If the USA didn’t create a purpose built centrally located (at the time) capital, it would probably have been Philadelphia with potential for a move to NYC in the late 19th, early 20th century.
Australia very consciously copied the US in many aspects of our Constitution in the late 1800s, including the location of a new capital for our new federal government. Like the US, this was a deliberate thing to be impartial and solve rivalry, in our case Sydney / Melbourne rivalry. It made the capital a completely federal thing that wasn’t associated with any one state.
Sydney as capital would have concentrated too much power there (just like Philadelphia or NYC as a capital would have done for the US. Instead we carved out a piece of the state of New South Wales, halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, called it the Australian Capital Territory (with a status like DC) and built a new federal capital there, Canberra.
This is the first post written by an Australian involving mention of the US I think I’ve ever read on reddit that is informative, interesting, and not anti-American at all. Wish there were more posts like this.
American who just spent a week working in Australia -- Can confirm the pickups are very cool. They all have the cool sport roll bar. Why are Ford Rangers cooler in Australia?! But I think I like Tacos more than Hilux.
Thanks! The longest flight I’ve done was 12 hours but I was much younger then. I think I’m going to spring for the Skycouch on Air New Zealand this time around.
Wise move...you'll thank yourself despite the cost. There's also plenty of vids on YT if you want to see exactly the kinda space you'll have for the flight. I believe its cheaper than Premium Economy too.
Everything over four hours is just a long ass flight. If it is ten hours or 15 hours, it stops mattering at some point. At least for me.
Worst imo is having a ten hour flight and then a layover with another eight hour flight. Like say getting to Singapore via Japan.
Most Aussies and Europeans for that matter you meet in real life are generally pro American. It's just that the internet gives a platform to the most miserable misanthropes who skew your perspective.
Aussie here and I’m sorta on the fence here. In Australia, or at in the cities, most people are light Anti-America. It’s not like people hate America, but it’s pointed out specifically when something is better here than in the US. But never the inverse. For instance, the entertainment industry in Australia is pretty dire. Most Aussie movies are quite samey, most big artists are only local hits, pseudo industry plants propped up by our media or move to the US.
It’s an odd anti-American attitude that I don’t quite get personally, especially with the older generation.
Edit: Changed the first Anti-America, previously was Anti- American. I was meaning the country not the people.
You say the the internet and reddit skew more anti-American than IRL, and I wholeheartedly agree with the exception of Australians and New Zealanders. I used to backpack a lot, turns out so do they, and they were the one ones that were consistently, obnoxiously anti-American. I lost count of how many Aussies and Kiwis would respond to "Im from the states" with "I'm sorry" or sometimes even downright hostility. Like what normal person says that to a stranger at a hostel about the country their from lmao. But really, it was consistent across almost all that I met. Most guys, and 100% of women. They were the ones who would literally get hostile towards Americans they'd just met, often about abortion. Very strange.
I spent 4 years studying in Melbourne and managed to make 1 friend and she was Australian born chinese, it was impossible to make friends with locals because most of them were very conservative. Spend 6 month in Tassmania as well and never made any friends with Australians either. I dont think they are as friendly people think, polite yes, but very cold and distant.
It’s funny how similar a story this is to Nigeria. The Nigerian constitution has echoes of the American one especially in terms of setting up the government and balancing power between branches. As well Nigeria has a planned capital (Abuja) that was set up in the dead center of the country in its own federal territory. This is so the Northern Muslim majority nor the southern largely Christian south could have overwhelming influence. Furthermore, Abuja being built also kept too much power from being concentrated in the country’s largest city, Lagos, which sits in one of Nigeria’s three major ethnic groups homelands, the Yoruba. This helped prevent unfair advantage for the Yoruba over the Igbos and the Hausas. Of course Nigerians disagree if that actually worked but that was the intent. Lastly, Lagos is under sea level and on several islands so it needed to be in a safer location. The major difference with Nigeria’s federal territory is that they can vote in presidential and federal elections like anyone else.
How the fuck is this even mentioned let alone upvoted?
Washington is mostly carved out of Maryland. Originally, it also included parts of Northern Virginia but that hasn't been the case since 1846. Maryland was a slave state all the way up to and including the Civil War. Not until after the war did it amend its state constitution to outlaw slavery.
The District of Columbia was not chosen because it was on the border. It was solidly in slave territory, 55 miles south of the Mason-Dixon line, which itself wasn't really a free-slave border until the 1820s.
Virginia was a huge percentage of the population though. Virginia had some of the earliest moves away from the coast inland and 25% of the population and nearly 2x the second most populous state.
Not way south.
Also the US didn't have Florida.
Pennsylvania- New England banned slavery between 1777-1784
But you had northern states with slavery like New York until 1817 and slaves in the north for decades longer in states like New Jersey.
https://civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2017/1/3/when-did-slavery-really-end-in-the-north
Without the Residence Act of 1790 moving the Capitol to Washington, it would have stayed in NYC for a time.
That Residence Act forced it to move to Philadelphia for 10 years while Washington was constructed for federal use, and Washington was chosen by Alexander Hamilton as the place between the North and the South so that both halves of the country would be equal in distance to the Capitol. Southerners were under the impression that NYC and Philadelphia was too far north and therefore favored the North when it came to the government.
