Plausibility Check: A move of the U.S. capital to the interior of the U.S.?

[WolfBear]

Was it ever plausible to move the U.S. capital from Washington, D.C. to some location in the interior of the U.S.?

If so, when exactly was this plausible and what alternative capital for the U.S. are you thinking of?

Also, what would realistically need to happen for this to occur?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by WolfBear
Was it ever plausible to move the U.S. capital from Washington, D.C. to some location in the interior of the U.S.?
If so, when exactly was this plausible and what alternative capital for the U.S. are you thinking of?
Also, what would realistically need to happen for this to occur?

I don't think it was ever plausible. The best chance was after the city
was burned in the War of 1812 but there really wasn't any real
"interior" to move it to and seaborne movement was still too important
for it to work. The last half of the 1800s after the construction of
much of the continental rail net it might have been practical but by
then DC was too firmly established as The Capital for anyone to
seriously consider it.

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by WolfBear
Was it ever plausible to move the U.S. capital from Washington, D.C.
to some location in the interior of the U.S.?
If so, when exactly was this plausible and what alternative capital
for the U.S. are you thinking of?
Also, what would realistically need to happen for this to occur?

I don't think it was ever plausible.  The best chance was after the city
was burned in the War of 1812 but there really wasn't any real
"interior" to move it to and seaborne movement was still too important
for it to work.  The last half of the 1800s after the construction of
much of the continental rail net it might have been practical but by
then DC was too firmly established as The Capital for anyone to
seriously consider it.

Well, it'd take ASB involvement to grant the Confederacy its
independence, but I can't imagine the US being stupid enough to keep
Washington as the capitol if the CSA had gained independence. That's not
'within artillery range', which is bad enough, that's 'across a
_bridged_ river'.

As for where, there _might_ be arguments that the capitol should be as
near to the centre of the rump country as possible. Unfortunately, that
area is mainly howling wilderness in 1865, but the K-P is close to
Denver City (the one in Colorado, which won't be renamed until it steals
the territorial capitol from Golden City in another two years) and the
U-P has passed Cheyenne, though Californians still have no rail link
past SLC (yes, the first two are much nearer the southern border than
the northern, but California and--if the US has held it--New
Mexico/Arizona Territories shift the balancing point so that those towns
are still close). There's the 'added benefit' that since anyplace in
that area is outside a State already, you don't have to steal it from
one to make a new District of Columbia. It would have the added
'benefit' of probably driving the territory from which the capitol had
been carved out to earlier Statehood, as well--particularly if Denver
were chosen, as Colorado Territory (most likely, even _with_ Denver, DC
carved out) is further above minimum population for admittance than the
actual State of Nevada. On the other hand, 'benefit' is in scare quotes
because the Ogallala Aquifer begins getting depleted much sooner than
IRL, which might make it hard for Colorado to maintain her population
from about 1890 (the type of engineering necessary to build the
cross-Divide diversions just won't be there when water shortages start
becoming apparent). It would also have the side effect, though I don't
know if this is a bonus or bad news; that because Denver and to a lesser
extent Cheyenne, unlike Washington, is livable through the summer even
before air-conditioning; the US may have a year-round government sooner
than IRL. Or Leadville may have a 'Summer White House'; Colorado and
California are the two places in the Nation that might be considered
most-in-need of India-style Hill Stations at that point :-P
(Wow! Colorado-wank WoT! That has to be a new one--incidentally, I've
been tempted to ask about this ever since I saw the 'alternate
English/UK capitols' thread two or three years back!)

In all likelihood, though, no place west of Omaha will have much of a
shot, and of course Kansas City and St. Louis are probably out because
they aren't on the CSA border but you don't know that you trust Missouri
not to cleave to the actual CSA later, when hostilities re-commence.

Turtledove is probably right in, instead, keeping the capitol coastal
under those circumstances--either Philadelphia or NYC. But Chicago is
also an option--and one that could lead to a loss of a lot of crucial
historical documents if O'Leary's cow still does her thing. :-P

[Chrysi Cat]

Grr. Forgot to mention _why_ there would be arguments for a central
capitol--that would be, of course, because east-west regionalism would
be seen as just as likely to re-partition the rump country as
north-south disagreement had already done.

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by WolfBear
Was it ever plausible to move the U.S. capital from Washington, D.C.
to some location in the interior of the U.S.?
If so, when exactly was this plausible and what alternative capital
for the U.S. are you thinking of?
Also, what would realistically need to happen for this to occur?

I don't think it was ever plausible.  The best chance was after the
city was burned in the War of 1812 but there really wasn't any real
"interior" to move it to and seaborne movement was still too important
for it to work.  The last half of the 1800s after the construction of
much of the continental rail net it might have been practical but by
then DC was too firmly established as The Capital for anyone to
seriously consider it.

Well, it'd take ASB involvement to grant the Confederacy its
independence, but I can't imagine the US being stupid enough to keep
Washington as the capitol if the CSA had gained independence. That's not
'within artillery range', which is bad enough, that's 'across a
_bridged_ river'.
As for where, there _might_ be arguments that the capitol should be as
near to the centre of the rump country as possible. Unfortunately, that
area is mainly howling wilderness in 1865, but the K-P is close to
Denver City (the one in Colorado, which won't be renamed until it steals
the territorial capitol from Golden City in another two years) and the
U-P has passed Cheyenne, though Californians still have no rail link
past SLC (yes, the first two are much nearer the southern border than
the northern, but California and--if the US has held it--New
Mexico/Arizona Territories shift the balancing point so that those towns
are still close). There's the 'added benefit' that since anyplace in
that area is outside a State already, you don't have to steal it from
one to make a new District of Columbia. It would have the added
'benefit' of probably driving the territory from which the capitol had
been carved out to earlier Statehood, as well--particularly if Denver
were chosen, as Colorado Territory (most likely, even _with_ Denver, DC
carved out) is further above minimum population for admittance than the
actual State of Nevada. On the other hand, 'benefit' is in scare quotes
because the Ogallala Aquifer begins getting depleted much sooner than
IRL, which might make it hard for Colorado to maintain her population
from about 1890 (the type of engineering necessary to build the
cross-Divide diversions just won't be there when water shortages start
becoming apparent). It would also have the side effect, though I don't
know if this is a bonus or bad news; that because Denver and to a lesser
extent Cheyenne, unlike Washington, is livable through the summer even
before air-conditioning; the US may have a year-round government sooner
than IRL. Or Leadville may have a 'Summer White House'; Colorado and
California are the two places in the Nation that might be considered
most-in-need of India-style Hill Stations at that point :-P
(Wow! Colorado-wank WoT! That has to be a new one--incidentally, I've
been tempted to ask about this ever since I saw the 'alternate
English/UK capitols' thread two or three years back!)
In all likelihood, though, no place west of Omaha will have much of a
shot, and of course Kansas City and St. Louis are probably out because
they aren't on the CSA border but you don't know that you trust Missouri
not to cleave to the actual CSA later, when hostilities re-commence.
Turtledove is probably right in, instead, keeping the capitol coastal
under those circumstances--either Philadelphia or NYC. But Chicago is
also an option--and one that could lead to a loss of a lot of crucial
historical documents if O'Leary's cow still does her thing. :-P