, romanticizing the antebellum era, sustained racism, entrenched political corruption, ardent Protestant fundamentalism, lack of modern amenities, rejection of modern ways of life, poverty and a general lack of upward mobility; while characterized positively as patriotic, pious, persevering, honest, appreciating simple comforts, respecting the common man, hospitable and cultivating folk wisdom. When used this way, the term becomes a stereotype with heavy cultural baggage.
While some of it is definitely true, going through the trouble of finding sources will weed out the inaccuracies, original research, and problems with POV. Altairisfartalk 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A proper citation concerning East Texas and the Florida panhandle was added. TexasReb (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article is much improved, no huge OR or POV problems now. Altairisfartalk 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did some cleanup to source what I could, removed some of what I couldn't. Altairisfartalk 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The following "definition" in the Usage of the Term section:
While the northern part of Florida is sometimes referred to as part of the "Deep South," Florida as a whole is not usually considered "Southern" by many residents of Deep South states due to the fact that 15% of Florida's population are retired people from all over the country. This is also especially apparent in coastal South Florida. Many families (especially from the Northeast) move down to Florida, and have become well-cemented into the area. This creates a cultural atmosphere very distinct from the rest of the Deep South. The culture is even further influenced by the huge Hispanic presence (20.1% of the population is Hispanic with 15.94% as White Hispanic). While Deep South states have some semblence of a Hispanic population, they are nowhere near Texas' or Florida's in size.[citation needed] This diversity occurs mainly in South Florida and Central Florida. However those native to Florida (sometimes referred to as a Florida Cracker), in many parts of the state, such as the Florida Panhandle, North Central Florida, the Florida Heartland, and parts of rural Florida, do maintain the Deep South culture.
I didn't want to remove it without consulting others. IMHO, however, while the points are well taken, it doesn't really belong under "Usage". Instead, perhaps, it could be made part of a totally seperate section concerning cultural variations within the Deep South (such as is done on the Southern United States page). That is, featuring Texas and Florida and why, today, neither are (with the exception of certain areas) really considered "Deep South"...even though they have the historical credentials. Thoughts? TexasReb (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Florida and Proposal that Deep South definition be reserved only for North West Florida[edit]
I would argue that FL is not part of the deep south by any means, unless you count north west Florida as being representative of the state as a whole. A mere visit to South Florida, the Tampa Bay area, Orlando, Jacksonville, dispels any false notion of Florida as the deep south. Culturally, linguistically, and ethnically, Floridians are NOT southern by any standard and far out number those who consider themselves to be in the deep south. Of course, there are rural portions of rural central and south west FL where some populations may retain cultural and linguistic aspects usually associated with the deep south but certainly, FL is no deep south state... In fact, I would argue that FL is one of the most diverse states in the union. From its inception, FL has been a melting pot of cultures, its largest city in the 1820s when FL was sold to the United States, St. Augustine, was a melting pot...
Tampa at the turn of the century was a safe harbor for immigrants from Italy, Spain, Germany, and Cuba and this is reflected in its culture.
Congressional representation and FL's battleground status in presidential elections clearly reinforces the fact that FL is not a deep south state.
BTW, if you need proof... just spend a few days in South Beach and then try to argue that FL is a deep south state. I'm tired of people constructing this notion that FL because of its geographic location in the American south is a culturally southern state and if you need proof, go read the other articles on FL...
I propose that this article and definition be limited to north west FL and the pan handle, NOT the whole of the state of FL.--Jutland86 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this already basically what the article says? Pfly (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I've missed it, but I've never heard people who live in these areas use the term "Deep South". It seems to be a term used solely by outsiders, to convey a sense of separation and "otherness". It is reminiscent of the way some used to refer to "deepest, darkest Africa". The area in question also happens to have the largest concentration of black residents of any part of the country. I'm not sure how all of this fits together, but I think this term, beloved by the media and elites on the coasts, is the product of a noxious stew of condescension, bigotry, and perhaps even veiled racism. The "Deep South" sounds like some kind of dark, mysterious jungle you're afraid to venture into, where the inhabitants are probably primitive and dangerous. I cannot help but think that the intent of those who use this term is (consciously or unconsciously) pejorative and derogatory.