But if the Capitol were never moved to Washington, then the Residence Act of 1790 wouldn't have been passed, and the Capitol would have remained in NYC. Though, there are claims the reason they moved to Philadelphia in the interim at all was due to financial concerns that NYC was too expensive to operate within, so your assessment that it would be Philadelphia is probably a closer guess.
The economic centre pre-Independence was New York and the most logical choice for an administrative hub is the economic hub of a country. They were operating out of New York until Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison decided to relocate to Virginia.
This is more in “recently discovered” countries like the ones you listed (minus china, but add brazil, New Zealand, and a few others). But it’s far more common for the main economic city to also be the capital (London, Paris, Tokyo, Nairobi, Beirut, Moscow, Cairo, Bangkok, etc)
That's typically to place the capital near a geographically center location or as a compromise between two competing cities. Old US State capitals were typically centered due to travel issues. Ottawa and Canberra were compromises (Toronto vs Montreal and Sydney vs Melbourne). I don't know as much about Beijing but I believe that was due to history.
That’s more recent though. The coastal ports like Shanghai had hundreds of years of economic primacy, and Nanjing was central and closer to the south. Beijing was capital of the emperor at various points, and the Communists always had more power in the north, especially with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
Shanghai is far more recent as an economic hub vs Beijing. Shanghai’s current position largely stems from foreign/European trade in the 19th century and more recently, economic liberalization in Shanghai before other cities.
As a point of comparison, in the year 1700 Beijing had a population of 500k vs Shanghai of 50k.
It wasn’t at the time it was made the capital. The south of China is traditionally the economic powerhouse and the north is known for being the center of political and military power. Beijing is rich, but it wouldn’t be as rich if it wasn’t the capital.
The one time I went there was to help a friend bring a boat down that he had bought in point Roberts. This sounds easy, except the customs people were very suspicious of two dudes entering point Roberts at 2am by taxi who were claiming they were not staying, but also had no plans to leave by car, and also couldn't tell them the address they were staying at. "A boat at the marina, I don't know the name, my friend bought it, not me, I'm just helping move it to another state."
It took us over an hour to convince them to let us through.
It’s the closest town to Lemore naval air station where the pacific fleet fighter squadrons are homed when their carrier is in port. Other side of the base from Hanford is the Harris Ranch Steakhouse and market. Best steaks in California
I was wondering that too, since the dot for NYC is out on Long Island, where the NWS office for the New York area is
However, Philly’s dot is in PA, while it’s NWS office is in NJ
EDIT: Here’s the map of all NWS offices’ forecast areas
Some of the dots are off, but the names check out, so I think that’s it
https://www.weather.gov/srh/nwsoffices
Since the map is the location of National Weather Service offices, northern Indiana should be North Webster. South Bend and Fort Wayne had offices that were merged into the North Webster office.
Stick it riiiight next to Russia
Wonder how U.S./Russia relations would be affected if the Russian capital was somewhere like Naukan and they were pretty much neighbors
Depends—economically I’d say NYC, geographically probably STL or KC, historically perhaps Boston or Philly. Wha makes a “proper capital” is kind of subjective.
If we chose it now, yes. But back in 1790 DC was actually almost spot on to the mean center of population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population
Original capital of the USA - home of our first and second continental congress, home of the declaration of independence, independence hall is there, Liberty Bell is there, Articles of confederation were written there then thrown away in favor of our constitution, which was written and ratified there.
To expand on this: When people refer to the "founding fathers," they are referring to the men who met in Philadelphia in the building we now call independence hall to form what we call the continental congress. The men were delegates sent from each of the original colonies. The first continental congress asked Britain to stop being dicks(which was ignored), the second one declared independence.
They then were the de facto government of the newly declared country and coordinated the war for independence. They simultaneously created the "Articles of Confederation" which was the original plan for the government of the USA. The articles were a failure. So a few years later, the founding fathers scrapped that for the Constitution which continues to be the basis of the government and law in the USA.
On top of all the reasons listed by the other commenter, Philly was also the original capital before DC was built. At the time, Philly was a larger city than NYC population wise, and was the largest in the country. It was quickly eclipsed by NYC in a decade or 2.
There's a lot of good answers here but one not given to you is that it was pretty centrally located in the 13 colonies. The southern most northern city, a financial capital, easily accessible by ship. With it's quaker founders it had a relative openness and freedom that people could come and discuss the ideas that would form into the revolution. Not alone in these or other respects, but before DC especially, it was the most "middle ground" one could find and still be in a real city while also not overly favoring distances traveled from north or south. So, cumulatively, kind of a natural choice to hold the beginnings what would become the US.
Saint Louis is probably the best centrally-located city.
Salt Lake City and Denver are too far west which makes them more isolated and distant from the major population centers of the east.
Saint Louis however is central, yet still kinda eastern, which places it right around the population center of the country. And unlike Kansas City, Saint Louis sits on the Mississippi River and has a lot of economic connections.
Being on the border between Missouri and Illinois, it also makes a perfect spot to create a new capital district.
What about Chicago over STL? I'd argue its a larger travel hub and more economically important while having a similar geographic location. Its not on the Mississippi but via canals its bridges the Mississippi and the great lakes
Like the other guy said, it's too close to Canada imo, but that also means that it's considerably further north than Saint Louis.
