The Historiest and Most Influential Region in the U.S.

[cl15876]

Nicely stated Wilson! I was just re-familiarizing myself with a number of points regarding our founding fathers and then I read your writeup and couldn't agree more! Thomas Fleming has published some very good books on this period that are incredible reads. I wonder if there really is a concrete answer to this question? DukeUsul's comment about the A-Bomb really got me thinking at a much higher and farther reaching level in addition to EJ's Pearl Harbor reference, amongst a number of other things that collectively have shaped the character of this nation and its people. Overall we could have never (IMHO) gotten this far without the solid foundation that was put in place by the character, integrity, and beliefs of our founding fathers.

[bjornolf]

Every place I've seen the "Mid-Atlantic" region described, it includes D.C., Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. Done like that, it'd be hard NOT to argue the Mid-Atlantic, since New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia/DC/Maryland are all hotbeds of history.

From an historical perspective, this is not an accurate representation of the Mid-Atlantic states (or the "Middle Colonies," in early American historical parlance). Never would Virginia and Maryland be included with the Mid-Atlantic. Their plantation-based economy, slavery, and agrarian bent distinguished them considerably from the Middle Colonies/States, which did have a good bit of commercial agriculture, but also included large, cosmopolitan cities (including two of the "big three"--Philly & NYC, the third being Boston). The Chesapeake tidewater had no notable cities to speak of for essentially the entirety of the colonial period (even Williamsburg, while a seat of government and hearth of revolution, existed primarily as a designated administrative center, rather than an organically developing hive of activity), and a century later, it naturally sided with the Confederacy. The Middle Colonies have long been advanced as an early example of inclusiveness and diversity (so much diversity, in fact, that a vocal cadre of historians has claimed for some time that the very existence of the "Middle Colonies" as a discernible unit is a myth).

I wasn't really going for a historical perspective, though your point is certainly well received on that. I was just going by the list that AAA puts out, as well as the first dozen or so links on google if you search "Mid-Atlantic states". I think many break it down by New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeastern. By this division of thirds purely from a geographical measure, that's what I was calling them.

I read somewhere that the original Virginia territory ended up making like seven states, going all the way out to Illinois. Is that true, Wilson?

[wilson]

I read somewhere that the original Virginia territory ended up making like seven states, going all the way out to Illinois. Is that true, Wilson?

Theoretically, the original Virginia claim stretched all the way across the continent, to the Pacific (though at that time, it was still unclear exactly how far that was, or what in God's name might lay in between). So I suppose that you could make the claim that parts of that comprise a good deal more states.
But yeah, in terms of actual land claims, most of the Ohio River basin states, as well as West Virginia and Kentucky, were comprised in part or whole of Virginia lands.

[bjornolf]

There was a fairly important President born in Kentucky. I think he beats Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and Woodrow Wilson COMBINED.

Hey, Kentucky was MADE with the land from Virginia. ;) Plus, I wouldn't say he beats Monroe and Madison combined. Madison wrote the Constitution, basically, as well as the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, and was President during the War of 1812. As Jefferson's Secretary of State, he oversaw the Louisiana Purchase. Monroe put out the Monroe Doctrine, and purchased Missouri and Florida and made Maine a state. Those are all pretty important.

Lincoln, as the "Great Emancipator", was kind of a fraud. He was quoted as saying that he wouldn't have abolished slavery if he'd thought it would have spared the nation. He also couldn't convince Lee to be his general. Ulysses S. Grant was a sorry second choice. The Union mishandled the war so badly that they almost lost it early on. They basically won through attrition, massively superior numbers, and industrial superiority. On the whole, Lincoln kinda backed into the whole thing.

One thing I forgot about Virginia is that not only did the Revolutionary War end there, but the Civil War ended there as well, at Appomattox.

[DukeUsul]

But the clam chowdah, people!

[cl15876]

But the clam chowdah, people!

I'm with you on that pick! How's that grammar?

