Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:01:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860?  (Read 12700 times)
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 14, 2014, 01:42:39 AM »

I realize that up to the 1930's or so, population in the south was spread, people lived rural, and concentrations of population were rare. Everything was based on plantations, agriculture, and farmland. But I for the life of me can't find any "big" cities besides New Orleans. Here's a list of southern cities, particularly cities from former-Confederate states, that now have 100,000+ (with the exception of just very big cities in TX), and their population in 1860:

New Orleans, LA - 168,675
Charleston, SC - 40,522
Richmond, VA - 37,910
Mobile, AL - 29,258
Memphis, TN - 22,623
Savannah, GA - 22,292
Nashville, TN - 16,988
Norfolk, VA - 14,620
Alexandria, VA -  12,652
Augusta, GA - 12,493
Columbus, GA - 9,621
Atlanta, GA - 9,554
Wilmington, NC - 9,552
Montgomery, AL - 8,843
San Antonio, TX - 8,235
Columbia, SC - 8,052
Virginia Beach, VA - 7,669*
Baton Rouge, LA - 5,428
Houston, TX - 4,845
Fayetteville, NC - 4,790
Raleigh, NC - 4,780
Athens, GA - 3,848
Little Rock, AR - 3,727
Huntsville, AL - 3,634
Austin, TX - 3,494
Jackson, MS - 3,191
Charlotte, NC - 2,265
Shreveport, LA - 2,190
Jacksonville, FL - 2,118
Knoxville, TN - 2,076*
Hampton, VA - 1,848
Dallas, TX - 698
Tallahassee, FL - 201

In the North, we had these two cities:

NYC: 1,174,779
Philadelphia: 565,529

*Populations took from 1850 census as there's no record for 1860.

All the big cities seem to be near water for trade and ports. There's no big inland cities in the deep south. Were there any cities bigger than the cities mentioned above?

Its very interesting otherwise. We can still kind of see the same thing today, with the surprisingly lots of population in areas with little incorporated cities/towns/villages around Atlanta and Birmingham, for example. That's something we definitely don't see in the Midwest and other areas. I'm actually very surprised how big New Orleans was back then, about 1/4 of the population in Louisiana lived in that city!
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2014, 02:01:20 AM »

It looks like the answer is no.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2014, 06:40:06 AM »

By comparison Chicago had only been founded in 1833 with about 200 people, but had 112K people by 1860.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2014, 08:21:48 AM »

Sanitation was not yet a thing in 1860. The hot Southern climate was especially conducive to the spread of disease and smells. City life was not glamorous back then.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2014, 09:22:23 AM »

New Orleans was the closest thing to a "Northern" city in the sense that it was (for the era) decently sized and had a considerable number of immigrants coming and going. And that was because it is a port city. Notice that Charleston and Mobile, also ports, are high up on the list.

Urban growth requires a commerce and industry based economy, and the South's agrarian economy had little need for cities bigger than what most of them were. There was also the weather factor.

I wouldn't have bothered adding Dallas to that list, not only because of how laughably small it was but because it really wasn't a Southern city at that time. They were still frontier folk defending themselves from Indian raids up in that part of Texas at the time.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2014, 10:17:25 AM »
« Edited: September 14, 2014, 10:39:27 AM by politicus »

Kentucky had some industry and Louisville was a real city. Do you have the numbers for that?

EDIT: Wikipedia says it was the 10th largest city in the country in 1850, but they don't give the numbers.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2014, 12:28:08 PM »

The article on Louisville lists its 1850 population as 43,194. That would make it the second largest city in the South, if it counts as a Southern city (I'd consider it just as Midwestern as Cincinnati, both now and then.)
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2014, 05:35:34 PM »

The article on Louisville lists its 1850 population as 43,194. That would make it the second largest city in the South, if it counts as a Southern city (I'd consider it just as Midwestern as Cincinnati, both now and then.)

Louisville was a strong pro-union city and helped keep KY out of the Confederacy. If Louisville counts as a southern city because of its slave status, then St Louis is a better example of a Midwestern river city in a slave state. In 1860 its population was 160,773 much bigger than Louisville at 68,032 and almost the equal of New Orleans.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2014, 07:56:31 PM »

A lot of big southern cities weren't even founded yet.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2014, 07:57:32 PM »

The article on Louisville lists its 1850 population as 43,194. That would make it the second largest city in the South, if it counts as a Southern city (I'd consider it just as Midwestern as Cincinnati, both now and then.)

Louisville was a strong pro-union city and helped keep KY out of the Confederacy. If Louisville counts as a southern city because of its slave status, then St Louis is a better example of a Midwestern river city in a slave state. In 1860 its population was 160,773 much bigger than Louisville at 68,032 and almost the equal of New Orleans.
Baltimore also for a large border slave state city. 212,418 people in the 1860 census.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2014, 08:01:43 PM »

Charleston was in the top 5 biggest pre-revolution, IIRC.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2014, 08:08:37 PM »

The article on Louisville lists its 1850 population as 43,194. That would make it the second largest city in the South, if it counts as a Southern city (I'd consider it just as Midwestern as Cincinnati, both now and then.)

Louisville was a strong pro-union city and helped keep KY out of the Confederacy. If Louisville counts as a southern city because of its slave status, then St Louis is a better example of a Midwestern river city in a slave state. In 1860 its population was 160,773 much bigger than Louisville at 68,032 and almost the equal of New Orleans.

If you want evidence that Louisville was a strong pro-Union city, you need to provide better evidence than a New York Times article from January 1861.  Northern overestimates of the strength of Unionist sentiment throughout the South was a contributing cause to the eventual civil war.  It led the North to think that the threats of Southern secession were mere gasconade and even after secession occurred to think the policy was unpopular among the non-slaveowning class of the South and thus would quickly collapse with but a little effort on the part of the North.  While it was essentially impossible that war could have been avoided by January 1861, a sober realization of the strength of Southern sentiment might have gotten the North prepared for the major war to come sooner and thus led to its end sooner.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2014, 11:52:48 PM »
« Edited: September 15, 2014, 12:04:59 AM by muon2 »

The article on Louisville lists its 1850 population as 43,194. That would make it the second largest city in the South, if it counts as a Southern city (I'd consider it just as Midwestern as Cincinnati, both now and then.)

Louisville was a strong pro-union city and helped keep KY out of the Confederacy. If Louisville counts as a southern city because of its slave status, then St Louis is a better example of a Midwestern river city in a slave state. In 1860 its population was 160,773 much bigger than Louisville at 68,032 and almost the equal of New Orleans.

If you want evidence that Louisville was a strong pro-Union city, you need to provide better evidence than a New York Times article from January 1861.  Northern overestimates of the strength of Unionist sentiment throughout the South was a contributing cause to the eventual civil war.  It led the North to think that the threats of Southern secession were mere gasconade and even after secession occurred to think the policy was unpopular among the non-slaveowning class of the South and thus would quickly collapse with but a little effort on the part of the North.  While it was essentially impossible that war could have been avoided by January 1861, a sober realization of the strength of Southern sentiment might have gotten the North prepared for the major war to come sooner and thus led to its end sooner.

While I agree that the North underestimated Southern sentiment, I'll stand by my statement about Louisville largely backing the Union. Louisville voted in favor of Bell and the Union+Slavery in 1860. After secession river merchants were the most likely group to back the Confederates, but the blue collar meat packers and local professionals leaned Union and were the larger group. The Speed brothers in Jefferson county were arguably Lincoln's strongest allies in KY and actively organized in Louisville for Lincoln at the run up to the war.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,614


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2014, 12:01:26 AM »
« Edited: September 15, 2014, 12:03:09 AM by ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ »

The two big southern cities were

Charleston - In 1790, it was the 4th largest city, behind New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. It had 16,359 people. After 1840, it was no longer top 10.
New Orleans - In 1840, it was the 3rd largest city, behind only New York and Baltimore. It had 103,193 people. It was top 10 through 1880.

Not until Houston in 1960 would another southern city be top 10.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2014, 12:05:49 AM »

The article on Louisville lists its 1850 population as 43,194. That would make it the second largest city in the South, if it counts as a Southern city (I'd consider it just as Midwestern as Cincinnati, both now and then.)

Louisville was a strong pro-union city and helped keep KY out of the Confederacy. If Louisville counts as a southern city because of its slave status, then St Louis is a better example of a Midwestern river city in a slave state. In 1860 its population was 160,773 much bigger than Louisville at 68,032 and almost the equal of New Orleans.

If you want evidence that Louisville was a strong pro-Union city, you need to provide better evidence than a New York Times article from January 1861.  Northern overestimates of the strength of Unionist sentiment throughout the South was a contributing cause to the eventual civil war.  It led the North to think that the threats of Southern secession were mere gasconade and even after secession occurred to think the policy was unpopular among the non-slaveowning class of the South and thus would quickly collapse with but a little effort on the part of the North.  While it was essentially impossible that war could have been avoided by January 1861, a sober realization of the strength of Southern sentiment might have gotten the North prepared for the major war to come sooner and thus led to its end sooner.

While I agree that the North underestimated Southern sentiment, I'll stand by my statement about Louisville largely backing the Union. Louisville voted in favor of Bell and the position of Union+Slavery in 1860. After secession river merchants were the most likely group to back the Confederates, but the blue collar meat packers and local professionals leaned Union and were the larger group. The Speed brothers in Jefferson county were arguably Lincoln's strongest allies in KY and actively organized in Louisville for Lincoln at the run up to the war.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2014, 09:48:01 AM »

At a population of 6,612 in 1860, Natchez (not Jackson) was the largest city in Mississippi in 1860.  At the same time, IIRC Natchez in 1860 represents the densest concentration of wealth anywhere in the entire history of this country. 
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2014, 11:41:44 AM »

There's a number of northern cities that far outstrip Charleston at the time: Boston, Chicago, Cinci, Buffalo, etc. And that even counts NYC as one city rather than Brooklyn, etc.

The answer appears to be that New Awlins was the only true "major" southern city in 1860.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2014, 08:02:53 PM »

Kentucky had some industry and Louisville was a real city. Do you have the numbers for that?

EDIT: Wikipedia says it was the 10th largest city in the country in 1850, but they don't give the numbers.

Covington was big too.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2014, 11:20:23 PM »

I realize that up to the 1930's or so, population in the south was spread, people lived rural, and concentrations of population were rare. Everything was based on plantations, agriculture, and farmland. But I for the life of me can't find any "big" cities besides New Orleans. Here's a list of southern cities, particularly cities from former-Confederate states, that now have 100,000+ (with the exception of just very big cities in TX), and their population in 1860:
In 1790 there were 12 cities of over 5,000 persons.  Organized by state:

Boston 18K
Salem 8K
Marblehead 6K
Gloucester 5K

Newport 7K
Providence 6K

New York 33K

Philadelphia 29K
Northern Liberties 10K
Southwark 6K
The latter two were in Philadelphia County.  If we add them to Philadelphia, that would make 45K, or the largest city by a large amount.

Baltimore 14K

Charleston 16K

There were no cities of greater than 5K in ME, NH, VT, CT, NJ, DE, VA, NC, or GA.

The largest cities in these states were:

Portsmouth, NH 5K-
New Haven, CT 4K
Richmond, VA 4K

ME, VT, NJ, DE, NC and GA had no cities.

All of the above other than Richmond were ports.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2014, 11:38:52 PM »

By 1800, there were the beginnings of cities in other states, and explosive growth in the largest cities:

Portsmouth 5K

Boston 25K
Salem 9K
Newburyport 6K
Nantucket 6K
Gloucester 5K
Marblehead 6k

Providence 8K
Newport 7K

New London 5K

New York 61K
Albany 5K
Schenectady 5K

Philadelphia 41K
Northern Liberties 11K
Southwark 10K
(if included with Philadephia 62K)

Baltimore 26K

Norfolk 7K
Richmond 6K

Charleston 19K

Savannah 5K

Largest cities of "states", with city population under 5K:

Portland, ME 4K
Alexandria, DC 5K-

States with no cities: VT, NJ, DE, NC, KY, TN

Other than Richmond and Schenectady all were ports.   In Massachusetts, while the ports were developing, the most populous county was Hampshire, which at that time included Hampden and Franklin counties (ie the Connecticut Valley)
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2014, 11:54:49 PM »

By 1810:

Portland 7K

Portsmouth 7K

Boston 34K
Salem 13K
Newburyport 8K
Nantucket 7K
Gloucester 6K
Marblehead 6K
New Bedford 6K

Providence 10K
Newport 8K

New Haven 6K

New York 96K
Albany 11K
Schenectady 6K

Philadelphia 54K
Northern Liberties 20K
Southwark 14K
(Collectively 87K)
Lancaster 5K

Baltimore 47K

Washington 8K
Alexandria 7K

Richmond 10K
Petersburg 6K

Charleston 25K

Savannah 5K

New Orleans 17K (Louisiana did not become a state until two years later in 1812)

Largest cities less than 5K:

Lexington, KY 4K
Trenton, NJ 3K
Cincinnati, OH 3K

Citieless states: VT, DE, NC, TN
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2014, 12:12:17 AM »

By 1820:

Portland 9K

Portsmouth 7K

Boston 43K
Salem 13K
Nantucket 7K
Newburyport 7K
Charlestown 7K
Gloucester 6K
Marblehead 6K

Providence 12K
Newport 7K

New Haven 7K

New York 123K
Albany 13K
Brooklyn 7K
Hudson 5K
Troy 5K

Philadelphia 64K
Northern Liberties 20K
Southwark 15K
Kensington 7K
(these 4 plus Spring Gardens 112K)
Pittsburgh 7K
Lancaster 7K

Baltimore 63K

Washington 13K
Alexandria 8K
Georgetown 7K

Richmond 12K
Norfolk 8K
Petersburg 7K

Charleston 25K

Cincinnati 10K

Lexington 5K

New Orleans 27K

Other largest cities less than 5K:

Trenton, NJ 4K
New Bern, NC 4K

City-less states: VT, DE, TN, IN, IL, MS, AL
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2014, 07:54:08 AM »

Very interesting jimrtex! Please continue!
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2014, 10:03:32 AM »

How can you have a state without any cities?
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2014, 10:42:45 AM »

How can you have a state without any cities?

You can easily have a state without big cities. Also pre-industrial societies's cities were generally pretty small.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.