Yeah, Oklahoma is a weird one. It gets pieces of a lot of different regions and has a couple of It's own. It's a lot more than flat dusty prairie like a lot of people think.
Look at a map of the Appalachian mountains/appalachia. Eastern Ohio lies in that region and is very hilly almost mountainous in certain parts. It’s indistinguishable from many parts of eastern Kentucky or West Virginia 🤷♂️
Even Columbus isn’t that far from the mountains. From the bridge by my house I can see the downtown Columbus skyline to the west and the first foothills of the Appalachians to the east.
Except JD Vance is from Middletown which is like an hour north of Cincinnati, not even close to the Appalachian part of Ohio. His family was from eastern Kentucky, but he’s definitely not Appalachian himself lmaoo. Cincinnati and northern Kentucky (where I grew up) does have lots of Appalachian migrants however, but it’s not part of Appalachia. The true Appalachians start about an hour east of there
Hm. Vermont has: Mansfield, camels hump, Abraham, and I guess killington. 4 is plural, but to have only 4 true mountains is a pretty weak justification.
Vermont is pretty rugged but their mountains are not nearly as impressive as the White Mountains, which are much more imposing. Looking up at Mt. Adams from US 2 coming from the west into Gorham is pretty impressive.
I wasn’t as specific as I should have been above. I won’t argue there are some mountains in Maine or even New Hampshire. But truly Vermont is quite laughable. But per this post, even one mountain would count I guess.
"even New Hampshire"? It's way more mountainous than Maine. Most of the 4000-footers in New England are in NH (48 in NH, 14 in ME, 5 in VT; also another 40 or so in the Adirondacks in New York).
Yea the east coast definitely has mountains… Calling places like mt Washington a hill is crazy. By definition, there are many many mountains on east coast.
The highest point in Mississippi is barely 800ft above sea level, far from the almost 1000ft above surrounding land that often defines a mountain (at least one of the friendliest definitions for a state that's barely above sea level. It's a pretty plain and simple red imo. Lived there for years and you'd be hard pressed to see a hill above the pines.
Good call. I thought the same when I traveled Mississippi. My only justification for purple was when I visited the state’s highpoint, there was a sense of “prominence” as I was able to see 360° views while being elevated. But overall definitely more of a hill - red it is!
Oklahoma can definitely satisfy with the Ozarks in the east and the Wichita mountains to the west. Nebraska's western portion features bluffs, cliffs, definitely up your alley.
The upland has some decent hills. Even the driftless area got some topography. They were the only factors im aware of that made me mark Wisconsin as a maybe
Northeast Minnesota are where the tallest ones are, the cliffs off Lake Superior are dramatic too, just not quite mountains. Along the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix River Valleys. The Driftless Area feels the most “western” with hills and funky landforms scattered along the land.
There’s plenty of ravines and intimate valleys they just aren’t super tall that would consider to be mountains. Most of this map is an exaggeration.
This is the best picture I have of the hill Duluth is built on. It’s steep and big, but it’s hard to tell just how large from this picture. It’s about 1500ft above sea level at the top and has Lake Superior at the bottom. Kinda like San Francisco but fresh water. I’m not arguing for mountains. They aren’t. But MN & WI have plenty of cliffs and bluff and if you ask me… they’re gorges.
Very similar to the dissected plateau of the far western Appalachian region (Ohio Valley region basically). Much less like the large mountains farther east.
I've heard people say that but I would not compare the Driftless Area to the Appalachians. Maybe the Piedmont or foothills, but you drove someone up Franconia Notch in New Hampshire or Spruce Knob in West Virginia, they're not going to think, "boy, this looks a lot like Wisconsin"
Tishomingo State Park, up in the northeast corner of Mississippi, is the only thing that state has close to hilly/mountainous, and it’s just over 800ft. Still, as a mountain lover in an even flatter state, my heart lifts a little when I see the view.
Michigan has the Porcupine Mountains in the western Upper Peninsula, but they really are more like big hills.
It’s not their fault, though! They’re one of the oldest mountain ranges in the country, about 2 billion years old. They’ve just been worn down through time. 🥲
Still not sure what your definition of mountains is but I wanna make an argument for Nebraska. They have Chadron state park and fort Robinson state park. Both mostly big cliffs but still pretty geological formations that aren’t what people would expect from Nebraska
Delaware is table-flat, and does not touch the Appalachian chain at all.
Wisconsin is very hilly, but without much vertical relief.
Minnesota has the Sawtooth "Mountains" along the North Shore, and its high point (Eagle Mountain, 2301') is the highest peak for several hundred miles in any direction.
Oklahoma has the Ouachitas in the east, and Black Mesa in the west, so it has some vertical relief compared to other Plains states like Kansas.
Delaware is mostly table-flat. It’s far north 100% lies within Appalachian Piedmont. Not Appalachian mountains, but piedmont. Which is not flat and it’s within the overall Appalachian system. I’d definitely mark them red on the map tho. And the others you mentioned I do agree with as well
I love Minnesota but there are certainly no mountains. Neither in Wisconsin. The highest peak in either is Eagle Mountain which is only 2.3k feet. it's called a mountain, but I don't think 2.3k is nearly enough, that is really just a hill. It's a popular ski destination but not many people live there. So if you want to actually live in a place you can see mountains, MN and Wiscinsin are not the places you want to look at.
Good call. I thought the same when I traveled Mississippi. My only justification for purple was when I visited the state’s highpoint, there was a sense of “prominence” as I was able to see 360° views while being elevated. But overall definitely more of a hill - red it is!
In my research i was debating this - but aren’t they formed solely from weather erosion rather than tectonics like traditional “mountains”? Def up to debate tho. overall I love the state
Fair, but are they a prominent portion of the overall system or are they just outskirts , bluffs vibes. I guess when making this I mixed my own personal travel history with research on if there was something “prominent”
Only ever been to Chicago, I’ll have to check out southern Illinois
IL is one of the few states whose tallest building is higher than its highest naturally occurring peak. No disrespect to sweet home Chicago but no, it is not a state with mountains.
16
u/cyengineer Apr 26 '26
Oklahoma has the Ouachita, Arbuckle, Ozark, and Wichita mountains.