Which states are Upper Midwest?

[AN63093]

The Dakotas are not in the Midwest.  They are Plains States.

Thank you.

This implies that the Pains states aren't part of the Midwest.

The problem with including the Plains States is that in doing so, you start expanding the region to such a degree that the region becomes meaningless.  For example, I know some people that, with a straight face, say everything between the Appalachians and the Rockies north of Texas is the "Mid-West."  Which is rather silly, since that's basically a third of the country, and at that point, there's no reason to define a "Mid-West" region at all, since everything is in it.

Some people do the same thing with the South- having it cover everywhere you find either Scots-Irish people or the farthest extent of the Appalachians, which again, is silly, since at that point, you'd be calling practically half the country "the South" and including states that are decidedly un-Southern, like Vermont.

You have to draw boundaries somewhere, and that necessarily means that there will always be some overlap and areas near borders that have characteristics of both.  You will also have "pockets" of different region's cultures in another region.  For example, visitors often derisively say that parts of middle PA feel like "Alabama."  Well, that may be true, but PA is not in the Deep South.

I do think using state boundaries is a crude way of drawing regions.  Check out the map in my signature, to my definitive map of US regions.  I draw regions there by county.  In that map, I have the Mid-West ending at the border between MN and the Dakotas.  I could be talked into including areas like Fargo and Sioux Falls, but that's about as far west as I would go.  Were I to draw an Upper Midwest "sub-region" by county, it would probably include parts of northern IA in it, and may leave out parts of eastern WI.  In my upper midwest (by state) map on the last page, I only colored in MN/WI and did not include IA since not enough of the state is "Upper Midwestern" in my opinion.  In a county map, I could get more precise.

[AN63093]

How can states in the eastern third of the country be considered Western? Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio are clearly Eastern or Near Eastern, to distinguish from the Extreme East. Only someone from the New York Times who believes that the West begins at Hoboken would argue otherwise.

The Midwest is not considered Western...

This.

Jimrtex, the Mid-West does not refer to either the "West," or "Western" states.  Nor has it since before the Louisiana Purchase.

[jimrtex]

How can states in the eastern third of the country be considered Western? Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio are clearly Eastern or Near Eastern, to distinguish from the Extreme East. Only someone from the New York Times who believes that the West begins at Hoboken would argue otherwise.

The Midwest is not considered Western...

This.

Jimrtex, the Mid-West does not refer to either the "West," or "Western" states.  Nor has it since before the Louisiana Purchase.

To someone from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Washington, the "West" begins at the 'Boros, Hoboken, Lancaster, or the Beltway. It is only grudgingly that they recognize that Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Detroit are not really the West, and so call it the Midwest, but that is an affectation.

The true Midwest is between the Mississippi and the Rockies. Persons from Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, or Missour-ah exemplify Midwestern values.

[AN63093]

Dude I grew up in NY, and have lived most of my life either there, DC/VA, or Boston.  I have literally never met a single person that "grudgingly" called places like Cleveland part of the Mid-West.  Every single person I've ever known considers it part of the Mid-West.  I'm not trying to be a dick, but do you actually have any personal experience with this?  Have you lived in these cities?  Or are you just making an assumption?  Because it sounds mostly like the latter.

While some of us in this thread are squabbling about finer points of where to put the Upper Mid-West, I don't think anyone, ever, has limited the Mid-West to NE and KS.  KS is arguably not even in the Mid-West at all (I consider it part of the Plains States).

[Ban my account ffs!]

Somehow it seems Jimrtex has thought a lot about this by applying his ideology to regions.  "People from Missour-ah are midwestern but those socialists in Chicago aren't!"

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about.  Cleveland is Midwest.  Chicago is Midwest.  Minneapolis is Midwest.  Omaha is Midwest.  St. Louis is Midwest.  Fargo is Midwest.

The Midwest is better defined as the Rockies to the Ohio River and points north.  The Midwest itself can then be divided into the Eastern Great Lakes, Western Great Lakes, Great Lakes, Upper Midwest, Lower Midwest, and Plains.  These regions overlap each other and the terms are often fluid.

But I've seen your posting style.  You're much more likely to base your definition of Midwest on whether they vote Republican like you.  Cuz you're a true conservative and the Midwest is true conservative.

[jimrtex]

Somehow it seems Jimrtex has thought a lot about this by applying his ideology to regions.  "People from Missour-ah are midwestern but those socialists in Chicago aren't!"

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about.  Cleveland is Midwest.  Chicago is Midwest.  Minneapolis is Midwest.  Omaha is Midwest.  St. Louis is Midwest.  Fargo is Midwest.