[DukieInKansas]

I'm not sure I'm qualified to vote. Where I lived, the War of Northern Agression involved what is now North & South Korea. (Not that I was alive when that happened.)

[Lavabe]

There was a fairly important President born in Kentucky. I think he beats Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and Woodrow Wilson COMBINED.

Hey, Kentucky was MADE with the land from Virginia. ;) Plus, I wouldn't say he beats Monroe and Madison combined. Madison wrote the Constitution, basically, as well as the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, and was President during the War of 1812. As Jefferson's Secretary of State, he oversaw the Louisiana Purchase. Monroe put out the Monroe Doctrine, and purchased Missouri and Florida and made Maine a state. Those are all pretty important.

Lincoln, as the "Great Emancipator", was kind of a fraud. He was quoted as saying that he wouldn't have abolished slavery if he'd thought it would have spared the nation. He also couldn't convince Lee to be his general. Ulysses S. Grant was a sorry second choice. The Union mishandled the war so badly that they almost lost it early on. They basically won through attrition, massively superior numbers, and industrial superiority. On the whole, Lincoln kinda backed into the whole thing.

One thing I forgot about Virginia is that not only did the Revolutionary War end there, but the Civil War ended there as well, at Appomattox.

After reading this, I'm going to turn in all my lucky pennies and $5 bills. ;)

[CameronBornAndBred]

But the clam chowdah, people!

I'm with you on that pick! How's that grammar?

Wouldn't that be "grammah"?

[ArkieDukie]

Lincoln, as the "Great Emancipator", was kind of a fraud. He was quoted as saying that he wouldn't have abolished slavery if he'd thought it would have spared the nation. He also couldn't convince Lee to be his general. Ulysses S. Grant was a sorry second choice. The Union mishandled the war so badly that they almost lost it early on. They basically won through attrition, massively superior numbers, and industrial superiority. On the whole, Lincoln kinda backed into the whole thing.

One thing I forgot about Virginia is that not only did the Revolutionary War end there, but the Civil War ended there as well, at Appomattox.

Not sure I completely agree with this. Although it is true that Lincoln couldn't convince Lee to lead the Union army, he also fired several generals before setting on US Grant because they wouldn't fight as aggressively as he wanted. US Grant's victory at Vicksburg convinced Lincoln that Grant was the guy he wanted. Lincoln fired a couple of Union generals (Meade and McClellan iirc) for not pursuing the Confederates after Antietam and Gettysburg. Both generals rested their troops rather than going on the offensive when the Confederate troops were weak as Lincoln wanted them to do.

Lincoln was a bit torn on the issue of slavery. He was personally opposed to slavery but didn't want to send the nation into a war. He was a very shrewd politician and was playing the tricky political game of trying to end slavery while keeping the country together.

Oh, and a bit of trivia: the largest troop surrender at the end of the Civil War wasn't at Appomattox Courthouse. It was a few weeks later in Durham, NC (at Bennett Place), when Johnston surrendered to Sherman. Time frame may be a bit off. Is there a historian in the house?

[DukieInKansas]

After reading this, I'm going to turn in all my lucky pennies and $5 bills. ;)

I'll be glad to take them off your hands. Anything to help.

[wilson]

There was a fairly important President born in Kentucky. I think he beats Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and Woodrow Wilson COMBINED.

Hey, Kentucky was MADE with the land from Virginia. ;) Plus, I wouldn't say he beats Monroe and Madison combined. Madison wrote the Constitution, basically, as well as the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, and was President during the War of 1812. As Jefferson's Secretary of State, he oversaw the Louisiana Purchase. Monroe put out the Monroe Doctrine, and purchased Missouri and Florida and made Maine a state. Those are all pretty important.

Lincoln, as the "Great Emancipator", was kind of a fraud. He was quoted as saying that he wouldn't have abolished slavery if he'd thought it would have spared the nation. He also couldn't convince Lee to be his general. Ulysses S. Grant was a sorry second choice. The Union mishandled the war so badly that they almost lost it early on. They basically won through attrition, massively superior numbers, and industrial superiority. On the whole, Lincoln kinda backed into the whole thing.

