Had the South won would New Orleans be the largest/most populated city in the US?

Doubtful. It would have (well, did) take a while for the South to move beyond an agrarian economy, whereas even during wartime there were already industrial centers in the North. I suppose there's a possibility for a rapid shift for the Southern economy should they have successfully seceded, but I don't see why that would be the case.

quote:

---

Had the South won would New Orleans be the largest/most populated city in the US?
I imagine it would be a city south of the mason=dixon line.

---

Houston

Um, New Orleans wouldn't be in the US.

quote:

---

Had the South won would New Orleans be the largest/most populated city in the US?

---

As others pointed out, they wouldn't be apart of the US.

quote:

---

I imagine it would be a city south of the mason=dixon line.

---

This Mason-Dixon line?

Probably, but only until it flooded and was forced to relocate.

quote:

---

Continental US, and I am fairly certain Nola would be on of the biggest if not the biggest due to the river.

---

Why? What would have made it so much more of a population center under this alternative history? At peak population (1960), it ranked 15th, although maybe it ranked higher at one time. It seems that there are some geographic factors that make expansion a little less feasible than other places.

Geography would be the only thing limiting it

A southern City On The East Coast/Charleston?,probably would become the major hub/port of The States,due to the direct trade with Europe.

If the South had won would NO have pumps that work?

A poorly phrased question for sure, but there is an interesting underlying hypothetical that I've long thought about regarding how the CSA would have developed economically given a negotiated peace with the North.

Judah P. Benjamin was the CSA Secretary of State, and New Orleans was over 4 times larger than Charleston or Richmond, so it stands to reason that new financial institutions would have centered in New Orleans had it been a part of an independent CSA.

Then again, New Orleans had been losing clout since the 1840s. Whereas it was only 120 more citizens away from being the 2nd largest city in the U.S. in 1840 (and probably the wealthiest per capita), by the 1860 census it had dropped to 6th place (or 5th place if you count New York and Brooklyn as one city). Boston, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and St. Louis were really taking off, whereas New Orleans was not.

There is the famous statement that 40 cents of every dollar of cotton exports from the antebellum South ended up in the pockets of New York City merchants and financiers, so there would be a very strong incentive for the South to cut out the middleman. At the same time, the Gulf Stream made it natural for boats to flow up the East Coast on the way to Europe, and the Confederacy had a very laissez faire mindset when it came to anything resembling economic protectionism. So it's likely that New York would have continued to dominate the merchant banking aspect of the Cotton trade, even after a hypothetical Southern "win" in the Civil War.

But it's also not a black-or-white thing. The Northern cities would have continued to grow faster, but New Orleans would have developed a more mature financial industry, and moreover, the CSA would have surely pursued a gigantic expansion of trade with Latin America in the coming decades of the 19th century. That's the biggest X-factor in all of this. Depending on what occurred with Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, and Argentina, the city of New Orleans could have become very important economically in the late 19th century--maybe above the level of any other continental city besides New York.

Geographically speaking though, it would always be limited in terms of physical space for expansion, to where it could never become like a Birmingham or Nashville or Houston or Atlanta--i.e., the newer types of cities in the post-war South.