I am aware that the Mason-Dixon, can be defined in two ways. The most famous was the symbolic nature of affiliation to abolishment. More correctly slavery and the Civil War. Lesser known is the survey done by Charles Mason, and Jeramahia Dixon. They ran the line to settle disputes between landowners in Penn, and Maryland. My question is: Was Ky, which was a bordering state, north, or south of the line. Also does affilliation with the Union, make a state southern or is its geospatial relation to the nation? Because if you ask me KY, is a mid-east state. Yet more commonly I hear it refferenced as south-east central, and Mid-west. Which is it? Most speficaly is KY north or south of the Mason-Dixon? Thank you...
Go to Mayfield, Kentucky and tell those people Kentucky is a mideast state and see what they tell you.
Kentucky identifies itself as a southern state, with the exception of the area north of Lexington, and I'm not sure what they call themselves.
I don't understand
Obviously, all of Kentucky is further south than the westward extension of the Mason-Dixon line. In fact, large percentages of the Northern states: Ohio, Indiana and Illinois lie south of said line, but, that had no connotation of them being Southern states. Factually, during the Civil War, Kentucky, like West Virginia and Missouri were split. Some areas were clearly supportive of the North while others were clearly supportive of the South and some areas attempted to be non-commital. North versus South was more of a geographic generalization than anything else.
I don't understand
Lots of people probably don't know that Southern Illinois threatened to secede and join the Confederacy.
I don't understand
A large portion of New Jersey (by eye, I'd say over 20% of the states land area) lies south of where an eastward extension of the Mason Dixon Line would lie.
Except for AC, the Philly suburbs and couple of ritzy beach communities, a lot of inhabitants are more like "Southerners" then they are "Yankees", without using either term pejoratively.
Most people in Ky think Owensboro is as far west as it goes. The "Golden Triangle" of Louisville, Lexington, and Frankfort" gets most of the attention.
Definitely consider ourselves "southeast" regardless of wht the maps show. In the Civil War, the Governor declared it neutral, even though both presidents at the time were born here within 120 miles of each other.
Ever notice in "The Fugitive" they refer to the "Swamps of West Ky?" Guess they think there's nothing in this end but swamps. In fact, there's very few swamps, and they are mainly in the Mississippi River bottoms.
Another (arguably lesser known) factoid: the Mason-Dixon line separates Maryland and Delaware as well as the better known Maryland/ Pennsylvania border.
I don't understand
> Lots of people probably don't know that Southern Illinois threatened to secede and join the Confederacy.
And history also tells us that there were plenty of southerners who did not want to secede, nor be part of the Confederacy.
But they weren't listened to and had it shoved down their throats by people who figured they knew better.
I don't understand
Also, the "Free State of Winston" County, Alabama, where there were few slaveholders, remained loyal to the Union.
I really need to brush up on my history (as I only live 15 miles from the line). I always assumed the Mason-Dixon line extended past the PA/MD border and also makes up the PA/WV border as well. Next week, I will be doing a survey along the PA/WV line where there are stones set that I believe are dated 1820 something (it's been a year since I did the other one in this area). I will have to take and post some pictures of these stones.
The Mason-Dixon Line Ends With Maryland
The parallel was later extended West and then a new line North to Lake Erie by Andrew Ellicott.
A few years later Ellicott surveyed the PA/NY border West to Lake Erie. When the US decided to sell the Erie triangle to PA, Ellicott had to enter Canada first to determine the longitude of the Western end of Lake Ontario, which was also to be the Western line of NY. Ellicott waited at the border for a year before he was allowed into Canada. He then surveyed that N/S line to separate PA and NY line at that longitude from Lake Erie to the E/W PA/NY line. Prior to the sale to PA, the states of CT, PA and NY all ceded claims to the Erie triangle to the US who then granted clear title to PA.
Paul in PA
My grandfather used to own a property on which he claimed there used to be a Mason-Dixon Marker. He lost the property during the depression (could not afford the approx. $200 property tax bill).
At some point after he lost the property, some people who were looking to recover the Mason-Dixon monuments asked my grandfather if he remembered where the stone had been. It was apparently no longer there.
Off the top of my head, I think Mason and Dixon stopped around the Cheat River (There was a large Native American settlement near present day Port Marion who "objected" to their presence). Ellicott later ran the southern PA border westward from there.
Well if that is the case then it does extend along the WV border by about 25 or 30 miles. The survey I am doing is just west of the Cheat. Now I will definately have to get a better look at these stones and get some pictures.
I don't understand
> > Lots of people probably don't know that Southern Illinois threatened to secede and join the Confederacy.
>
> And history also tells us that there were plenty of southerners who did not want to secede, nor be part of the Confederacy.
>
> But they weren't listened to and had it shoved down their throats by people who figured they knew better.
Yep, shoved down their throat by a popular election. Sort of the same way Obama, and more legitimate than his health care plan got shoved down our throat.
51-49%
>
>
> Yep, shoved down their throat by a popular election.
You guys would all be Yankees if Florida didn't mis-count the votes.
51-49%
And here I thought your post was referring to the concept of the preponderance of evidence...
> I am aware that the Mason-Dixon, can be defined in two ways. The most famous was the symbolic nature of affiliation to abolishment. More correctly slavery and the Civil War.
You should also be aware that the "Mason Dixon Line" had nothing to do with slavery and that the old stigma of North vs. South is pretty ridiculous considering the amount of slavery going on in the North. For example, the civil war started in 1861, the bill to abolish slavery wasn't even introduced until 1863, and wouldn't have been introduce then had it not been for the zeal of Mr. Frederick Douglas.
> > I am aware that the Mason-Dixon, can be defined in two ways. The most famous was the symbolic nature of affiliation to abolishment. More correctly slavery and the Civil War.
>
> You should also be aware that the "Mason Dixon Line" had nothing to do with slavery and that the old stigma of North vs. South is pretty ridiculous considering the amount of slavery going on in the North. For example, the civil war started in 1861, the bill to abolish slavery wasn't even introduced until 1863, and wouldn't have been introduce then had it not been for the zeal of Mr. Frederick Douglas.
It's correct that Mason and Dixon has nothing to do with slavery or the Civil War, it was just a matter of coincidence that the split happened to run along the Mason Dixon line.
However, it's not correct to say that slavery was still ongoing in the North in 1861, or that the push for abolition didn't start until Frederick Douglass. Many of our Founding Fathers, notably Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, John Jay and others were also trying to end slavery long before Frederick Douglass.
Slavery had been abolished in the North well prior to 1860 with various legislation such as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and and many of the individual states in the North each passing legislation abolishing slavery for decades prior to the Civil War - and one of the leading causes of the Civil War was that the South was pushing hard on the westward expansion of slavery, whereas the North was working toward ending slavery altogether. That conflict, of the North wanting to end the practice of slavery, but the South wanting to expand and continue the practice of slavery is what set off the Civil War.