One thing I forgot about Virginia is that not only did the Revolutionary War end there, but the Civil War ended there as well, at Appomattox.

After reading this, I'm going to turn in all my lucky pennies and $5 bills. ;)

To be fair, bjornolf's assessment of Lincoln is an especially harsh one. The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed as much a strategic maneuver as anything else, but to dismiss it as only that is terribly short-sighted. Moreover, Lincoln is celebrated not so much for having won the war as for his steadfast commitment to constitutional and republican principles.
I also differ with the claim that Grant was not a good second choice to command Union forces. He was known as one of the USA's more aggressive generals, and his accession to command in 1864, followed quickly by his strategy of putting superior manpower and materiel to bear at multiple attack points choked the remaining life out of the Confederacy and won the war the year after he took the reins.
If you want to criticize Grant's presidency, fine; he was pretty forgettable in the White House. But make no mistake: Lincoln is celebrated for far more than just freeing the slaves, and if you want to criticize his presidency, you'll rightly stand in the minority.

[Lavabe]

Madison wrote the Constitution, basically, as well as the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, and was President during the War of 1812. As Jefferson's Secretary of State, he oversaw the Louisiana Purchase. Monroe put out the Monroe Doctrine, and purchased Missouri and Florida and made Maine a state. Those are all pretty important.

Madison never appeared on a bubble gum card. You can't be that great if you've never appeared on a bubble gum card.

Man, Charles Schulz was a genius.

[cl15876]

There was a fairly important President born in Kentucky. I think he beats Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and Woodrow Wilson COMBINED.

Hey, Kentucky was MADE with the land from Virginia. ;) Plus, I wouldn't say he beats Monroe and Madison combined. Madison wrote the Constitution, basically, as well as the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, and was President during the War of 1812. As Jefferson's Secretary of State, he oversaw the Louisiana Purchase. Monroe put out the Monroe Doctrine, and purchased Missouri and Florida and made Maine a state. Those are all pretty important.

Lincoln, as the "Great Emancipator", was kind of a fraud. He was quoted as saying that he wouldn't have abolished slavery if he'd thought it would have spared the nation. He also couldn't convince Lee to be his general. Ulysses S. Grant was a sorry second choice. The Union mishandled the war so badly that they almost lost it early on. They basically won through attrition, massively superior numbers, and industrial superiority. On the whole, Lincoln kinda backed into the whole thing.

One thing I forgot about Virginia is that not only did the Revolutionary War end there, but the Civil War ended there as well, at Appomattox.

After reading this, I'm going to turn in all my lucky pennies and $5 bills. ;)

I've got my bucket, I'll take all your offerings, off your hands and keep safely in my possession!!!!

[cl15876]

But the clam chowdah, people!

I'm with you on that pick! How's that grammar?

Wouldn't that be "grammah"?

Damn, I messed up again! Good catch! ;)

[colchar]

Okay folks, break out your history books.

Combining History itself (e.g., famous events, birthplaces of famous people, etc.) with Influencers (e.g., geographical importance, repercussions of those famous events, etc.), which of the following nine divisions listed by the United States Census Bureau would you say can boast as being the most Historinfluential?

For example, it's not just the AMOUNT of history, it's the importance of it. Most Americans, including myself, know little about the history of Hawaii, but of the few things I know, Pearl Harbor stands out, and that is a HUGE one, obviously, when it comes to influence.

U.S. Map.JPG

Discuss.

-EarlJam

I voted before I read this and now want to change my vote. Must remember to read the instructions before voting.

[Miles]

Hey, Kentucky was MADE with the land from Virginia. ;) Plus, I wouldn't say he beats Monroe and Madison combined. Madison wrote the Constitution, basically, as well as the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, and was President during the War of 1812. As Jefferson's Secretary of State, he oversaw the Louisiana Purchase. Monroe put out the Monroe Doctrine, and purchased Missouri and Florida and made Maine a state. Those are all pretty important.

