Jump to content

If our four largest were gone...


krazeeboi

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As a result, most of the post airconditioning reconstruction of the South (1965-1990) bypassed Alabama and went to more moderate states such as NC, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee. Corporations, investors, incubator money, relocations, and new industries just didn't want anything to do with Alabama because of this perception. This was a period of tremendous growth of the South and most of what you see in the South today happened during this period. By the time that Alabama, SC, and Mississippi recovered from the memories of this bad time, it was too late.

Alabama and Mississippi I can understand, but as far as SC is concerned, I don't think race relations played into the condition of the state today as much as a general "Old South" attitude, particularly as it relates to Charleston's historical role in the South. For Alabama and Mississippi, you can pretty much point to significant events and personalities that gives it an "Old South" persona to a much greater degree than SC. The only events and personalities relative to SC during the time of the Civil Rights movement that come to mind are the Orangeburg Massacre (which is not really common knowledge) and Strom Thurmond. In that regard, SC wasn't that much different than NC with the Greensboro sit-ins and Jesse Helms (although Strom had more exposure, especially since he ran for president). The Confederate rebel flag didn't really become an issue until the late 90's into the 2000's--which, ironically, was around the same time that talks were occurring about changing Georgia's state flag. So I just think it was a lack of "pro-activeness" on the part of SC's leaders that caused us to not experience the tremendous growth that other places experienced, coupled with an overall "Old South" attitude, and not so much specifically Civil Rights and race relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand your argument

I wasnt arguing. I first just stated that a Virginia city could possibly rise and become a large city of the South. The larger metros have the resources, the trade, and the economy to become a major city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alabama and Mississippi I can understand, but as far as SC is concerned, I don't think race relations played into the condition of the state today as much as a general "Old South" attitude, particularly as it relates to Charleston's historical role in the South.

As I said earlier, this label did not apply to SC as much as Alabama, but in the late 1960s I remember huge KKKK (Knights of the Klue Klux Klan) rallies right in the city of Myrtle Beach complete with cross burnings, white hoods, marching to cadence, etc. These rallies were in protests in attempts by the Feds to force school integration on a unwilling population. At this point Myrtle Beach had already become a major tourist stop stop so it only went to re-enforce the image of SC being a state being racists. And MB was one of the more liberal parts of SC.

Strom Thrumond started a political party in the 1948s called the Dixiecrats. Their motto was "Segregation Forever". They were blatent racists and proud to run on that as their platform. This was a very stong national statement on the nature of the political environment in SC. It got the state a lot of negative national attention as Thurman ran a Presidential candidate in 1948 and he actually won the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina. This was far worse to SC's image than Jessie Helms was to NC who was a relative latecomer in comparison.

Likewise in regards to the Confederate Flag on the Capital, most people don't realize that it was only raised there in the 1950s. The reasons should be pretty obvious.

Like Alabama it was this enviroment that caused much of the investment in the new south to bypass SC. It wasn't the only reason, as the elite in SC didn't want the investment, but it had a role to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good examples. I didn't mean to downplay any particular instances, but as you stated, compared to Alabama and Mississippi, SC's image wasn't as tainted. Even though that event occurred in Myrtle Beach, I don't think that image is the first thing (if at all) that comes to mind when anyone thinks of Myrtle Beach, just as the Klan-Nazi event in Greensboro in 1979 isn't the first thing that comes to mind (if at all) when one thinks of that city. And if anything, you'd think that Helms' status as a relative latecomer would somewhat work against him, being that times were changing as far as race relations are concerned; Strom's views certainly changed with the times. This is why I believe that progressive political leadership, and not necessarily race related events, provides the greatest contrast between what SC and NC were then and what they are now.

Georgia escaped the "Old South" label largely due to progressive leadership in Atlanta; this is why Georgia's changing of its state flag (which formerly had the Confederate rebel emblem incorporated into it) escaped the exposure and limelight that was afforded to SC surrounding the removal of the flag from atop the Statehouse. If not for that progressive leadership in Atlanta, Georgia would be grouped with Alabama and Mississippi today.

