Are St. Louis and New Orleans the last "eastern" cities?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but the capital should be in Chicago.

Only cities that existed when the country was created should be considered. Including Washington.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Only cities that existed when the country was created should be considered. Including Washington.

Why? That’s totally arbitrary.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but the capital should be in Chicago.

Speaking of Chicago, I’ll offer as an argument to strengthen my point that the best capital is always the current one and moving it never makes sense (and will make even less and less sense as technology grows even better and infrastructure, costlier) the fact that unless I’m mistaken, the legislature in Springfield is dominated and controlled by Chicago-oriented politicians, which is democracy in action, regardless of where the elected representatives meet.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

Why? That’s totally arbitrary.

I was kidding.

But it should be New York precisely because the center of gravity of the country has continued to change throughout the country's history. At the time the government settled on Washington they didn't know that New York would be the nation's big city for at least the next several hundred years, and they also didn't expect the population center of the country to move so dramatically away from D.C.

[Steely Dan]

Only cities that didn't exist when the country was created should be considered. Including Chicago.

New york, DC, and the rest of the eastern seaboard cities are all too vulnerable to Viking attack.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by lio45

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but if Americans are willing to relocate the capital to the area in northern New Hampshire where I have all my land, I’ll donate several acres for the new Capitol grounds.

Bonus - putting the capital there would be a great incentive to never be at war with Canada, since it’s so close to the border it can easily be shelled by artillery from Canadian territory (as Ukrainians have shown us)

Artillery? You realize there are such things as guided missiles now right? ICBMs capable over ranges over 3000 miles. Do you guys even have Tomahawks?

[jbermingham123]

I've always thought the perfect place for a capital wouldve been staten island. If not for the North-South divide, it wouldve been perfect place to put the District of Columbia:


-Its an island, no need to carve a square of territory out of a state

-At 58 sq. miles, its just slightly smaller than washington, at 68 sq. miles

-Located directly between the two largest cities on the east coast (NY and Philly)

-It even has similar native terrain (both have a combo of hills and swamps along a brackish estuary, with flat stretches in the southeast). At 401 ft., Todt hill, the highest point on staten island, is also the highest point in NYC and the highest point on the entire eastern seaboard south of maine, and thus would make a great spot for defensive purposes and/or a monument. I imagine Todt hill ending up similar to Montmartre, the highest hill in Paris (and only 24 feet taller)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I was kidding.

But it should be New York precisely because the center of gravity of the country has continued to change throughout the country's history. At the time the government settled on Washington they didn't know that New York would be the nation's big city for at least the next several hundred years, and they also didn't expect the population center of the country to move so dramatically away from D.C.

I'm pretty sure NY was the largest and most important city when DC was established. Census data was likely horrible back then, but I think NY is the largest city post-Revolutionary War, even if you just count Manhattan (NY County) against Philly + Northern Liberties + Germantown (Modern-day Philly).

[Crawford]

Or maybe not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ates_by_decade

DC was founded in 1790, and per Wikipedia's list of most populous U.S. cities by decade, it could be argued that Philly was still the largest in 1790, and NY took the lead by 1800.

NY is #1 in 1790, and Philly #2, but Philly + Northern Liberties is still more populous than Manhattan + Brooklyn. So I guess it depends what's counted.

And, in any case, when DC was founded, the long(er) term hierarchy of cities probably wasn't certain.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

-Its an island, no need to carve a square of territory out of a state)

Except it was already part of NY state at the time DC was founded.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Or maybe not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ates_by_decade

DC was founded in 1790, and per Wikipedia's list of most populous U.S. cities by decade, it could be argued that Philly was still the largest in 1790, and NY took the lead by 1800.

NY is #1 in 1790, and Philly #2, but Philly + Northern Liberties is still more populous than Manhattan + Brooklyn. So I guess it depends what's counted.

And, in any case, when DC was founded, the long(er) term hierarchy of cities probably wasn't certain.

Yeah, New York and Philadelphia were still neck and neck in 1800. Philadelphia stayed within striking distance until the 1810s. It would not have been obvious that New York would win the battle in 1790 or even 1800. But by 1820 it was becoming clear.

[Yuri]

About New York vs Philadelphia, on the link Crawford posted they say they include rural inh. for New York whereas they don't do the same for Philadelphia.

Maybe Philadelphia was still slightly ahead if we count only the continuous urban core.

EDIT: They don't include Northern Liberties for Philadelphia and I'd guess it would be continuous to Philadelphia City Center even in 1790. So Philadelphia was definitely bigger.