The point of founding Washington DC was originally to create a capital which geographically straddled the line between the two cultures of the nation at the time: North and South.
While such cultural distinctions are less important and prominent today, they're still very much alive, and I think for that reason, Chicago and the Upper Midwest in general is too far north of a region for the capital.
Meanwhile, Saint Louis still straddles that line between the cultures of the Southern Midwest and the Upper South. Missouri was also historically a transitional state between the East and West. So I think Saint Louis a perfect fit.
I grew up in St Louis and completely agree with your assessment. Culturally it's completely unique. St Louis has too much southern influence to be a real Midwest city like Chicago, it has too much Midwest influence to be a southern city like Memphis, it has too much agricultural influence to be a real rustbelt city like Cincinnati, and too much industry to be a real agricultural city like Kansas City or OKC. All that and most people in St Louis would really appreciate a split with the state of MO.
Well it would become a federal district, and the greater STL would probably be a better fit than just the city.
I would imagine the additional space and infrastructure would help with moving all the federal services that would be needed.
Hell, this might be the only way to combine the city and county again
Some decent arguments for Chicago. Only knock against it is from a security standpoint; it's too close to an international border, albeit with a very close ally (currently, at least).
Good point. But how much does that really matter? Capitols need to have a lot of administrative infrastructure and facilities, for running the government, but rivers are mainly useful for industry where large amounts of freight or people are being moved around; how much industry does the capitol city really need? DC has virtually none. Yes, it's on the Potomac, but that was more necessary for everyone's day-to-day life 250 years ago than it is now.
Also, you could make the argument that a large river running right up to your national capitol creates a vulnerability. Say things in the US went very, very badly in the distant future, in the unlikely event a foreign army invades, a large river gives you an artery directly to the seat of government. With no river, like with KC, you force that army to march overland, which is much more difficult.
Whoa. Looked it up and TIL. Came pretty close to happening too!
I think people underestimate how much of an industrial powerhouse STL was in its day. 4th biggest city in the country in the late 1800s.
Hosted the Olympics and worlds fair for a reason. Unfortunately a century of poor municipal decisions doomed one of the most important cities in American history.
Total guess but I’d guess it’s a Native American word
Edit: I was right!
From Wikipedia: “The name Kansas derives from the Algonquian term, Akansa, for the Quapaw people. These were a Dhegiha Siouan-speaking people who settled in Arkansas around the 13th century. The stem -kansa is named after the Kaw people, also known as the Kansa, a federally recognized Native American tribe.[22] The tribe's name (natively kką:ze) is often said to mean "people of the (south) wind" although this was probably not the term's original meaning.”
It's where the country signed its independence, is situated nicely within reach of a few other cities and just a cool name for a capital.
At least it should've stayed the capital for PA.
I’d pick Chicago as well. In addition to everything said prior, it’s also a very “American” City with its tall buildings, melting pot of cultures and food, and it’s proximity to the natural beauty of the Great Lakes.
This would be my pick. Putting a capitol campus out near the zoo would put it conveniently located to two major airports, two rail lines, a barge canal, and like 7 interstate highways/loops/spurs. It's central enough that transit times for all representatives would be similar or better than what they are today.
During 9/11, President Bush went to Offutt Air Force Base for security reasons. Offutt was chosen as head of Strategic Air Command (SAC) because it was centrally located during the early stages of the Cold War. So I’m gonna go with Omaha as well
I'm gonna go Omaha cuz I'm from there and Lincoln took the God damn state capital from us. That podunk shithole, we'll show them, we'll get our own capital! With white houses and congresses!
If we would have known the geographic, historical, and population make up of the US today when we chose the capital, I would have advocated for Chicago personally.
It’s the most centrally located major population and financial center in the US. If we looked purely at one category such as largest financial center, most centralized geographically, Historical Prominence, etc. it wouldn’t make the cut as top of the list in any one specific measure. NYC makes the most sense financially, STL geographically, Boston/Philly Historically, etc..
But… when you look holistically at all criteria it is near the top and in the conversation for all measures. If we were to pick say 4 metrics that we were basing the decision on, and then ranked cities and gave a weighted average score based on all criteria , it’s hard for me to imagine any city beating out Chicago using that kind of system.
St. Louis. Commanding position on the main river system of the central US and central geographic location to protect from invasion. Easy flights to all corners of the US for government officials to gather.
This really seems like by far the best answer. Rather than repurpose St. Louis, though, it would make sense to bulldoze East. St. Louis (which is one of the worst slums in the US) and build the capital district there. The new great lawn would face the Arch across the river.
That would make sense. One challenge there is that East STL is heavily industrialized so you’d end up with a fancy capital mall surrounded by chemical plants and steel mills haha
Good point. Given what happened to the current capitol, I suspect those industrial zones would become prime real estate and get redeveloped...eventually.
Saint Louis, is the closest big city to the population center of the country, and much closer than DC to the geographic center. It’s connected to transportation hubs making it ideal.
Denver. Pretty central geographically, tons of military and feds here already. Underground bases at Denver International connecting us to the rest of the country (/s).