Lincoln, as the "Great Emancipator", was kind of a fraud. He was quoted as saying that he wouldn't have abolished slavery if he'd thought it would have spared the nation. He also couldn't convince Lee to be his general. Ulysses S. Grant was a sorry second choice. The Union mishandled the war so badly that they almost lost it early on. They basically won through attrition, massively superior numbers, and industrial superiority. On the whole, Lincoln kinda backed into the whole thing.

One thing I forgot about Virginia is that not only did the Revolutionary War end there, but the Civil War ended there as well, at Appomattox.

After reading this, I'm going to turn in all my lucky pennies and $5 bills. ;)

To be fair, bjornolf's assessment of Lincoln is an especially harsh one. The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed as much a strategic maneuver as anything else, but to dismiss it as only that is terribly short-sighted. Moreover, Lincoln is celebrated not so much for having won the war as for his steadfast commitment to constitutional and republican principles.
I also differ with the claim that Grant was not a good second choice to command Union forces. He was known as one of the USA's more aggressive generals, and his accession to command in 1864, followed quickly by his strategy of putting superior manpower and materiel to bear at multiple attack points choked the remaining life out of the Confederacy and won the war the year after he took the reins.
If you want to criticize Grant's presidency, fine; he was pretty forgettable in the White House. But make no mistake: Lincoln is celebrated for far more than just freeing the slaves, and if you want to criticize his presidency, you'll rightly stand in the minority.

You forgot to mention that Lincoln was about the same height as EarlJam.
+1 Lincoln

[bjornolf]

There was a fairly important President born in Kentucky. I think he beats Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and Woodrow Wilson COMBINED.

Hey, Kentucky was MADE with the land from Virginia. ;) Plus, I wouldn't say he beats Monroe and Madison combined. Madison wrote the Constitution, basically, as well as the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, and was President during the War of 1812. As Jefferson's Secretary of State, he oversaw the Louisiana Purchase. Monroe put out the Monroe Doctrine, and purchased Missouri and Florida and made Maine a state. Those are all pretty important.

Lincoln, as the "Great Emancipator", was kind of a fraud. He was quoted as saying that he wouldn't have abolished slavery if he'd thought it would have spared the nation. He also couldn't convince Lee to be his general. Ulysses S. Grant was a sorry second choice. The Union mishandled the war so badly that they almost lost it early on. They basically won through attrition, massively superior numbers, and industrial superiority. On the whole, Lincoln kinda backed into the whole thing.

One thing I forgot about Virginia is that not only did the Revolutionary War end there, but the Civil War ended there as well, at Appomattox.

To be fair, bjornolf's assessment of Lincoln is an especially harsh one. The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed as much a strategic maneuver as anything else, but to dismiss it as only that is terribly short-sighted. Moreover, Lincoln is celebrated not so much for having won the war as for his steadfast commitment to constitutional and republican principles.
I also differ with the claim that Grant was not a good second choice to command Union forces. He was known as one of the USA's more aggressive generals, and his accession to command in 1864, followed quickly by his strategy of putting superior manpower and materiel to bear at multiple attack points choked the remaining life out of the Confederacy and won the war the year after he took the reins.
If you want to criticize Grant's presidency, fine; he was pretty forgettable in the White House. But make no mistake: Lincoln is celebrated for far more than just freeing the slaves, and if you want to criticize his presidency, you'll rightly stand in the minority.

No, you're absolutely right. I didn't mean that Grant was a bad general. He was a very good general, and ended up being a difference maker. However, as someone else pointed out, he wasn't even the second choice, but about the fifth. And Lincoln REALLY wanted Lee. Amongst the "big" generals at the time, he was far and away the best. Grant BECAME a "big" general after his success early in the war. At least that's how I understand it.

