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.
The bulk of Philadelphia's surviving 18th Century structures are located in Germantown/Mt. Airy (whoop!)
That's true, though what I meant was that New York's pre-19th Century buildings are pretty much scattered all over the place--often a lone surviving residential building dating back to even the Dutch era in some further out neighborhood. Philadelphia has a fairly large collection of preserved buildings in several neighborhood that preserves more of the historical feel of that era--although much of the architecture in the oldest areas is actually from the Federalist era(along with Boston and neighborhoods like Beacon Hill). The oldest and most historically important part of colonial New York--lower Manhattan, has a handful of colonial-era buildings, but what remains seems sort of dwarfed by the most modern business district that makes up most of the area. It would've been amazing if more of the old Dutch buildings and earlier Engliish buildings of New York had actually survived though the layout in lower Manhattan is actually in part a leftover from that era--one could imagine what New York would be like with a entire old Dutch/colonial neighborhood at the base of the island... In part though, New York importance as a port and business center(evident as early as the 1700s when it was becoming a dominant trading center)--is the reason that only a fraction of the oldest neighborhoods really remain--everything was constantly getting re-built in many areas.
That's true, though what I meant was that New York's pre-19th Century buildings are pretty much scattered all over the place--often a lone surviving residential building dating back to even the Dutch era in some further out neighborhood. Philadelphia has a fairly large collection of preserved buildings in several neighborhood that preserves more of the historical feel of that era--although much of the architecture in the oldest areas is actually from the Federalist era(along with Boston and neighborhoods like Beacon Hill). The oldest and most historically important part of colonial New York--lower Manhattan, has a handful of colonial-era buildings, but what remains seems sort of dwarfed by the most modern business district that makes up most of the area. It would've been amazing if more of the old Dutch buildings and earlier Engliish buildings of New York had actually survived though the layout in lower Manhattan is actually in part a leftover from that era--one could imagine what New York would be like with a entire old Dutch/colonial neighborhood at the base of the island...
No, I understood what you meant. I actually grew up in Germantown. There is no NYC equivalent. I was just pointing out that New York actually has older buildings than both Boston and Philly, which is a valid basis for choosing "Other" in the poll.
I'm responding to posts downplaying Boston's importance compared to Philly.
And where are my errors? Please enlighten me.
If there was anyone downplaying Boston's history then they are mistaken, both are almost equally important in U.S. History.
Errors:
The First Continental Congress convened in direct response to the Intolerable Acts which was British retaliation against Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party. Technically, Ben Franklin wanted a meeting of Congress a year prior, but couldn't convince the other colonies of the necessity of a meeting. While you are correct that the meeting was after the events of the British blockade after the Boston Tea Party, this was the first event that caused the leaders of the colonies to decide a meeting was necessary. An event could have easily happened anywhere else to deem a meeting necessary, it didn't HAVE to happen in Boston.
The Second Continental Congress convened in direct response to the Battles of Lexington and Concord. In addition, by the time all the colonies sent their delegates to what was thought to be a central location (Philadelphia), Boston was in full bloody revolt and the cream of the British land and sea forces were bottled up and under siege in the city. - Again, not necessarily in direct response. The Continental Congress had planned a second meeting, it just so happened that the War began as the delegates were making their way to Philadelphia (remember, back then it took days if not weeks to travel).
Conceived and drafted by two Bostonians and a Virginian. -No. Conceived by the Continental Congress and drafted by the "Committee of 5" which included John Adams of Massachussets, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut.
Modeled, almost verbatim, after the oldest constitution in the world, The State Constitution of Massachusetts. Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780- yes, but not entirely. Other influences include the Magna Carta, Edward Coke, William Blackstone, John Locke (ideas of Life, Liberty and Property), and ideas from the French social commentator Montesquieu were all added into the US Constitution.
Drafted in response to the revolution which, at that time, was entering its second year...in Boston. -by the second year, there were several battles including those in New York and New Jersey, not just in Boston.
After several other sites were rejected.-Just wrong. The site of the Museum of the American Revolution was always proposed for Philadelphia, never anywhere else. There were initial ideas of putting it in Valley Forge, but it was thought the museum would bring in more tourists if the museum was located in a major city....
Last edited by RightonWalnut; 04-12-2013 at 03:39 PM..
I would think that the very first shots fired at the beginning of any war are going to be quite a bit more important than battles that took place during the war. Which do you remember more the firing on Fort Sumter that commenced the Civil War or the Battle of Five Forks.
