Effects of New York City as the US Capital?

[Witch0Winter]

Well, as more than a temporary capital, anyway, since George Washington and John Adams were in New York for at least some of their terms. Anyway, the question is as it is on the title: What would some effects on the US be if New York City is the US Capital, including effects on New York City itself? After all, it was pretty close to being done, with a Presidental Mansion even completed in downtown New York near today's Bowling Green:

 

[WhoMadeWho]

I think New York is destined to be the largest and most prosperous city in the US, by virtue of history and location. To combine it with being the capitol of the United States would only increase its influence and centrality. Nothing approaching London to the UK, or Paris to France, though.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I located the relevant Wikipedia page on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residence_Act

It seems from the article that the decision to move the capital to what is now Washington was taken quite early, in 1790. And everyone seemed determined for the capital to be some city constructed out in the sticks, the debate being over which side of the Mason-Dixon Line it was located in.

Reading between the lines, it seems that the politicians thought that the inhabitants (mobs) of Philadelphia were taking too much interest in their doings, and wanted to get the capital away from a city as soon as possible. It wound up in New York basically because they were trying to get away from Philadelphia.

This is a pretty ingrained cultural attitude in the US. Look at where most of the state capitals are located.

The thing is, if they decide they are OK with keeping the capital in the largest city, the largest city in the US in the 1790s was Philadelphia, not New York. I can see a POD involving the government not fleeing from Philadelphia. I don't see anything that would make New York anything other than the temporary capital. Even after New York surpassed Philadelphia as the largest city, Philadelphia remained the second largest city for quite some time, I think about a century, and is still a large city. And if the federal capital had stayed there it would be larger and more important than it now is by virtue of that fact.

I can see Philadelphia become Rio to New York's Sao Paulo, though of course the Brazilians moved their own capital to a planned city in the sticks.

One problem with keeping lots federal government offices in lower Manhattan is that that area is badly laid out and really crowded. Old City in Philadelphia doesn't have the problem, and there is also Camden right across the river. One unfortunate consequence of keeping the federal capitol there would potentially be the destruction of lots of historic buildings.

 

[Deleted member 93645]

If the financial capital and political capital are in the same place, it probably leads to more corruption.

 

[Alon]

This is a pretty ingrained cultural attitude in the US. Look at where most of the state capitals are located.

Most US state capitals are located near the centers of their states. This often involved constructing a new city from scratch - Columbia, Indianapolis, Columbus, Austin, Madison. Other times, it was a major city from the start: Trenton, Albany, Denver.

The thing is, if they decide they are OK with keeping the capital in the largest city, the largest city in the US in the 1790s was Philadelphia, not New York. I can see a POD involving the government not fleeing from Philadelphia. I don't see anything that would make New York anything other than the temporary capital. Even after New York surpassed Philadelphia as the largest city, Philadelphia remained the second largest city for quite some time, I think about a century, and is still a large city. And if the federal capital had stayed there it would be larger and more important than it now is by virtue of that fact.

New York was already the largest city proper in 1790. Philadelphia was bigger including suburbs, though.

If the financial capital and political capital are in the same place, it probably leads to more corruption.

Are the UK, France, and Japan more corrupt than the US, Germany, and Canada?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

"Most US state capitals are located near the centers of their states."

This actually merits a long response in and of itself. Unfortunately I only have time these days for very brief comments.

I went state by state sometime last year, and to a remarkable extent each state capital is very close to the current geographic center of population in the state. This is not the same as being squarely in the middle of the state geographically.

One item of note that while there are about half a dozen excepctions to this rule, the exceptions tend to be the largest population states! These are the five largest population states as of the 2010 census, this list is unlikely to change in 2020. I am going off of memory of my research from about a year ago for the center of population:

1. California -capital is in Sacramento, center of population is near Bakersfield.

2. Texas -capital is Austin and this is not badly located for center of population, though IIRC that is closer to the original capital of Washington-on-the-Brazos

3. Florida -capital is in Tallahassee, center of population is between Orlando and Tampa, probably closest substantial settlement is Lakeland

4. New York -capital is in Albany, center of population is in Hudson Highlands, closest to Newburgh though Beacon would be a better state capitol location

5. Illinois -capital is in Spingfield, center of population is close to Joliet

With smaller states, the match between the capitol and the center of population works very well, though Wisconsin which is mentioned in the previous comment is one of the exceptions, Madison is much too far to the southwest and the center of population is somewhere between Portage and Appleton. Btw, Madison was NOT selected because it was in the center of the state, for one thing it definitely is not in the center of the state. Washington is the other significant exception, the population center is somewhere around Snoqualmie (sp?) Falls.

Anyway, all this is besides the point, which is American politicians prefer to meet far from population and media centers. And this point is perfectly true, and dates back to the 1780s, when they started moving the capitols away from the population centers. And this was done quite explicitly to get away from the "mobs".

There are about half a dozen states where the state capitol is in a large city, but there are an equal number of states where the capitol isn't in a city at all. I've been to the state capitol in Vermont and the building (not really, but close) on a country road somewhere.

