U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-10-2012, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 4,231,628 times
Reputation: 998

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYMTman View Post
What Mutiny said. For much of American history, Baltimore, Cincinnati, and St Louis were the southernmost major cities (with the notable exception of New Orleans, which was always an atypical place).
I'd agree. These three cities, along with Kansas City and Pittsburgh, represented the southernmost limits of major industrial cities (as well as of Northern industry). Today, these three cities now represent the southernmost extents of Rust Belt cities. Outside of these cities and the states they reside in, we see a rise to the economy of the New South. As to why Charleston and Savannah never grew, I can only theorize....but I suspect that the Reverse Migration didn't peg them as major destination cities...I would guess they never experienced the economic boom of cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas, or Houston.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2012, 04:37 PM
 
1,201 posts, read 1,989,629 times
Reputation: 717
based on numerical data, i would conclude that is the reason these two cities are not considered major cities. i noticed one or possibly two responses that postulated a theory having to do w/ the destruction during the civil war or the port theory. memphis, however, seems to fail this reasoning. memphis began as a small river town, growing from a small outpost to a city of significant size in the early 1800's. initially, it was about 2,400 residents. at time went on, memphis grew to slightly more than 26,000, until the yellow fever wiped out almost 2/3rd's of the city. even though all of this history occurred, memphis started out as the state's smallest city, only to become the state's largest city, as it has always been and is today. the growth of memphis, in the second phase, was due to the cotton industry.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 04:46 PM
 
29,946 posts, read 27,415,389 times
Reputation: 18529
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post
Charleston was a prime example of taking a long road to recovery, and since the infrastructure of South Carolina was so badly damaged during the war, other cities were able to pass it up in prominence by the time it recovered.
Very true. Charleston pretty much languished for a full century. It wasn't until the 1970's when the city's current mayor, Joseph Riley, took the helm of leadership that it started to really turn around. And you also have the devastating earthquake in the 1880's. Charleston is a pretty resilient city, having been through a lot over the centuries (including Hugo and the closure of the Navy base in the 90's, which was a big economic blow to the region).

And Sherman burned Columbia to the ground as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 04:49 PM
 
29,946 posts, read 27,415,389 times
Reputation: 18529
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingchef View Post
based on numerical data, i would conclude that is the reason these two cities are not considered major cities. i noticed one or possibly two responses that postulated a theory having to do w/ the destruction during the civil war or the port theory. memphis, however, seems to fail this reasoning. memphis began as a small river town, growing from a small outpost to a city of significant size in the early 1800's. initially, it was about 2,400 residents. at time went on, memphis grew to slightly more than 26,000, until the yellow fever wiped out almost 2/3rd's of the city. even though all of this history occurred, memphis started out as the state's smallest city, only to become the state's largest city, as it has always been and is today. the growth of memphis, in the second phase, was due to the cotton industry.
That seems to be pretty much in line with evolving modes of transportation historically determining the growth patterns of certain cities. First, the port cities came into prominence, then inland river cities, then the cities that capitalized on rail, and then highways/airports.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 4,231,628 times
Reputation: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingchef View Post
based on numerical data, i would conclude that is the reason these two cities are not considered major cities. i noticed one or possibly two responses that postulated a theory having to do w/ the destruction during the civil war or the port theory. memphis, however, seems to fail this reasoning. memphis began as a small river town, growing from a small outpost to a city of significant size in the early 1800's. initially, it was about 2,400 residents. at time went on, memphis grew to slightly more than 26,000, until the yellow fever wiped out almost 2/3rd's of the city. even though all of this history occurred, memphis started out as the state's smallest city, only to become the state's largest city, as it has always been and is today. the growth of memphis, in the second phase, was due to the cotton industry.
I would propose Memphis' location on the Mississippi is also what kept it alive. River commerce, especially in the 1800s, was what fueled the growth of many of America's largest cities. Where this theory runs short is that Charleston and Savannah, had they wanted to be, could have been major port cities. My guess is management of the city by the political figures screwed things up for them. I'm honestly just throwing out theories, though.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 05:13 PM
 
29,946 posts, read 27,415,389 times
Reputation: 18529
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan View Post
Where this theory runs short is that Charleston and Savannah, had they wanted to be, could have been major port cities. My guess is management of the city by the political figures screwed things up for them. I'm honestly just throwing out theories, though.
C'mon, think about it: what major commodities were Charleston and Savannah importing and exporting? That should give you a clue as to why they could not have grown into major port cities.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 07:50 PM
 
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
7,909 posts, read 12,175,054 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan View Post
I'd agree. These three cities, along with Kansas City and Pittsburgh, represented the southernmost limits of major industrial cities (as well as of Northern industry). Today, these three cities now represent the southernmost extents of Rust Belt cities. Outside of these cities and the states they reside in, we see a rise to the economy of the New South. As to why Charleston and Savannah never grew, I can only theorize....but I suspect that the Reverse Migration didn't peg them as major destination cities...I would guess they never experienced the economic boom of cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas, or Houston.
That's not actually true. Both Birmingham and Atlanta were major industrial cities for much of the 20th century/they're existence. In fact, that's the only reason those two cities came into existence was the industrial revolution and railroads. With Atlanta however, it started to convert it's economy away from industrial around the 1950s and avoided the collapse of the manufacturing industry that occurred in the Rustbelt cities. Birmingham didn't and went through the same problems the Rustbelt cities have.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 07:57 PM
 
5,014 posts, read 4,721,156 times
Reputation: 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingchef View Post
based on numerical data, i would conclude that is the reason these two cities are not considered major cities. i noticed one or possibly two responses that postulated a theory having to do w/ the destruction during the civil war or the port theory. memphis, however, seems to fail this reasoning. memphis began as a small river town, growing from a small outpost to a city of significant size in the early 1800's. initially, it was about 2,400 residents. at time went on, memphis grew to slightly more than 26,000, until the yellow fever wiped out almost 2/3rd's of the city. even though all of this history occurred, memphis started out as the state's smallest city, only to become the state's largest city, as it has always been and is today. the growth of memphis, in the second phase, was due to the cotton industry.

Nashville is the largest MSA in TN. It passed Memphis years ago.

Memphis has a few ten thousands more inside the city limits, but both Nashville and Memphis have a much higher population than Atlanta in the city limits and no fool would claim Nashville or Memphis was bigger than Atlanta.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 07:29 PM
 
1,201 posts, read 1,989,629 times
Reputation: 717
this is not about nashville and its 13 or 14 counties, it is about major southern cities, and memphis proper, alone, is larger than davidson county, and nashville combined. shelby county has slightly more than 1 million w/in the county, and approximately 1.2 mil in its contiguous urban area, and that covers about 25 miles from the city center.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Charleston, SC
723 posts, read 1,399,024 times
Reputation: 288
Living here, Charleston got caught up in the Civil War, and as the poster earlier in the thread said, it wasn't till when Joe Riley came in until the city gentrified. Downtown in 1975 had very few good restaurants, and there was little reason to stay there after dark.

Savannah was much like Charleston, only with the Savannah River, without the Navy Base (with the Army airfield), and only one incomplete interstate (95 wasn't done until the late 70s).
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top