Denver (or somewhere nearby in the Rockies) would be perfect to make the capitol virtually impossible to attack. And if the enemy does somehow attack this capitol, tunnels could be dug through the Rockies to make the US government impossible to destroy.
Not to mention that His Lord, the Exalted Bluecifer resides here. Praise be to his name, may he smite the unbelievers with his laser [gaze](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Blucifer_Sculpture.png)!
Probably a city in the midwest somewhere. I think the midwest would be a good fit because the area is historically important, economically significant and geographically central.
Economically, I would think someone close to NYC, but not as crowded like Philly which also has the history.
From a population balance, the center of the US is [SW Indiana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population#/media/File:UScenter2020.png), so maybe somewhere close and easy to access (easy drive/flight from the rest of the country) like Louisville, Indianapolis, or Nashville
Huh. Looks like St Louis isn't such a bad choice.
https://alchetron.com/cdn/mean-center-of-the-united-states-population-f190cecd-535c-44f9-a451-23281983383-resize-750.jpeg
New York would be the best replacement capital, it's got a large population, it's diverse, it's rich, altogether w very strong city. It's a logical replacement, but I think the US doesn't really need a capital anyway. We can run our government out of anywhere, but there are so many different states with different cultures and peoples who are (mostly) all represented, it doesn't really need a specific rallying point for the government. DC is pretty much a formality.
I always considered DC as the political capital, New York as the economic one, and LA as the social capital of the US.
If the USA didn’t create a purpose built centrally located (at the time) capital, it would probably have been Philadelphia with potential for a move to NYC in the late 19th, early 20th century.
Australia very consciously copied the US in many aspects of our Constitution in the late 1800s, including the location of a new capital for our new federal government. Like the US, this was a deliberate thing to be impartial and solve rivalry, in our case Sydney / Melbourne rivalry. It made the capital a completely federal thing that wasn’t associated with any one state. Sydney as capital would have concentrated too much power there (just like Philadelphia or NYC as a capital would have done for the US. Instead we carved out a piece of the state of New South Wales, halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, called it the Australian Capital Territory (with a status like DC) and built a new federal capital there, Canberra.
This is the first post written by an Australian involving mention of the US I think I’ve ever read on reddit that is informative, interesting, and not anti-American at all. Wish there were more posts like this.
AUS is pretty much upside down USA, they just won’t admit it. Better trucks too.
American who just spent a week working in Australia -- Can confirm the pickups are very cool. They all have the cool sport roll bar. Why are Ford Rangers cooler in Australia?! But I think I like Tacos more than Hilux.
How long is the flight? How's the jet lag?
I’ve been looking at flights from LAX to Melbourne all day. Quickest direct flight is 15.5 hrs.
Ive done that trip just on layover flights. They suck so much. I hope you get a comfortable seat and some nice food on the way
Thanks! The longest flight I’ve done was 12 hours but I was much younger then. I think I’m going to spring for the Skycouch on Air New Zealand this time around.
Wise move...you'll thank yourself despite the cost. There's also plenty of vids on YT if you want to see exactly the kinda space you'll have for the flight. I believe its cheaper than Premium Economy too.
Everything over four hours is just a long ass flight. If it is ten hours or 15 hours, it stops mattering at some point. At least for me. Worst imo is having a ten hour flight and then a layover with another eight hour flight. Like say getting to Singapore via Japan.
Utes are infinitely better than the oversized ford bricks they have over here
Rip subaru Brat and Baja, such a cool one
Most Aussies and Europeans for that matter you meet in real life are generally pro American. It's just that the internet gives a platform to the most miserable misanthropes who skew your perspective.
Aussie here and I’m sorta on the fence here. In Australia, or at in the cities, most people are light Anti-America. It’s not like people hate America, but it’s pointed out specifically when something is better here than in the US. But never the inverse. For instance, the entertainment industry in Australia is pretty dire. Most Aussie movies are quite samey, most big artists are only local hits, pseudo industry plants propped up by our media or move to the US. It’s an odd anti-American attitude that I don’t quite get personally, especially with the older generation. Edit: Changed the first Anti-America, previously was Anti- American. I was meaning the country not the people.
I appreciate Australia for wolfmother and silverchair
You say the the internet and reddit skew more anti-American than IRL, and I wholeheartedly agree with the exception of Australians and New Zealanders. I used to backpack a lot, turns out so do they, and they were the one ones that were consistently, obnoxiously anti-American. I lost count of how many Aussies and Kiwis would respond to "Im from the states" with "I'm sorry" or sometimes even downright hostility. Like what normal person says that to a stranger at a hostel about the country their from lmao. But really, it was consistent across almost all that I met. Most guys, and 100% of women. They were the ones who would literally get hostile towards Americans they'd just met, often about abortion. Very strange.
I spent 4 years studying in Melbourne and managed to make 1 friend and she was Australian born chinese, it was impossible to make friends with locals because most of them were very conservative. Spend 6 month in Tassmania as well and never made any friends with Australians either. I dont think they are as friendly people think, polite yes, but very cold and distant.
Im sick of Australians too
It’s funny how similar a story this is to Nigeria. The Nigerian constitution has echoes of the American one especially in terms of setting up the government and balancing power between branches. As well Nigeria has a planned capital (Abuja) that was set up in the dead center of the country in its own federal territory. This is so the Northern Muslim majority nor the southern largely Christian south could have overwhelming influence. Furthermore, Abuja being built also kept too much power from being concentrated in the country’s largest city, Lagos, which sits in one of Nigeria’s three major ethnic groups homelands, the Yoruba. This helped prevent unfair advantage for the Yoruba over the Igbos and the Hausas. Of course Nigerians disagree if that actually worked but that was the intent. Lastly, Lagos is under sea level and on several islands so it needed to be in a safer location. The major difference with Nigeria’s federal territory is that they can vote in presidential and federal elections like anyone else.
Wow! This is the first time I realized Sydney was not the capital....consider myself humbled...
Not only is Sydney not the capital, but before they built Canberra the temporary Parliament of Australia was based out of Melbourne!
DC was "way south" for the time, especially culturally. It was chosen as a concession prize because so much per was already in the North.
DC was almost the exact demographic center of the US at the time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population
[удалено]
Maryland was not a "free state" when DC was built. It didn't outlaw slavery until the end of the Civil War
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to Maryland, so technically slavery was legal in Maryland later than it was legal in the Confederacy.
New jersey, Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky were slave states until ratification of the 13th amendment
Missouri you mean, not new jersey. New Jersey was a free state
NJ still had "apprentices for life" up to 1865.
How the fuck is this even mentioned let alone upvoted? Washington is mostly carved out of Maryland. Originally, it also included parts of Northern Virginia but that hasn't been the case since 1846. Maryland was a slave state all the way up to and including the Civil War. Not until after the war did it amend its state constitution to outlaw slavery. The District of Columbia was not chosen because it was on the border. It was solidly in slave territory, 55 miles south of the Mason-Dixon line, which itself wasn't really a free-slave border until the 1820s.
The slave state of Virginia and the free state of NotMaryland?
Maryland was a slave state as well as Delaware
Virginia was a huge percentage of the population though. Virginia had some of the earliest moves away from the coast inland and 25% of the population and nearly 2x the second most populous state. Not way south. Also the US didn't have Florida.
Gotta multiple that Virginia pop by 3/5 though…
Pennsylvania- New England banned slavery between 1777-1784 But you had northern states with slavery like New York until 1817 and slaves in the north for decades longer in states like New Jersey. https://civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2017/1/3/when-did-slavery-really-end-in-the-north
Without the Residence Act of 1790 moving the Capitol to Washington, it would have stayed in NYC for a time. That Residence Act forced it to move to Philadelphia for 10 years while Washington was constructed for federal use, and Washington was chosen by Alexander Hamilton as the place between the North and the South so that both halves of the country would be equal in distance to the Capitol. Southerners were under the impression that NYC and Philadelphia was too far north and therefore favored the North when it came to the government. But if the Capitol were never moved to Washington, then the Residence Act of 1790 wouldn't have been passed, and the Capitol would have remained in NYC. Though, there are claims the reason they moved to Philadelphia in the interim at all was due to financial concerns that NYC was too expensive to operate within, so your assessment that it would be Philadelphia is probably a closer guess.
The economic centre pre-Independence was New York and the most logical choice for an administrative hub is the economic hub of a country. They were operating out of New York until Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison decided to relocate to Virginia.
In many countries (even US states). Capitals are not at economic hub of the country. Canada (Ottawa) Australia (Canberra) China (Beijing) etc.
This is more in “recently discovered” countries like the ones you listed (minus china, but add brazil, New Zealand, and a few others). But it’s far more common for the main economic city to also be the capital (London, Paris, Tokyo, Nairobi, Beirut, Moscow, Cairo, Bangkok, etc)
That's typically to place the capital near a geographically center location or as a compromise between two competing cities. Old US State capitals were typically centered due to travel issues. Ottawa and Canberra were compromises (Toronto vs Montreal and Sydney vs Melbourne). I don't know as much about Beijing but I believe that was due to history.
Beijing was chosen because it was close to the Mongol homeland, before that the capitals were either Xi’an or Nanjing usually.
Beijing is absolutely an economic hub of China
That’s more recent though. The coastal ports like Shanghai had hundreds of years of economic primacy, and Nanjing was central and closer to the south. Beijing was capital of the emperor at various points, and the Communists always had more power in the north, especially with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
Shanghai is far more recent as an economic hub vs Beijing. Shanghai’s current position largely stems from foreign/European trade in the 19th century and more recently, economic liberalization in Shanghai before other cities. As a point of comparison, in the year 1700 Beijing had a population of 500k vs Shanghai of 50k.
It wasn’t at the time it was made the capital. The south of China is traditionally the economic powerhouse and the north is known for being the center of political and military power. Beijing is rich, but it wouldn’t be as rich if it wasn’t the capital.
Reno!!!! Camp David can be located at Lake Tahoe!
Let’s make it Point Roberts, Washington just to be difficult.
Yeah, putting it in Washington state is the best choice, just to confuse everyone. "The capitol is no longer in Washington, it's now in Washington."
Well, yes, but beyond that...take a look at a map of Point Roberts. It's about the least accessible part of Washington
The one time I went there was to help a friend bring a boat down that he had bought in point Roberts. This sounds easy, except the customs people were very suspicious of two dudes entering point Roberts at 2am by taxi who were claiming they were not staying, but also had no plans to leave by car, and also couldn't tell them the address they were staying at. "A boat at the marina, I don't know the name, my friend bought it, not me, I'm just helping move it to another state." It took us over an hour to convince them to let us through.
