New Orleans stronger shared history with what city? (Alexandria, Atlanta: neighborhood, live)

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Jimbo_1

Savannah did get some Irish Catholic immigrants but it was not in "similarly high numbers" as New Orleans. New Orleans probably got about 10 times as much Irish Catholic immigrants. Louisville might be the closest second city for Irish immigrants after New Orleans. As for the rest of Deezus question, you can probably take just about any immigrant group from the 19th and early 20th century and New Orleans would have had much more of those immigrants than any other Southern city. The closest second city for total immigrants might be Louisville. I think Tampa had the second most Italian immigrants after New Orleans (and then Galveston/Houston).

As for the topic of this thread, I am not sure what is meant by "shared history". Does that mean actual interactions/relationships with those cities or does it mean similar cultures/influences or something else.

And like Tampa, New Orleans also had a sizable number of Spanish-speaking immigrants. Many Cubans went to New Orleans as well as Tampa. In 1870, New Orleans had the 2nd largest Cuban population in the USA. Towards the late 19th-early 20th century, many Cuban immigrants began to settle in Tampa.

[Chilly Gentilly]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

And like Tampa, New Orleans also had a sizable number of Spanish-speaking immigrants. Many Cubans went to New Orleans as well as Tampa. In 1870, New Orleans had the 2nd largest Cuban population in the USA. Towards the late 19th-early 20th century, many Cuban immigrants began to settle in Tampa.

Good information!

Whoever voted Houston or Atlanta obviously can't understand the poll question...

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Chilly Gentilly

Good information!

Whoever voted Houston or Atlanta obviously can't understand the poll question...

Atlanta and Houston don't have much in common with New Orleans. Houston might have more in common because it's on the Gulf, and Texas was once ruled by Spain, but New Orleans has a history unlike the other U.S. cities in the South. In fact, there is a video about this.


New Orleans, the original gateway to Latin America. - YouTube

[TommyTucker]

New Orleans is not a Southern city in the traditional sense of the word. Go to the Northshore for Southern living.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by TommyTucker

New Orleans is not a Southern city in the traditional sense of the word. Go to the Northshore for Southern living.

New Orleans is a unique place. It has more of a Latin flair in a sense, compared to most southern cities. Influenced by Spanish and French influences, as it was ruled by both. At one time, one could take a galleon from New Orleans to Havana. The somewhat aptly named "French Quarter" has alot of Spanish-influenced architecture. Italian influences are part of New Orleans too. The mufaletta is a product of that.

[Peter1948]

Originally Posted by Jimbo_1

Savannah did get some Irish Catholic immigrants but it was not in "similarly high numbers" as New Orleans. New Orleans probably got about 10 times as much Irish Catholic immigrants. Louisville might be the closest second city for Irish immigrants after New Orleans. As for the rest of Deezus question, you can probably take just about any immigrant group from the 19th and early 20th century and New Orleans would have had much more of those immigrants than any other Southern city. The closest second city for total immigrants might be Louisville. I think Tampa had the second most Italian immigrants after New Orleans (and then Galveston/Houston).

As for the topic of this thread, I am not sure what is meant by "shared history". Does that mean actual interactions/relationships with those cities or does it mean similar cultures/influences or something else.

You are indeed correct. Louisville and New Orleans were BY FAR the most important southern cities in the late nineteenth century. Even though Louisville tore down much of their urban core through poor planning in the 1960's and the city stagnated until its recent boom this decade, this is why Louisville's urban fabric and built environment beats the snot out of any southern city in the US outside the Big Easy...yes this includes Houston, Atlanta, etc. Why? It had the built environment well before these cities were substantial. Most the urban environment in cities like Houston was constructed post war.

In the late 19th century, both NO and Louisville attracted thousands of German and Irish laborers, each who came to set up Catholic parishes. In fact, Louisville has so many Catholic churches that they are literally every few blocks. Many of them are now closed, torn down, or repurposed as another kind of church, ie Sojurn. However, in the city proper, there are literally dozens, if not over 100 Catholic churches!

