Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
maybe.
but as a counter-example, look at MO with STL & KC at opposites side of the state.
they put the capital in the middle of the state between the two big cities at jefferson city, and it didn't amount to much.
|
Yeah, it's certainly not a given. But considering Pennsylvania's, and its two big cities', already established statuses by the early 1800s and the state's major importance to national development, it stands to reason that state as a whole could have benefitted even that much more so from a central capital. And that central capital would have in turn reaped the benefits.
Instead, everything pretty much went to Philadelphia, which invested in itself and largely in NYC, rather than in its own state. Harrisburg never even amounted to too much, even though it was the capital city of what was one of the country's largest and most economically-productive states from the nation's beginnings. A center of state government power removed from Philadelphia would have definitely made a significant difference.
And this isn't a one-size-fits-all situation. I'm not proposing that a centrally-located capital would automatically result in utopia or anything. I get the STL-KC parallel, but again, it's a very different situation. There really wasn't too much in Missouri, aside from St. Louis & Kansas City, correct? And in a relative sense, it seems like that pretty much holds true today.
Pennsylvania, on the other hand, had many early centers which were very important to the young nation. Obviously anchored by Philly and Pittsburgh, but the state was and is filled with tons of centers of population that were vital to early industrialization (Susquehanna Valley, Lancaster-York, Lehigh Valley, Lackawanna Valley, Williamsport, Altoona-Johnstown, Erie, Oil Creek Valley, Shenango Valley...). Coal (anthracite and bituminous), iron, oil, gas, steel... that's where it all started. PA had DIRECT access to the Atlantic (via Delaware Bay AND the Chesapeake), to the entire Ohio-Mississippi River system, AND to the Great Lakes.
No other state had (or has) this. And PA had this at a time when those were (likely still are) THE most important transportation and trade routes. But Philadelphia was simply a terrible manager of its kingdom. Pittsburgh was largely on its own and Erie might as well have been on Mars, as far as Philadelphia was concerned. NYC didn't feel that way about their Mars outpost, Buffalo... and NYC didn't even have a Pittsburgh in its kingdom. Basically, as was pointed out in another recent thread (where you pointed out the NYC-Chicago axis), Philly squandered its opportunity big time. Its the same insular, Quaker conservatism that didn't permit a building taller than the statue of William Penn on Philadelphia City Hall until the late 1980s.
But a center of government, strongly-influenced by areas throughout the state, rather than within Philly's sphere of dominance, would have likely had a major effect on Pennsylvania development, i.e., Pittsburgh might have grown to be the same size as Philly (or larger) and Erie would be a Buffalo. Pennsylvania historians talk about how the state should have four 1 million+ pop. cities, given the attributes it was blessed with.
Ok, my rambling is complete... for right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
i wasn't trying to draw direct parallels to the development histories of IL & PA (they're quite obviously different for a whole host of reasons), I was merely pointing out that purposely placing the state capital near the geographic center doesn't always lead to a major city developing there.
even in very similar, largely unpopulated interior states of the early 19th century, sometimes that plan panned out (Indianpolis, IN), and sometimes it didn't (Springfield, IL).
as to how big illinos and chicago were when the capital was moved to springfield in 1839, the state had 476,183 people (1840 census) and chicago had 4,470 people ( 1840 census).
chicago was founded in the 1780s, but it remained a very tiny frontier village surrounding a US army fort (fort dearborn) for many decades, with real growth not coming until the 1830s.
it was first incorporated as a town in 1833, and then reincorporated as a city shortly thereafter in 1837, just before the capital was moved from vandalia to springfield in 1839.
|
Damn... that's pretty amazing how Chicago boomed from less than 5k in 1840. Totally blitzed the hell out of everything in its regional orbit. Kind of how NYC did it a little bit earlier with the canal, Chicago did it once the RRs came, I guess. Fascinating to me.
The type of sheer dominance by greater Chicagoland / northern IL over the rest of Illinois seems to be on a level unlike what exists in any other state. This goes right in line with my previous thoughts on establishment of city-states and affiliated territories, rather than the state construct under which we operate.
Prev
Linear Mode