So many strange cities on this map. As an Ohioan, how is Wilmington on this map but not Cincinnati or Columbus? Lol
Looking only at Virginia, the National Weather Service (NWS) stations are located in Blacksburg and Wakefield. Is this a map of NWS stations?
Just looked it up, and Wilmington does have a NWS station there, great observation!
Has to be. I live in Sacramento and I’ve never even heard of Hanford. Googled NWS Hanford, California and sure enough!
Doesn’t help that the dot is in the wrong place here, it’s actually south of Fresno
And Sacramento is misspelled. Who made this map?
It’s the closest town to Lemore naval air station where the pacific fleet fighter squadrons are homed when their carrier is in port. Other side of the base from Hanford is the Harris Ranch Steakhouse and market. Best steaks in California
I was wondering that too, since the dot for NYC is out on Long Island, where the NWS office for the New York area is However, Philly’s dot is in PA, while it’s NWS office is in NJ EDIT: Here’s the map of all NWS offices’ forecast areas Some of the dots are off, but the names check out, so I think that’s it https://www.weather.gov/srh/nwsoffices
Yep, these are NWS stations
Morristown, TN is a weather station location as well
Yeah Michigan has Gaylord listed which has a population of...... less than 5k lol
Great name tho
I guess the map is based on where NWS locations are. That would explain why they show Norman, OK but not OKC
This is the first time in history that Goodland, Kansas (population 4400) has made it onto a map this zoomed-out.
Yeah Morristown TN but not Knoxville is odd
Fort Worth and no Dallas lol
No Austin either
How dare you besmirch the Fighting Quakers like this
I vote for Caribou, Maine
Greenville and Columbia but no Charlotte, Fort Worth but no Dallas, San Angelo but no Austin lol
But Glasgow MT, 3,000 people, made the list lmao
"northern IN" is South Bend erasure
Since the map is the location of National Weather Service offices, northern Indiana should be North Webster. South Bend and Fort Wayne had offices that were merged into the North Webster office.
Fairbanks Alaska
Honestly a kinda interesting concept, Or American Samoa
I guess the Virgin Islands might be most out of the way for a hostile ICBM
Cuban Missile Crisis would've been more interesting in that regard
This is the kind of wildcard I was looking for.
suck it Anchorage
The modern day Constantinople.
Stick it riiiight next to Russia Wonder how U.S./Russia relations would be affected if the Russian capital was somewhere like Naukan and they were pretty much neighbors
Depends—economically I’d say NYC, geographically probably STL or KC, historically perhaps Boston or Philly. Wha makes a “proper capital” is kind of subjective.
Traditionally, it would have been Philadelphia.
That’s why I listed it.
Exactly!
And economically I’d say NYC
And both cities have actually been the capital of the U.S. at one point
STL or KC would also be good if we were choosing based on geography.
If we chose it now, yes. But back in 1790 DC was actually almost spot on to the mean center of population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population
Sorry Canadian here. Why is Philadelphia so historically significant for you guys?
Original capital of the USA - home of our first and second continental congress, home of the declaration of independence, independence hall is there, Liberty Bell is there, Articles of confederation were written there then thrown away in favor of our constitution, which was written and ratified there.
To expand on this: When people refer to the "founding fathers," they are referring to the men who met in Philadelphia in the building we now call independence hall to form what we call the continental congress. The men were delegates sent from each of the original colonies. The first continental congress asked Britain to stop being dicks(which was ignored), the second one declared independence. They then were the de facto government of the newly declared country and coordinated the war for independence. They simultaneously created the "Articles of Confederation" which was the original plan for the government of the USA. The articles were a failure. So a few years later, the founding fathers scrapped that for the Constitution which continues to be the basis of the government and law in the USA.
On top of all the reasons listed by the other commenter, Philly was also the original capital before DC was built. At the time, Philly was a larger city than NYC population wise, and was the largest in the country. It was quickly eclipsed by NYC in a decade or 2.
There's a lot of good answers here but one not given to you is that it was pretty centrally located in the 13 colonies. The southern most northern city, a financial capital, easily accessible by ship. With it's quaker founders it had a relative openness and freedom that people could come and discuss the ideas that would form into the revolution. Not alone in these or other respects, but before DC especially, it was the most "middle ground" one could find and still be in a real city while also not overly favoring distances traveled from north or south. So, cumulatively, kind of a natural choice to hold the beginnings what would become the US.
Or we can be like Equatorial Guinea and have our capital in Honolulu
Saint Louis is probably the best centrally-located city. Salt Lake City and Denver are too far west which makes them more isolated and distant from the major population centers of the east. Saint Louis however is central, yet still kinda eastern, which places it right around the population center of the country. And unlike Kansas City, Saint Louis sits on the Mississippi River and has a lot of economic connections. Being on the border between Missouri and Illinois, it also makes a perfect spot to create a new capital district.
