Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
perhaps.
but even without the national capital, St. Louis was still able to grow to be the 4th or 5th largest city in the country in the late 19th century. so it was a sensible geography for a big transportation/commerce hub in a way that DC was not.
IF it had been made into the national capital shortyl after the civil war, THEN it might have usurped chicago's position as the rail center of the nation, and then all bets would've been off in terms of its growth from there.
pile a post-war boom (ala DC) onto that, instead of a post-war (relative) fade, and St. Louis could have been a huge deal.
|
The culture of the country was still very much against having a large federal government at that time, so I think it would've been extremely controversial to center the rail network on the nation's capital. And the period between the Civil War and the first World War would've probably been the worst time to do it, since most of the South was still very suspicious of federal authority.
This also touches on why New York would not have worked as a national capital in the way that Paris and London work for their countries. France is not a federal system at all, and the U.K. is a hybrid between unitary and federal, but mostly skews towards unitary. England is like 85% of the U.K., so the capital of that country will never be anywhere else but England.
In order for New York City to be the capital, it would have had to de-annex from New York State. And if NYC de-annexed from NYS, I'm not even sure the city would've grown like it did. It's probably critical that NYC not be the federal capital in order for it to become the mega-city that it did.