This is completely off topic I know, but as I was thinking some things over today I got to wondering why Mississippi only has one large city in Jackson (roughly 172,000). Our next largest city is Gulfport with roughly 70,000. All the other Southern states near by us have at least a couple more large cities and I can't find a good reason why Mississippi couldn't grow more than one large city. Even Alabama has 5 large cities (Huntsville, Tuscaloosa, Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile). Birmingham was even founded post Civil War (1871) and grew into what it is today. Any of you history buffs got any insight? Did we just have a bad run of ignorant governors who couldn't attract business unlike these other southern states or something?
OT: Why does Mississippi only have one large city?
- Thread starter WayboDawg
- Start date
I know I'm aware of some of the history of Meridian, which was at one time in the 20th century larger than Jackson, and it's largely cultural
And political, I think. Meridian was economically strongly vested in the railroad. For many years, it was a source of economic strength. Well... SOME industry moved in, but there were a few key figures in the city that fought tooth and nail to keep new industry out. The railroad business weakened and the economy stagnated. These people literally ran city government and it just absolutely strangled the economy.
It's a cultural thing... Historically, mississippi has fought to keep "new" and "change" out of towns, and like meridian, has even gone as far as passing legislation and ordinances that make it very difficult for new business to move in (see Toyota... Meridian was a finalist for the location of the plant that's in tupelo).
On a side note, I have often wondered how different Meridian and MSU would have been had it been in meridian instead of Starkville (meridian was the strong favorite for it's location in the 1870s). Meridian is geographically in a pristine location for growth and so many people fought so hard to keep growth out.
And political, I think. Meridian was economically strongly vested in the railroad. For many years, it was a source of economic strength. Well... SOME industry moved in, but there were a few key figures in the city that fought tooth and nail to keep new industry out. The railroad business weakened and the economy stagnated. These people literally ran city government and it just absolutely strangled the economy.
It's a cultural thing... Historically, mississippi has fought to keep "new" and "change" out of towns, and like meridian, has even gone as far as passing legislation and ordinances that make it very difficult for new business to move in (see Toyota... Meridian was a finalist for the location of the plant that's in tupelo).
On a side note, I have often wondered how different Meridian and MSU would have been had it been in meridian instead of Starkville (meridian was the strong favorite for it's location in the 1870s). Meridian is geographically in a pristine location for growth and so many people fought so hard to keep growth out.
I think you will find that Mississippi is/was more agriculturally based than other southern states. That was fine when farming took a lot of labor, but as farming mechanized and those jobs grew less and less, no industry was recruited (by incompetence or to keep people down, who knows, probably both) to replace farm jobs. That stunted growth/development in much of the state and has lead us to what we are today. Getting the short of the stick on the Gulf Coast and having little natural scenery (mountains) certainly didn't help either.
The delta is essentially a third world county and will remain so as long as people who have no hope of ever being productive members of society choose to live there. No jobs are ever coming to the delta in sufficient numbers to make a difference, time for a population relocation plan?
The delta is essentially a third world county and will remain so as long as people who have no hope of ever being productive members of society choose to live there. No jobs are ever coming to the delta in sufficient numbers to make a difference, time for a population relocation plan?
Because people grow up and move.
But seriously, we have officials blocking sunday alcohol because it will lead to "gang rape". MOST people dont want to live in places like that, which is basically every small town in MS, which is basically the entire state.
But seriously, we have officials blocking sunday alcohol because it will lead to "gang rape". MOST people dont want to live in places like that, which is basically every small town in MS, which is basically the entire state.
Last edited:
I can believe what you are saying about Meridian because I have heard the same things. As far as big wigs blocking industry out of an area, the same thing happened to Waynesboro according to my Dad. Georgia Pacific originally wanted to put that plant they have in Pennington, AL in Wayne County a while back ago, but the Board of Supervisors voted against it. A few of the persons on that board had conflicting interests and voted no because Georgia Pacific would cause an increase in wages for the area that would hurt their own businesses. Makes me sick... That right there is why so many people move away from this area when they grow up. No jobs because a few people who have all the influence won't allow anyone else a piece of the pie.