The Midwest is better defined as the Rockies to the Ohio River and points north.  The Midwest itself can then be divided into the Eastern Great Lakes, Western Great Lakes, Great Lakes, Upper Midwest, Lower Midwest, and Plains.  These regions overlap each other and the terms are often fluid.

I was distinguishing Missour-ah from Missour-ee. If you were from the Midwest, you would have known that.

If you are going to claim that Cleveland and Youngstown and Steubenville are Midwest, there is no reason to exclude Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Wheeling, and Huntington; or for that matter Syracuse, and Harrisburg.

In your model a 10% sliver along the coast is the "East", the western 1/3 is the "West", and everything else is "Midwest"

My definition simply keeps 2/3 for the Midwest and West. You can call the area to the east the Great Lakes region or Mideast.

[TJ in Oregon]

I would generally consider Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Iowa to be the Upper Midwest, with a few fragments in neighboring states such as the UP. Chicago is not part of the Upper Midwest, though it is Midwestern.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The Dakotas are not in the Midwest.  They are Plains States.

Thank you.

Visit Fargo or Sioux Falls and then try to convince me they aren't as much Midwest as Des Moines.

Seriously. A lot of people here proving they've never been to the Dakotas.

[jimrtex]

Dude I grew up in NY, and have lived most of my life either there, DC/VA, or Boston.  I have literally never met a single person that "grudgingly" called places like Cleveland part of the Mid-West.  Every single person I've ever known considers it part of the Mid-West.  I'm not trying to be a dick, but do you actually have any personal experience with this?  Have you lived in these cities?  Or are you just making an assumption?  Because it sounds mostly like the latter.

While some of us in this thread are squabbling about finer points of where to put the Upper Mid-West, I don't think anyone, ever, has limited the Mid-West to NE and KS.  KS is arguably not even in the Mid-West at all (I consider it part of the Plains States).

If you consider Cleveland to be midwestern, don't you also consider Pittsburgh, Erie, and Buffalo to be midwestern.

Kansas is the epitome of the Midwest.

[AN63093]

Jimrtex, click the thread in my signature going to my US regions map.

We have a discussion going on about just that.  Classifying where to "put" those cities is difficult, because on one hand, they are in the states that are traditionally defined as Mid-Atlantic.  On the other hand, yes, they do in many ways have more in common with Mid-West Rust Belt cities than cities on the coast.  A place like Pittsburgh is more architecturally similar, and "feels" more like other cities in the Ohio River Valley (e.g., Louisville, Cincinnati) than it does, say, Philly or NYC or Baltimore.

I have them officially in the Mid-Atlantic on my map, but I can easily see the argument for Mid-West as well.

[muon2]

I was born in Chicago and live in Chicagoland now. As a child I was raised in Dallas, Omaha, and Des Moines and finally in the Twin Cities. I went to college in southern MN and spent time visiting my father's family in eastern IA. My brothers settled in southern WI and KC, and my mother ended up in KC as well. I claim some expertise in the nuances of the region.

I just finished a trip from Chicago through NE to ID and back again through ND and MN. I've made other similar road trips west over the last couple of decades and I like to stop at places along the way. Just from my last trip it was pretty clear that there was a marked transition between Norfolk and O'Neill in ne NE and Ainsworth just two counties west. That transition is probably what most would consider the  change from the Midwest to the West. By the time one gets to Scottsbluff NE it is clearly the west, and even the dialect has shifted.

My trips across northern and central ND in the last three years show a similar divide. If there's an Upper Midwest centered in MN, Bismarck is surely in it. As a long time Minnesotan. I couldn't tell I wasn't in MN when I was in the ND capital. The land and dialect had both clearly shifted from the western feel of Dickinson and Williston. Minot seemed to be on the border.

I would say that Bismarck, Pierre, Sioux City, Cedar Rapids, Madison, Green Bay, and the UP are roughly the borders of the Upper Midwest.

[AN63093]

Excellent post muon.  Let me ask you this then- do you think there ought to be a Plains States region (such as the one in my regions map) at all then?  Or do you think the Mid-West goes right up to the Mountain West?

I've never thought it makes sense for the Mid-West to stretch all the way out to the Rockies.  For one, the region becomes so big at that point, that it's unwieldy and unhelpful, because there is too much regional variation within it.  For me, a good barometer is this- if the region is easily broken up into distinct and large sub-regions, then maybe it shouldn't be one single region, but multiple regions.  Here's an example- could you put New England and the Mid-Atlantic into one "super-region" and call it the "Northeast?"  Sure.  But it makes a heck of a lot more sense to just split it into two regions.