It's not an either/or question. How about Gettysburg, Anteitem and/or Appomatox?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
No, you didn't point out any errors there, there were two locations at Valley Forge considered before Philadelphia was picked through dealmaking with the NPS.
I said VF and provided a link. So, yes you were in error, unless it seems cute to you to suggest two different locations within Valley Forge National Park constitute "several other sites." (your words).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
"Jefferson was then given the task of writing a draft for the Declaration of Independence, which from June 11 to June 28 he worked on. Before he presented the Declaration to the Continental Congress, he showed it to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin; they made revisions. He presented the draft to Congress on July 1, 1776"
Boston was in full bloody revolt for more than a year before anything of consequence happened anywhere else. And those other things were a direct result of Boston leading America to independence.
A few skirmishes between loyalists and patriots were not a part of the Revolution against the Crown. That was between the patriots and British forces.
You seem to believe the entire war was fought in Boston. Or, you think only those early events were of significance? I learned differently (as I think did many other people). As someone already pointed out, does Valley Forge ring a bell or The Delaware Crossing sound familiar? Are you aware Common Sense was printed in Philadelphia and sold 120,000 copies in 3 months (http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker....rkerId=1-A-157)? The link I provided earlier provides as full timeline of the key events and showed that they occurred throughout the colonies yes, many even outside Boston). I'll re-link it for your convenience: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/revwartimeline.htm
I'm also not going to stand by while you guys giggle at the thought that Boston holds any prominence compared to Philly when it comes to the Revolution. And that is what was happening.
Could it be that you're reading something that's not there? If not, then take it up with those posters. I've never claimed it is anything but a split decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
"Facts are stubborn things"
Indeed they are. And they differ from assertions. If you provide some links to actual "facts" to substantiate your points, you might have earned some credibility with me. On top of it, so many of your prior claims have turned out to be factually inaccurate when investigated (or, to give benefit, misleading).
For now, I'm where I was when I read your earlier posts.
Last edited by Pine to Vine; 04-12-2013 at 04:25 PM..
I never downplayed their importance, but now that you mention it, I would think that the very first shots fired at the beginning of any war are going to be quite a bit more important than battles that took place during the war. Which do you remember more the firing on Fort Sumter that commenced the Civil War or the Battle of Five Forks.
Um, Gettysburg? Bull Run? Antietam? Do you think Ft. Sumter was a more important point during the Civil War just because it occurred first?
Was Germany's invasion of Poland more important than D-Day or the Battle of Stalingrad?
Both cities had a important role in the early stages of American history. Which city do you believe played a larger role in making America and why?
If you picked other, feel free to state your case for the other city you chose.
Examples of topics for debate:
-Historical events
-Culture
-Economy
-Inventions and Innovations
-Any other topics welcome
When something as significant as the telephone gets invented in Philadelphia, then we'll talk
And let's not forget that Boston (or New England) brought the Industrial Revolution to the States.
Boston had the first public schools and public libraries in the country.
And lets not forget a little thing called the subway. Not the first in the world, but the first in North America, which is still pretty big.
Also many famous politicians have come through Boston, if not raised here, too. (JFK, FDR, Calvin Coolidge, Al Gore, George W Bush, Barack Obama, R. Hayes, John Quincy, John Adams, and Teddy Roosevelt)
There's been a lot of writers from New England as well (Thoreau, Emerson, Longfellow, Dickinson, the Stowes, Edgar Allen Poe, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summersm343
Technically, Ben Franklin wanted a meeting of Congress a year prior, but couldn't convince the other colonies of the necessity of a meeting. While you are correct that the meeting was after the events of the British blockade after the Boston Tea Party, this was the first event that caused the leaders of the colonies to decide a meeting was necessary. An event could have easily happened anywhere else to deem a meeting necessary, it didn't HAVE to happen in Boston.
But an event didn't happen anywhere else, that's the point. And let's not forget that the Boston Massacre had happened 3 years earlier. I think it'd be safe to say that Boston was the most restless before the war because, unlike the rest of the country, New England's economy was based on trade, shipbuilding, and whatnot, industries that took a hit from the Navigation Acts and whatnot moreso than the agriculture of the southern states.
Quote:
Again, not necessarily in direct response. The Continental Congress had planned a second meeting, it just so happened that the War began as the delegates were making their way to Philadelphia (remember, back then it took days if not weeks to travel).
