I went down a rabbit hole reading about this last night, and now I'm thinking about the missed opportunities, as usual. This, to me, sounds like our most fatal flaw, rather than many of the other things we blame.
Seems that pre-1820, Natchez was the center of operations, and that the formation of MS was going to be what it was, separation from Georgia/Louisiana then Alabama. So you lose out on the major ports, by New Orleans already being out, then you separate yourself from Mobile. That was dumb, but hey, at least you've got some coastline. Then, understandably, they wanted a more centralized location for the capital of the newly-formed state. So they start in the central MS swamps and head down the Pearl River and eventually settle on the first bluff they find. But here's the thing - river travel along the Mississippi was what was pushing growth at the time.......so why did we choose the Jackson area? Why not just make it easy on ourselves and choose Vicksburg, which had already been developed on high ground? I get that there may have been some pushback from Natchez, but come on, you're not really talking about that big of a geographical difference, but a HUGE difference in potential of development.
Civil War would have decimated it, but that happened anyway. So nothing really changed there. And there still would have been racial strife, as there was everywhere. And yeah, we would have continued to make dumb decisions. Ole Miss was located in Oxford because it was rural, whatever. Then of course, the split from the rich and poor, Ole Miss and MSU. And would we have had the forethought at that time to locate MSU in or around Vicksburg? Maybe, maybe not, but there would have been some pressure I would think, being right there by the Delta.
Then....I'm betting the interstate would have come through Vicksburg, down through Port Gibson, Natchez, and probably to Baton Rouge. Cheaper than crossing Pontchartrain.
I know River commerce dried up, but I think with those bones - a capital, a major university, etc., with the River tourism that could have opened up.....geez, what a mistake. Jackson gonna Jackson.
Seems that pre-1820, Natchez was the center of operations, and that the formation of MS was going to be what it was, separation from Georgia/Louisiana then Alabama. So you lose out on the major ports, by New Orleans already being out, then you separate yourself from Mobile. That was dumb, but hey, at least you've got some coastline. Then, understandably, they wanted a more centralized location for the capital of the newly-formed state. So they start in the central MS swamps and head down the Pearl River and eventually settle on the first bluff they find. But here's the thing - river travel along the Mississippi was what was pushing growth at the time.......so why did we choose the Jackson area? Why not just make it easy on ourselves and choose Vicksburg, which had already been developed on high ground? I get that there may have been some pushback from Natchez, but come on, you're not really talking about that big of a geographical difference, but a HUGE difference in potential of development.
Civil War would have decimated it, but that happened anyway. So nothing really changed there. And there still would have been racial strife, as there was everywhere. And yeah, we would have continued to make dumb decisions. Ole Miss was located in Oxford because it was rural, whatever. Then of course, the split from the rich and poor, Ole Miss and MSU. And would we have had the forethought at that time to locate MSU in or around Vicksburg? Maybe, maybe not, but there would have been some pressure I would think, being right there by the Delta.
Then....I'm betting the interstate would have come through Vicksburg, down through Port Gibson, Natchez, and probably to Baton Rouge. Cheaper than crossing Pontchartrain.
I know River commerce dried up, but I think with those bones - a capital, a major university, etc., with the River tourism that could have opened up.....geez, what a mistake. Jackson gonna Jackson.