Second, a Mid-West that large would seem to capture areas that do not have much in common with the "classic" Mid-West.  Example- places like North Platte NE, or Wichita KS.  What do these areas have in common with say... Cleveland?  Basically nothing.  To have one region encapsulate both seems just ridiculous to me.  Thus why I made my plains region.

[muon2]

When I look at regions of whole states I separate the Great Lakes from the Great Plains. Together I consider them to be the Midwest. I classify the whole states by the bulk of the population, not the land area. The puts WI in the Great Lakes due to greater Milwaukee and the Lake Michigan communities, and splits it from its Upper Midwest sibling MN.

Basically I can divide the vast Midwest into eastern and western states as I described with Great Lakes and Great Plains. Doing so follows the economic divisions of the region. I could also divide the Midwest into an Upper and Lower Midwest that follows the linguistic patterns more than the economic ones. If the counties are regrouped into alternate states it allows collecting both linguistic and economic patterns together.

[King of Kensington]

So far 75% place Michigan in the Upper Midwest and less than half include the Dakotas.

[cinyc]

The Midwest starts in Ohio and goes westward to both Dakotas. Why? Well, the original west has always meant the Northwest Territory, and when areas to the west were added to the U.S., it became the Midwest.

Why do I include the Dakotas but not Pennsylvania? The bulk of the population in the Dakotas is east of the Missouri River, and East River has more in common with Minnesota than Montana. Why isn't Pennsylvania or New York included in the Midwest? Because the bulk of people in those states don't live in the rust belt cities like Buffalo and Pittsburgh, and those states were not part of the original Northwest Territory. States and state lines are not arbitrary things that ought to be cast aside when determining which states are Midwest.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Every state in this poll except Illinois.

[jimrtex]

Excellent post muon.  Let me ask you this then- do you think there ought to be a Plains States region (such as the one in my regions map) at all then?  Or do you think the Mid-West goes right up to the Mountain West?

I've never thought it makes sense for the Mid-West to stretch all the way out to the Rockies.  For one, the region becomes so big at that point, that it's unwieldy and unhelpful, because there is too much regional variation within it.  For me, a good barometer is this- if the region is easily broken up into distinct and large sub-regions, then maybe it shouldn't be one single region, but multiple regions.  Here's an example- could you put New England and the Mid-Atlantic into one "super-region" and call it the "Northeast?"  Sure.  But it makes a heck of a lot more sense to just split it into two regions.

Second, a Mid-West that large would seem to capture areas that do not have much in common with the "classic" Mid-West.  Example- places like North Platte NE, or Wichita KS.  What do these areas have in common with say... Cleveland?  Basically nothing.  To have one region encapsulate both seems just ridiculous to me.  Thus why I made my plains region.

I grew up in Denver which is clearly a Midwestern city with a large share of its population from the classic Midwest states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and some Illinois. It has nothing in common with Cleveland. If any areas east of the Mississippi are Midwestern, it would be areas along and south of the National Road.

[cinyc]

I grew up in Denver which is clearly a Midwestern city with a large share of its population from the classic Midwest states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and some Illinois. It has nothing in common with Cleveland. If any areas east of the Mississippi are Midwestern, it would be areas along and south of the National Road.

Well, the National Road went through the current capitals of Ohio and Indiana, so...

[jimrtex]

I grew up in Denver which is clearly a Midwestern city with a large share of its population from the classic Midwest states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and some Illinois. It has nothing in common with Cleveland. If any areas east of the Mississippi are Midwestern, it would be areas along and south of the National Road.

Well, the National Road went through the current capitals of Ohio and Indiana, so...

I can see including Cincinnati, Louisville, Tell City, Evansville, Columbus, Indianapolis, and Peoria in the Midwest.

[jimrtex]

Is there actually an Upper Midwest, or is a transmorgrification of the Upper Mississippi?

[muon2]

Is there actually an Upper Midwest, or is a transmorgrification of the Upper Mississippi?

There are companies and media outlets that describe themselves as serving the Upper Midwest, and though I've heard that label most often in the region of the Upper Mississippi, I've never heard the description Upper Mississippi applied that way. I've only heard Upper Mississippi applied in the geological sense or to describe pre-Columbian cultures.

[Nyvin]

Excellent post muon.  Let me ask you this then- do you think there ought to be a Plains States region (such as the one in my regions map) at all then?  Or do you think the Mid-West goes right up to the Mountain West?