The "SC elite," who reveled in the "glory days" of the past, played the biggest role in stifling growth in this state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one respect, we have to ask exactly why the cities that we are nominating aren't as big as the Big Four currently are. Also we have to take into account what role geography plays into making the Big Four as big as they are, and if any other city would be able to pick up that slack. For the characteristics that have fueled growth in the Big Four that aren't so dependent on geography, do the potential replacements have what it takes to excel in those categories? For instance, Atlanta has long been known to attract record numbers of African Americans due to the progressive nature of the city's leadership in the 60's-80's. Did any other city have that attitude so as to fill that void had Atlanta not existed? If the city vanished into thin air now, I suspect that Charlotte would probably pick up where Atlanta left off in that category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birmingham itself is a paradox. I personally love Birmingham, but I am also highly critical of this city for its shortcomings that could have been prevented. It has some the categorically same problems that Detroit suffers from such as racial division, inner city decay/suburban prosperity, lack of mass transit/automobile culture, and rust belt facade. Alabama doesn't help Birmingham at all, for a number of years the state has been Birmingham's (and Huntsville in some degree) biggest enemy. The state lacks the progressiveness that is to boost Birmingham's stature in the South. Alabama is a hotbed for what I call inhibitive stupidity, thus it allows itself to fall on its face for no reason repetitively. The constant demogogs doesn't help either like Roy Moore. It just generates even farther that we need to weed out the homegrown morons and old heads, and push homegrown idealists to stay and to welcome more progressive outsiders. Though in recent months they have come realized we are an asset more than a problem.

Birmingham does has black leadership like Atlanta, but paranoid idiots like Mayor Kincaid (with no backbone) and corrupt officials (like State Rep. John Rodgers, Birmingham city councilmen William Bell, and former US Rep Earl Hilliard) has offered no help. The decisive suburban politcians, who for many years have fought tooth-and-nail against the creation of regional cooperation. We do have wiser and progressive minds like on the county level like Jefferson County Commissioners like Larry Langford and Shelia Smoot, but we also have indignant anti-urbanism commissioners like Gary White, Mary Buckelew, and Betty Fine Collins that fight against everything that is progressive.

Atlanta did right by accepting the notion "The City Too Busy to Hate" and became very accepting of different culture as well as lifestyles. That is something Birmingham should have knew but still seem to not get, SMH. It is slowly but surely getting this (along with most other Southern cities however), but it should have happened years ago.

However, Birmingham will overcome this and probably even overshadow many other Southern metros like Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Raleigh/Durham, and even Charlotte once the real boom began. It has the interstate hub status, already established infastructure (biotech, financial, and reputation for being a corporate startup hotbed), and positioning to regain its place as the actual South (expecting FL) #2 city.

Also, here is something a lot people don't know about Birmingham. The racial, ethnic, and cultural composition of Greater Birmingham is the same percentage as the US as a whole. That's why is usually a test market for the most products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really had nothing to do with that.

The entire state of Alabama was greatly hurt by its abuses on Black civil rights in the early 1960s. Selma, Rosa Parks, marches on the 1965 voting rights act, Boody Sunday, and the very famous photo of Governer George Wallace standing there with the national guard to stop Blacks from going to high school attended by Whites, thrust Alabama into the global limelight as a national poster child of racism. South Carolina and Mississippi would also carry this label but not nearly as much as Alabama. Racism was a national problem in that period of time, but Alabama made a very public stand to defend it which is what hurt the development of the state.

As a result, most of the post airconditioning reconstruction of the South (1965-1990) bypassed Alabama and went to more moderate states such as NC, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee. Corporations, investors, incubator money, relocations, and new industries just didn't want anything to do with Alabama because of this perception. This was a period of tremendous growth of the South and most of what you see in the South today happened during this period. By the time that Alabama, SC, and Mississippi recovered from the memories of this bad time, it was too late.

Any analysis of how the South grew to be as it is today, has to consider the effect of race relations from the last 50 years.

That pretty much sums it up. Alabama has problems that instead of being solved overnight will take another 2 decades to resolve. It has learned from these major mistakes and is seriously trying to overcome them. Alabama is basically the measuring stick to which other Southern states should learn from. Also, Georgia isn't without major problems because one of them is current governor Sonny Perdue. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said earlier, this label did not apply to SC as much as Alabama, but in the late 1960s I remember huge KKKK (Knights of the Klue Klux Klan) rallies right in the city of Myrtle Beach complete with cross burnings, white hoods, marching to cadence, etc. These rallies were in protests in attempts by the Feds to force school integration on a unwilling population .........And MB was one of the more liberal parts of SC.

I am a little unclear about the bolded parts specfically.

If a city is unwilling to accept integration but at the same time be liberal, sounds like a contradiction to me. What was MB liberal about in the late 60s/early 70s then? Allowing outsider influence to forever change the face of the Grand Strand such as building high rose hotels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Georgia isn't without major problems because one of them is current governor Sonny Perdue. <_<

I don't like politics too much myself but I must ask....other than current political affiliation (I'm a Whig, so I don't pledge allegiance to either of the two big parties) and his lack of cooperation on the need for statewide/metrowide public transportation, what....in your mind....is wrong with Gov. Perdue?