Reading between the lines, it appears Anon is providing a bit of evidence for the Deep South being a nasty place that dislikes outsiders. in any case that's not how it was used in Mississippi-- The state Archives said in 1940: "Dr. Rowland was the author of many invaluable historical works on Mississippi, and was a leader in interpreting the materials of history of the Deep South, the Confederacy, and Mississippi..." The Saturday Evening Post commented in 1928, "The deep South, compared with New England, is no longer backward". Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The US Supreme Court used the term in 1888 ["They developed primarily in the Deep South to..."} see linkRjensen (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Virginia and West Virginia were in the Deep South - the article does not seem to mention these states. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are not in the deep south. The "deep" part being the key.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are classified as being in the Upper South.Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better explanation of ancestry identification in 1980[edit]
I agree with 82.228.202.147. "Predominate" can mean "to hold advantage in numbers" or "to exert controlling power". It is too ambiguous in context: "People of English ancestry traditionally predominate in every part of the Deep South except for southern Louisiana."Noillirt (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - added context within the article to the list of '%of "English" ancestry by state in the Deep South in 1980' (much new immigration and migration has taken place since then) by saying that "European Americans" who identified single ancestry showed .... Otherwise the contention makes no sense because it disregards the numerous African-American majority areas (some of their ancestry was English or British Isles, too, but many do not identify that way.) Based on the above map, it appears that by 2000, many European Americans in the South simply identified as "American" if choosing only one ancestry, rather than differentiating among Northern European countries. By that time, their lines likely included numerous national ancestries, anyway.Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But a second issue is that the 1980 percentages were based on statewide totals and only on those who identified only one ancestry. Among whites, more identified as "English" only than any other ancestry except in LA, where those who identified as "French" only in ancestry were the largest European-American group. By 2000, after years of identity politics, as the above map of predominant ancestry by county shows, more people were identifying only as Americans, rather than naming one British Isles or Northern European group. But in many counties, residents who identified as African American outnumbered those who identified as American or any northern European ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"People of English ancestry traditionally predominate in every part of the Deep South except for southern Louisiana" my eye. Unless Africa was somehow part of England during the colonial period. the Black Belt runs right through the deep south, and as anyone who has every actually been there knows much of it is > 50% african american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.160.189 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shading Arkansas the same as New York and California is misinformed and misinforming. If whoever did so does not want to consider Arkansas part of the Deep South, at least color it as a border state. If the state voted for George Wallace and the people in it say y'all, and if it had a Democratic governor who stood in a schoolhouse door to stop Blacks from enrolling, it's definitely Deep South or pretty close. Observe too that, when the University of Arkansas athletic programs left the old and now defunct Southwest Conference, they went into the SEC, not the Big 8. Keeping Arkansas out of the Deep South and the border states ignores the state's history, culture, and love of catfish and barbecue. Rammer (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a slam against Arkansas at all. But -- IMHO -- the whole state is not included on the map for two reasons. One, it is not "almost always" regarded as part of the Deep South (as is the case with LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC) and, it was not
a charter member of the original 7 state Confederacy (that is, those which seceded before the start of the War and initially formed it), which is the reason of Texas and Florida to be colored (albeit of a different shade of red to offset them as whole states from the modern-day definition).
But note however? That the area of eastern Arkansas and western Tennessee close to the Mississippi River are mentioned, same as East Texas and North Florida. So the good Southern folk of Arkansas need not feel slighted in the least! :-) TexasReb (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on something that Rjensen mentioned -- and a more careful reading on my part -- as to the topic in the source cited, I am going to make a slight revision in that section. I apologize for my original mis-interpretation, and hope to correct it. TexasReb (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-US reader, the lead image is confusing. This is for two reasons. The difference between the red colours is not sufficiently great enouch. One of them could be changed to greeen, blue, yellow, whatever. The second confusion is the states that are indicated. I have never thought of Florida as being Deep South. Perhaps I am incorrect, but if the modern perception is that it is not, Florida (and other states} should not be highlighted. If they are involved in the article in some other way (e.g. confederate states), then a further image in the relevant place could show this. This lead image must be clearer because some readers might look at the image only and not want to delve into the text for further details to explain it.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know you have a problem when the image caption explains that part of the area shown does not meet the definition of "Deep South"... I say nuke the image. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not have much to say on the economic history or the current state of economy of the region.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen then inserted content into Deep South referring to the page he created[1] and inserted multiple references to the black belt into the further reading section of Deep South article.[2][3]
The question before us is whether material about the black belt but not about the deep south should be retained to the further reading section of the deep south article. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. it has not been shown that the two concepts "deep south" and "black belt" are synonymous. The borders shown in the Deep South article are quite different from the borders shown in the Black Belt in the American South article. The black belt extends into North Carolina and Virginia. The deep south does not. The deep south extends to Louisiana and part of Texas. The black belt doesn't go much past the Mississippi river. But more importantly, pretty much nobody says "Town X is in the black belt" while all sorts of people say "town Y is in the bible belt" which, BTW raises the question of why we don't have a bunch of further reading citations talking about the bible belt. I say that we should limit the further reading section to citation that are specifically about the deep south, not some related area such as the bible belt or black belt.
