- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Had the South won would New Orleans be the largest/most populated city in the US?
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:23 pm
I imagine it would be a city south of the mason=dixon line.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:26 pm to Tunasntigers92
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.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:26 pm to Tunasntigers92
Maybe for a period but not now, the city is literally a shithole
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:27 pm to Tunasntigers92
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
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:28 pm to Tunasntigers92
lol no.
New York City would remain the largest city in the US.
New York City would remain the largest city in the US.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:28 pm to Tunasntigers92
Um, New Orleans wouldn't be in the US.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:29 pm to Tunasntigers92
I feel like NO would be like the Boston of the Confederacy. Minus all the sports titles.
This post was edited on 10/20/17 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:32 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:As others pointed out, they wouldn't be apart of the US.
Had the South won would New Orleans be the largest/most populated city in the US?
quote:This Mason-Dixon line?
I imagine it would be a city south of the mason=dixon line.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:35 pm to buckeye_vol
Continental US, and I am fairly certain Nola would be on of the biggest if not the biggest due to the river.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:40 pm to Tunasntigers92
Probably, but only until it flooded and was forced to relocate.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:44 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote: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.
Continental US, and I am fairly certain Nola would be on of the biggest if not the biggest due to the river.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:47 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
At peak population (1960), it ranked 15th,
Sou you think it would have ranked the same had the outcome of the civil war been different?
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:52 pm to Tunasntigers92
Geography would be the only thing limiting it
Posted on 10/20/17 at 7:55 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:No. I'm saying that it was never close in this historical timeline, with a peak of 627,000 residents. As a comparison, there are currently 28 cities with a larger population than NO's peak, and 9 cities at least double that. Chicago (3rd largest) is 4.3 times larger, LA is 6 times larger, and New York is 13.6 timed larger.
Sou you think it would have ranked the same had the outcome of the civil war been different?
So what factors would have made it so much larger that it would compete with cities that large?
Posted on 10/20/17 at 8:31 pm to Tunasntigers92
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.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 8:37 pm to Tunasntigers92
Huh? If the south had won, NO would not have been a part of the US it would have been a part of CSA (unless it chose to secede). In which case, the answer would still be, "no".
Posted on 10/20/17 at 8:43 pm to Tunasntigers92
If the South had won would NO have pumps that work?
Posted on 10/20/17 at 8:45 pm to Tunasntigers92
Oil would have been discovered whoever won the war
So, Houston
Now would Atlanta -- aka "New York's Southern branch office" -- have become such a major city w/o Yankee money?
So, Houston
Now would Atlanta -- aka "New York's Southern branch office" -- have become such a major city w/o Yankee money?
Posted on 10/20/17 at 8:56 pm to Tunasntigers92
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.
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.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 9:03 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
Doc Fenton
Damn good stuff.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News