What if the FDR and Congress decided to build a new Capital during the depression?

[Kevin C. Smith]

Just keep emphasizing the miserable mosquito plagued summers of Foggy Bottom (and pass lightly over midwestern winters.)

Cairo, IL is far enough south that winter won't be a problem, I should think. It it south of Louisville and pretty close to the latitude of the Tennessee state line. Average winter lows are not much below freezing, and snowfall is less than 9"/year.

Now, the fun part would be when the whole capital floods out in 2011...

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

Cairo, IL is far enough south that winter won't be a problem, I should think. It it south of Louisville and pretty close to the latitude of the Tennessee state line. Average winter lows are not much below freezing, and snowfall is less than 9"/year.

Now, the fun part would be when the whole capital floods out in 2011...

Ha, thats true, though you would think flood prevention would be part of the planning especially since I believe the Potomac flooded parts of DC during the '30s so that would have to enter their mind, at least one would hope.

 

[Expat]

A couple of thoughts about the South. First, symbolism: they're still a very big part of the Democratic coalition, and the old reason for having DC where it was was to placate the South. Most modern Americans probably don't think of Maryland as the South, or DC for that matter, but in the 30s they still largely did. It still mattered a great deal to Southerners.

Second, and more difficult, segregation: DC was largely segregated in the 1930s, including federal buildings. Now you're talking about moving the capital to a different state, on ground that at least de jure forbade segregation. As far as most Americans would've seen it, it's one thing to simply not change things in a pre-existing state of segregation; it's another thing to actively spread segregation. A lot of "middle-Americans," liberals, and of course African Americans would be up in arms if that were proposed. The idea of taking the Land of Lincoln and un-freeing people...oof.

On the other hand, if the government takes a stand that the new capital will be integrated...well, the South is not going to be happy. There goes your New Deal Coalition.

So you've got a fight on your hands.

I actually love this as a potential POD to set off a political realignment earlier in the US. I just don't think you can Yes-And the New Deal with a capital move.

If you wanted a "smoother" transition, maybe across the river in Missouri is a better choice. It's not as "neat" geographically-speaking, but I think it placates those middle-Americans- the people who can tolerate NOT changing existing segregation laws in Missouri, but would think it wrong to spread them to Illinois. You would still get liberals and African Americans up in arms, but the argument has less traction if the place you're leaving is as bad as the place you're going.

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

A couple of thoughts about the South. First, symbolism: they're still a very big part of the Democratic coalition, and the old reason for having DC where it was was to placate the South. Most modern Americans probably don't think of Maryland as the South, or DC for that matter, but in the 30s they still largely did. It still mattered a great deal to Southerners.

Second, and more difficult, segregation: DC was largely segregated in the 1930s, including federal buildings. Now you're talking about moving the capital to a different state, on ground that at least de jure forbade segregation. As far as most Americans would've seen it, it's one thing to simply not change things in a pre-existing state of segregation; it's another thing to actively spread segregation. A lot of "middle-Americans," liberals, and of course African Americans would be up in arms if that were proposed. The idea of taking the Land of Lincoln and un-freeing people...oof.

On the other hand, if the government takes a stand that the new capital will be integrated...well, the South is not going to be happy. There goes your New Deal Coalition.

So you've got a fight on your hands.

I actually love this as a potential POD to set off a political realignment earlier in the US. I just don't think you can Yes-And the New Deal with a capital move.

If you wanted a "smoother" transition, maybe across the river in Missouri is a better choice. It's not as "neat" geographically-speaking, but I think it placates those middle-Americans- the people who can tolerate NOT changing existing segregation laws in Missouri, but would think it wrong to spread them to Illinois. You would still get liberals and African Americans up in arms, but the argument has less traction if the place you're leaving is as bad as the place you're going.

The segregation aspect is actually a good reason for moving it there, when the Pentagon was built FDR basically told Virginia that if they wanted it in their state, they would wave their segregation laws for the site or he would build it somewhere else. He was not as liberal as his wife but FDR was against segregation. I could see a move to Missouri, seems to be a popular consensus. I still think it's all in the message and FDR was good at spinning things.

 

[Expat]

The segregation aspect is actually a good reason for moving it there, when the Pentagon was built FDR basically told Virginia that if they wanted it in their state, they would wave their segregation laws for the site or he would build it somewhere else. He was not as liberal as his wife but FDR was against segregation. I could see a move to Missouri, seems to be a popular consensus. I still think it's all in the message and FDR was good at spinning things.

But Virginia built it segregated anyway (gallows humor but it’s surprisingly easy to find a bathroom in there).

Anyway, FDR was good at not pushing southerners on the issue, keeping them placated. I don’t think it was a matter of personal belief, just pure politicking. He kept the coalition together by decidedly not having this kind of fight. (And even what he did do strained it pretty far IOTL.)

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

But Virginia built it segregated anyway (gallows humor but it’s surprisingly easy to find a bathroom in there).

Anyway, FDR was good at not pushing southerners on the issue, keeping them placated. I don’t think it was a matter of personal belief, just pure politicking. He kept the coalition together by decidedly not having this kind of fight. (And even what he did do strained it pretty far IOTL.)

The Pentagon was not segregated at any time, it was the only building at the time in Virginia where segregation was not enforced. Though to meet law on bathrooms it did build more than needed due to the law but it was completely integrated.

 

[McPherson]

There have been proposals to move the capital since the beginning of the country but what if as a way to not only create jobs during the Depression but also as a way to portray to the country that the President and Congress are trying to be more responsive the citizens needs by moving the capital closer to the middle of the US. They pass the initial amendment in summer 1933 and begin planning while waiting ratification, which occurs in December of 1933.