While not relevant to this article, the relationship between the geographical term "black belt" and the sociological term "black belt" is more complex. The black soil led to cotton plantations, which led to large numbers of slaves, which led to a majority black population long after the end of slavery. The problem is that by only counting those blacks who are in the area with the soil, anyone using black belt" as a shorthand for "majority black population" ends up missing places like Detroit, which is 82% black. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. There is a false assumption here that deep South and black belt are synonymous. No one states that. The consensus since the 1920s has been but the is overlaps with the deep South, with an "arm" into the Virginia tobacco region. Activists and scholars use the terminology in the 21st century. (1) Here's a 2020 definition: "The Black Belt is a swath of fertile soil – and an eponymous region – that extends from Virginia south through the Carolinas before arcing west through the Deep South and ending in the Mississippi Delta." From an organization doing philanthropy in the South today.(2) Scholars use the term And emphasize the overlap: for example in 2012 political scientist Seth McKee concluded that in the 1964 election, "Once again, the high level of support for Goldwater in the Deep South, and especially their Black Belt counties, spoke to the enduring significance of white resistance to black progress." (3) Here is a 2019 book by a leading Ivy League historian Bruce Kuklick, A Political History of the USA (2019) p 108 that emphasizes black belt and its overlap with Deep South: "By the middle of the 19th century, the plantation owners who most stridently sponsored slavery and expansion spread in an arc from South Carolina and Georgia to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and (finally) eastern Texas, “the black belt.” Here in the “Deep South” slavery was most rooted, and the characteristics of what became “the Old South” most clearly spelled out." (4) "The black belt counties of the deep South" are discussed in Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics (2018) by Avidit Acharya, p 251. (5) A leading expert on American politics is Kevin Phillips in The Emerging Republican Majority: Updated Edition (2014) He goes into detail on the overlap in the 1968 election --eg page 255: "Wallace won very high support from Black Belt whites and no support at all from Black Belt Negroes. In the Black Belt counties of the Deep South, racial polarization was practically complete." Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it is your position that simply because part of something is in the deep south that justifies multiple references to it in the further reading section? The Bible Beltalso largely overlaps but is not the same as the deep south. Would you be so kind as to explain why you did not add multiple references to the bible belt to the further reading section of this article? Would you care to explain why you did not add multiple references to the Old South? I can think of half a dozen more things that are contained in or overlap with the deep south, but you only added further reading entries related to the page that you created. That seems a bit promotional. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Black Belt is a major part of the Deep South and has a sophisticated literature that readers interested in the Deep South may find of value, especially is they are interested in blacks/slavery/race relations. As for the Bible Belt--I am the #1 contributor of text to that article, among the 1000 editors who have worked on it-- see statistics here on Bibl Belt As for the Old South article I am by far the #1 editor there--see statistics here. I note that Guy Macon has have jumped in to the Old South by ERASING the useful link to the Black Belt. So I have been adding info while some folks are subtracting info. Rjensen (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evasion noted. Again I ask, is it your position that simply because part of something is in the deep south that justifies multiple references to it in the further reading section? Repeating the fact that the black belt partially overlaps the deep south again and again as if someone disputed it does not answer the question asked. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
when I find what I consider a useful reference that deals with the Deep South I will add it to the reading list. That's what happened here. When preparing the new article Black Belt in the American South a week ago I looked at about several dozen possible scholarly articles and books (most of which I had read over the years). Six that seemed to be highly relevant to Deep South so I added them here on Feb 15--within hours Guy Macon erased all of them without reading any of them --which I think was a bad mistake. Erasing out of ignorance or edit warring is bad editing in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do the references actually mention some sort of connection to the deep south by name (not just a passing mention noting the partial geographical overlap) or do they just "seem (to Rjensen) to be highly relevant to Deep South"? Of your most recent additions, three are available online. [4][5][6] Two make no mention of the deep south at all and the third only mentions it in passing. You need to provide a reliable source that specifically discusses the deep south and the black belt and establishes that the two are related. So far all I am seeing is you repeating again and again that in your personal opinion the deep south and the black belt are related and that in your personal opinion the deep south and the bible belt are not related ("related" in the sense "we need to stuff a bunch of references about one into the other"). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. above I've demonstrated through quotes from multiple reliable sources that there is a significant overlap --The black belt is a major part of the Deep South, although it also extends a little into the border-South in Virginia. Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Remove - not enough overlap to make it further reading. The article is geographic and cultural, a geologic bit seems just OFFTOPIC for inclusion and not appropriate for Further per MOS:FURTHER Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...== "Black Belt" hyperlink leads to incorrect location ==
Hello - There's a hyperlink in this article attached to the term "Black Belt" (which is used in the article in a social/political/demographic sense) that leads to an article on the geological term "Black Belt", which is obviously nothing to do with this topic. Sorry, I don't know if I am able to edit this article, and I don't want to mess with it myself as I'm not that tech savvy. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:20E3:7700:1960:1C74:7A34:4B17 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
There's a discrepancy for the second graphic. The subtext ("Southern Black Belt counties with an African-American population of 30% or higher in 2000.") versus the details of the graphic ("Southern US counties that were at least 40% Black or African American in the 2000 Census.") versus the CC license ("File:Southern counties with a majority African-American population in 2000.png"). -- Which is it, and what best matches the article text?
Also, is there more current data? Gprobins (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