Originally as MS moved toward statehood, the original proposed borders would have been the Mississippi River on the west and the Tombigbee on the east. The original plan would have included Natchez, Mobile, and New Orleans in one state. At this time there would have been more wealth in the new state of Ms than all other states with the exception of NY. The northeastern states didn't want that much wealth and power in a western state so they redrew the borders to split these cities into three separate states thus diminishing the power of king cotton. This doesn't necessarily explain why there are no large cities in Ms but it definitely didn't help.
This.
I asked advise on here about moving back to Mississippi to Jackson and 110% of the people on here, most of which currently live there or other cities in Mississippi, strongly felt that I would be better off living in a soup kitchen in Denver.
Last edited:
I do know that Alabama had more natural resources (minerals, etc.), which allowed for the explosion of Birmingham and its surrounding areas.
NASA had a great deal to do with Huntsville's growth. Wonder why the same didn't happen at Stennis for Mississippi.....
People follow jobs. The Mississippi government has gone way out of its way to assure that any jobs go to surrounding states.
Couple buddies of mine at state studied industrial engineering which had a lot of business development type stuff in the curriculum and apparently major factories or major corporations won't move to an area where a large percent of white childten go to private school. It apparently causes rifts with workers and supervisors. That's Mississippi in a nutshell, and the places where it's not, the cost of living/land isn't worth the hassle.
It's flat out shocking that more corporations haven't set up shop in Jackson following WorldCom (irrelevant that they cooked their books). It's cheap as hell to be in Mississippi. Cheeeeap.
Couple buddies of mine at state studied industrial engineering which had a lot of business development type stuff in the curriculum and apparently major factories or major corporations won't move to an area where a large percent of white childten go to private school. It apparently causes rifts with workers and supervisors. That's Mississippi in a nutshell, and the places where it's not, the cost of living/land isn't worth the hassle.
It's flat out shocking that more corporations haven't set up shop in Jackson following WorldCom (irrelevant that they cooked their books). It's cheap as hell to be in Mississippi. Cheeeeap.
The thing that I noticed about mississippi that I havent anywhere else is, people are really wealthy or really poor. Most the kids whose families owned all the businesses in the town I grew up with stayed. All the poor people stayed. All the rest, with college degrees, moved to another state. Not all but most. There just isnt much in MS. I love it but it is the truth. I may move back one day because it is so damn cheap. I could basically build as big of a house as I wanted on a good amount of land for what a shoebox cost where I live.
This doesn't explain the malaise across the whole state. MAIS is not the reason the state struggles to recruit industry.
It just perplexes me that Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, and Tennessee all share very similar plights as Mississippi: All were on the losing end of the Civil War, all were agricultural societies, all dealt with civil rights, all have high percentages of poor minorities, all deal with the corruption of the "Good-ole-boy" system......and yet all those states seem to be 3 times more prosperous than Mississippi is. What did Mississippi do (or not do) differently?
Sure, there are 1000 reasons. But apparently that is one of the big struggles Mississippi has going.
Edited because I does spell bad.
Last edited:
"major factories or major corporations won't move to an area where a large percent of white childten go to private school."
This is huge issue and one I don't ever see the state solving. If private schools wouldn't have gotten so prevalent, towns like Carrollton would likely have outstanding public schools, as it stand now Carrollton has bad to mediocre public schools and a bad to mediocre private school. Imagine Starkville City Schools if there was no Starkville Academy.
There are only a handful of decent public schools in the state and even the best of those aren't as good as the good public schools in surrounding states.
This is huge issue and one I don't ever see the state solving. If private schools wouldn't have gotten so prevalent, towns like Carrollton would likely have outstanding public schools, as it stand now Carrollton has bad to mediocre public schools and a bad to mediocre private school. Imagine Starkville City Schools if there was no Starkville Academy.
