Why aren't Charleston & Savannah the Boston & Philly of the south?

[Crawford]

New Orleans was one of the richest cities in the U.S. in the 1800's. The invention of the cotton gin sent cotton production soaring and New Orleans was the center. New Orleans was the second or third largest city in the U.S. in 1840. Really only NYC was considerably bigger.

In early 1800's, most cotton to Europe was shipped via New York. At some point, the New Orleans wharves were upgraded and could directly ship to UK and the Continent. Cotton was THE export and New Orleans dominated. It was almost like Silicon Valley today.

And, yeah, the Mississippi, the most important waterway on the continent, was critically important.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

to dig down a bit further, this has already been covered, but both new orleans and st. louis had large, productive hinterlands to draw wealth from (as did every other major north american city to rise before world war 2) and function as transportation centers . savannah and charleston had swampy, low productivity, low connectivity, highly stratified, entrenched economies. new orleans became fueled by st. louis and vice versa, so the entire center of the continent fueled those 2 cities which worked in tandem (although st. louis traded with the mid atlantic heavily as well) until chicago started hammering away (another discussion).

as far as i know, charleston and savannah were more (economically) isolated, excepting the higher classes which i'm sure interacted with the northeast. much more stagnant economies, and were geographically old backwater to the westward surge of american activity. not anymore, of course.

Right. An important corollary of this is the reason NYC boomed was because of the construction of the Erie Canal, which meant that all trade via the Great Lakes traveled down the Hudson until the Saint Lawrence Seaway was completed. So NYC was not only a great east coast port with a productive hinterland, but also served the same function that New Orleans did for the entire Mississippi basin. Without the Erie Canal it probably would have been in the same size range as Boston or Philadelphia.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

New Orleans was one of the richest cities in the U.S. in the 1800's. The invention of the cotton gin sent cotton production soaring and New Orleans was the center. New Orleans was the second or third largest city in the U.S. in 1840. Really only NYC was considerably bigger.

In early 1800's, most cotton to Europe was shipped via New York. At some point, the New Orleans wharves were upgraded and could directly ship to UK and the Continent. Cotton was THE export and New Orleans dominated. It was almost like Silicon Valley today.

And, yeah, the Mississippi, the most important waterway on the continent, was critically important.

i am suprised to see that new orleans was larger than philadelphia (proper) in 1840. philly hadnt annexed northern liberties yet, though. still an impressive stat for both a southern AND "western" city at the time.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i am suprised to see that new orleans was larger than philadelphia (proper) in 1840. philly hadnt annexed northern liberties yet, though. still an impressive stat for both a southern AND "western" city at the time.

Yeah, Philly, by current standards, was likely bigger than New Orleans, but by city limits New Orleans was #2 or #3. Pretty impressive for what was still a raw frontier city, far from established centers.

And especially impressive in that New Orleans has oppressive humidity half the year, and constant flooding. It's a pretty terrible location for a city, yet in 1840 many people probably thought it could eventually be the dominant city in North America, or at least one of the dominant cities.

[Steely Dan]

given N.O.'s founding and early growth as a french, and then spanish, colonial city on the gulf coast, i see at as a different animal from anything in the british colonial atlantic seaboard.

then again, it was a pretty tiny place prior to the lousiana purchase and getting wrapped up in the whole US manifest destiny game, so it was never a MAJOR center under french or spanish control.

nonetheless, it's an interesting outlier for a whole host of reasons. i simply must visit it someday (hopefully) soon. it's the only major historic US city that i have yet to visit.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

given N.O.'s founding and early growth as a french, and then spanish, colonial city on the gulf coast, i see at as a different animal from anything in the british colonial atlantic seaboard.

then again, it was a pretty tiny place prior to the lousiana purchase and getting wrapped up in the whole US manifest destiny game, so it was never a MAJOR center under french or spanish control.

nonetheless, it's an interesting outlier for a whole host of reasons. i simply must visit it someday (hopefully) soon. it's the only major historic US city that i have yet to visit.

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.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

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.

my (not so) secret dream is to ride the "city of new orleans" down there and back someday. i'm a romantic at heart.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

my secret dream is to ride the "city of new orleans" down there and back someday. i'm a romantic like that.

Same here with that idea. Never been either. City of New Orleans, a beautiful song that I never tire of. Americana to the core, in the best way.

I was VERY close 3 years ago about to do my first marathon in NO on my birthday (Feb. 2nd) but I wasn't ready and later did my first in DC in late March.
I've looked periodically to fly down there but flights there are most always uber expensive from Chicago compared to other major cities. Maybe this years Jazz's Fest......

[brickell]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Florida doesn't really have a single counterpart, although Pensacola and Jacksonville come close.

Apalachicola was once one a major gulf port. I don't think many people could point it out on the map now. Smaller scale than some of these others but the definitely in the same family.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by brickell

Apalachicola was once one a major gulf port. I don't think many people could point it out on the map now. Smaller scale than some of these others but the definitely in the same family.

i've been there, used to vacation in that area. i see a lot of apalachicola oysters here, one of the only major commercial fishing fleets left in florida from what i can tell.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I would say transportation played a role as well. It's very difficult to build railroads along the coast in the south, because of lowlying swamps and broad rivers/estuaries.

Both Savannah and Charleston had railroads feeding into them, but they were on spurs while the main line was often 50-75 miles further inland. When the interstate system was built, this pattern was repeated. Charleston is a full hour's drive off I-95, assuming no traffic. Even Savannah is a 15-20 minute drive from I-95.

That's the main explanation IMO as well.

And we're lucky it was the case - Charleston and Savannah wouldn't be the gems they are, otherwise.

[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.

