DBWI purpose built federal capitol for the United States

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I have to admit that I'm something of a fan of purpose built national capitols, created from the ground up, though urban planners tend to hate them (Constantinople and Alexandria turned out OK, however).

What if the United States government decided to build one of these? After all, the Constitution allows Congress to designate a "federal district" anywhere it wants to!

 

[Nivek]

What will be of that for Philadelphia? it was the capitol by now mostly inertia and lack of money....

 

[Lord Of Tacos]

For me the idea seems a little like a waste of resources. Why would they need a new capital if Philadelphia serves that role perfectly? Perhaps an idealistic might say that they need a neutral place to be the new capital (probably named Washington or Jefferson or Franklin or any other founding father name) to not offend the rest of states. In my oppinion it sounds a little ridiculous.

 

[moxn]

The southern states absolutely hated having a capital that far in the north, so if a new city was going to be built it would probably be further south to appease them. Somewhere on the Virginian border would have been a good compromise. However, I think there would be bigger implications down the road. A federal government that is more interested in appeasing the southern states might be more willing to compromise with them on other important issues, like slavery, which could turn into a powder keg down the road. Could you imagine what would have happened if Virginia hadn't started gradually phasing out slavery in the 1830s?

 

[Practical Lobster]

On the Virginia border? Historically that was mostly swamp, and farmland and if you've every been to Potomac Natl. Park you know a lot of that area further west is very rocky and difficult terrain to say the least. Such a city would remain stunted and artificial at best if it was situated along the Potomac.

Or do you mean somewhere like Dahlgren or La Plata? Still super rural and out of the way, and probably too close to the other major cities of the area at the same time.

 

[Dan1988]

The southern states absolutely hated having a capital that far in the north, so if a new city was going to be built it would probably be further south to appease them. Somewhere on the Virginian border would have been a good compromise. However, I think there would be bigger implications down the road. A federal government that is more interested in appeasing the southern states might be more willing to compromise with them on other important issues, like slavery, which could turn into a powder keg down the road. Could you imagine what would have happened if Virginia hadn't started gradually phasing out slavery in the 1830s?

Well, there's multiple options when it comes down to it, though using an existing city would have been equally attractive. Had Philadelphia not been the national capital, - well, NYC would be too far north in that case, and the Potomac valley would be a no-no for reasons already cited. That could leave options for placing the capital in Maryland or Delaware, which are closer to the historic center of the original 13 Colonies. Just some food for thought.

 

[Happers]

What if the capital just changed around according to the expansion of the United States?

First it can be Philadelphia, then Washington D.C., like it our timeline but instead of just keeping the capital it Washington the capitol changes. Once America expands to California the capitol is then changed to Denver or some other alternate Central North American city. If in this alternate timeline America expands further then the capitol can change again. I mean it's not unheard of for countries with large land masses to change their capitol. It's just a hassle.

 

[Hominid]

Yeah, I don't see any way a capital gets built, considering that the only logical place (the Potomac) isn't a good place for a city.

I could see a scenario where, some time in the 19th or 20th century, westward expansion causes Philly to become a rather inconvenient place for a capital and they move it to somewhere near St. Louis, or something. Like, if the US somehow manages to grab Alta California, the congresspeople from those areas might not want to travel 3,000 miles to get to work.

 

[Heliogabalus]

I don't know why everyone is mentioning the Potomoc; remember that Maryland was considered a Southern state at the time. If you want a capital between the Mason-Dixon Line, I'd say the Susquehanna is a better choice.

 

[Tim Thomason]

There's no way in heck that Philadelphia doesn't remain the capital. It's where the Constitution and Declaration were drafted. NYC was capital for a second, and there were plans to build an independent capital in all sorts of places. But the intrinsic historical nature of Philly means that it will always become capital again after any disastrous experiment in some swampland in Delaware or something.

Can you imagine a capital in or on the border of the southern states during the Civil Wars? Lincoln probably would've died in battle instead of serving as President for 18 years.