There are only a handful of decent public schools in the state and even the best of those aren't as good as the good public schools in surrounding states.
One thing I hadn't thought about before is the affect of Jackson's perfectly centralized location on the need for other large cities in Mississippi. Not to mention the nearby surrounding cities of Birmingham, Mobile, New Orleans, and Memphis that surround every border of our state. Kinda sucks to be Mississippi in that situation. All these other states are sucking money from our taxbase and Mississippi has nothing to show for it because those cities are beyond our borders.
Harrison County makes a disproportionate amount of the state's income while only being the 3rd largest county. The reason is because of it's proximity to New Orleans and Mobile and because it has the gulf. No other city/county is in a position like that... Except Southaven.
And Southaven was beginning to be a MAJOR player in the mid 00's until Katrina stole some of the attention to the coast and then all their political mishaps.
It's shocking that is hasn't already gotten some major business overspill from Memphis, but it will.
Last edited:
THIS
The reason Mississippi only has one city has nothing to do with politics, people moving away, etc. It has everything to do with the fact that our state boarders were horribly drawn. Mississippi must have had a bunch of pansy politicians back in the day that allowed Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana to take every city near our boarder.
Look at Texas, Texas has many big cities, but they are all far apart. Dallas is 4 hours from Houston, Austin is 3 hours from Houston and 3 hours from Dallas, San Antonio is 3 hours from Houston and 4 1/2 from Dallas. If Texas were Mississippi, Houston would be in Louisiana, Dallas would be in Oklahoma, and San Antonio would be part of Mexico. Only leaving Austin as the one decent size city in the state.
Memphis is culturally much more Mississippi than Tennessee, and Mississippi probably should have gotten either Mobile or New Orleans. Most likely Mobile.
To be fair, these "large cities" you speak of today were nothing in the early to mid 1800's when the borders were drawn. The only city that really mattered to anyone was New Orleans, and at the time, the French had complete control it for about 10-15 years AFTER Mississippi became a state. New Orleans never had a snowman's chance in hell of winding up in Mississippi. Mobile, maybe... but we had our own coast that has/had opportunity.
Hattiesburg, Tupelo, Columbus, and Starkville just did not have the opportunity to grow because their locations were not near as pristine as Meridian's.
As I stated earlier, at the end of the 19th Century, Meridian was one of the largest and richest cities in the state (it was actually one of the largest cities in the southeast). It was a thriving railroad community. As the highway network grew, it became a major intersection for Interstates 20 and 59. Natchez was a resort town for the rich plantation owners, and Jackson was nothing more than a small town up on a bluff. Hell, even Greenwood was a large, industrious, and fairly wealthy city. Meridian, Jackson, Hattiesburg, and even the coast had every chance in the world to become iconic southern cities like Atlanta or Memphis, but like I said, some powerful locals fought tooth and nail to make sure that Meridian and cities throughout the state never had a chance to grow and prosper.
ETA: I had my dates screwed up... the Louisiana Purchase was in 1803... Mississippi became a state in 1817. My bad... either way, it was part of the Louisiana purchase and the Mississippi Territory was not going to end up with New Orleans.
Hattiesburg, Tupelo, Columbus, and Starkville just did not have the opportunity to grow because their locations were not near as pristine as Meridian's.
As I stated earlier, at the end of the 19th Century, Meridian was one of the largest and richest cities in the state (it was actually one of the largest cities in the southeast). It was a thriving railroad community. As the highway network grew, it became a major intersection for Interstates 20 and 59. Natchez was a resort town for the rich plantation owners, and Jackson was nothing more than a small town up on a bluff. Hell, even Greenwood was a large, industrious, and fairly wealthy city. Meridian, Jackson, Hattiesburg, and even the coast had every chance in the world to become iconic southern cities like Atlanta or Memphis, but like I said, some powerful locals fought tooth and nail to make sure that Meridian and cities throughout the state never had a chance to grow and prosper.
