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 find your historical reality far more troubling. Atlanta was much more than a "boomtown," as Margaret Mitchell described in detail. It was a railroad hub with Northern hustle, organized business interests, and almost as much arrogance as it has today. It was still geographically, politically, and demographically "the end of the line" in Georgia. Most all Georgians lived to the south and east. It was the object of a major battle of the Civil War, and the Federals were based there during occupation. Other states moved their capitals to (at the time) non-power centers that were accessible to the entire state. Atlanta is an exception.
I think Atlanta getting Georgia Tech was much more important to its growth and economic success than becoming the new state capital. The establishment of Georgia Tech was directly tied to efforts to make Atlanta a showcase city of the "New South" and it's obvious that it has benefitted Atlanta greatly.
Let's also not forget that Atlanta's #1 economic engine today--the airport--came about initially because of federal investment during WWII which caused the airport's size to double. Coupled with efforts from local leaders like Mayor Hartsfield and the strength of airlines like Delta and Eastern, you get what has been the world's busiest airport for some time now and has been among the busiest in the country almost since its inception.
I think Atlanta getting Georgia Tech was much more important to its growth and economic success than becoming the new state capital. The establishment of Georgia Tech was directly tied to efforts to make Atlanta a showcase city of the "New South" and it's obvious that it has benefitted Atlanta greatly.
Let's also not forget that Atlanta's #1 economic engine today--the airport--came about initially because of federal investment during WWII which caused the airport's size to double. Coupled with efforts from local leaders like Mayor Hartsfield and the strength of airlines like Delta and Eastern, you get what has been the world's busiest airport for some time now and has been among the busiest in the country almost since its inception.
I do agree -- Tech definitely helped put Atlanta on the map early on. Some have suggested that Atlanta's glittering 1939 premiere of GWTW (with Clark Gable's rousing speech about the city) did its part too. Not only would Atlanta surpass Savannah in population by 1880, together Fulton and DeKalb Counties had already surpassed Chatham's total population at the 1870 Census. I realize there was no "Atlanta metro" per se, but the twin towns of Atlanta and Decatur helped each other out enormously. They helped form a muscular power center just five years after the Civil War. And railroads were king.
Transportation had everything to do with Atlanta's rise. It started out as a railroad hub.. and the railroads were where things were heading and that is where the big money was in the 1860s. Savannah, though larger, was a port/river city. It was basically yesterday's news. The moneyed railroad barons were able to hustle getting the capital moved to Atlanta by taking full advantage of the political climate during Reconstruction. Then Atlanta became not just the rail hub for the southeast but also the political hub for Georgia.. with that clout Atlanta was able to cash in on the highway system in the 20th century.. become a hub of the interstate highway system. And then the city beat out Birminghmam for the southeasts hub airport. All else is history. I dont think at this point being the state capital is necessary for Atlanta's continued success like it was at its beginning when it was Terminus then Marthasville and finally Atlanta. I would support moving the capital to someplace like Macon, if just for symbolic purposes. Really you just would need to move the capitol there.. which meets for only about a month and half a year. It would probably be impractical to move all of the state office buildings.
I would support moving the capital to someplace like Macon, if just for symbolic purposes. Really you just would need to move the capitol there.. which meets for only about a month and half a year. It would probably be impractical to move all of the state office buildings.
Macon would be ideal. Yes, moving all those state agencies to Macon would be impractical, but some could definitely be moved, and slowly over time. Macon itself would get a boost -- and it would get an economic lift with those state agencies. A Macon statehouse would be more accessible to more Georgia legislators. I-75 and 1-16 are plusses -- Atlanta is also a direct trip.
Now, we can see that Georgia is far from the most egregious offender of having its capital outside of the geographic or population center.
States like New York or Florida or Wyoming need to move their capitals yesterday, but Georgia's doing A-OK.
Shoutout to South Carolina for never needing to move its capital!
Again, not central geographically but (1) demographically central, (2) access to the greatest number of folks, and (3) away from the main power centers. Atlanta has failed in all three.
Sorry, Albany NY is just about perfect, even now. It lay between the big-city powers of New York City and Buffalo/Rochester/Syracuse (and still does). Central and South Florida were a dismal swamp when Tallahassee was selected as capital, so TAL was pretty much perfect. It's still away from South Florida's powerbrokers, which is good. Wyoming was and is far more inhabited toward the south. Northern Wyoming's population of bears and mountain lions didn't care where the capital was. South Carolina doesn't need to move its capital -- Columbia is hard to beat.
I find your historical reality far more troubling. Atlanta was much more than a "boomtown," as Margaret Mitchell described in detail. It was a railroad hub with Northern hustle, organized business interests, and almost as much arrogance as it has today. It was still geographically, politically, and demographically "the end of the line" in Georgia. Most all Georgians lived to the south and east. It was the object of a major battle of the Civil War, and the Federals were based there during occupation. Other states moved their capitals to (at the time) non-power centers that were accessible to the entire state. Atlanta is an exception.
Really?
You're relying on Margaret Mitchell alone too much for context.
Atlanta, as previously stated, was in a unique natural position to be a freight hub thanks to the mountain to the north.
We were fortunate to have such a position in our state and not our neighbors. That created a boomtown.
That isn't arrogance, "northern hustle," or organized interests. It is smart, luck, and something beneficial to our whole state and good that we didn't lose that attention to Tennessee, Alabama, or South Carolina.
I'm sorry if Atlanta's success can only be discussed in something of a negative light to you.
However, the history of how we got from point A to point B is being heavily missed by you. You keep referring to Atlanta as always being what it is today, and it wasn't. It was a boomtown yes, but it was still small only 20, 30 years after it was founded.
Atlanta is accessible to the entire state and you're overplaying it quite a bit.
Again, not central geographically but (1) demographically central, (2) access to the greatest number of folks, and (3) away from the main power centers. Atlanta has failed in all three.
Atlanta certainly doesn't fail on all 3. You're overstating big time and #3 isn't a real thing.
As previously discussed most capitals originally moved away from the older, larger coastal cities to secure the state's influence over inland territories in an era of shifting state borders. The power center thing is of your own invention.
The center of population and access to the greatest number of folks is actually very close to Atlanta.
There is a real North Georgia outside of Atlanta FYI.
Really?
That isn't arrogance, "northern hustle," or organized interests. It is smart, luck, and something beneficial to our whole state.
It was mostly just that -- though you're right that smarts and luck did play their part. "Beneficial to our whole state"? In some ways, but most definitely not in other ways. In the late 1860s and '70s, the Northern occupiers HQ'ed in Atlanta and local Atlanta railroad interests, who ruled the town, "railroaded" the statehouse to Atlanta. The referendum result is neither here nor there for that corrupt era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro
There is a real North Georgia outside of Atlanta FYI.
But not in the 19th century, when Georgia's capital was moved to Atlanta. The North was Nowheresville. Even now, Athens, Dalton/suburban Chattanooga are the only places that really count. Most of North Georgia remains pretty under-settled. Retirees are moving in droves to places like Blue Ridge, etc., so the real demographic punch for the north is still to come.
Last edited by masonbauknight; 06-30-2018 at 09:06 AM..
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,464 posts, read 44,083,751 times
Reputation: 16840
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonbauknight
Macon would be ideal. Yes, moving all those state agencies to Macon would be impractical, but some could definitely be moved, and slowly over time. Macon itself would get a boost -- and it would get an economic lift with those state agencies. A Macon statehouse would be more accessible to more Georgia legislators. I-75 and 1-16 are plusses -- Atlanta is also a direct trip.
State legislators would miss the access they have to strip clubs, bars and hookers.
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.
