Richmond Question

In a TL where Virginia doesn't secede, and West Virginia doesn't come to fruition, would Richmond be large, and how could this be possible?
 
In a TL where Virginia doesn't secede, and West Virginia doesn't come to fruition, would Richmond be large, and how could this be possible?

Virginia (along with Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas) only seceded because Lincoln called for a militia to put down the rebellion. If somehow you can get support in those states for the militia, you avoid them seceding.

Richmond's Virginia's capital anyway, so it's going to be the center of government in the state. Richmond wouldn't swell, but it didn't swell after being picked as the Confederate capital anyway.
 
Virginia (along with Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas) only seceded because Lincoln called for a militia to put down the rebellion. If somehow you can get support in those states for the militia, you avoid them seceding.

Richmond's Virginia's capital anyway, so it's going to be the center of government in the state. Richmond wouldn't swell, but it didn't swell after being picked as the Confederate capital anyway.

What would be the capital of the CSA if Virginia didn't break away? Atlanta? Greensboro?
 
Yeah, the intended capital of TTL's Confederacy stays in Montgomery.

However, let me give some more background info.

This Civil War takes place from 1865-1869. Virginia and Tennessee remained in the Union. On top of this, there was a semi-large migration of whites to states like Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky post-Civil War due to an altered Emancipation Proclamation and some harder Reconstruction issues.

Virginia's population is larger than it is OTL, and for that reason I wondered just how large Richmond could get as Virginia is seen as the Political Center of the area by 1900.
 
i know virginia was like the core of the confederacy after they joined in but ive always wondered what made them decide to move the capital there from montgomery after they joined....seems wierd theyd mlove their capital pretty close to the front lines and make it a -easy- target...ie closer
 
i know virginia was like the core of the confederacy after they joined in but ive always wondered what made them decide to move the capital there from montgomery after they joined....seems wierd theyd mlove their capital pretty close to the front lines and make it a -easy- target...ie closer

It was a sweetener on the CSA's part to get the Upper South into the fight, since Virginia's joining would also drag Tennessee and North Carolina along too. Plus, one could make the argument that the US capital was close as well, and that after the war was won, you could either force the Yankees to back away from the Richmond area (in terms of troops if not transfer of land, e.g. West Virginia) or just move the Confederate capital back.
 
Richmond might have become the lower end of the Bos-Wash metropolis 50 years earlier - also, not having the city mostly bruned to ruin in the war would alter the look of the city greatly. Having it not seen as a 'Southern' city could see it industrialize and grow like much of the other Northern cities, a route Richmond was heading to before the war.

If West Virginia stays part of the state, industry will boom - with the massive iron and coal reverves of West Virginia, the coastal trade networks and the fall-line cities that mark industrial cities (Fredericksberg, Richmond, Petersberg... basically the i95 corridor) Virginia might become a second Pennsylvania in terms of growth during the industrial age, maybe even in terms of the east state/west state rivalry.

In the end, I could see it a large city, about the same size as Baltimore, maybe Philidelphia.
 
Richmond, unlike Washington, wasn't on the border of a hostile secessionist region. It was 90 miles away from that stuff. Now, 90 miles isn't super far, but like FleetMac said, you can always move it back after the war's won.
 
Richmond might have become the lower end of the Bos-Wash metropolis 50 years earlier - also, not having the city mostly bruned to ruin in the war would alter the look of the city greatly. Having it not seen as a 'Southern' city could see it industrialize and grow like much of the other Northern cities, a route Richmond was heading to before the war.

If West Virginia stays part of the state, industry will boom - with the massive iron and coal reverves of West Virginia, the coastal trade networks and the fall-line cities that mark industrial cities (Fredericksberg, Richmond, Petersberg... basically the i95 corridor) Virginia might become a second Pennsylvania in terms of growth during the industrial age, maybe even in terms of the east state/west state rivalry.

In the end, I could see it a large city, about the same size as Baltimore, maybe Philidelphia.

This could very well result in Virginia becoming Northern-ized much earlier than OTL, as in a century or more earlier. More industry probably means more immigration and more labor movement activity in the late 19th-early 20th century. By mid-20th century ITTL, Virginia might not be a recognizably Southern state anymore, just another Mid-Atlantic industrial state with a couple big cities (Richmond, the Hampton Roads area), several medium-sized cities, and a few conservative small towns and rural areas. So, yeah, a lot like Pennsylvania.
 