ETA: I had my dates screwed up... the Louisiana Purchase was in 1803... Mississippi became a state in 1817. My bad... either way, it was part of the Louisiana purchase and the Mississippi Territory was not going to end up with New Orleans.
Last edited:
The same reason we have two SEC schools in the smallest state in the South.
See story on why MSU was founded after the civil war.
The state was incredibly divided after the Civil War and has remained that way since with multiple factions jockeying for position. We are not unified to this day and it sucks.
See story on why MSU was founded after the civil war.
The state was incredibly divided after the Civil War and has remained that way since with multiple factions jockeying for position. We are not unified to this day and it sucks.
The short answer is people are more concerned about keeping the status quo instead of moving forward
Yep, how do I keep myself and my followers in control and in the best position
possible position instead of doing what's right for the whole state and I mean the whole state. We are victims of our forefathers who were a bunch of short sighted, racist, narrow minded men for the most part. If we had been progressive after the civil war and educated the ex slaves and not created a separate society we would have been so much better off in so many ways today but the leadership at the time had a different agenda and that agenda lived on until well into the 1970's. We may recover and become a great state one day but it is going to take some time and some damn strong and unifying leadership. Probably won't happen in my lifetime but I hope it happens.
possible position instead of doing what's right for the whole state and I mean the whole state. We are victims of our forefathers who were a bunch of short sighted, racist, narrow minded men for the most part. If we had been progressive after the civil war and educated the ex slaves and not created a separate society we would have been so much better off in so many ways today but the leadership at the time had a different agenda and that agenda lived on until well into the 1970's. We may recover and become a great state one day but it is going to take some time and some damn strong and unifying leadership. Probably won't happen in my lifetime but I hope it happens.
I beleive the 3 coastal counties are responsible for 75% of MS tax revenue. Casinos/Chevron/Ingalls etc. are responsible for that. However, I think over 50% of Chevron workers live in Alabama. They have recently stated a plan to build neighboorhoods in Moss Point/Escatawpa and give incentives to employees to live in MS. We'll see if that ever comes to.
The coast has always had business, it just hasn't always been legal.
The coast has always had business, it just hasn't always been legal.
Luck and Leadership
(1) Luck. Cities used to generally be established because of a natural advantage they had, either location, such as on a good navigable waterway connecting trading partners or being close to valuable natural resources. Now those things are less important than simply having a critical mass of population that can thrive in the information economy, but where those critical masses exist are still determined in large part by historical factors.
Birmingham exists because of iron deposits, even though those deposits are not important now. Mobile is the same way I believe although it also has the advantage of being on the gulf and having a bay. New Orleans became New Orleans because of its location on the Mississippi.
I'm not sure why something on the Bay of St. Louis didn't develop like Mobile unless it's that proximity to New Orleans and/or lack of a resource like iron deposits and/or lack of consistently deep water. It seems like Pascagoula also could have been a player but I'm guessing proximity to Mobile made its location on the gulf and pascagoula river less desirable.
Mississippi simply hasn't had those sort of advantages. For most of its history, the most valuable use of Mississippi's land was agriculture, either crops or timber. You can still see how timber shaped south Mississippi, as all the little towns along hwy 49 are basically spaced out the way the timber camps were. Since agriculture didn't require the labor that would estalblish a critical mass of population, we didn't have big cities to develop.
The only exceptions I can think of are Jackson (which looks basically like Montgomery, so I'm not sure it's doing much worse than you'd expect), the Coast (which I think has done decently, even if there is no New Orleans or Mobile), South Memphis (which has done decent considering its just the outerband of a metropolitan area centered in a neighboring state), and Natchez (which failed to convert its natural resource wealth into a sustainable population. The only one I think you can really claim is a completely missed opportunity is Natchez, and I'm not sure they really had the oil reserves to create a mini Dallas or anything.
