Was city destined where Washington DC is?

As the tin says, depending upon the nature of an ATL, was a city likely to be built where OTL's D.C. is? So whether, the ARW failed, or the US picked a different city as a capital, or perhaps another colonial power dominated the region, or even a Native American civilization of some kind, would a city or even fishing village or whatever have been set up there?

opinions?
 
DC isn't exactly on the best land. IIRC, the place was nearly all swamps before they started claering it out for the capital. And even after they built it, its was still surrounded by the swamps, and so still not a great place to be. Its telling that, for a very long time, any British diplomat posted to DC got hazard pay.

Just off the top of my head.
 
I live in DC and I have studied the history a bit. OTL, there were already two thriving cities on the 10 square miles when the Revolution ended. Georgetown, MD was the port town for all the farmers (and later, miners) on the Potomac watershed all the way up to West Virginia, and Prelate John Carroll had destined it to immortality as the site of the young nation's first Catholic university. Georgetown is on a slight hill, and free from swamps, although a bit geographically hemmed in. Alexandria, VA was the port town for the farmers in northeastern Virginia, and while the river itself was a bit swampy, the uplands had fine soil and spectacular views, which provided opportunities for an attractive young woman like, say, Martha Washington, to end up with claims to two of the nation's most famous plantations, Arlington and Mt. Vernon.

The trick is that Georgetown/Alexandria are located right on the fall line, which is as far inland as a wooden seaworthy vessel can travel. That guarantees a monopoly of sort on all the trade south of Baltimore, MD and north of Richmond, VA -- not a very large monopoly, but enough that a city of some sort is destined to be within the 10 square miles.
 
DC isn't exactly on the best land. IIRC, the place was nearly all swamps before they started claering it out for the capital. And even after they built it, its was still surrounded by the swamps, and so still not a great place to be. Its telling that, for a very long time, any British diplomat posted to DC got hazard pay.

Just off the top of my head.

Thats funny. Al of the above is true. Another reason is that DC was located as close to the Geographical center of the then US as possible (the actual is Mt. Vernon eerie huh?)

Another city would emerge but would not be in the DC spot, malaria is one reason.
 
As already pointed out, Washington sits at the "head of navigation" for the Potomoc and two small market towns, Georgetown and Alexandria, already existed at the site thanks to that very reason.

Those towns would grow as the nation did and, even if a small city didn't exist at the site by WW2, one most certainly would develop there after WW2 as suburban sprawl hit the US in full force. Maps of the US are littered with recent "suburban" cities sitting on otherwise unremarkable geographical points between two pre-existing cities.
 
Omaha

Omaha Nebraska is close to the georgaphic center of the contanental US today. Let's move ths capital to Omaha.
 
I wouldn't call Alexandria, VA a 'small market town' during the colonial era, since it was one of the busiest ports in the Thirteen Colonies. I think I remember hearing that it was a bigger shipping point than Baltimore during the 1700s.
 
I wouldn't call Alexandria, VA a 'small market town' during the colonial era, since it was one of the busiest ports in the Thirteen Colonies.


I would because I realize that Alexandria wasn't founded until the mid-1700s and then only as a state-mandated tobacco export inspection point. If you grew tobacco in the region and you wanted to ship tobacco overseas, Alexandria was one of the few places in Virgina where you could receive state approval before legally selling your crop.

Tobacco wore out soils rather quickly and it's cultivation needed to move around every so often. Virginia founded Alexandria because of the head of navigation mentioned earlier and because it was closer via water transportation to the new tobacco cultivation areas in the interior of the state.

Suggesting Alexandria was a more than a small market town because that was the only place where ships could legally pick up tobacco is like suggesting Valdez, Alaska is more than a small market town because that's the only place where tankers can legally pick up oil.

I think I remember hearing that it was a bigger shipping point than Baltimore during the 1700s.

A bigger shipping point only because of Virginia's laws regarding tobacco exports, but no where near being a bigger "city". During the first US census, IIRC, Alexandria's population was a few thousands while Baltimore's was close to 20,000.

Once the National Road was built, followed by the canals and railroads, Baltimore, which was already much larger than Alexandria, quickly outpaced that tobacco inspection entrepot in shipping thanks to the new transport links to the interior of the country.
 
Are they close enough to become Twin Cities like Minneapolis/St Paul, or for one to swallow up the other as NYC triumphed, or is the fact that they are in different states forever going to keep them separate?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Are they close enough to become Twin Cities like Minneapolis/St Paul, or for one to swallow up the other as NYC triumphed, or is the fact that they are in different states forever going to keep them separate?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Latter by virtue of being in two states. Witness Kansas City of MO and Kansas City of KS.
 
Top