Yes, the idea that the location of the capital would somehow bring together disagreeing interests is odd. The location of the capital doesn’t create or shape American politics. Wherever the capital is, there would be some people coming up with the equivalent of the “elitist Beltway Insider” trope.
Yup, it would be those damn idiots who live inside of I-270/255 who are responsible for everyone’s problems.
It would be great to put the Capitol building on St. Louis’ version of “the Hill,” though. At least the restaurants are better than in DC.
Provel cheese and fried ravioli?
Yeah, I tried toasted ravioli - really bland. It need mumbo sauce.
I can’t really think of what difference would actually be made, though, except that a different group of Americans treated like second class citizens.
Yeah, and plenty of Busch Beer to wash it down with!
And what do you mean “fried” ravioli? It’s TOASTED.
In a deep fat fryer.
Why wouldn’t it be the same group? There’s nothing about the location of the capital that defines advantaged and disadvantaged groups. The people wanting to be near power would just have to move somewhere else. It wouldn’t change any political issues.
It seems to me that the main effect of moving the capital thousands of miles inland in 1865 would be to make it harder for foreign dignitaries to meet with nation officials, thus encumbering one of the principal roles of the national government.
I agree moving the capital wouldn’t have appealed much to anyone in 1870. And I think the idea is based on a larger anachronism, which is projecting back the current reality of DC as a major power center. Which it really wasn’t in peacetime until the federal govt greatly expanded its role in domestic affairs from the 1930’s onward.
The Civil War was by far the largest action of the federal govt up to that time. But otherwise the federal govt didn’t have anything like the sway it has now in all sort of areas of national life, and Washington’s relative important if anything waned after the Civil War. DC as a big power center came later. NY was around 7 times bigger than Washington in 1870, ~16 times bigger by 1920.
The reason for DC in the first place was only secondarily geographic balance. It was to not have the political capital in an otherwise leading city like NY (where the constitutional govt was first based) or Philadelphia (where it moved temporarily in a deal to construct a new capital). As long as it wasn’t going to be in a major city it might as well be near the nation’s center, which is around where it is based on the population ca. 1790. But just having it in the center of population wasn’t the main idea. DC still fulfilled the main idea ca. 1870, to separate the seat of the relatively small federal govt from an existing commercial/economic center of power.
88% of the people who live in DC do not work for the Federal government, and yet have no voting representation in Congress; so if the capital were in St. Louis, Chicago, Tucson, or Honolulu, you’d just be stripping other people of their democratic rights who also have nothing to do with “wanting to be near power.”
why are you dumping on St Louis–first Olympics in US by unprepared IOC, has nothing to do with STL. Our World’s Fair was success by any measure!
are you referring to St Louis residents? What “sense of superiority” are you citing?
well, it seems there is pizza maker in New Orleans appearing on Diners, Dives who ordered provel shipped to him. so obviously some people don’t have the snobbish disdain that you do
In St Louis? It usually comes with marinara sauce
Whoosh.
I think Detroit would have been a better choice. DC and St Louis are both too damn hot to be capitals in my opinion. Before air conditioning, DC was a positively miserable place and St Louis was no better.