US Capital on the Mason/Dixon line

Inspired by other threads about the nation's capital. During the process of selecting a national capital, the town of Columbia, Pennsylvania was proposed initially. It even renamed itself Columbia in expectation that the capital would be moved there, having been previously been known as Wright's Ferry. The vote to move it there failed by only one vote. What effect might having a capital on the mason/dixon line have on history? the war of 1812? The civil war?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_Pennsylvania#History
 
It certainly would have been symbolic for whichever of the tow countries that occupied it. Had the south occupied Columbia, then it would have gained an air of legitimacy, I guess.
 
Well, one of the most immediate effects would be on the federalization (if you will) of state debts, as the placement of the capital was part of a compromise to win Southern support for that measure.
 
Going off what Helios Ra said, this likely leads to a weaker union. The south might break away as early as the 1840's and the USA might not expand beyond the Louisiana Purchase. I would like to see a timeline based off of this.
 
It certainly would have been symbolic for whichever of the tow countries that occupied it. Had the south occupied Columbia, then it would have gained an air of legitimacy, I guess.
Which two countries? DC was even on the border of Virginia, but the Confederacy didn't come close to occupying it. Though, of course, if the Civil War isn't butterflied away, Maryland might actually secede with less Union pressure.
 
looked at the Map

Columbia is not on Today's Mason Dixon, or on the original line [before the Pennsylvanians got Mason & Dixon Drunk and drove then 50 miles south]
 
looked at the Map

Columbia is not on Today's Mason Dixon, or on the original line [before the Pennsylvanians got Mason & Dixon Drunk and drove then 50 miles south]

Point taken.

Going off what Helios Ra said, this likely leads to a weaker union. The south might break away as early as the 1840's and the USA might not expand beyond the Louisiana Purchase. I would like to see a timeline based off of this.
Secede over what? The early part of the decade had a president who was a hero to the south, followed by the president who made the south more powerful by giving them two extra senators (illegal immigrants in mexican Tejas+the fact that Texas was broke+the fact that they were southerners+US land grab). Then there was a massive giveaway to the south in 1850. Then another giveaway in Dred Scott. Until the 1860s they have no reason to secede.
 
Secede over what? The early part of the decade had a president who was a hero to the south, followed by the president who made the south more powerful by giving them two extra senators (illegal immigrants in mexican Tejas+the fact that Texas was broke+the fact that they were southerners+US land grab). Then there was a massive giveaway to the south in 1850. Then another giveaway in Dred Scott. Until the 1860s they have no reason to secede.

And a weaker federal government would give the South even less reason to secede since there would be less reason to think a North-controlled federal government would take away their right to own slaves.
 
Top