The first: https://vicksburgnews.com/how-vicksburg-almost-became-the-capitol-of-mississippi/
I can't stop thinking about this. Yellow freaking fever deterred it - seems like we could have thought beyond that, but I digress.
Jackson is initially chosen as capital due to central location, Pearl River and Natchez Trace, in 1822 I believe. By the time 1870 comes along, the MS River is a much bigger transportation corridor, and the Trace is obsolete. Man oh man, what an absolutely huge opportunity missed this was. Vicksburg was actually bigger than Jackson at that time too, and not only that, Natchez was the biggest city in MS (I'll come back to that later).
Now, if this happens, I HAVE to believe that would have influenced the location of MSU 8 years later. You're at the bottom of the Delta, for the Ag side. You're on the south side of MS, away from Ole Miss in the north. And geographically, this area is farthest away from all SEC rivals (I know that didn't matter at the time) as a whole. So that's a perk that would come later.
The combination of these two things, combined with the Reconstruction efforts, could have spring-boarded that area. And I'd be willing to bet.....once we start building the interstates in the 60s, 55 would have went to Vicksburg, Port Gibson (too beautiful to burn) down through Natchez, to Baton Rouge. Think about what that would mean for the tourism in this River Region, which is underappreciated, because it's so hard to get to. To me, this would have been transformational. And I guarantee you that with a capital city in an area like that, along with a major college......that city would still be very viable today. I like to compare it to Columbia, SC. Natchez often says that its tourism is tamped down by not being near an interstate.
Some folks may say well it's not in a central location. Maybe so, but it's central enough and why not think outside the box a tad? It's the most populous area of the state at the time. I mean the River WAS and IS Mississippi. And not only that, it keeps a bigger portion of the state available for ag and hunting.
And then....with Starkville remaining a small town, probably gives a better chance for Tupelo to ultimately survive/thrive without diverting a bunch of resources down to the GTR. And maybe we don't spend all that money on the seldom used Tenn-Tom.
Would Louisiana benefit too? Yeah, but so what. The flood-prone area west of Vicksburg would still ensure that most of the development stayed on the MS side. It ain't like Tallulah is booming and taking population away from there nowadays.
Oh well. Been a lot of bad decisions but to me, this may have been one of the worst. Would Mississippi be rivaling Texas today? Of course not. But I bet there would have been a thriving metro area still growing and lessening the brain drain by a long amount. Not to mention the investment and consolidation of resources there, and like I said, Tupelo/GTR.
ETA: Also.....Vicksburg just sounds cool.
I can't stop thinking about this. Yellow freaking fever deterred it - seems like we could have thought beyond that, but I digress.
Jackson is initially chosen as capital due to central location, Pearl River and Natchez Trace, in 1822 I believe. By the time 1870 comes along, the MS River is a much bigger transportation corridor, and the Trace is obsolete. Man oh man, what an absolutely huge opportunity missed this was. Vicksburg was actually bigger than Jackson at that time too, and not only that, Natchez was the biggest city in MS (I'll come back to that later).
Now, if this happens, I HAVE to believe that would have influenced the location of MSU 8 years later. You're at the bottom of the Delta, for the Ag side. You're on the south side of MS, away from Ole Miss in the north. And geographically, this area is farthest away from all SEC rivals (I know that didn't matter at the time) as a whole. So that's a perk that would come later.
The combination of these two things, combined with the Reconstruction efforts, could have spring-boarded that area. And I'd be willing to bet.....once we start building the interstates in the 60s, 55 would have went to Vicksburg, Port Gibson (too beautiful to burn) down through Natchez, to Baton Rouge. Think about what that would mean for the tourism in this River Region, which is underappreciated, because it's so hard to get to. To me, this would have been transformational. And I guarantee you that with a capital city in an area like that, along with a major college......that city would still be very viable today. I like to compare it to Columbia, SC. Natchez often says that its tourism is tamped down by not being near an interstate.
Some folks may say well it's not in a central location. Maybe so, but it's central enough and why not think outside the box a tad? It's the most populous area of the state at the time. I mean the River WAS and IS Mississippi. And not only that, it keeps a bigger portion of the state available for ag and hunting.
And then....with Starkville remaining a small town, probably gives a better chance for Tupelo to ultimately survive/thrive without diverting a bunch of resources down to the GTR. And maybe we don't spend all that money on the seldom used Tenn-Tom.
Would Louisiana benefit too? Yeah, but so what. The flood-prone area west of Vicksburg would still ensure that most of the development stayed on the MS side. It ain't like Tallulah is booming and taking population away from there nowadays.
Oh well. Been a lot of bad decisions but to me, this may have been one of the worst. Would Mississippi be rivaling Texas today? Of course not. But I bet there would have been a thriving metro area still growing and lessening the brain drain by a long amount. Not to mention the investment and consolidation of resources there, and like I said, Tupelo/GTR.
ETA: Also.....Vicksburg just sounds cool.
Last edited:
