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.
What is there to worry about regarding "that pesky Potomac River?" I don't quite get what problem there is supposed to be with a city built beside a river, but if there is some problem with a riverside setting, Richmond shouldn't be any better place than Washington for the capital. In Richmond, you've got that pesky old James River to deal with.
Hmmm, another thought here . . . I lived in Richmond as a young child. I have fond memories of Richmond. Pleeeeease don't do to Richmond what they have done to Washington, D.C.
I meant the Potomac as a barrier in terms of roads. The James is not as wide but as others have alluded, when all is said and done, it may not make a difference in terms of traffic congestion anyways. It was just a light aside.
Last edited by PrinceTheo; 02-12-2009 at 12:00 PM..
I am offended, as a citizen of a state invade by treasonous rebels who were too lazy to work their own land, that some person would have the audacity to suggest Richmond as the capital of the USA on Lincoln's 200th Birthday.
Uh, no. I was to Richmond recently, and I thought it looked like a pretty good city (some good parts, some bad parts, just like most cities that aren't giant suburbs) and came away with a generally positive impression, but there's no way a city like Richmond should be a national capital at this point - it's too small. Besides, as you may have heard, the Confederacy lost that war that happened ALMOST 150 YEARS AGO.
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.