AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: kurumi on June 12, 2018, 12:41:10 AM

Title: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: kurumi on June 12, 2018, 12:41:10 AM
https://twitter.com/_tessr/status/900870734238449664/photo/1

Before time zones, there were time tables: at noon in Washington, DC, it was 12:02 in Baltimore for example. Railroads needed to know this.

But the most important cities were a different list back then: among the "top 100", 3 cities in Ohio (but no Cleveland) but 6 in Connecticut (including Middletown, pop. 5,000 at the time (46k today)). California: Sacramento only. Colorado: ... well, not yet a state.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: DandyDan on June 12, 2018, 05:37:21 AM
Minneapolis went by St. Anthony Falls then?
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: davewiecking on June 12, 2018, 05:58:52 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on June 12, 2018, 05:37:21 AM
Minneapolis went by St. Anthony Falls then?
Actually, if I read Wikipedia correctly, St. Anthony Falls was a separate town on the east side of the Mississippi River (upstream of St. Paul) that later merged with Minneapolis.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: jon daly on June 12, 2018, 06:08:48 AM
Great stuff. Middletown Conn. was a railroad center of sorts, so I can understand why it is on there. There was no transcontinental connection to Sacramento back then, so I'm not sure why it is included. It is 11:31 in Augusta, Me. Did they have a localized Daylight Savings Time?

This would be good for historians so they could pinpoint events more closely to times in other cities; like the assassination and death of Lincoln. Of course, that was in DC, but when would Boston get that news over the wire?
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: Brandon on June 12, 2018, 07:12:35 AM
Wow.  11:18 in Chicago while, just 90 miles north, 11:17 in Milwaukee.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: abefroman329 on June 12, 2018, 07:34:43 AM
Augusta, Milledgeville, and Savannah, but no Atlanta.

Nova Scotia not part of Canada.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on June 12, 2018, 08:18:51 AM
I was about to say there were no cities from the part of Virginia now known as West Virginia, but then noticed Wheeling. Weird to see Wheeling, Virginia.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: Eth on June 12, 2018, 08:20:04 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 12, 2018, 07:34:43 AM
Augusta, Milledgeville, and Savannah, but no Atlanta.

Atlanta was, of course, pretty small at the time (pop. ~2500 in 1850, ~9500 in 1860) and not yet the state capital (Milledgeville until 1868). One could probably still have made an argument for its inclusion, though, for the same reasons as given for Middletown above.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: jon daly on June 12, 2018, 08:44:54 AM
Why am I not seeing 1's post? Did I accidentally put him on ignore?
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: webny99 on June 12, 2018, 08:47:18 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 12, 2018, 08:44:54 AM
Why am I not seeing 1's post? Did I accidentally put him on ignore?

I don't see a post from him either, but what makes you think he posted here?
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: hotdogPi on June 12, 2018, 08:48:34 AM
I posted, and then I deleted it after the person I quoted modified the quote, making my reply no longer valid.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: webny99 on June 12, 2018, 08:54:08 AM
Original Message: I wonder if deleted posts still show up in "recent posts" on the home page.

Edit: Apparently they don't, because the post I just deleted also disappeared from "recent posts". My apologies for the aside.  :-P

Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: inkyatari on June 12, 2018, 08:56:39 AM
Quote from: Brandon on June 12, 2018, 07:12:35 AM
Wow.  11:18 in Chicago while, just 90 miles north, 11:17 in Milwaukee.

Makes one wonder what the time would be in say...  Cicero..  Lemont. Joliet. Ottawa at the time.

And on top of that, Chicago is a big city.  What time would it be on the west side?
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: hotdogPi on June 12, 2018, 09:02:34 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on June 12, 2018, 08:56:39 AM
Quote from: Brandon on June 12, 2018, 07:12:35 AM
Wow.  11:18 in Chicago while, just 90 miles north, 11:17 in Milwaukee.

Makes one wonder what the time would be in say...  Cicero..  Lemont. Joliet. Ottawa at the time.

And on top of that, Chicago is a big city.  What time would it be on the west side?

At a latitude of 42°N, it would be 1 minute difference per 12 miles.

Calculation: 1 minute (time) = 17.3 miles * cos(latitude)
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: jon daly on June 12, 2018, 09:10:11 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 12, 2018, 08:48:34 AM
I posted, and then I deleted it after the person I quoted modified the quote, making my reply no longer valid.

Aha. I thought that might be the case. I'm not used to forums where 1 can remove their posts.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 12, 2018, 10:03:54 AM
Looking for information on pre-standard time time zones, I found this interesting anecdote on the adoption of standard time in England:

QuoteOsler was the caretaker of the clock at the Philosophical Institute in Birmingham [England]. Following the sun, Birmingham is about seven minutes earlier than London.

Osler made regular astronomical observations from the institute's roof and adjusted its clock; every Sunday morning the clock keepers of Birmingham's churches looked at the institute clock and adjusted their steeple clocks. Osler favored the new arrangement with Greenwich but wondered how to get Birmingham to accept it without riling half the population. He decided to make the seven-minute adjustment early one Sunday morning. The next day when people arrived at work, late according to clocks in businesses and factories, there was much cursing of timepieces and watch repair shops did a booming business. No one knew time had been manipulated. Osler kept his secret for many years.

(Source) (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/invention-of-standard-time-feature/)
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: inkyatari on June 12, 2018, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 12, 2018, 09:02:34 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on June 12, 2018, 08:56:39 AM
Quote from: Brandon on June 12, 2018, 07:12:35 AM
Wow.  11:18 in Chicago while, just 90 miles north, 11:17 in Milwaukee.

Makes one wonder what the time would be in say...  Cicero..  Lemont. Joliet. Ottawa at the time.

And on top of that, Chicago is a big city.  What time would it be on the west side?

At a latitude of 42°N, it would be 1 minute difference per 12 miles.

Calculation: 1 minute (time) = 17.3 miles * cos(latitude)

I failed math in high school.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: webny99 on June 12, 2018, 11:56:28 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 12, 2018, 09:10:11 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 12, 2018, 08:48:34 AM
I posted, and then I deleted it
I'm not used to forums where 1 can remove their posts.

Nice ;-)
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: vdeane on June 12, 2018, 02:03:06 PM
Looks like typos were a thing even back then.  "Frederickton, N. Y." is quite clearly in New Brunswick.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: jon daly on June 12, 2018, 02:38:28 PM
I stand corrected about Middletown and now I'm unsure why it was considered a principal city. The line from Hartford to New Haven bypassed the town.

From Wikipedia:

The mid-19th century also saw manufacturing replace trade as Middletown's economic mainstay; however, industrial growth was limited by railroad operators' decision to bypass Middletown when tracks were laid between Hartford and New Haven. There had been an ambitious plan to build a railroad suspension bridge in the White Rock, Middletown to Bodkin Rock, Portland vicinity, which was seen as an unpractical solution.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middletown,_Connecticut

It wasn't until 1873 that the Airline was completed.

http://www.abandonedrails.com/Air_Line
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: Brandon on June 12, 2018, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 12, 2018, 07:34:43 AM
Nova Scotia not part of Canada.

Canada, as the country we know today, did not exist until 1867.  Toronto and Kingston would've been part of Upper Canada (modern Ontario).  Montreal and Quebec were a part of Lower Canada (modern Quebec).  Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Newfoundland, and British Columbia were all separate British colonies at the time.  Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba did not yet exist.  That was all part of the British Northwest Territories.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: kkt on June 14, 2018, 12:47:01 AM
Quote from: kurumi on June 12, 2018, 12:41:10 AM
https://twitter.com/_tessr/status/900870734238449664/photo/1

Before time zones, there were time tables: at noon in Washington, DC, it was 12:02 in Baltimore for example. Railroads needed to know this.

But the most important cities were a different list back then: among the "top 100", 3 cities in Ohio (but no Cleveland) but 6 in Connecticut (including Middletown, pop. 5,000 at the time (46k today)). California: Sacramento only. Colorado: ... well, not yet a state.

