U.S. Capital After a Bloodier Civil War

[Iori]

Alright, so I was doing a mini-TL, and part of it is that, while the Union is ultimately victorious, the Civil War lasts about a year longer and the Confederates manage to capture D.C. early on and hold it for a few months before the Union forces recapture it, however do to the Confederates purposefully damaging things and the city literally becoming a war zone much of the city is heavily damaged and by the end of the war the civil population has shown little interest in returning and even early on their are those who advocate creating a new capital in the North as a way to spite the South.

Anyways, in general where is the most likely place for a new capital city in the North in a scenario like this in your opinion?

[W. S. Marble]

I would pick nearby Baltimore...easy move, harbor, additional workforce.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by W. S. Marble

I would pick nearby Baltimore...easy move, harbor, additional workforce.

I don't see why having a harbor is any great advantage. There is no need for the capital to be a major commercial center when you already have places like New York and Boston. Besides, having a harbor means that the city will be vulnerable to an enemy attack from the sea.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by W. S. Marble

I would pick nearby Baltimore...easy move, harbor, additional workforce.

Baltimore is too close to the CSA, a better move would be Cleveland or Milwaukee or Detroit. The CSA won't get near those cities barring divine intervention!

[Iori]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

Baltimore is too close to the CSA, a better move would be Cleveland or Milwaukee or Detroit. The CSA won't get near those cities barring divine intervention!

Well the CSA would'nt be an issue in this scenario since, ya know, it was defeated and re-annexed.

So, just to shorten it, I'm asking is where is the most likely place for the capital in the North in a situation in which the Union wins, but DC is more or less to damaged to work as one and their's no real bg desire to rebuild it.

[W. S. Marble]

Sorry...made my decision. We're all going to Baltimore.

Only kidding...those are good points you all raised.

[AuroraBorealis]

Originally Posted by W. S. Marble

Sorry...made my decision. We're all going to Baltimore.

Only kidding...those are good points you all raised.

Oh lets see...

Akron, Canton or Youngstown in Ohio maybe Lima, Dayton.


Wheeling WV. or anywhere on the Upper Ohio to East Liverpool purpose built or expanded for the purpose

Ft. Wayne, Lafayette, Terre Haute or Vincennes in Ind.
Danville Ill.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by AuroraBorealis

Oh lets see...

Akron, Canton or Youngstown in Ohio maybe Lima, Dayton.


Wheeling WV. or anywhere on the Upper Ohio to East Liverpool purpose built or expanded for the purpose

Ft. Wayne, Lafayette, Terre Haute or Vincennes in Ind.
Danville Ill.

All except Danville, I think Lincoln wouldn't it moved to his own state as that would look like favoritism.

[Enigmajones]

I have to say, Chicago always made some sort of sense to me as a National Capital. Its in the middle of the country, not the real middle like Jefferson City, but still has an East Coast mentality, so I think it would work.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Iori

Well the CSA would'nt be an issue in this scenario since, ya know, it was defeated and re-annexed.

So, just to shorten it, I'm asking is where is the most likely place for the capital in the North in a situation in which the Union wins, but DC is more or less to damaged to work as one and their's no real bg desire to rebuild it.

It had to move somewhere those few months. If it were me I wouldn't move it back to DC until the war was over. The city is useless outside of being the capital and if it is trashed you have good excuse not to waste your troops gaurding it. I think Lincoln should have moved the capital away from DC after Antitham or Gettysburg at the latest.

[AuroraBorealis]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

All except Danville, I think Lincoln wouldn't it moved to his own state as that would look like favoritism.

Well I actually lean towards Wheeling....

border between old NE and the new West a partnership that was necessary to bring the South to heel.

[Mathalamus]

what about new york? sure its vunerable to the sea, but any enemy would have to conquer a large amount of territory just to reach it, and an amphibious invasion there is likely to fail since it would and should be well fortified.

[AuroraBorealis]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

I have to say, Chicago always made some sort of sense to me as a National Capital. Its in the middle of the country, not the real middle like Jefferson City, but still has an East Coast mentality, so I think it would work.

ah but remember this is 1866 population still does not extend much past the trans-Mississippi tier of states.

[Kaiphranos]

One thought: if the war has lasted longer, U.S. finances are probably in worse shape. Depending on how bad things are, they might want to prioritize areas where land and/or labor are cheap. (i.e. this might not be the best time to build a new city entirely from scratch.)

[Georgepatton]

So they've won the war, but DC was trashed in the process? If they aren't going to rebuild the capital, which I'd say is a much better way to spite the South ("Yeah, you messed it up, and now we're going to tax you and use the money to make it twice as good as before!")

If not going back to DC, I'd say they just keep it where ever they moved it during the war, if the place was suitable in the post-war environment. If it was Philadelphia or Baltimore or New York, then maybe just leave it there.

[sudfamsci]

St Louis or Denver if pushed. you dont want it vonrable to inveders the coast or great laks is vounrable to sea attacks and the capital was destroyed by "invaders" . so security would still be an issue but i would say NY or Philly for cultural reasons

[azander12]

What about Philadelphia? It's in the North, it has historical significance for a number of reasons, and it's a major city already. Another one could maybe be New Haven, Connecticut...

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by azander12

What about Philadelphia? It's in the North, it has historical significance for a number of reasons, and it's a major city already. Another one could maybe be New Haven, Connecticut...

I was just thinking of Philly or New York because they've already been the capital before, and the historical connection is obvious and a selling point.

However, there is the practical question of actually fitting the government into these cities. If they want buildings as grand and purpose-built as the Capital and White House and the New Washington Monument, they're going to have to knock a lot of things down.

[AuroraBorealis]

Originally Posted by Georgepatton

So they've won the war, but DC was trashed in the process? If they aren't going to rebuild the capital, which I'd say is a much better way to spite the South ("Yeah, you messed it up, and now we're going to tax you and use the money to make it twice as good as before!")

If not going back to DC, I'd say they just keep it where ever they moved it during the war, if the place was suitable in the post-war environment. If it was Philadelphia or Baltimore or New York, then maybe just leave it there.

Probably evacuated to philly... because of existing infrastructure...New York is out...there were riots I think at one point. Afterwards it remains temporary while new ifrastructure is developed further west more in the centre of the New Union. of course if they cannot agree....Who is to say that temporary would not become permanent.

[Iori]

Just as an aside, in the scenario this question arose from I had it initially move to New York during the war then in the 1870's to Columbus which eventually became the New Columbia Federal District (F.D.).