 

[Hominid]

There's no way in heck that Philadelphia doesn't remain the capital. It's where the Constitution and Declaration were drafted. NYC was capital for a second, and there were plans to build an independent capital in all sorts of places. But the intrinsic historical nature of Philly means that it will always become capital again after any disastrous experiment in some swampland in Delaware or something.

Can you imagine a capital in or on the border of the southern states during the Civil Wars? Lincoln probably would've died in battle instead of serving as President for 18 years.

Well nobody in the 1700s expected a Civil War to happen (at least in the way it did IOTL) so that problem would have to be solved later. You're right that there's very little reason for them to want that though, given that Philadelphia worked fine.

I wonder how Philadelphia would be affected by not being the capital, though. Probably a bit less people. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure Pennsylvania would vote Whig if it the District hadn't broken off, although obviously the party system probably gets butterflied.

 

[Heliogabalus]

Can you imagine a capital in or on the border of the southern states during the Civil Wars? Lincoln probably would've died in battle instead of serving as President for 18 years.

While it might still happen, the dynamics of the Civil Wars might change with a capital near the South, specifically, border states would be under more pressure to stay in the Union. If the Southern troops got too close, they would probably move the president and congress to a temporary capital for the rest of the war. President George H. Lincoln would almost definitely be butterflied away, though.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Having a planned federal capitol would showcase the latest architectural styles and urban planning from whatever time it was built.

In particular, many of the states would imitate the design of the federal capitol building when building their own state capitols buildings. As it is, something that looks sort of like Independence Hall became pretty common, though many states opted to imitate the celebrated design of the Massachusetts state capitol. You also see the Second Empire style used more in the state capitol buildings built after the Civil War, obviously influenced by the new federal capitol building built in what was Center Square. Another thing you would get would be some states building their own planned capitol cities in the wilderness, instead of just sticking with the original territorial capitols that was the common practice.

 

[Circonflexe]

I think you are all very misguided in imagining Capital City* close to the Atlantic coast. The need for a federal capital would not manifest itself before westward expansion started in the 1820s, and by that time the almost-complete torching of Philadelphia by the British had shown that the coast was too vulnerable. Moreover, a planned capital would make more sense right in the middle of the whole territory claimed by the US. Given the huge dependency on fluvial transportation in the 19th century, I could think of two or three places hugely favored by geography: either Fort Defiance (at Miss./Ohio onfluence - quite easy to reach from the east), Fort Lewis-Clark (Miss./Missouri confluence - probably the best place to project influence westward), or maybe between the Des Plaines river and Lake Michigan (easy to reach the Great Lakes system and the Great Plains - this would work best if all of Canada is annexed in 1815).

* For OP: yes it's a A not a O. The Capitol is the name of one of the hills in Rome and nothing else. The English language (and its pronunciation) is broken.

 

[Minchandre]

All this talk about the capital needing to be a "better compromise between north and south" - are we forgetting that Philadelphia is about 18 inches north of the Mason-Dixon line? The only possible better location would be Wilmington.

Come to think of it, that might be a better sell anyway, politically. Delaware was sort of half-way on the north/south split, and unlike Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, both Wilmington and Delaware were fairly unremarkable at the time.

Still, I find the idea the new Republic, struggling financially as it was anyway with all that war debt, would spend even more money on some brand new city ridiculous! In particular, how is this supposed to placate the southern states, who were already screaming about money?

* For OP: yes it's a A not a O. The Capitol is the name of one of the hills in Rome and nothing else. The English language (and its pronunciation) is broken.

It's also the word applied to the physical building of Congress, which is the closest thing to a capital building as the US has

 

[Nivek]

Wonder how this would affect to modern day, would Philly required a mandatory Curfew every time the Eagles plays, we know Eagles fans are, specially when eagles loss, more even when loss against an NFC East rival....and the less we talk the Eagles-Steelers rivalty the best....