For the purposes of this question, assume the US passed an amendment moving the capital to the Southern tip of Illinois, buying the land from the state and building the new capital there. This capital will also have representation unlike DC at the time, similar to OTL where an amendment was proposed but failed ratification for giving DC 2 Senators and proportional representation but not statehood, in this TL the amendment to move the capital also includes that language, thus solving one lingering issue over the capital. The US government will not move until the new White House and Capitol Building are completed, the government can basically operate with two federal areas until the new capital has enough buildings to cover the entire federal government. Note, this does not stop FDR from pursuing any of the OTL New Deal plans, it is simply another one to the list.

The deal is done, planning begins. So, how long does it take to construct to the point that the President and Congress move in? ( I believe Brasilia was built over 3 years, using that as similar comp) Does Congress also include mass transit from the ground up, ie, a subway system like modern Metro? What would be the short term impact during the Depression? What would the long term change mean to not only government responsiveness to US citizens but from a defensive perspective? (this is pre nuclear age and no bombers are long range enough to come close to hitting unless Mexico or Canada turn on the US)

Why was the capital not moved? And will not be moved?

Maps | Chesapeake Bay Program

The sea and air power reasons are OBVIOUS. The capital sits in the middle of the American Atlantic seaboard at the heart of the major US naval and air complexes. Atlantic trade routes to American coastal ports are bisected north and south. Just as London is administratively set for the UK, so is Washington set administratively for the United States as an INTERNATIONAL communications locus. Putting the capital in Illinois or in the Great Plains is geographically not wise.

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

Why was the capital not moved? And will not be moved?

Maps | Chesapeake Bay Program

The sea and air power reasons are OBVIOUS. The capital sits in the middle of the American Atlantic seaboard at the heart of the major US naval and air complexes. Atlantic trade routes to American coastal ports are bisected north and south. Just as London is administratively set for the UK, so is Washington set administratively for the United States as an INTERNATIONAL communications locus. Putting the capital in Illinois or in the Great Plains is geographically not wise.

New York is the economic capital so trade related is not a strong argument and you have a stronger defensive argument FOR moving it. Nothing anyone has at the time can fly far enough to reach middle america, DC is actually still more exposed being close to the coast. As for communications, you have lines going all over at this point with widespread telegraph and POTS lines. So communications is a weak argument too, modern capitals can be put anywhere.

EDIT: I mean any of the enemies, if you put something in Mexico or Canada then yes, if you can penetrate the defense shield then you could hit it. But the same argument holds for the coast where carrier aircraft could strike.

 

[Expat]

The Pentagon was not segregated at any time, it was the only building at the time in Virginia where segregation was not enforced. Though to meet law on bathrooms it did build more than needed due to the law but it was completely integrated.

Not disagreeing, but check it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pentagon-bathrooms/

 

[McPherson]

New York is the economic capital so trade related is not a strong argument and you have a stronger defensive argument FOR moving it. Nothing anyone has at the time can fly far enough to reach middle america, DC is actually still more exposed being close to the coast. As for communications, you have lines going all over at this point with widespread telegraph and POTS lines. So communications is a weak argument too, modern capitals can be put anywhere.

EDIT: I mean any of the enemies, if you put something in Mexico or Canada then yes, if you can penetrate the defense shield then you could hit it. But the same argument holds for the coast where carrier aircraft could strike.

New York was part of the trade and administrative complex and still is.

If one was to attack the US from Europe, one flies over the North pole and comes THROUGH CANADA. Those are the shortest threat routes by air.

 

[Questerr]

Building a new Capitol Building, or at least massively renovating the existing one, would allow FDR and Congress at the time to lift the arbitrary 435 cap on the House.

 

[dmg86]

Yeah I think it would be more likely to renovate then move and build new.

 

[Georgepatton]

Yeah I think it would be more likely to renovate then move and build new.

Yeah, obviously, like how Truman renovated the White House after the war instead of convincing Congress to build him a whole new one.

it is still fun, though, to consider the alternative.

My favorite is the proposal for a 'Summer White House' at Mount Falcon, Colorado that would've basically been a mountain-side castle.

 

[dmg86]

I could see that used for things were you would want peace and quiet.

 

[Georgepatton]

I could see that used for things were you would want peace and quiet.

A little less convenient than Camp David for discreet meetings with foreign dignitaries, though.

 

[dmg86]

Though less likely to be noticed quickly. At least at for a while.

 

[Robinsml]

A new national capitol is nice, but how do we get to it? What kind of railroad and highway connections are available in southern Illinois (or wherever else the new capitol is built)?

 

[marathag]

ports are bisected north and south. Just as London is administratively set for the UK, so is Washington set administratively for the United States as an INTERNATIONAL communications locus. Putting the capital in Illinois or in the Great Plains is geographically not wise.

But think of it this way, it makes it easy to show off how huge the USA is to the diplomatic staff from other countries, when the new 'Federalist' Streamliner takes 20 hours at 120mph to get from the Coast to the new Capitol.
They get to see the Steel Mills, Factories and all that grain growing along the way.
New York to DC was a standard Continental distance away.
This would be new.

 

[McPherson]

But think of it this way, it makes it easy to show off how huge the USA is to the diplomatic staff from other countries, when the new 'Federalist' Streamliner takes 20 hours at 120mph to get from the Coast to the new Capitol.
They get to see the Steel Mills, Factories and all that grain growing along the way.
New York to DC was a standard Continental distance away.
This would be new.

It made no sense to George Washington and would not to FDR as a strategic exercise. A nincompoop like Henry Wallace? He would be stupid enough.

 

[Resurgam]

So, what happens to Washington itself if this happens? You still have all these existent impressive buildings of state.