Things change all right. Ask folks from Detroit.

by Jasper on Mar 4, 2010 2:35 pm  

I seem to remember that poor old Buffalo is the only city to end the 20th century with fewer people than it started.

But they sure know how to clear snow, as I have been repeatedly reminded as of late.

by Reid on Mar 4, 2010 2:41 pm  

Nearby Cumberland, Md. is known as the Queen City because for a long time, it was the second-largest city in Maryland. I can't imagine it's even close, today.

by Ron on Mar 4, 2010 3:19 pm  

I'm not sure how meaningful these equivalencies are, as the country was just so much more rural back in the day, and so even the biggest cities represented a smaller chunk of the US population. In 1790, for instance, the biggest city, New York, had 0.8 percent of the US population -- about 2,500,000 people in today's terms, a bit smaller than Chicago but a bit larger than Houston proper, or of the Denver-Aurora-Broomfield MSA. The 10th largest city, Marblehead, Massachusetts (really!) was about .14 percent of the popuation -- 432,000 in today's terms, equivalent to the Flint, Michigan MSA, or to Virginia Beach proper.

by jfruh on Mar 4, 2010 3:41 pm  

In 1820 Washington and Georgetown were ranked separately? Where did River East rank, I wonder?

by Lou on Mar 4, 2010 3:51 pm  

Lou, Georgetown is an older city than Washington. It wasn't until the 1870s that "DC" and "Washington" became synonyms.

HERE is the history.

by BeyondDC on Mar 4, 2010 3:55 pm  

Lou: Georgetown (which already existed as a Maryland town with the District of Columbia was created) and the "City of Washington" (the core of today's city) were separate municipalities within the District, as was Alexandria. The land outside those cities north of the Potomac was "Washington County," and the land south of the Potomac was "Alexandria County."

The bits south of the Potomac were given back to Virignia in 1856, and Alexandria County later changed its name to Arlington County. Georgetown, Washington, and Washington County were consolidated into a single municipality in 1871.

(Cue "the more you know" theme song)

by jfruh on Mar 4, 2010 3:58 pm  

Argh, BeyondDC beat me to it! And I meant 1846, not 1856.

by jfruh on Mar 4, 2010 3:59 pm  

That's a good question. Was Anacostia ever counted as a separate municipality before the Organic Act in 1871?

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 4, 2010 4:39 pm  

Not as far as I'm aware. It was just part of "unincorporated Washington County", and was never very populous (even by the standards of the day) until after consolidation in 1871.

There was a small village called "Uniontown" where historic Anacostia is today, but I don't believe it was ever incorporated as an actual town, and most of the historic area is post consolidation.

by BeyondDC on Mar 4, 2010 4:59 pm  

@BeyondDC: The post you link to isn't quite right, I think. As far as I know, Washington and Alexandria counties were completely separate from Georgetown, Washington and Alexandria cities. So there were five local juridictions, with no overlap: Georgetown City, Washington City, Washington County, Alexandria City, Alexandria County.

Also, to answer a question that a few people have answered: there have been no local/municipal governments/jurisdictions, including cities, towns and counties, in the District of Columbia since its founding (excluding the above mentioned ones). There was a settlement called Hamburg in today's Foggy Bottom area before the Washington streets were laid out, but I don't think it was incorporated in Maryland, and definitely not in DC.

by Tim on Mar 4, 2010 5:02 pm  

Why do you think the counties were separate from the cities, Tim? Virginia is the only place in the country where that is a typical occurrence, and it didn't become that way until the 20th century.

by BeyondDC on Mar 4, 2010 5:07 pm  

Upon further reading, it looks like you're right: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=142

"the said district of Columbia shall be formed into two counties; one county shall contain all that part of said district, which lies on the east side of the river Potomac ... and shall be called the county of Washington; the other county shall contain all that part of said district, which lies on the west side of said river, and shall be called the county of Alexandria ..."

Interesting note: the islands were included in Washington County, but the river was considered to be in both counties.

by Tim on Mar 4, 2010 5:35 pm  

Population has moved South and West for a lot of reasons, and Baltimore's port was probably much more of an economic driver for jobs in the 1800s than it is now. But it's still good to think about these things in terms of how more liveable cities can attract new economic opportunity.

by Omar on Mar 4, 2010 7:52 pm  

Virginia has independent cities because of judicial decisions. The judiciary used to have inordinate power. They appointed school boards, for example. The reason this situation existed was that the judges were generally drawn from the planter class and protected that class's interests.

Arlington County has no incorporated places due to judicial fiat. More recently, South Boston and Clifton Forge Cities retroceded to their original counties by judicial decision. The real reason was that they had floated bonds and wanted to push the repayments onto others.

by Chuck Coleman on Mar 4, 2010 10:04 pm  

@Omar:

Longshoremen in Baltimore and Norfolk don't like to work in the rain. In Norfolk, they agreed to work in the rain for extra pay. In Baltimore, they decided not to work in the rain at all. Guess which port gained relative to the other port? This has also contributed to Baltimore's decay.

by Chuck Coleman on Mar 4, 2010 10:06 pm  

As some one who was born and raised in one of the said "unimportant places" this is a pretty annoying read. I'm not sure where you're from but Marylanders have been around a long time. It's pretty hard from my understanding of U.S. history how you could have not learned that Baltimore was, for a long time, a significant national city. I'm glad you are now informed but this post has a significant No S@#@ factor.

by Sean on Mar 5, 2010 11:54 am  

Virginia has independent cities because of judicial decisions.

Actually Virginia has independent cities due to a change in the Virginia Constitution in 1871. Maybe at some point the point was litigated and so was then blamed on some "activist" judge, but it wasn't the judges who put it into the Virginia Constitution in the first place.

by andy on Mar 5, 2010 12:13 pm  

Trivia:

From 1790 to 2000, 6 cities have appeared on the top 100 list every decade:

Boston
New York
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Richmond
Norfolk

In the 2010 census, this number will be reduced to 5 as Richmond city's population has been eclipsed by such underwhelmingly urban places as North Las Vegas and Scottsdale, AZ (and Chesapeake, Virginia!) Norfolk appears to be good for another decade or two

by RVA_Exile on Mar 5, 2010 5:06 pm  

Why are all those VA cities on the list? afaik they aren't part of the Metro area.

by King Terrapin on Mar 8, 2010 9:59 pm  

It's Greater Greater Washington. :)

by Omar on Mar 8, 2010 10:51 pm