I really don't get Sacramento getting an entry in the table, but not San Francisco.  S.F. was far more important, gold notwithstanding.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: US 81 on June 14, 2018, 06:41:19 AM
Texas was apparently a vast wilderness, except for Galveston. 

This timetable is fascinating.  :clap:
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: US 81 on June 14, 2018, 06:41:19 AM
Texas was apparently a vast wilderness, except for Galveston. 

This timetable is fascinating.  :clap:

If you're interested in the era where Galveston was the most prominent city in Texas, I highly recommend reading Isaac's Storm by Erik Larson (author of The Devil in the White City).
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: US 81 on June 14, 2018, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: US 81 on June 14, 2018, 06:41:19 AM
Texas was apparently a vast wilderness, except for Galveston. 

This timetable is fascinating.  :clap:

If you're interested in the era where Galveston was the most prominent city in Texas, I highly recommend reading Isaac's Storm by Erik Larson (author of The Devil in the White City).

I have read it; I second your recommendation to anyone else interested.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: jon daly on June 14, 2018, 02:05:06 PM
I recommend The Devil in the White City.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 02:14:16 PM
Dead Wake was surprisingly good.

In the Garden of Beasts was surprisingly boring.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: briantroutman on June 14, 2018, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 12:47:01 AM
I really don't get Sacramento getting an entry in the table, but not San Francisco.  S.F. was far more important, gold notwithstanding.

My guess is that it's because this is a railroad timetable, and San Francisco, despite its long history as the West Coast's primary metropolitan center, has never been a significant railroading town due to its peninsular isolation.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 14, 2018, 03:57:27 PM
Concerning the history of standard time (and usage of time tables), I'll direct you to this book.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1374860.Time_Lord_

First half of book is fascinating, 2nd half drags.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: jon daly on June 14, 2018, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 02:14:16 PM
Dead Wake was surprisingly good.

In the Garden of Beasts was surprisingly boring.

Are these also Larson books? I borrowed DitWC from my wife when she had to read it for grad school.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 04:43:54 PM
Quote from: jon daly on June 14, 2018, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 02:14:16 PM
Dead Wake was surprisingly good.

In the Garden of Beasts was surprisingly boring.

Are these also Larson books? I borrowed DitWC from my wife when she had to read it for grad school.

Yes.  Dead Wake is about the sinking of the Lusitania (I have a dark sense of humor, so I read it when we sailed on the Queen Mary 2 from New York to England last fall).  In the Garden of Beasts is about the US ambassador to Germany during the early days of the Third Reich and the experiences he and his family had while living in Berlin during that time.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: kkt on June 14, 2018, 04:51:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on June 14, 2018, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 12:47:01 AM
I really don't get Sacramento getting an entry in the table, but not San Francisco.  S.F. was far more important, gold notwithstanding.

My guess is that it's because this is a railroad timetable, and San Francisco, despite its long history as the West Coast's primary metropolitan center, has never been a significant railroading town due to its peninsular isolation.

True.  I'd have thought they'd have Oakland, though.  The end of the line.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 15, 2018, 01:29:39 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 04:51:35 PM

True.  I'd have thought they'd have Oakland, though.  The end of the line.


There wasn't a line in Oakland in 1857. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/1857_U.S._Coast_Survey_Map_of_San_Antonio_Creek_and_Oakland%2C_California_%28near_San_Francisco%29_-_Geographicus_-_SanAntonioCreek-uscs-1857.jpg)
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: MNHighwayMan on June 15, 2018, 01:42:41 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on June 12, 2018, 05:58:52 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on June 12, 2018, 05:37:21 AM
Minneapolis went by St. Anthony Falls then?
Actually, if I read Wikipedia correctly, St. Anthony Falls was a separate town on the east side of the Mississippi River (upstream of St. Paul) that later merged with Minneapolis.

Technically it was just St. Anthony. St. Anthony Falls refers only to the waterfall itself, not the former, now-merged city. And of course, all of this is not to be confused by the modern city, adjacent to Minneapolis to the northeast, called St. Anthony.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: jon daly on June 15, 2018, 06:27:23 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 15, 2018, 01:29:39 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 04:51:35 PM

True.  I'd have thought they'd have Oakland, though.  The end of the line.




Indeed. There wasn't even a telegraph link yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_transcontinental_telegraph

Are there more historical threads like this?

There wasn't a line in Oakland in 1857. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/1857_U.S._Coast_Survey_Map_of_San_Antonio_Creek_and_Oakland%2C_California_%28near_San_Francisco%29_-_Geographicus_-_SanAntonioCreek-uscs-1857.jpg)
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 15, 2018, 11:26:48 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 15, 2018, 06:27:23 AM
Indeed. There wasn't even a telegraph link yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_transcontinental_telegraph

Note that I know there were railroads and telegraphs in California in 1857, even though they weren't connected to those in the eastern US.  However, the fact that Oakland apparently didn't even have a connection to California's railroad system was a little bit of a surprise.

Saint Anthony also didn't have a railroad in 1857 (Minneapolis wasn't connected until 1868).

So...the choice of cities in the list seems...interesting.   Maybe the author was anticipating rail lines and their terminii?
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 15, 2018, 04:52:50 PM
Prairie du Chien, WI is interesting because it was not particularly large and had just gotten on the railroad in 1857. The width of the Mississippi proved to be a challenge in connecting the railroad further into Iowa.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: tchafe1978 on June 20, 2018, 10:26:59 AM
Prairie du Chien may hyave been included because I believe at the time it was the site of an important fort, Ft. Crawford.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: kkt on June 20, 2018, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: jon daly on June 15, 2018, 06:27:23 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 15, 2018, 01:29:39 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2018, 04:51:35 PM
True.  I'd have thought they'd have Oakland, though.  The end of the line.
Indeed. There wasn't even a telegraph link yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_transcontinental_telegraph

Are there more historical threads like this?

There wasn't a line in Oakland in 1857. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/1857_U.S._Coast_Survey_Map_of_San_Antonio_Creek_and_Oakland%2C_California_%28near_San_Francisco%29_-_Geographicus_-_SanAntonioCreek-uscs-1857.jpg)

I was interested to find this article:

The history of the telegraph in California
Alice L. Bates

Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California
Vol. 9, No. 3 (1914), pp. 181-187

which indicates that there was telegraph between several cities in California by October 1853, including San Francisco, San Jose, Stockton, Sacramento, and Marysville.  However the link across the intermountain west required Congress to help fund it and they didn't get really motivated until the war.  That link was completed in October 1861.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: westerninterloper on June 21, 2018, 10:33:01 AM
Vincennes, Indiana had maybe 3500 people in 1857, and was never a major industrial or commercial center (except perhaps before the American Revolution). It wasn't even close to being one of the largest 100 cities in the US in 1850.

Louisville-burb New Albany (8,181, #84), Indianapolis (8,091, #87) and the Ohio River port of Madison (8,012, #90) were the largest cities in Indiana in 1850.
Title: Re: "Principal Cities" of US in 1857
Post by: jon daly on July 12, 2018, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 04:43:54 PM
Quote from: jon daly on June 14, 2018, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 02:14:16 PM
Dead Wake was surprisingly good.

In the Garden of Beasts was surprisingly boring.

Are these also Larson books? I borrowed DitWC from my wife when she had to read it for grad school.

Yes.  Dead Wake is about the sinking of the Lusitania (I have a dark sense of humor, so I read it when we sailed on the Queen Mary 2 from New York to England last fall).  In the Garden of Beasts is about the US ambassador to Germany during the early days of the Third Reich and the experiences he and his family had while living in Berlin during that time.

My worlds are colliding. A daily newsletter that I get linked a 25 year old Atlantic piece by Larson yesterday:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/01/the-story-of-a-gun/303531/

WARNING: It's very long and about a mass shooter and gun laws.