There should be a thread on alternative state capitol locations and this comment probably should have been posted there, but the subject came up here.

 

[Grimbald]

Having the capital in NYC (or Philly) increases the odds of Maryland joining the Confederacy thus increasing the chances of a Southern victory in the ACW.

 

[PhilippeO]

If the financial capital and political capital are in the same place, it probably leads to more corruption.

there are research that make analysis that putting government away from center of population ( and thus away from press attention and public eye ) create More corruption.

 

[elektro]

"Most US state capitals are located near the centers of their states."

This actually merits a long response in and of itself. Unfortunately I only have time these days for very brief comments.

I went state by state sometime last year, and to a remarkable extent each state capital is very close to the current geographic center of population in the state. This is not the same as being squarely in the middle of the state geographically.

One item of note that while there are about half a dozen excepctions to this rule, the exceptions tend to be the largest population states! These are the five largest population states as of the 2010 census, this list is unlikely to change in 2020. I am going off of memory of my research from about a year ago for the center of population:

1. California -capital is in Sacramento, center of population is near Bakersfield.

2. Texas -capital is Austin and this is not badly located for center of population, though IIRC that is closer to the original capital of Washington-on-the-Brazos

3. Florida -capital is in Tallahassee, center of population is between Orlando and Tampa, probably closest substantial settlement is Lakeland

4. New York -capital is in Albany, center of population is in Hudson Highlands, closest to Newburgh though Beacon would be a better state capitol location

5. Illinois -capital is in Spingfield, center of population is close to Joliet

With smaller states, the match between the capitol and the center of population works very well, though Wisconsin which is mentioned in the previous comment is one of the exceptions, Madison is much too far to the southwest and the center of population is somewhere between Portage and Appleton. Btw, Madison was NOT selected because it was in the center of the state, for one thing it definitely is not in the center of the state. Washington is the other significant exception, the population center is somewhere around Snoqualmie (sp?) Falls.

Anyway, all this is besides the point, which is American politicians prefer to meet far from population and media centers. And this point is perfectly true, and dates back to the 1780s, when they started moving the capitols away from the population centers. And this was done quite explicitly to get away from the "mobs".

There are about half a dozen states where the state capitol is in a large city, but there are an equal number of states where the capitol isn't in a city at all. I've been to the state capitol in Vermont and the building (not really, but close) on a country road somewhere.

There should be a thread on alternative state capitol locations and this comment probably should have been posted there, but the subject came up here.

I think this would be more interesting if you compared it to the center of population at the time of statehood. I'd bet Sacramento looks a lot more reasonable in 1860s prior to the rise of LA in the 20th century.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

"I think this would be more interesting if you compared it to the center of population at the time of statehood. I'd bet Sacramento looks a lot more reasonable in 1860s prior to the rise of LA in the 20th century."

Yes and now. Los Angeles was founded by the Spanish in between two missions and always intended as a major city.

But at the time of statehood, northern California was more important because that was where the goldfields were. And Sacramento had obvious importance in relation to the goldfields.

However, its been about a century since the center of population in California shifted back to southern California, where after all it had before the Goldrush.

This is a good example of how these things can get "stuck" due to the human tendency towards path dependence.

With Florida, Tallahassee is often defended on the grounds that it is indeed in the center of the part of the state that was free from Seminole raids, but really the Seminole raids for quite some time. But maybe with climate change the center of population in the state will wind up in northern Florida again. But is there any reason to use Tallahassee instead of St. Augustine, Palatka, or Gainesville?

 

[Saphroneth]

Something I've been wondering is where it would go in a "CSA gets Maryland" scenario. DC itself is obviously completely untenable as US capital at that point (indeed it may end up the CS capital) but would they start over on a green-field site or just say "sod it" and shift to a city in PA?

 

[chornedsnorkack]

WI capital moved to Cincinnati in 1814, rather than rebuild Washington that had proven vulnerable?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

"Something I've been wondering is where it would go in a "CSA gets Maryland" scenario."

The CSA doesn't get Marryland if the capital of the USA is surrounded by Maryland. The federal government does whatever it takes to hold onto Baltimore, just like in OTL.

If the capital is further north, then the CSA might get Maryland but then Maryland isn't that important.

 

[Saphroneth]

The CSA doesn't get Marryland if the capital of the USA is surrounded by Maryland. The federal government does whatever it takes to hold onto Baltimore, just like in OTL.

If the capital is further north, then the CSA might get Maryland but then Maryland isn't that important.

But that's the thing - it's not completely beyond the bounds of possibility that the US loses Washington DC. If the CSA has control of Maryland (the easiest way is a Trent war) and the Union's on the back foot, then are they seriously going to keep on fighting until either the US has been torn to shreds or they get Washington back? Bear in mind that, with a Trent War at least, it's quite possible for the CS Army to be numerically stronger than the Union one simply because of the terrible dearth of small arms the Union has without access to the European market - so let's accept that this is a situation where in 1862 the Union can't actually recapture Washington.

