Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
wow, thanks all for the really interesting insights and theories.
to clarify my question, i wasn't asking why these two cities aren't literally like boston and philly today. i'm well aware of the vastly different stages of economic and urban growth that took place in the northeast vs. the southeast. i was asking about this issue in the more relative sense.
in the northeast, the colonial towns and villages that grew and prospered into becoming the region's first big cities tended to remain the big cities, all the way through to today.
but in the southeast, that script got totally flipped. charleston and savannah were the alpha cities of the region in 1850. flash forward 170 years and that's definitely not the case anymore. i find those kinds of shifts of urban power interesting and fascinating. so thanks to all for shedding some light on what went down in the southeast to allow the old colonial power cities like charleston and savannah to fade away while newcomer interior cities like atlanta and charlotte rose to prominence.
all that said, i'm not lamenting the fact that charleston and savannah didn't grow into mighty metropolises, they'd be radically different cities today had that been the case. the fact that they had very modest growth trajectories over the decades allowed them to become the ridiculously well-preserved, charm-filled museum cities that they are today. i love 'em both.
|
As I said though, the Piedmont areas were already more densely populated than the Coastal South in 1800 (much less 1850).
Here's a density map by county for 1850...
http://www.socialexplorer.com/7f9010d0a1/view
Rather different population distribution patterns compared to the North where high densities were concentrated along the coasts.
Although Atlanta was still very small in 1850, the way I see it, the Piedmont already had a better rural population/economic base giving it the ability to support more small market towns that could grow into regional service hubs that could grow into major industrial centres. It seems like there wasn't much population in the Coastal South for the cities to draw upon, whether for trade and commerce, or for rural to urban migrations.
I'm not sure why you already had a shift towards the Piedmont so early on though. Was the Coastal South more swampy? Worse storms? Unable to get much benefit out of its rivers compared to the North (where they were either swift and useful for hydro-power or navigable for a substantial length)?