As for Lincoln, I was overly harsh. You're absolutely right. He was a great president. I guess I was just annoyed by Lavabe's claim that he was better than Madison and Monroe, plus about five others, COMBINED. I was trying to accentuate the negative to make my point. I shouldn't have done that. I apologize. Do you think Lincoln was a better president than Madison and Monroe combined, ?

[wilson]

No, you're absolutely right. I didn't mean that Grant was a bad general. He was a very good general, and ended up being a difference maker. However, as someone else pointed out, he wasn't even the second choice, but about the fifth. And Lincoln REALLY wanted Lee. Amongst the "big" generals at the time, he was far and away the best. Grant BECAME a "big" general after his success early in the war. At least that's how I understand it.

As for Lincoln, I was overly harsh. You're absolutely right. He was a great president. I guess I was just annoyed by Lavabe's claim that he was better than Madison and Monroe, plus about five others, COMBINED. I was trying to accentuate the negative to make my point. I shouldn't have done that. I apologize. Do you think Lincoln was a better president than Madison and Monroe combined, ?

Grant had a little bit of experience in the Mexican-American War, but you're right that he didn't really rise to prominence until the Civil War. His quick ascent during that conflict, however, is to me illustration of the fact that he was a damned fine commander.
As for Madison and Monroe, I really like that you're trying to get Madison some pub. He was indeed one of the great political thinkers in early American history, author of the Constitution and father (though not really direct author) of the Bill of Rights. He was also probably the strongest champion of checks and balances, the hallmark of our current federal system and one of the best insurances against "the tyranny of the majority" in any governmental system in the world.
I'm not as big on Monroe, because the Monroe Doctrine has been used numerous times after the fact to justify international meddling, rather than real regional solidarity or protection. You also mentioned his handling of Maine's admission to the Union, and there was also the Missouri Compromise. I consider these to be failings of American government. They were not "compromises" so much as they were means of repeatedly sweeping the slavery question (which, by the close of the Revolutionary period, astute observers knew to be unavoidable) under the rug. It's pointless to speculate as to how things may have gone if somebody along the line had dug in a little deeper on one of these "compromises," but I do not believe they are to be celebrated.
So I'd probably call it a wash. Lincoln and Madison were among the handful of the finest presidents and statesmen the United States have seen, but Monroe gets a pretty resounding "meh" from me.

[Johnboy]

I lost a huge post I tried to put up yesterday. Essentially I agree with wilson, except I don't think it's that close between New England and the South Atlantic, only because NY, NJ and PA have their own region - the Middle Atlantic.

The oldest original European settlements (St. Petersburg and Jamestown) are in the SA region; both major slave markets (Annapolis, Charleston); the Revolution is probably more about NE, but Virginia had Washington, Jefferson, Mason, Madison. Civil War was fought mostly in the SA and MA, as was much of the Civil Rights movement (esp. on the ground and after the War - abolitionism was highest in NE, right?) - not that this was a virtue of the region. At any rate, the history seems to stack up pretty well right on up through the present day.

Influence is another thing. The six biggest and presumably most influential states are CA, TX, NY, FL, IL and PA - none are in NE, but even when you combine the NE states, they don't stack up population wise to the other two regions I've discussed. Nor does NE compare in terms of Gross State Product to the other two regions (I did the math, lost it, and I'm not doing it again).

Then you have the Pacific. California is hard to ignore, of course, in terms of influence. 12% of the US population, the largest single state economy and a media center, combine with Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and Alaska and you've got a pretty influential region with its own rich history, and certainly influential.

Anyway, I think if you combined NE and MA, that's your winner, but the SA has it over the other two, and they are probably close to comparable, though the ongoing influence of the MA might tip things in its favor (NYC+ Philly > Boston).

Oh, and sorry, East North Central (OH, IL and MI) and West South Central (TX, AR, OK, LA), your areas are certainly rich in history and influence, but I don't see how they overtake the coastal regions in history or influence. The Mountain region may be the most beautiful and have the most varied climates (mountains, deserts), but history and influence? I don't think so.