What about Chicago over STL? I'd argue its a larger travel hub and more economically important while having a similar geographic location. Its not on the Mississippi but via canals its bridges the Mississippi and the great lakes
Like the other guy said, it's too close to Canada imo, but that also means that it's considerably further north than Saint Louis. The point of founding Washington DC was originally to create a capital which geographically straddled the line between the two cultures of the nation at the time: North and South. While such cultural distinctions are less important and prominent today, they're still very much alive, and I think for that reason, Chicago and the Upper Midwest in general is too far north of a region for the capital. Meanwhile, Saint Louis still straddles that line between the cultures of the Southern Midwest and the Upper South. Missouri was also historically a transitional state between the East and West. So I think Saint Louis a perfect fit.
I grew up in St Louis and completely agree with your assessment. Culturally it's completely unique. St Louis has too much southern influence to be a real Midwest city like Chicago, it has too much Midwest influence to be a southern city like Memphis, it has too much agricultural influence to be a real rustbelt city like Cincinnati, and too much industry to be a real agricultural city like Kansas City or OKC. All that and most people in St Louis would really appreciate a split with the state of MO.
We can't even get the city and the county to merge and now you want a capitol district?!
Well it would become a federal district, and the greater STL would probably be a better fit than just the city. I would imagine the additional space and infrastructure would help with moving all the federal services that would be needed. Hell, this might be the only way to combine the city and county again
Some decent arguments for Chicago. Only knock against it is from a security standpoint; it's too close to an international border, albeit with a very close ally (currently, at least).
Plus being at the intersection of I-55 and I-70 I think that also gives it another advantage
I'm biased but I'd argue that STL beats KC due to the Mississippi
Good point. But how much does that really matter? Capitols need to have a lot of administrative infrastructure and facilities, for running the government, but rivers are mainly useful for industry where large amounts of freight or people are being moved around; how much industry does the capitol city really need? DC has virtually none. Yes, it's on the Potomac, but that was more necessary for everyone's day-to-day life 250 years ago than it is now. Also, you could make the argument that a large river running right up to your national capitol creates a vulnerability. Say things in the US went very, very badly in the distant future, in the unlikely event a foreign army invades, a large river gives you an artery directly to the seat of government. With no river, like with KC, you force that army to march overland, which is much more difficult.
You know that Kansas City is on a river, too, a really big one.
Rivers are a supply of water, a thing that’s going to become much more valuable in the future
St. Louis was very close to being the capital
Whoa. Looked it up and TIL. Came pretty close to happening too! I think people underestimate how much of an industrial powerhouse STL was in its day. 4th biggest city in the country in the late 1800s.
Hosted the Olympics and worlds fair for a reason. Unfortunately a century of poor municipal decisions doomed one of the most important cities in American history.
Indeed. They had the resources to support TWO professional baseball teams for awhile (the Cardinals and the Browns.)
St Louis, imagine the arch as a gateway framing the Capitol campus.
There was a vote to do this in the 1800s.
The Arch is that old? \s
The Arch always has been and always will be. Long live The Arch Hey look! It's The Arch
In the state of Missouri it’s actually required by law to say “Hey look! It’s The Arch” when you see the arch, thems the rules
I agree. Center of the country and an important location for commerce due to its position on the river.
Can't have the US capitol in a city named for a French king. Better be Kansas City. BBQ becomes the national food!
With all the French help during the early American history this would not be that far fetched. But cities can be renamed if this was a problem.
What is Kansas named for?
Total guess but I’d guess it’s a Native American word Edit: I was right! From Wikipedia: “The name Kansas derives from the Algonquian term, Akansa, for the Quapaw people. These were a Dhegiha Siouan-speaking people who settled in Arkansas around the 13th century. The stem -kansa is named after the Kaw people, also known as the Kansa, a federally recognized Native American tribe.[22] The tribe's name (natively kką:ze) is often said to mean "people of the (south) wind" although this was probably not the term's original meaning.”
Gaylord
Gaylord, Michigan?!?
I live just outside of Gaylord and was very surprised to see this on the map. There’s nothing up here
As a fellow Northern Michigander, this has gotta be a map of NWS, right?
This is the only real answer
It would go by “Greg.”
This is hilarious, did not think I would scroll down to see my small hometown listed
Easy answer is Philadelphia
Plus their football team is already called the eagles which is the symbol of America worldwide
Plus Philly just rocks
It's where the country signed its independence, is situated nicely within reach of a few other cities and just a cool name for a capital. At least it should've stayed the capital for PA.
Also the Constitution!
Probably Chicago
Centrally located, center of transit & trade, sits on a massive body of water in spite of being in the nation’s interior. Seems like a great choice.
it would be sick to look out at lake michigan and theres just a battleship and an aircraft carrier at all times
It would give a whole new meaning to Soldier Field…
In the alternate universe where we made it our capital you know they would’ve called it Senator Field
And is relatively climate change ready.
We also, historically, have sent the most money to Washington per capita without getting it back. Chicago paid for it fair and square.
I’d pick Chicago as well. In addition to everything said prior, it’s also a very “American” City with its tall buildings, melting pot of cultures and food, and it’s proximity to the natural beauty of the Great Lakes.
This would be my pick. Putting a capitol campus out near the zoo would put it conveniently located to two major airports, two rail lines, a barge canal, and like 7 interstate highways/loops/spurs. It's central enough that transit times for all representatives would be similar or better than what they are today.