1870 Census showing NO and Louisville, the kings of the south (also keep in mind the land area of these cities was tiny, roughly the size of their current downtown areas, so they were extremely dense):

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab10.txt

http://www.archlou.org/parishes/mass...mass-schedule/

These are just some of the Catholic churches that are still open...if you click on some of them, they will show some nearby parishes which closed.

[Jimbo_1]

Originally Posted by Peter1948

You are indeed correct. Louisville and New Orleans were BY FAR the most important southern cities in the late nineteenth century. Even though Louisville tore down much of their urban core through poor planning in the 1960's and the city stagnated until its recent boom this decade, this is why Louisville's urban fabric and built environment beats the snot out of any southern city in the US outside the Big Easy...yes this includes Houston, Atlanta, etc. Why? It had the built environment well before these cities were substantial. Most the urban environment in cities like Houston was constructed post war.

In the late 19th century, both NO and Louisville attracted thousands of German and Irish laborers, each who came to set up Catholic parishes. In fact, Louisville has so many Catholic churches that they are literally every few blocks. Many of them are now closed, torn down, or repurposed as another kind of church, ie Sojurn. However, in the city proper, there are literally dozens, if not over 100 Catholic churches!

1870 Census showing NO and Louisville, the kings of the south (also keep in mind the land area of these cities was tiny, roughly the size of their current downtown areas, so they were extremely dense):

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab10.txt

Louisville Mass Schedule | Archdiocese of Louisville

These are just some of the Catholic churches that are still open...if you click on some of them, they will show some nearby parishes which closed.

Outside South Louisiana (and maybe certain other parts of the Gulf Coast), Louisville probably had the largest Catholic population in the South back in the days before Hispanic immigration. I mean the Catholic population was probably not as large as you make it sound or as big as New Orleans' but it is an interesting similarity, especially when looking at how small the Catholic population has historically been in the rest of the South. Things like that, plus some of the other things mentioned, and other things like large amounts of shotgun houses come to add up to some interesting and surprising similarities between the two cities.

[Peter1948]

Originally Posted by Jimbo_1

Outside South Louisiana (and maybe certain other parts of the Gulf Coast), Louisville probably had the largest Catholic population in the South back in the days before Hispanic immigration. I mean the Catholic population was probably not as large as you make it sound or as big as New Orleans' but it is an interesting similarity, especially when looking at how small the Catholic population has historically been in the rest of the South. Things like that, plus some of the other things mentioned, and other things like large amounts of shotgun houses come to add up to some interesting and surprising similarities between the two cities.

No, Louisville's Catholic pop WAS that big. And it still is huge honestly, given a metro its size. I would still say that Louisville is likely a top 2-3 city in the south for number of Catholics per capita.

[Jimbo_1]

Originally Posted by Peter1948

No, Louisville's Catholic pop WAS that big. And it still is huge honestly, given a metro its size. I would still say that Louisville is likely a top 2-3 city in the south for number of Catholics per capita.

I know Louisville has a good sized Catholic population, I was just doubting that there were so many Catholics in Louisville that the Catholic churches were "literally every few blocks" (but this could happen in certain neighborhoods) or that there are over a 100 Catholic churches. New Orleans does not even have that and its Catholic population is a good bit bigger than Louisville's (both numerically and percentage). I would some-what agree with your other point. Historically Louisville would probably be after New Orleans and a few other cities in South Louisiana (unless you are only including the more major Southern cities in your list). Though with the more recent Hispanic immigration, I don't think Louisville would rank as high, especially when looking at those certain cities in Florida and Texas that have large Catholic Hispanic populations like Houston, Dallas, Miami, Tampa, etc. Plus it would still be behind Louisiana cities like Baton Rouge and Lafayette (but again, unless you are only including the more major Southern cities in your list).

[Speleothem]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

New Orleans is a unique place. It has more of a Latin flair in a sense, compared to most southern cities. Influenced by Spanish and French influences, as it was ruled by both. At one time, one could take a galleon from New Orleans to Havana. The somewhat aptly named "French Quarter" has alot of Spanish-influenced architecture. Italian influences are part of New Orleans too. The mufaletta is a product of that.

I vote: None of the above.