U.S. Capital After a Bloodier Civil War

Central to the nation now, but back then it was the boondocks, to say the least.

Which means land is cheap and grandiose designs could be easily done if they are building it from the ground up. Besides, St Joseph is in some pretty countryside and there was a railway out to it in 1860, so there is already some infrastructure. It also means no possibility of naval attack, a capital that far inland is safe from all but a multi-pronged transcontinental attack until the equal of OTL late 1950s/early 1960s
 
The question was where else in the North, as in it's not going to be D.C.

If you insist. But then there needs to be an explanation of why the most obvious and probable course of action is ignored. "DC is a mess" doesn't really work; as noted it had been sacked before and rebuilt.
 
Which means land is cheap and grandiose designs could be easily done if they are building it from the ground up.

That much is true, but have you looked at a population map from that era? By far the vast majority of population, commerce, transportation and communication were in the EAST. That's where the nation was, that's where the capital would be. OK, so the OP is insisting on the capital not being DC, fine. I won't repeat my thoughts on THAT subject. The new capital might well be new and purpose-built like the old one, but it would still need to be somewhere in the east.
 
Vulnerable? Perhaps. But Grant didn't take that seriously enough to keep the heavy regiments there when he needed bodies, and it worked out all right for him. DC would be best defended by an army in the field keeping the Rebels in Virginia, just as was (eventually) done OTL. Early caught the Union with its pants down and got no further than the outskirts. Of course, during an imagined Confederate occupation of DC, somewhere else would have to be the interim capital. New York seems the most likely candidate. But I believe the Union would move back at the earliest feasible moment.

Why? It was a waste of troops. The best thing that could have happened for the Union is for it to be briefly occupied and trashed. That way you free up tens of thousands of troops. If Lincoln moved the capital after Antietam it would have cut months if not years off the war. After the war makes much more sense.
 
Politics. Because war isn't always about what makes military sense.

Perhaps, but I don't know why people would be so insistant that the government would move back right away. Particularly if the city is trashed. Why move the capital back to something that resembles post-war Charlestown? It's rubble and will take a long time to rebuild. If I were Lincoln I would drag the rebuilding as long as possible to keep the army away from DC and towards the Rebels.
 
Last edited:
mean centre of Population

Something to consider...


mean Centre of the Population would be Pike County in Ohio at this point in time

eliminate the south for the moment and assume that any move willl probably be to a border region between two states, and attempt to balance sectionalinterests of the victorious "Union" regions in the old east and New West

mean would still be the same east west at about 83 West but mean would be centred between say 36/37N and 49N Or about 42.30 or 43 N Which would be somewhere just to the NW of lake St. Clair in Michigan directly north of Detroit somwhere.

just an observation.

USACentrepop.gif
 
Something to consider...


mean Centre of the Population would be Pike County in Ohio at this point in time

eliminate the south for the moment and assume that any move willl probably be to a border region between two states, and attempt to balance sectionalinterests of the victorious "Union" regions in the old east and New West

mean would still be the same east west at about 83 West but mean would be centred between say 36/37N and 49N Or about 42.30 or 43 N Which would be somewhere just to the NW of lake St. Clair in Michigan directly north of Detroit somwhere.

just an observation.

Might as well make it Detroit then, it is certianly large enough. Detroit would certainly work.
 

WeisSaul

Banned
Philadelphia, it was the nation's first capital. Plus making the city of Brotherly love the capital could send an important message to the nation in the era of reconstruction.

Also it is on a river, so it is good for trade, but its not susceptible from attack from the sea. New Jersey, the Delaware, and the marshlands around Chesapeake Bay all form a sphere of defenses around the city.
 
That much is true, but have you looked at a population map from that era? By far the vast majority of population, commerce, transportation and communication were in the EAST. That's where the nation was, that's where the capital would be. OK, so the OP is insisting on the capital not being DC, fine. I won't repeat my thoughts on THAT subject. The new capital might well be new and purpose-built like the old one, but it would still need to be somewhere in the east.