I've never thought it makes sense for the Mid-West to stretch all the way out to the Rockies.  For one, the region becomes so big at that point, that it's unwieldy and unhelpful, because there is too much regional variation within it.  For me, a good barometer is this- if the region is easily broken up into distinct and large sub-regions, then maybe it shouldn't be one single region, but multiple regions.  Here's an example- could you put New England and the Mid-Atlantic into one "super-region" and call it the "Northeast?"  Sure.  But it makes a heck of a lot more sense to just split it into two regions.

Second, a Mid-West that large would seem to capture areas that do not have much in common with the "classic" Mid-West.  Example- places like North Platte NE, or Wichita KS.  What do these areas have in common with say... Cleveland?  Basically nothing.  To have one region encapsulate both seems just ridiculous to me.  Thus why I made my plains region.

I grew up in Denver which is clearly a Midwestern city with a large share of its population from the classic Midwest states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and some Illinois. It has nothing in common with Cleveland. If any areas east of the Mississippi are Midwestern, it would be areas along and south of the National Road.

Denver is not Midwest...it's Southwestern.   I don't know a single person anywhere who would define Colorado as Midwest in any sense of the word.

[jimrtex]

Is there actually an Upper Midwest, or is a transmorgrification of the Upper Mississippi?

There are companies and media outlets that describe themselves as serving the Upper Midwest, and though I've heard that label most often in the region of the Upper Mississippi, I've never heard the description Upper Mississippi applied that way. I've only heard Upper Mississippi applied in the geological sense or to describe pre-Columbian cultures.

Have you ever heard the term Lower Midwest? Would someone from Kansas or
Indiana say they were from the Lower Midwest?

The North American Baptist Conference has a Upper Mississippi region (MN, IA, WI, IL).

I'm not saying that the area of the Upper Mississippi became the Upper Midwest, but the concept of "upper-ness" may have come from the river divisions, and of course there is clear distinction between Upper Mississippi and Lower Mississippi, except perhaps for the bit between St. Louis and Cairo.

538 ran a survey that agreed with my definition. Most Midwesterners agreed that the Midwest included their State and its neighbors.

[muon2]

Is there actually an Upper Midwest, or is a transmorgrification of the Upper Mississippi?

There are companies and media outlets that describe themselves as serving the Upper Midwest, and though I've heard that label most often in the region of the Upper Mississippi, I've never heard the description Upper Mississippi applied that way. I've only heard Upper Mississippi applied in the geological sense or to describe pre-Columbian cultures.

Have you ever heard the term Lower Midwest? Would someone from Kansas or
Indiana say they were from the Lower Midwest?

The North American Baptist Conference has a Upper Mississippi region (MN, IA, WI, IL).

I'm not saying that the area of the Upper Mississippi became the Upper Midwest, but the concept of "upper-ness" may have come from the river divisions, and of course there is clear distinction between Upper Mississippi and Lower Mississippi, except perhaps for the bit between St. Louis and Cairo.

538 ran a survey that agreed with my definition. Most Midwesterners agreed that the Midwest included their State and its neighbors.

Perhaps the Upper Midwest label evolved to give more breadth than what the NABC or the geologists would use. With the Upper Midwest label the Dakotas and UP can be included without referencing the river basin of including IL. As a native, I don't associate Chicagoland with the Upper Midwest, it's just the Midwest.

Perhaps it also came from people reacting to the dialects of the area. I see that my conception of the Upper Midwest closely matches the region of the North Central dialect from the UPenn Linguistics study 20 years ago.

[cinyc]

Is there actually an Upper Midwest, or is a transmorgrification of the Upper Mississippi?

There are companies and media outlets that describe themselves as serving the Upper Midwest, and though I've heard that label most often in the region of the Upper Mississippi, I've never heard the description Upper Mississippi applied that way. I've only heard Upper Mississippi applied in the geological sense or to describe pre-Columbian cultures.

Have you ever heard the term Lower Midwest? Would someone from Kansas or
Indiana say they were from the Lower Midwest?

The North American Baptist Conference has a Upper Mississippi region (MN, IA, WI, IL).

I'm not saying that the area of the Upper Mississippi became the Upper Midwest, but the concept of "upper-ness" may have come from the river divisions, and of course there is clear distinction between Upper Mississippi and Lower Mississippi, except perhaps for the bit between St. Louis and Cairo.

538 ran a survey that agreed with my definition. Most Midwesterners agreed that the Midwest included their State and its neighbors.

Only about 10% of respondents in that 538 poll agreed that Colorado was Midwestern, as you have argued.  Yet a majority of respondents put Michigan and Ohio in the Midwest, the latter of which, at least, you've argued shouldn't be considered Midwestern. The greatest percentage of respondents agreed Illinois should be included, which to me is a no-brainer, as Chicago is the largest Midwestern city.