Alternate Federal Capitals of the U.S.

I was thinking about more central locations to move the U.S. capital, and looking at a map the border between Kentucky and Missouri looks like an ideal place, a bit north of Columbus and south of Wickliffe. Would that be a good spot?

What other places could do? I've heard St. Louis but that is a bit too north too.
 
I remember reading that after Washington was burned by the British, they considered building a new capital in Cincinnati.
 
This isn't totally without precedent. Canberra was chosen as Australia's capitol as compromise and central location between Melbourne and Sydney. With that in mind, you could basically choose any open area in the depopulated portion of the US and start from scratch.
 
The only way I can see this happening is if during the civil war DC was consider to close to enemy lines and they need to move the government some where far away form raiding and fighting. Boston or New York would be likely choices as they are easier and farther away than any in the Midwest.
 
I was thinking about more central locations to move the U.S. capital, and looking at a map the border between Kentucky and Missouri looks like an ideal place, a bit north of Columbus and south of Wickliffe. Would that be a good spot?

What other places could do? I've heard St. Louis but that is a bit too north too.

The center of population in the US from 1960 to 1980 was in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Combined with the fact that St. Louis is a major transportation hub and already has infrastructure, St. Louis is pretty much the natural choice. Anytime after the Civil War it would probably be logical to put the capital in St. Louis, since the center of population was in the Midwest and moving westward every year. Moving a capital is expensive, so moving it to a city which already exists and a major regional center is a good idea. And anything on the Mississippi River (or any river, but the size of the Mississippi means it's the most challenging) will need flood protection (some places are naturally in a severe flooding zone like Cairo, IL so will be very expensive to protect and expansion limited) as well as a bridge across the river, so that's an extra cost.

Another good option would be Denver, since it's decently close to both California, Texas, and the East Coast, and also very defensible given how inland it is and the proximity to mountains with plenty of resources. That would be good during the Cold War.

I remember reading that after Washington was burned by the British, they considered building a new capital in Cincinnati.

Wouldn't have been a bad choice since it was near the center of population in the 1880s.
 
This isn't totally without precedent. Canberra was chosen as Australia's capitol as compromise and central location between Melbourne and Sydney. With that in mind, you could basically choose any open area in the depopulated portion of the US and start from scratch.
Note that DC was also a planned city, as set out in the constitution.

Article 1, Section 8*:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

* Heh - hadn't thought of how appropriate that is... LOL

Unless DC were somehow rendered completely uninhabitable, it'd probably be a bit of a constitutional question with plenty of people objecting. (I can actually see it going to SCOTUS even if something happens to DC short of a nuclear war level national emergency.)
 
Note that DC was also a planned city, as set out in the constitution.

Article 1, Section 8*:


* Heh - hadn't thought of how appropriate that is... LOL

Unless DC were somehow rendered completely uninhabitable, it'd probably be a bit of a constitutional question with plenty of people objecting. (I can actually see it going to SCOTUS even if something happens to DC short of a nuclear war level national emergency.)

Part of what I find interesting about Canberra is how recent it is. DC is one of my favorite cities, but it's also entrenched in the era it was designed. Canberra is our best example of a city designed from scratch after the automobile was designed, and the city is based around concurrent circles. As a jogger, it's not great for that, but I still liked it from the standpoint of seeing a city designed post-car.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Part of what I find interesting about Canberra is how recent it is. DC is one of my favorite cities, but it's also entrenched in the era it was designed. Canberra is our best example of a city designed from scratch after the automobile was designed, and the city is based around concurrent circles. As a jogger, it's not great for that, but I still liked it from the standpoint of seeing a city designed post-car.
As is Islamabad and Brasilia.

As for capital, I think Denver already has the largest concentration of Federal Gov outside of the DC area.
I think NYC has a larger number of bodies due to financial regulators, but Denver is basically DC secunda.
 
As is Islamabad and Brasilia.

As for capital, I think Denver already has the largest concentration of Federal Gov outside of the DC area.
I think NYC has a larger number of bodies due to financial regulators, but Denver is basically DC secunda.

Why is that? ( about Denver )
 
The only way I can see this happening is if during the civil war DC was consider to close to enemy lines and they need to move the government some where far away form raiding and fighting. Boston or New York would be likely choices as they are easier and farther away than any in the Midwest.

If you’re talking about distance from the CSA, I don’t doubt it, but if we’re looking at cheap and usable land, Chicago presents an opportunity after the Great Chicago Fire. OTL they rebuilt just fine, but what if the CSA broke off, DC wasn’t usable, and the USA needed a plannable city a la DC? Chicago may work because it would need rebuilt anyway, and it’s central enough between east and west AND it’s close to the highly important states of Ohio and Indiana. Plus it’s Lincoln’s Home state, and if he’s a martyr it would be significant.
 
I mean, they almost moved the capital back to Philadelphia after Washington burned. Maybe that could pass and it just sticks?
 
If Washington gets raided, or even temporarily occupied by the CSA during the ACW you may see a movement to move it as it is seen as "too vulnerable". In the 1860s you are not going to see the capital moved west of the Mississippi for a variety of reasons - if you went to the St. Louis area OTL's East St. Louis on the Illinois side would probably be where it happens. After the ACW, except as noted, simply not going to happen as the cost would be substantial and there is really no reason to do so. By the time the population shifts enough, especially with the center being west of the Mississippi, communications and transportation are such that where the capital is is not that important.

I am not discussing "ASB" events like the CSA winning and either taking over D.C. or making it a border city, Germany destroying D.C. with a nuke before losing WWII etc.

IMHO if the capital was ever moved, I would predict it would be to a spot that was pretty empty, not to an existing city so you could plan the whole thing out like L'Enfant did.
 
Top