But this is still only supporting that earlier statement that Philly only supplied the colonists with a centrally-located place to meet. I guess it is pretty important, but I'd argue that it isn't as relevant as the events that actually got the US into war (concord, lexington, bunker hill, etc.).
Quote:
No. Conceived by the Continental Congress and drafted by the "Committee of 5" which included John Adams of Massachussets, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut.
Ben Franklin was from Boston, not Philadelphia. He moved to Philly in his late teens to better his publishing career. That's like saying that George W. Bush or Obama are from Boston because they moved here to further their education.
Valley Forge is not the equivalent of the Battle of Five Forks. I think that the Battles of Lexington and Concord and General Washington's retreat to Valley Forge are equally significant events in American history.
A winter encampment (Valley Forge) is as important as the battle that signified that we were not British anymore?
For those who don't know, Valley Forge was where Washington and the Continental army he was leading spent the bitter winter of 1777 - 78. Poorly clothed and equipped, they faced being wiped out solely by the elements. Entering encampment as a worn and battered contingent, this ragtag group emerged in the spring as a disciplined, skilled and determined army. In addition to the inspiration provided by Washington and his leaders, this was largely due to the military training provided by Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, a Prussian military leader introduced to Washignton via letter by Ben Franklin (9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben#American_Revolution). Most historians believe the Continental army would not have been able to win the war if not for the events at Valley Forge.
Yes, much rebellion in Boston kicked things off. But what good is starting a war if one can't finish it? As one poster stated in analogy: was the invasion of Poland more important than D-Day during WWII? I could care less about whether people feel Boston, Philly or Paducah are the most historical cities in the country. After reading several posts, I do question whether people really know their history, however, or are being purposely selective with it because they think some anonymous internet poll is meaningful.
Lest anyone think I am making a plug for Philly as the winner in this silly poll, I'll repeat the statement I've made many places in this thread: between Boston and Philly, it's pretty much a split decision in my mind. What I do think is not up for debate are the truth and the facts of history. And that's because this history belongs to all of us, wherever we live.
When something as significant as the telephone gets invented in Philadelphia, then we'll talk
And let's not forget that Boston (or New England) brought the Industrial Revolution to the States.
Boston had the first public schools and public libraries in the country.
And lets not forget a little thing called the subway. Not the first in the world, but the first in North America, which is still pretty big.
Also many famous politicians have come through Boston, if not raised here, too. (JFK, FDR, Calvin Coolidge, Al Gore, George W Bush, Barack Obama, R. Hayes, John Quincy, John Adams, and Teddy Roosevelt)
There's been a lot of writers from New England as well (Thoreau, Emerson, Longfellow, Dickinson, the Stowes, Edgar Allen Poe, etc.)
But an event didn't happen anywhere else, that's the point. And let's not forget that the Boston Massacre had happened 3 years earlier. I think it'd be safe to say that Boston was the most restless before the war because, unlike the rest of the country, New England's economy was based on trade, shipbuilding, and whatnot, industries that took a hit from the Navigation Acts and whatnot moreso than the agriculture of the southern states.
But this is still only supporting that earlier statement that Philly only supplied the colonists with a centrally-located place to meet. I guess it is pretty important, but I'd argue that it isn't as relevant as the events that actually got the US into war (concord, lexington, bunker hill, etc.).
Ben Franklin was from Boston, not Philadelphia. He moved to Philly in his late teens to better his publishing career. That's like saying that George W. Bush or Obama are from Boston because they moved here to further their education.
The other bold responses I agree with, hahaha
I am continually amzaed that Boston posters almost always fail to place any significance on Philly for whatever reason, both were very important to american history and not just the revolution.
So telephone, well how about the computer? Is that significant?
So Philly only because it is centrally located, not because it was the largest city of the day, most consider the most important of the time? And the Declaration etc were not important? Nothing in this regard to the Boston is ever as important. Does the Boston school system teach the same history or is it 29 chapters of Boston with one more on other extremely important aspects?
A few from the list
Almanac
Papaer Mill
First Public School (Guess not the school system which came later in Boston)
Fist Fire Company
First Public Water
First Library
First Hospital
First American Stage Company (Plays)
Electricity (well the use of which in theory)
School of Anatomy
First Fine Arts School
etc.
On writers
Poe (would seem to be more associated with Philly and Baltimore than Boston based on my understanding) also Whitman
Both cities have offered a ton and a ton to this countries history, why do Boston folks always downplay the significance of Philly in this regard...
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 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.