P.S........while I'm at it, I will also add that if I had to pick the next big four......if the current big four didn't exist.....I would say probably New Orleans, Charlotte, Jacksonville and Nashville...with Louisvile and Richmond rounding out my top Six.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a little unclear about the bolded parts specfically.

If a city is unwilling to accept integration but at the same time be liberal, sounds like a contradiction to me. What was MB liberal about in the late 60s/early 70s then? Allowing outsider influence to forever change the face of the Grand Strand such as building high rose hotels?

You might try reading it in context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like politics too much myself but I must ask....other than current political affiliation (I'm a Whig, so I don't pledge allegiance to either of the two big parties) and his lack of cooperation on the need for statewide/metrowide public transportation, what....in your mind....is wrong with Gov. Perdue?

P.S........while I'm at it, I will also add that if I had to pick the next big four......if the current big four didn't exist.....I would say probably New Orleans, Charlotte, Jacksonville and Nashville...with Louisvile and Richmond rounding out my top Six.

I don't pledge allegience to neither party myself, but to answer your question two words: STATE FLAG. I know all about Mr. Perdue resistence to changing the Georgia state flag to one without a confederate emblem on it. A matter of fact he was the one who force Georgia to change its flag back to one with the confederate emblem on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I did... but at first i didnt catch on to that. I now understand the context because you were implying that despite how MB was protesting the integration order from the Federal Government yet MB was overall a liberal city (tourism is a key player in that) :rofl:

The contradiction however, bigotry and liberalism does not mix well at all which was what i was thinking at first. Now i read and understood the context so my bad over there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but you're just comparing their characteristics, not their roles as cities- with the exception on Norfolk as a port City, except Norfolk is nowhere near Miami and would not be able to ship to the areas that Miami ships to.

If, say, a hurricane worse than Katrina and Andrew combined were to hit Miami and cripple it's shipping, I think the shipping lines would divert to one of two remaining, non-core-4 cities; New Orleans (which is coming back fairly strongly in development) and my hometown, Hampton Roads (Norfolk), which in terms of shipping, they're not too-too far, and both New Orleans and Norfolk are more than capable of picking up any slack.

I think that comparing Hampton Roads to the Miami metro is pretty simple; when one thinks of Miami, they think of transportation/shipping and recreation. The Port of Hampton Roads is actually busier than Miami as-is (1.9 million TEUs in 2005 compared to Miami's 1.1 million -- http://cohenasset.com/commentaries/twr_2q06.html half-way down the page there's a chart of US ports) therefore if Miami didn't exist, I feel Norfolk would be poised to see greater growth than it is currently undergoing; and bear in mind the capacity of the Port of Hampton Roads is slated to double in the coming decades (we also have the deepest waters of any East Coast harbor).

As for the two remaining spots... I'd say Charlotte (to replace Atlanta, clearly), and Austin, TX to replace the Metroplex. Both cities are already growing rapidly and are in comparable locations geographically speaking. Austin's greastest assets are its quality of living and the beauty of the existing city, as well as the government presence, and Charlotte's is its enormous financial offices and the international airport (sound similar to Atlanta?). This is looking at America now, not "what could have been", meaning, only taking into account the economic, geographic etc. factors of today and ignoring, say, the racial issues mentioned about Birmingham, AL and other southern cities.

Interesting topic, though, I must say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, say, a hurricane worse than Katrina and Andrew combined were to hit Miami and cripple it's shipping, I think the shipping lines would divert to one of two remaining, non-core-4 cities; New Orleans (which is coming back fairly strongly in development) and my hometown, Hampton Roads (Norfolk), which in terms of shipping, they're not too-too far, and both New Orleans and Norfolk are more than capable of picking up any slack.

Charleston, which ranked ahead of Norfolk in 2005 in terms of TEUs, would give both a run for their money. Charleston's case would be bolstered even more by the fact that it's the port that Charlotte, which you pegged as Atlanta's "replacement," typically uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, if the cities existed but had not developed to their influence/size of today this is what I think:

Dallas would probably be replaced by Austin/San Antonio as others have theorized.

Houston would probably benefit New Orleans unless there was a Galveston renaissance.

Atlanta isn't as clear-cut. While I think Charlotte or Birmingham would make a good choice, let's not forget Chattanooga. It was a rail hub and if Atlanta hadn't been the go-go place during reconstruction, maybe some of those far-thinking citizens who made Atlanta their home would move up the road a bit.

Miami, I'm not so sure about. I'll vote Jacksonville right now.

If the cities "never existed:"

Dallas, the same.

Houston, New Orleans would be a powerhouse.

Atlanta, still a toss-up. I think Chattanooga would not be in the picture in this scenario, it would be between Charlotte and Birmingham.

Miami, still going for Jacksonville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't pledge allegience to neither party myself, but to answer your question two words: STATE FLAG. I know all about Mr. Perdue resistence to changing the Georgia state flag to one without a confederate emblem on it. A matter of fact he was the one who force Georgia to change its flag back to one with the confederate emblem on it.

As a registered voter in the state of Georgia, that is in fact NOT true. Where did you get that bit of information? He is now in "trouble" with the flaggers [the people who wanted the old flag] because he did NOT change the flag back. Now we can't have it both ways. How can a governor force a state to change it's flag?

Gov Perdue knew that the ideas of the voters of the state had changed. While Georgia may be a red state, there is a greater precentage of voters in the metro area than the rest of the state. Half of the state's population live in metropolitan Atlanta. Gov Perdue knew that with the influx of voters (conservative and liberal) from other parts of the country, that a referendum would once and for all put this matter to rest. If you ask me, he played a mighty political hand. At the time of his first run for governor, he was not well known to many in metro Atlanta. He used....yeap...used...his rural Georgia upbring to woo over the flaggers and "common" folk who happen to vote republican. Of course when you add the republicans who will vote for someone just because they are republican, he knew he would win the state.

Gov Perdue had political aspirations. He knew how to play the fiddle. The flaggers helped him get in and then he turned on them. He knew that metro Atlanta held more voters numerically than out state Georgia. When they asked him to change the flag back from what Gov Barnes had done, he put it up for a referndum. Great move. This way, he could say..."well I did what you asked me"...without having to get his hands dirty. Georgians who were not native to the south...many who live in metro Atlanta....could care less about the rebel flag. It held not historical meaning to them. Of course, the political conscientious black voters of metro Atlanta were not going to vote for the flag. Then you had native southerners of metro Atlanta and the business community of Atlanta who just wanted the issue to go away.

Gov Perdue knew these groups numbers added up to be greater than the flaggers....especially when the klan came to rally for the flaggers.

I wrote all of that to show that Gov Perdue did NOT change the flag back. He followed procedures to kill the old flag once and for all. Yes, the original flag briefly came back. You can not have a referendum only on the new flag. How could that fly? The referendum asked the voters of Georgia, would you want the pre-1956 flag, the 1956-present flag (which included the rebel battle emblem) or the new flag commissioned under Gov Barnes. He had to do it that way. The voters voted and today Georgia flys the pre-1956 state flag. He dodged a political nightmare and a potentially divisive issue. His advisor is no fool......that's why he will win a second term.

Now that's the way I remember the issue.

P.S.- Everyone please forgive me from diverting from this great topic. I really dislike sidebars in such thoughtful discussions. My apologies to everyone......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well sure thats easy. Miami is a major port city and so is Norfolk, Im sure Norfolk(Hampton Roads) would be a much more bustling port if Miami hadnt been there. Virginia Beach(Hampton Roads) is also similar to Maimi Beach in Miami. NOVA could be associated with either Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta. Its going through tons of sprawl up there. Sure, some of it might be due to the proximity to DC, but they are each their own city and the big three(Alexandria, Arlington, Rosslyn, etc..) being so close together surely formed a big metro on their own. The Richmond Metro has a growing population of over 1 million just as the cities I described above have.

I dunno. I think Virginia's cities may have had a greater chance to take off if DC, Baltimore, Philly and NYC weren't around than if metros in the Deep South disappeared (with the exception of NOVA, as DC was the draw that made NOVA happen). Virginia's urban pockets are more like satellites off the southern end of the northeastern megalopolis. The port at Hampton Roads IS busier than Miami, and its competitors on the East Coast are NY/NJ and Charleston. Richmond could have become greater than it is, perhaps if DC weren't 100 miles away. And NOVA, yeah there are cities there, but with the exception of Alexandria, little would be there if DC had not exploded into a huge metropolis in the 20th century. IMO VA's competitors are in the Mid-Atlantic, not the Deep South.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean it is Virginia still. Places like Arlington, Rosslyn and Alexandria are very much Virginia.

Those places are essentially DC suburbs that have borrowed land from Virginia. Nothing about them really fits the vibe I get anywhere else in Virginia. That is great, though, because Virginia has something for everyone - mountains, coast, big city suburbs (Northern VA), and a nice mid-sized capital city that is growing (Richmond). :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.