(This is actually important for my TL.)

The Union doesn't get to just "do whatever it takes" and thus automatically be successful. So - if the CS took DC and are saying that they get the pro-CS areas of Maryland or the war keeps going, does the US say "all right, we'll keep fighting"? (Do they assign a temporary capital or just pretend DC wasn't taken?)

It's also worth considering that in a CS-Wins scenario, even if Maryland (a very pro CS state) is kept by the Union that still leaves the CSA within cannon shot of the White House.

 

[galveston bay]

"Something I've been wondering is where it would go in a "CSA gets Maryland" scenario."

The CSA doesn't get Marryland if the capital of the USA is surrounded by Maryland. The federal government does whatever it takes to hold onto Baltimore, just like in OTL.

If the capital is further north, then the CSA might get Maryland but then Maryland isn't that important.

While the Eastern Shore of Maryland (everything south of Baltimore) was a slave economy the western part (everything west of Baltimore) was settled by farmers from Pennsylvania and is and was very pro Union. So you end up with a situation similar to Missouri and Kentucky and the proximity of Pennsylvania makes quick occupation likely by Union troops of the Eastern Shore area.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

I located the relevant Wikipedia page on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residence_Act

It seems from the article that the decision to move the capital to what is now Washington was taken quite early, in 1790. And everyone seemed determined for the capital to be some city constructed out in the sticks, the debate being over which side of the Mason-Dixon Line it was located in.

Reading between the lines, it seems that the politicians thought that the inhabitants (mobs) of Philadelphia were taking too much interest in their doings, and wanted to get the capital away from a city as soon as possible. It wound up in New York basically because they were trying to get away from Philadelphia.

This is a pretty ingrained cultural attitude in the US. Look at where most of the state capitals are located.

The thing is, if they decide they are OK with keeping the capital in the largest city, the largest city in the US in the 1790s was Philadelphia, not New York. I can see a POD involving the government not fleeing from Philadelphia. I don't see anything that would make New York anything other than the temporary capital. Even after New York surpassed Philadelphia as the largest city, Philadelphia remained the second largest city for quite some time, I think about a century, and is still a large city. And if the federal capital had stayed there it would be larger and more important than it now is by virtue of that fact.

I can see Philadelphia become Rio to New York's Sao Paulo, though of course the Brazilians moved their own capital to a planned city in the sticks.

One problem with keeping lots federal government offices in lower Manhattan is that that area is badly laid out and really crowded. Old City in Philadelphia doesn't have the problem, and there is also Camden right across the river. One unfortunate consequence of keeping the federal capitol there would potentially be the destruction of lots of historic buildings.

If the financial capital and political capital are in the same place, it probably leads to more corruption.

Here's the interesting thing - yes, we decided to move the capital out into the sticks, and we like that in many states. The perception was that it leads to less corruption. However... Have you ever heard of Albany? Really, it's okay if you haven't - very few people outside of New York State have. It's the state capital, and its one of those state capitals where the state capital is one of the only big things in town. It's a veritable cess pit of corruption; the State Senate in particular is a swamp, an utter swamp.

I'm also going to toss out two other examples: Boston, and St. Paul Minnesota, which are both in their respective state's metropoles. Minnesota is one of the models for open government*, and Massachusetts has it's issues, but nowhere near the level of some others. Which when you look at those examples, vs., say, Springfield IL, Baton Rouge, LA, the aforementioned Albany, etc. it provides an excellent argument for a capital city which has some other city function than being a capital city. The other centers of power are much closer to the state government, it's in a major population center, so the state government is on a much shorter leash than when they are out in the middle of nowhere.

A US capital permanently in NYC could have some side-benefits; could also get a touch (more) imperial as time goes on.



*Note: "my party didn't win" is not a synonym for corruption.

 

[Cryostorm]

A US capital permanently in NYC could have some side-benefits; could also get a touch (more) imperial as time goes on.

Capital being the biggest trade and merchant city located in the Empire state going imperial, who would have thought?

 

[Resurgam]

The city itself would be built differently.

Kenneth T Jackson mused that if New York remained the capital, it would be built focusing on political glory - a task easier to do after the fire of 1776 and the TLC of British occupation. Without that, it was free to focus on capitalism and evolve into the city we have today. So, New York would probably still be an alpha city, but it would likely be a very different one.

 

[Saphroneth]

a task easier to do after the fire of 1776 and the TLC of British occupation

What can I say, we like giving you Yanks a clean slate to start on.

 

[FellowNerd]

The Capital moving was part of the Compromise of 1790 where the Democratic Republicans "got" the capital in Mayland/Virgina, and in exchange they gave the Federalist party the Assumption Act where the federal government assumed states debt. Without the compromise the capital stays in New York but makes the federal government and the union weaker. Any of the inevitable crisis might have splintered the union sooner, tariffs for example would be harder to argue as a federal responsibility when the federal level didn't even control the debt. It would likely make Virginia a stronger state as it held little debt compared to other states and that would have kept it's prominence for longer.