(2) Leadership: I'm sure there are plenty of circumstances where local leadership passed on opportunities because they threatened the status quo. I'm not sure they've stopped any large cities from developing, but I'm sure there are lots of localities that could be twice or three times as big if they had had better leadership/voters.
We also didn't develop things like education to where when the first wave of manufacturing came down subsequently decamped for Mexico, we didn't have a skilled workforce that could attract higher value industry.
There are also some studies out there showing that increased gov't spending in an area results in a net decrease in investment in the area. Not clear what the mechanism is but looks like maybe gov't spending competes with gov't investment and maybe results in people that would otherwise invest in productive resources instead invest in trying to get their cut of the gov't spending. If you buy those studies, Mississippi's ability to suck up more than its share of federal money over they years as compared to a place like Alabama may have contributed to MS growing more slowly.
(1) Luck. Cities used to generally be established because of a natural advantage they had, either location, such as on a good navigable waterway connecting trading partners or being close to valuable natural resources. Now those things are less important than simply having a critical mass of population that can thrive in the information economy, but where those critical masses exist are still determined in large part by historical factors.
Birmingham exists because of iron deposits, even though those deposits are not important now. Mobile is the same way I believe although it also has the advantage of being on the gulf and having a bay. New Orleans became New Orleans because of its location on the Mississippi.
I'm not sure why something on the Bay of St. Louis didn't develop like Mobile unless it's that proximity to New Orleans and/or lack of a resource like iron deposits and/or lack of consistently deep water. It seems like Pascagoula also could have been a player but I'm guessing proximity to Mobile made its location on the gulf and pascagoula river less desirable.
Mississippi simply hasn't had those sort of advantages. For most of its history, the most valuable use of Mississippi's land was agriculture, either crops or timber. You can still see how timber shaped south Mississippi, as all the little towns along hwy 49 are basically spaced out the way the timber camps were. Since agriculture didn't require the labor that would estalblish a critical mass of population, we didn't have big cities to develop.
The only exceptions I can think of are Jackson (which looks basically like Montgomery, so I'm not sure it's doing much worse than you'd expect), the Coast (which I think has done decently, even if there is no New Orleans or Mobile), South Memphis (which has done decent considering its just the outerband of a metropolitan area centered in a neighboring state), and Natchez (which failed to convert its natural resource wealth into a sustainable population. The only one I think you can really claim is a completely missed opportunity is Natchez, and I'm not sure they really had the oil reserves to create a mini Dallas or anything.
(2) Leadership: I'm sure there are plenty of circumstances where local leadership passed on opportunities because they threatened the status quo. I'm not sure they've stopped any large cities from developing, but I'm sure there are lots of localities that could be twice or three times as big if they had had better leadership/voters.
We also didn't develop things like education to where when the first wave of manufacturing came down subsequently decamped for Mexico, we didn't have a skilled workforce that could attract higher value industry.
There are also some studies out there showing that increased gov't spending in an area results in a net decrease in investment in the area. Not clear what the mechanism is but looks like maybe gov't spending competes with gov't investment and maybe results in people that would otherwise invest in productive resources instead invest in trying to get their cut of the gov't spending. If you buy those studies, Mississippi's ability to suck up more than its share of federal money over they years as compared to a place like Alabama may have contributed to MS growing more slowly.
The port too.
AND seafood. I didn't realize the extent of Mississippi's seafood market until I moved here. Every grocery store except the hippy local ones in my neighborhood have "fresh Biloxi shrimp" in their seafood section. Each one.
Crazy.
It's also difficult to convince top talent to live there. If you want to be competitive, you want good workers. MS is a hard sell to America's top workers. It's got bad schools, bad health outcomes, only one big city (which is, by American standards, dumpy), and bad weather.
When FedEx expands its tech division, it does so in Collierville for the same reason. It's hard to convince mid-career tech workers with families to live in somewhere with such poor school options (Memphis proper).
When FedEx expands its tech division, it does so in Collierville for the same reason. It's hard to convince mid-career tech workers with families to live in somewhere with such poor school options (Memphis proper).