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.
I don't really see any reason why any city would be bigger as a result of no Washington DC, except for wherever the federal capital ends up.
In the antebellum era, major cities pretty much only grew because they were major trade nexuses - largely either seaports and/or located on rivers. New Orleans and Louisville, KY were the only major southern cities. Richmond just didn't offer that much because relatively little was upriver from it.
After the Civil War, industrialization began kicking off in a major way. But DC was, as others have noted, never an industrial city. So the lack of DC would not cause much industry at all to shift to points either northward or southward.
Most of the major changes to the U.S. wouldn't start until the mid 20th century, as the size of the federal government began to grow dramatically, which led the influence of DC to begin spreading outside of its borders and into suburbs in DC and Maryland. Without DC this whole region would stay relatively lightly developed, and basically mildly southern in outlook - not only on the Virginia side, but also the Maryland side.
Philly was smaller than Baltimore until it started annexing the towns around it. Also, Baltimore was the nation's capitol as well for brief period of time.
Interesting question. I believe NOVA would definitely be more culturally southern and most likely a little more rural, but NOVA is still not too far from Baltimore (if the fact that DC never existed made Baltimore a bigger city) so not incredibly remote. Richmond would definitely be bigger but the overall population of Virginia would probably be less than it is today. Pro-sports teams is a good point to bring up. Virginia has always been DC pro-sports territory, so either VA would have it's own teams or go off the Baltimore teams. Before the Carolina Panthers, I believe most areas of NC was Washington Redskins territory, so I would guess NC would look more to Atlanta for pro-sports. I still consider Baltimore to be the Boston of the Mid-Atlantic region, a bit like Atlanta is to the southeast.
After the Civil War, industrialization began kicking off in a major way. But DC was, as others have noted, never an industrial city. So the lack of DC would not cause much industry at all to shift to points either northward or southward.
This is just conjecture, but I wonder if D.C. never became super industrial because it never really had to, due to the economy there already being pretty much taken care of. Is it possible that Georgetown and/or Alexandria might have been become more involved in industry had there not been a D.C.? Seems like it would have been a decent location for industry, at the end of the C&O Canal and a short jaunt to the Atlantic Ocean.
Baltimore would arguably be bigger than it is now and it would've been the current designated gateway to the Northeast and the Southeast. Don't know where the Federal Capitol would've been instead. Either it would've stayed in Philly (had the Revolutionary War veterans hadn't threatened the Congress which resulted in the move to a newly planned city as well as being a reason why DC isn't part of a state), New York City, Baltimore, or Annapolis or maybe it would've moved to a new border state that bordered the Atlantic, perhaps Delaware.
Baltimore would be bigger than it is now, and perhaps Alexandria would have more of a unique identity as its own city, something on the order of Savannah or Charleston.
It would be a completely different area. Both MD and Northern Virginia wouldn't be as wealthy as they are. NoVA would probably be as country as the other parts of Virginia. The huge number of people who moved here for the job market would probably be in Richmond.
I think Baltimore would still be overshadowed though.
This is just conjecture, but I wonder if D.C. never became super industrial because it never really had to, due to the economy there already being pretty much taken care of. Is it possible that Georgetown and/or Alexandria might have been become more involved in industry had there not been a D.C.? Seems like it would have been a decent location for industry, at the end of the C&O Canal and a short jaunt to the Atlantic Ocean.
The problem with industrialization is the Patomac watershed doesn't really intersect with the coal country of West Virginia at all. I mean, the C&O did ship coal from Western PA even in our world, but this was more for domestic/small scale consumption. Without the ability to "mainline" coal like the major industrial cities, the "DC area would be left behind.
Not to mention that the C&O canal was basically a failure. It was first proposed by George Washington, but work began only in 1828. It petered out in Cumberland in 1850. It was originally supposed to go on to Pittsburgh, but the rail connection of Cumberland in 1842 made it irrelevant. In a world without DC as the U.S. capital, it's hard to imagine more effort going into building the canal.
I think the best-case scenario for Georgetown/Alexandria would be two cities somewhere in the range of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Quaint, small sized rowhouse cities which acted as regional trade hubs for the agricultural areas surrounding.
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.