I'm not saying it will be in the middle of paradise. I think about it in three ways:

-Politically: the nation has just emerged from a devastating civil war between north and south, but the future of the nation is in the west. Keep people focused away from the sore spots and thinking about the future and maybe they become more productive. It means the South doesn't have to answer to a "Yankee City" and the Northerners don't get angry because they were not chosen over a potential rival. Build the whole city from the ground up and design it as you like, again along the Missouri River so it can also be a river port if you like.

-Defensively: The US had a paranoia of the British Navy and the UK in particular, visions of East Coast cities burning and Union Jack flags flying over various cities was vivid in the minds of civilian and military planner alike. Detroit is way too close to the Canadian border when the UK is not a staunch ally and most of the other East Coast cities are ports vulnerable to attack, at least DC has the Cheasepeake as a warning system. Missouri/Kansas/Iowa are the heartland and very safe from invasion by all but a truly continent-scale attack that would require just about the entire planet agreeing to take down the country.

-Monetarily: Custom-building new structures for the government will likely be cheaper than building in Manhattan, Phildelphia, or other established trading centers. If the capital were to be relocated they would need cheap land and lots of it, cheap labor was already plentiful and they could also attract development of the West by moving men and supplies out that way. Also it would bind the Pacific Coast closer to the rest of the country, the materials and resources of the West being the fuel for the engine that drives American expansion in the decades following the Civil War.
 
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...

New Haven's too small. Even then Yale took up most of the town center. Its Philadelphia, all the way. Plus, New York had too many Copperheads and revolting Irish in it. And the Irish rioted alot too.:D:mad:[SIZE=-4]im irish ian so i can say that right?[/SIZE]
 
Something to consider...


mean Centre of the Population would be Pike County in Ohio at this point in time

eliminate the south for the moment and assume that any move willl probably be to a border region between two states, and attempt to balance sectionalinterests of the victorious "Union" regions in the old east and New West

mean would still be the same east west at about 83 West but mean would be centred between say 36/37N and 49N Or about 42.30 or 43 N Which would be somewhere just to the NW of lake St. Clair in Michigan directly north of Detroit somwhere.

just an observation.

By my calculations this means the population center of the US in 2210 CE will be in Juarez, Mexico!:eek: Mexico might want to start building up their military. The Yankees are coming!:D:rolleyes:
 
one problem with building a new capitol out in the middle of nowhere... it has to have easy access for diplomats to get there. So I think they'd still build it somewhere near the coast, by a river at least. And, if the government buildings in DC are trashed beyond repair, couldn't they build new ones still inside the DC District? The actual US government buildings don't need that much space, and the District is a lot bigger than the space needed...
 
one problem with building a new capitol out in the middle of nowhere... it has to have easy access for diplomats to get there. So I think they'd still build it somewhere near the coast, by a river at least. And, if the government buildings in DC are trashed beyond repair, couldn't they build new ones still inside the DC District? The actual US government buildings don't need that much space, and the District is a lot bigger than the space needed...

They could, yes, but assume for whatever reason you choose that they simply don't want to rebuild DC and decide to relocate the capital.
 
Last edited:
The future is in the West, the nation is at the beginning of the railroad building boom, the Transcontinental Railroad has a terminus at St Joseph, Mo., the city is centrally located, located on the Mississippi near it's confluence with the Ohio...it's got to be St. Louis. It could also be seen as a reward for Mosouri staying in the Union..and St. Louis being a center of Unionism.
 
one problem with building a new capitol out in the middle of nowhere... it has to have easy access for diplomats to get there. So I think they'd still build it somewhere near the coast, by a river at least. And, if the government buildings in DC are trashed beyond repair, couldn't they build new ones still inside the DC District? The actual US government buildings don't need that much space, and the District is a lot bigger than the space needed...

Trains WERE invented by this time and all major cities were connected by rail. If diplomats have to go to Columbus, OH to get to the capital they should have no problems getting there.
 
one problem with building a new capitol out in the middle of nowhere... it has to have easy access for diplomats to get there. So I think they'd still build it somewhere near the coast, by a river at least. And, if the government buildings in DC are trashed beyond repair, couldn't they build new ones still inside the DC District? The actual US government buildings don't need that much space, and the District is a lot bigger than the space needed...


Yes, but do you think the senators would want to go to a bombed out city even if the government buildings are rebuilt? It still looks ugly and the various fancy restaraunts and theaters are not going to be there any time soon.
 
Top