EDIT 2: Suffolk County, MA had 44k people in 1790, but I can't tell how much of those was rural. And outside Suffolk, we have Cambridge 2,115 (1790), which was probably adjacent to Boston even back then.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

About New York vs Philadelphia, on the link Crawford posted they say they include rural inh. for New York whereas they don't do the same for Philadelphia.

Maybe Philadelphia was still slightly ahead if we count only the continuous urban core.

If you add up Philadelphia, Northern Liberties, and Southwark, then the population is quite a bit larger than New York's in 1790.

Philadelphia + Northern Liberties + Southwark (1790) = 28,522 + 9,913 + 5,661 = 44,096
New York + Brooklyn (1790) = 33,131 + 4,549 = 37,680

Brooklyn at that time was a village that was roughly confined to the current day neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. The rest of the borough was farmland and didn't start urbanizing until later in the 19th century.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If you add up Philadelphia, Northern Liberties, and Southwark, then the population is quite a bit larger than New York's in 1790.

Philadelphia + Northern Liberties + Southwark (1790) = 28,522 + 9,913 + 5,661 = 44,096
New York + Brooklyn (1790) = 33,131 + 4,549 = 37,680

Brooklyn at that time was a village that was roughly confined to the current day neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. The rest of the borough was farmland and didn't start urbanizing until later in the 19th century.

What about 1800 and 1810? Philadelphia still ahead? Regarding Boston, I guess it's only Boston+Cambridge, right?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

What about 1800 and 1810? Philadelphia still ahead? Regarding Boston, I guess it's only Boston+Cambridge, right?

New York + Brooklyn had pulled ahead by then. Philadelphia had about 61k vs about 65k in New York. That said, slight clarification. The Brooklyn number on the Wikipedia page appears to be for all of Kings County, not just the village of Brooklyn. So New York + Brooklyn was likely still ahead of Philadelphia, but it was not a 4k population gap.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

New York + Brooklyn had pulled ahead by then. Philadelphia had about 61k vs about 65k in New York. That said, slight clarification. The Brooklyn number on the Wikipedia page appears to be for all of Kings County, not just the village of Brooklyn. So New York + Brooklyn was likely still ahead of Philadelphia, but it was not a 4k population gap.

Here is the Census page that the Wiki article pulls its numbers from.

The village of Brooklyn does not reach 2,500 people until the 1810 census.

For another data point, Philadelphia County (the modern city limits) had 81,009 in 1800 while the five modern boroughs (the table on the NYC article) had 79,216.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Here is the Census page that the Wiki article pulls its numbers from.

The village of Brooklyn does not reach 2,500 people until the 1810 census.

For another data point, Philadelphia County (the modern city limits) had 81,009 in 1800 while the five modern boroughs (the table on the NYC article) had 79,216.

After the Erie Canal opened, NYC never looked back, and it always had the best harbor. The at grade railroad connections to the west along the Hudson/Mohawk to the Great Lakes later increased the advantage over Philly. Don't get me wrong, I love Philly. Many relatives are there. And it is on a roll, and will always be a great city. But NYC is #1 forever. L.A. #2. Chicago and SF area share #3. #4 is between Atlanta/Houston/Washington-Baltimore/Philadelphia/Dallas-Ft. Worth etc. Boston, Sea-Tac, Minny-St.P etc next.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Here is the Census page that the Wiki article pulls its numbers from.

The village of Brooklyn does not reach 2,500 people until the 1810 census.

For another data point, Philadelphia County (the modern city limits) had 81,009 in 1800 while the five modern boroughs (the table on the NYC article) had 79,216.

And here the 4 boroughs vs Philadelphia Country in 1810: 126,279 vs 111,210.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

After the Erie Canal opened, NYC never looked back, and it always had the best harbor. The at grade railroad connections to the west along the Hudson/Mohawk to the Great Lakes later increased the advantage over Philly.

The Erie Canal not only solidified NYC’s dominance over Philly and all another east coast cities, it also solidified its position as THE alpha city of the nation.

The history is quite interesting… Philly sat on its hands, insular and conservative Quakerism, not understanding that a connection to the Great Lake was the future. NYC went all in.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

For another data point, Philadelphia County (the modern city limits) had 81,009 in 1800 while the five modern boroughs (the table on the NYC article) had 79,216.

It's a little hard to compare NYC's current definition to 1800. At that time, I think, the Bronx was part of Westchester County and Nassau County was still part of Queens. So that number is probably over counted by about 5-10k if trying to figure out the population according to the current definition of the 5 boroughs.