If Charleston/Savannah were larger, would they be the the South's version of Boston/Philadelphia? (state, compared)
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.
Charleston and Savannah are two colonial era cities, akin to Boston and Philadelphia in that their histories either preceded the founding of America or played a crucial role as a major urban and commercial centers directly afterwards.
One has to think that if Charleston and Savannah had continued to blossom into major cities of multi-million person metropolises that they would share a kinship of sorts with Boston and Philadelphia.
So here's a subjective based thread for people to answer 100% with their opinions, no facts are needed for this one, this is not that type of thread.
If Charleston and Savannah had continued to blossom into major metropolises, would they be akin to the Southern versions of a Boston and Philadelphia? Explain why or why not.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 06-15-2016 at 11:20 AM..
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,185,424 times
Reputation: 2925
Which begs the question, why did Savannah and Charleston never "take off" in quite the same way? I remember there was a thread about this a few weeks back in the General US forum, and the reasoning there was rough geography and economic/political factors limited their growth--though you would think that Charleston would still be more apt today than Savannah to be the state's alpha, as South Carolina isn't completely dominated by one metro like Georgia is.
To answer your question, though, yes. Georgia and South Carolina both ratified the Articles of Confederation and Constitution fairly early, and were prominent, popolous states during the colonial period. Tons of history there that aren't really matched anywhere else in the South, save for New Orleans.
Which begs the question, why did Savannah and Charleston never "take off" in quite the same way? I remember there was a thread about this a few weeks back in the General US forum, and the reasoning there was rough geography and economic/political factors limited their growth--though you would think that Charleston would still be more apt today than Savannah to be the state's alpha, as South Carolina isn't completely dominated by one metro like Georgia is.
To answer your question, though, yes. Georgia and South Carolina both ratified the Articles of Confederation and Constitution fairly early, and were prominent, popolous states during the colonial period. Tons of history there that aren't really matched anywhere else in the South, save for New Orleans.
I think a just as large factor was what their local economies were geared towards.
Which begs the question, why did Savannah and Charleston never "take off" in quite the same way? I remember there was a thread about this a few weeks back in the General US forum, and the reasoning there was rough geography and economic/political factors limited their growth--though you would think that Charleston would still be more apt today than Savannah to be the state's alpha, as South Carolina isn't completely dominated by one metro like Georgia is.
The short answer is that the end of slavery basically brought their local economies to a virtual standstill.
Quote:
Tons of history there that aren't really matched anywhere else in the South, save for New Orleans.
And Virginia (Richmond, Tidewater, etc). Perhaps Louisville and Mobile.
Which begs the question, why did Savannah and Charleston never "take off" in quite the same way? I remember there was a thread about this a few weeks back in the General US forum, and the reasoning there was rough geography and economic/political factors limited their growth--though .
I remember the thread -- so why are you resuscitating that discussion when the question was answered? The short of it: (1) The large Northern metropolises "took off" along the Atlantic and Great Lakes because US manufacturing as well as most of the North American population were concentrated there. These Yankee ports boomed because of geographical concentration and interconnectedness throughout the Industrial Revolution. (2) New Orleans, at the mouth of the Mississippi, is the only southern port with even one advantage of these Northern cities: it was at the mouth of Old Man River and connected to port cities further upriver and into the Ohio River basin. (3) Compared to New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Buffalo, and even New Orleans, the port cities of Charleston and Savannah were isolated and mostly given over to agricultural products. They remained small, and after the end of the Civil War they pretty much grew at a snail's pace. The rich Northern industrialists had little need for either one of them and chose to risk their energies and cash on the railroad-connected (and mineral-rich) towns of the southern Piedmont. Charleston and Savannah didn't have a prayer.
Charleston and Savannah are two colonial era cities, akin to Boston and Philadelphia in that their histories either preceded the founding of America or played a crucial role as a major urban and commercial centers directly afterwards.
One has to think that if Charleston and Savannah had continued to blossom into major cities of multi-million person metropolises that they would share a kinship of sorts with Boston and Philadelphia.
So here's a subjective based thread for people to answer 100% with their opinions, no facts are needed for this one, this is not that type of thread.
If Charleston and Savannah had continued to blossom into major metropolises, would they be akin to the Southern versions of a Boston and Philadelphia? Explain why or why not.
No, they wouldn't. They'd be Charleston and Savannah. If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle?
I remember the thread -- so why are you resuscitating that discussion when the question was answered? The short of it: (1) The large Northern metropolises "took off" along the Atlantic and Great Lakes because US manufacturing as well as most of the North American population were concentrated there.
It seems tautological to suggest the population boomed because the population was concentrated there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonbauknight
These Yankee ports boomed because of geographical concentration and interconnectedness throughout the Industrial Revolution. (2) New Orleans, at the mouth of the Mississippi, is the only southern port with even one advantage of these Northern cities: it was at the mouth of Old Man River and connected to port cities further upriver and into the Ohio River basin. (3) Compared to New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Buffalo, and even New Orleans, the port cities of Charleston and Savannah were isolated and mostly given over to agricultural products. They remained small, and after the end of the Civil War they pretty much grew at a snail's pace. The rich Northern industrialists had little need for either one of them and chose to risk their energies and cash on the railroad-connected (and mineral-rich) towns of the southern Piedmont. Charleston and Savannah didn't have a prayer.
The deep south failed to attract European industrial-era immigrants, mainly due to two main factors :
#1 - slavery.
#2 - malaria.
Europeans of that period were terrified of coming to Savannah, New Orleans or Charleston, so they didn't.
If Savanah was able to keep it's charm and old architecture, I would love to have seen what a Savanah with a 5 million + metro area would look like. It would probs be a world class city and a top tier tourist destination that would rival cities like Madrid and Montreal.
No, they wouldn't. They'd be Charleston and Savannah. If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle?
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.