[electricron]

Charleston and Savanah are surrounded by swamps.
Land not easy to build on and land not easy to grow crops on.
Much of the wealth in the South prior to the Civil War was invested into plantations, both land and labor. After the Civil War, the wealth was eliminated resulting from liberating the slaves and the burning of the plantations by Sherman's march to the sea. It's difficult to pay taxes without money from crops and slaves. While the historic agriculture plantation system may or may not have created huge profits and wealth, the new agriculture systems based upon sharecropping after reconstruction didn't allow acculmuntaing as much wealth, as the money earned from the crops was distributed to more people working the smaller and smaller farms. An agriculture based economy is basically non compatible with large urban cities.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by electricron

Charleston and Savanah are surrounded by swamps.
Land not easy to build on and land not easy to grow crops on.
Much of the wealth in the South prior to the Civil War was invested into plantations, both land and labor. After the Civil War, the wealth was eliminated resulting from liberating the slaves and the burning of the plantations by Sherman's march to the sea. It's difficult to pay taxes without money from crops and slaves. While the historic agriculture plantation system may or may not have created huge profits and wealth, the new agriculture systems based upon sharecropping after reconstruction didn't allow acculmuntaing as much wealth, as the money earned from the crops was distributed to more people working the smaller and smaller farms. An agriculture based economy is basically non compatible with large urban cities.

Both low country cities were surrounded by large rice and indigo plantations, as well as naval stores materials (e.g. turpentine) provided by slash pine forests. Also, the Savannah, Ashley and Cooper were navigable rivers, so the use of railroads was not as critical. The swamp and marshes did not in anyway impact the growth of either city, or the wealth of the region. It was, however, a very concentrated wealth, and there was no significant middle class in the South at the outbreak of the Civil War, but by that time, the shipping needs and trade patterns had already shifted. The opening of the midwest, first from the Erie Canal and later continental railroads, definitely elevated the better deep water ports of the Northeast over the Southern Ports. Additionally, the changes in trading patterns enhanced the Northeaster cities. Manufactured goods became a larger part of the trade patterns as the US implemented tariffs to bolster fledging US industries. As a result, the southern ports became secondary destinations, where cotton was loaded for shipping to the English and French mills.

The 'elite' in both cities were comfortable with the arrangements and the wealth generated by the triangle trade. And, as others have pointed out, you cannot discuss either city's evolution without considering the disruption of the Civil War, and the subsequent occupation/reconstruction of the south. Northern interests ensured that the South/s manufacturing would be restricted. Additionally, the efforts required to create a new civic and economic structure detracted greatly from civic efforts. There was a massive destruction of assets and you can't build without $$$.

The industrial expansion of the South started with the migration of the mills to the fall line cities, not the old ports, with the exception of NO. At the end, Savannah or Charleston had neither the infrastructure or civic goal to grow like Philadelphia or Boston.

[HurricaneHugo]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Weather, possibly? I loved Charleston when I visited in 2012 but there's some residual PTSD among long-time residents from when Hurricane Hugo hit in 1989.

My bad.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Crawford

New Orleans was the second or third largest city in the U.S. in 1840. Really only NYC was considerably bigger.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i am suprised to see that new orleans was larger than philadelphia (proper) in 1840. philly hadnt annexed northern liberties yet, though. still an impressive stat for both a southern AND "western" city at the time.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, Philly, by current standards, was likely bigger than New Orleans, but by city limits New Orleans was #2 or #3. Pretty impressive for what was still a raw frontier city, far from established centers.

New York and Philadelphia were far and away the largest cities in the US back then. Philadelphia was much larger than New Orleans at that time -- likely double the size of New Orleans. Northern Liberties/Kensington/Spring Garden, and Southwark/Moymensing were all urban industrial neighborhoods immediately contiguous with "Philadelphia proper" back then. They were basically part of the city, even though they were technically their own townships "separated" from Philadelphia only by former estate boundaries. For all practical purposes, they were Philadelphia neighborhoods... and they also happened to be among the largest "cities" in the US at the time.

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.

Yes, this was basically along the lines of my response.

And in even broader terms... in the mid-19th century, the North was industrial with many cities, the South was agricultural with few cities. Factories developed around nodes of materials and transportation networks. This brought the demand for workers... immigration. 5 million Irish alone came to the US in the mid 1800s before the Civil War... and most of them settled in Northern industrial cities. And the accelerator was only pushed down from there.

[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.

-

[lzppjb]

Galveston is another port that was on its way to being a big time city before the hurricane destroyed it. Now it lives in Houston's shadow.

[HurricaneHugo]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Weather, possibly? I loved Charleston when I visited in 2012 but there's some residual PTSD among long-time residents from when Hurricane Hugo hit in 1989.

Oops.

My bad.

[Lakelander]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I would say transportation played a role as well. It's very difficult to build railroads along the coast in the south, because of lowlying swamps and broad rivers/estuaries.

Both Savannah and Charleston had railroads feeding into them, but they were on spurs while the main line was often 50-75 miles further inland. When the interstate system was built, this pattern was repeated. Charleston is a full hour's drive off I-95, assuming no traffic. Even Savannah is a 15-20 minute drive from I-95.

Also to the list of historic Southern coastal cities, don't forget to add Mobile. Historically it was somewhat smaller than Charleston or Savannah and much smaller than New Orleans, but it is the Alabama counterpart to each of those cities. Florida doesn't really have a single counterpart, although Pensacola and Jacksonville come close.

Mobile was Florida's counterpart. Spanish Florida once stretched west to the Mississippi River. The Alabama section of Spanish Florida was taken by the US in 1819. The US got the rest of Florida in 1821. East Florida (roughly everything east and south of the Suwannee River) was too dangerous for US expansion until the end of the Seminole Wars in 1858.