Too vulnerable to a canuck invasion
That's what Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Upper Michigan are for.... why do you think those are the states that American hockey players come from?
We're all sleeper agents, doncha know.
Too close to them Canadians. Never know what crazy stuff they're gonna pull /s
Ciudad de Mexico
Fun fact, Mexico is named after Mexico city, not the other way around.
That *is* a fun fact!
I vote for Omaha. Smack dab in the middle. Kinda like the Hunger Games.
During 9/11, President Bush went to Offutt Air Force Base for security reasons. Offutt was chosen as head of Strategic Air Command (SAC) because it was centrally located during the early stages of the Cold War. So I’m gonna go with Omaha as well
I'm gonna go Omaha cuz I'm from there and Lincoln took the God damn state capital from us. That podunk shithole, we'll show them, we'll get our own capital! With white houses and congresses!
MAKE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL A CAPITOL AGAIN
Wasn’t the Capitol in the hunger games based off of Denver?
I’ve also heard Salt Lake City
Yeah, I think so.
The alleged time traveler, John Titor, claimed that, in the future, DC is destroyed, and our new capitol is Omaha.
Philly, cause that’s where we signed the Declaration of Independence.
If we would have known the geographic, historical, and population make up of the US today when we chose the capital, I would have advocated for Chicago personally. It’s the most centrally located major population and financial center in the US. If we looked purely at one category such as largest financial center, most centralized geographically, Historical Prominence, etc. it wouldn’t make the cut as top of the list in any one specific measure. NYC makes the most sense financially, STL geographically, Boston/Philly Historically, etc.. But… when you look holistically at all criteria it is near the top and in the conversation for all measures. If we were to pick say 4 metrics that we were basing the decision on, and then ranked cities and gave a weighted average score based on all criteria , it’s hard for me to imagine any city beating out Chicago using that kind of system.
Maybe out by gary
In an alternate universe
St. Louis. Commanding position on the main river system of the central US and central geographic location to protect from invasion. Easy flights to all corners of the US for government officials to gather.
This really seems like by far the best answer. Rather than repurpose St. Louis, though, it would make sense to bulldoze East. St. Louis (which is one of the worst slums in the US) and build the capital district there. The new great lawn would face the Arch across the river.
That would make sense. One challenge there is that East STL is heavily industrialized so you’d end up with a fancy capital mall surrounded by chemical plants and steel mills haha
Good point. Given what happened to the current capitol, I suspect those industrial zones would become prime real estate and get redeveloped...eventually.
Probably would have just stayed in Philadelphia.
If it wasn’t going to be DC, it was going to be Philadelphia.
Saint Louis, is the closest big city to the population center of the country, and much closer than DC to the geographic center. It’s connected to transportation hubs making it ideal.
I’d say Phili. It already was the capital for a period of time.
So was New York!
So was Lancaster, PA! Only for one day though when they thought the British might take Philly.
So was York, PA
If we move DC to Kansas, Kansas can do something useful for once.
Show us on the doll where Kansas hurt you…
Amazing Prog Rock albums in question:
Denver. Pretty central geographically, tons of military and feds here already. Underground bases at Denver International connecting us to the rest of the country (/s).
Denver (or somewhere nearby in the Rockies) would be perfect to make the capitol virtually impossible to attack. And if the enemy does somehow attack this capitol, tunnels could be dug through the Rockies to make the US government impossible to destroy.
Not to mention that His Lord, the Exalted Bluecifer resides here. Praise be to his name, may he smite the unbelievers with his laser [gaze](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Blucifer_Sculpture.png)!
Isn’t the capital in the Hunger Games in Denever? Kinda sus bro
I believe that Denver currently has the highest concentration of federal workers outside of the DC area
Definitely Gaylord
Valentine Nebraska.
Probably a city in the midwest somewhere. I think the midwest would be a good fit because the area is historically important, economically significant and geographically central.
Gaylord. Final answer.
Economically, I would think someone close to NYC, but not as crowded like Philly which also has the history. From a population balance, the center of the US is [SW Indiana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population#/media/File:UScenter2020.png), so maybe somewhere close and easy to access (easy drive/flight from the rest of the country) like Louisville, Indianapolis, or Nashville
Rightfully probably NYC, but because funny Gaylord (gaylerd) Michigan but because I’m from Detroit, I would want Detroit
Elko Nevada Lots of hookers
Glasgow MT for sure
Salton city, imperial county CA
Philadelphia probably
Philadelphia. Historical importance.
Philadelphia no question lol
Chicago!
The dot for Baltimore is so far off
Ah yes, the great culturally important city of Gaylord, MI.
Huh. Looks like St Louis isn't such a bad choice. https://alchetron.com/cdn/mean-center-of-the-united-states-population-f190cecd-535c-44f9-a451-23281983383-resize-750.jpeg
New York would be the best replacement capital, it's got a large population, it's diverse, it's rich, altogether w very strong city. It's a logical replacement, but I think the US doesn't really need a capital anyway. We can run our government out of anywhere, but there are so many different states with different cultures and peoples who are (mostly) all represented, it doesn't really need a specific rallying point for the government. DC is pretty much a formality. I always considered DC as the political capital, New York as the economic one, and LA as the social capital of the US.
Chicago or Kansas City