Cities Spend A Lot Of Time Pointing To Other Cities They Don't Want To Become

[JManc]

It was, in land and in population but the largest cities were to the north. Power concentrates in urban areas.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by JManc

America = United States. I think we all pretty much understand this when used in context of this conversation.

hail columbia!


wikipedia.com

i guess we don’t use that anymore.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

It was, in land and in population but the largest cities were to the north. Power concentrates in urban areas.

Virginia was not disproportionate in land area to the other colonies. In 1770, Virginia was present day Virginia + W. Virginia, for a total of roughly 69K square miles. Pennsylvania was the colony with the largest urban area at the time. Today the state is 46K square miles, but in colonial era it included a large chunk of NYS, and would have likely been larger than Virginia. But even using Pennsylvania's current day borders, Virginia would have been a more densely populated colony.

1770 population density of Virginia+W.Va: 6.47/square mile
1770 population density of Pennsylvania (current borders): 5.2/square mile

http://worldpopulationreview.com/sta...teen-colonies/

But that is a moot point. Political representation may concentrate in the urban areas, but we're talking about the economic engine. Obviously, Virginia was the biggest economy in the colonies since it had the largest population for the entire colonial period. And to take it a step further, nobody can deny that there was far more economic activity in the Caribbean during the colonial era than in the region that is current day Ontario.

[JManc]

Virginia's wealth and influence came from agriculture. This is where Washington's and Jefferson's family wealth came from. Why build factories when you can make way more money growing and exporting tobacco? This is why the Dutch didn't put up a fight when the British horned in on Manhattan, they could make more money in Suriname which they got in return.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Virginia's wealth and influence came from agriculture. This is where Washington's and Jefferson's family wealth came from. Why build factories when you can make way more money growing and exporting tobacco? This is why the Dutch didn't put up a fight when the British horned in on Manhattan, they could make more money in Suriname which they got in return.

Until the 1800s, all anyone was doing anywhere was agriculture. Even in the northern states, the economy was agricultural. New York started as a trading post for commodities and slaves.

[jtown,man]

I've noticed, most certainly with young people, they think its politically incorrect to say that slavery was not economically a good move and that the South was incredibly poor because of slavery.

Then they point out different large landowners to show how rich the South was! Yeah, well...most Southerners didn't have much. And I am not just talking about slaves, who had basically nothing. They also added very little to zero to the economy as consumers. Rather, even the free white people were usually poor and had little in wealth or economic mobility.

Slavery does not equal economic powerhouse. It equals an economy which is stagnant and have no innovation.

Alexis De Tocqueville's account of the South was pretty spot on. Thomas Sowells book, Black Redneck, White Liberal also paints a great picture of why the South lagged. Slavery and a general lack of initiative from white people in work kept the South behind the North in many ways.

[Leveled]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

hail columbia!


wikipedia.com

i guess we don’t use that anymore.

Oh, we know about Columbia.