[LSyd]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The issue isn't whether or not the south was behind the north prior to the Civil War. It's why Charleston and Savannah lost their place relative to the rest of the south.

Certainly their slide began before the war, but the postwar realignment certainly exacerbated the trend significantly.

this, and also how cities rebuilt after the war (and earthquake). there is a lot in Charleston and Savannah from the late 1800s.

for another inland example, Birmingham was founded in 1871 for steel/metal production, and went from a population of a few dozen (farms) to almost 40,000 by 1900.

and another example...

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Some of it has been mentioned before, but almost all of it has to do with the Industrial Revolution.

Charleston and Savannah are not on the Fall Line. Philadelphia and Boston are, or are close enough, and so in the mid-1800s, these cities took off as finished goods from the mills were sent to the big city and then shipped off around the world. Charleston and Savannah didn't have many mills close enough to provide for more than the surrounding region.

There is one Southern city near the coast that is on the Fall Line and was comparatively big back then. Richmond is on the Fall Line and had many factories, similar to how Philadelphia and Boston did back then. Richmond was important enough to become the capital of the Confederacy.

In addition to that, there was a network of canals and railroads that provided links to Boston and Philadelphia, particularly Philadelphia. And of course, New York City outgrew Philadelphia because of the Erie Canal, which linked it up with a very large area providing raw materials to the factories in the NYC area.

What happened in the 20th century, with highways and all, is irrelevant because the groundwork had already been laid in the past several decades. Similarly, the highways didn't create Houston or Los Angeles, which grew in the 20th century; the highways were built to accommodate demand, because other factors were driving the local economy at the time.

The bottom line is that Philadelphia, Boston, Charleston, and Savannah all had what cities needed in the 1700s, but Boston and Philadelphia had what cities needed in the 1800s. From there, Boston and Philadelphia stayed ahead.

big cotton and textile mills sprung up all around the south in the late 1800s. Columbia, Greenville, Augusta, Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Anderson...but there was also now rail for distribution, instead of just ports.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

how have you never been?! in any case, the best time to go is in the winter, in my opinion (but not near mardi gras). i'm used to st. louis heat/humidity, and new orleans is somehow a notch worse. the only good thing is that they have afternoon tropical rainshowers that cool things down...until the sun comes back out and the steambath machine starts up.

chicago to new orleans is kind of a jaunt, but i like driving there, observing the transition of the land, until you feel as though you have sort of actually left the american south, and entered into some kind of quasi-american sub-tropic territory.

i definitely agree with the best time being winter although it can get wet and nasty; November-mid January. you can do pre-Mardi Gras or early Mardi Gras season in January for the experience without the pain of Mardi Gras.

-