This could very well result in Virginia becoming Northern-ized much earlier than OTL, as in a century or more earlier. More industry probably means more immigration and more labor movement activity in the late 19th-early 20th century. By mid-20th century ITTL, Virginia might not be a recognizably Southern state anymore, just another Mid-Atlantic industrial state with a couple big cities (Richmond, the Hampton Roads area), several medium-sized cities, and a few conservative small towns and rural areas. So, yeah, a lot like Pennsylvania.

Possibly, especially if West Virginia never breaks away AND manages to prosper economically speaking.

A Northernized Virginia....UGH, I shudder at the thought :p
 
Possibly, especially if West Virginia never breaks away AND manages to prosper economically speaking.

A Northernized Virginia....UGH, I shudder at the thought :p

One could argue that Virginia is slowly "Northernizing" today. They've been leaning Democrat for the past couple of elections and a lot more industry is there today than there ever was.
 
One could argue that Virginia is slowly "Northernizing" today. They've been leaning Democrat for the past couple of elections and a lot more industry is there today than there ever was.

Well first of all, Industry ≠ Northern states (case in point, Birmingham and much of Tennessee). And speaking from my experience growing up there, Northern Virginia (a.k.a. "NoVA") is considered a totally different animal from the Tidewater (from where I hail) or the Piedmont. And the Democratic leaning isn't anything new in the South; Atlanta and much of Florida and Texas have a tendency to vote Democrat as well. The fact that this last election was as close as it was should indicate that there's an increasing divide between the counties surrounding D.C. and the remainder (I wholeheartedly support a splitting of NoVA away from the "true" Virginia FWIW).

At worst, Virginia could be considered a border state like West Virginia or Missouri, not truly the South but definitely not Northern either.
 
Well first of all, Industry ≠ Northern states (case in point, Birmingham and much of Tennessee). And speaking from my experience growing up there, Northern Virginia (a.k.a. "NoVA") is considered a totally different animal from the Tidewater (from where I hail) or the Piedmont. And the Democratic leaning isn't anything new in the South; Atlanta and much of Florida and Texas have a tendency to vote Democrat as well. The fact that this last election was as close as it was should indicate that there's an increasing divide between the counties surrounding D.C. and the remainder (I wholeheartedly support a splitting of NoVA away from the "true" Virginia FWIW).

At worst, Virginia could be considered a border state like West Virginia or Missouri, not truly the South but definitely not Northern either.

I was making a generalization. Industry is prevailant in the North(east) rather than, per say, farming, and the North tends to vote Democrat. I'm generalizing way too much, I understand.

(Also, on your Atlanta point - many big cities vote Democrat rather than Republican. Florida is a swing state, so I should have exempted it from the Electoral South, and the last time Texas voted for a Democrat was Carter in '76, though I understand the Democrat influence in Texas is growing).
 
I was making a generalization. Industry is prevailant in the North(east) rather than, per say, farming, and the North tends to vote Democrat. I'm generalizing way too much, I understand.

(Also, on your Atlanta point - many big cities vote Democrat rather than Republican. Florida is a swing state, so I should have exempted it from the Electoral South, and the last time Texas voted for a Democrat was Carter in '76, though I understand the Democrat influence in Texas is growing).

S'all good, sorry for coming across as hermetic, I'm just a tad sensitive about claims regarding my home; you did nothing wrong :eek: (my ex-wife's from NoVA, and you wouldn't believe the pointless, petty crap we'd argue about simply given our respective perspectives).

And you're right about big cities voting Democrat, plus given the candidate in question the past two elections, it should be no surprise the DNC would do considerably better than normal (had to say it, the numbers don't lie). And yes, Texas actually has quite the history of voting Blue going back past Carter and LBJ...but then again, the South did in general vote either Democrat or Wallace's Nutbags during the 60s as well. And the Democrats were long considered to be entrenched in the region since the Antebellum period; granted, the party was a somewhat different beast then, but the party's been part of a solid continuum nonetheless, and therefore IMHO still counts.
 
Top