Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
It was the Civil War. Or, more accurately, the economic realignment that took place in the south following the Civil War, and the resulting delay of industrialization there. The southern workforce, supply base, and customer base were all decimated. And in a stroke of really terrible luck, that all happened at exactly the moment when northern cities like Chicago were ballooning from old Charleston-sized pre-industrial villages to massive industrial metropoli. The Civil War couldn't have happened at a worse time, as far as southern urbanity is concerned.
Yes yes, Sherman burned Atlanta. But Atlanta was a railroad hub, and railroads were the wave of the future. Atlanta was better situated to rise again.
|
It really wasn't the Civil War. It was even before the civil war.
Here's a list of the largest 100 U.S. cities in 1860. Nine cities had more than 100,000 people, but only one was in the South - New Orleans. Arguably you'd include Baltimore here as well, as it was a border city. Eight cities were between 50,000 and 100,000, and none were within the CSA (although Louisville and DC were arguably southern). Nineteen cities had populations between 25,000 and 50,000. Out of those cities, only Charleston, Richmond, and Mobile were located in the south. Looking at the entire top 100, only 15 were in the CSA, and another 7 in border areas (DC, Maryland, Kentucky, or Missouri - arguably it should be eight, because Wheeling was in Virginia at the time, and soon would be in West Virginia). Massachusetts alone had more cities (18) than the entirety of what would become the confederacy.
Regardless, the point is the South was way behind on urban growth well before the Civil War. Indeed, while some southern cities did stagnate further in the postwar period, like Charleston and Savannah, others boomed after the Civil War, like Memphis.