Most major US cities not originally British or US

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,679
Portugal
#41
First, I’d argue that yes London started as a Roman city, what was there before it was insignificant, or in the OPs phrasing, London was originally Roman.

Were local Britons scattered about the area?, probably.. but the Romans built the first town.

So no, the mission means nothing, it wasn’t a town or set out to be one. Besides, as I said, Richardson and Fransisco de Haro laid down the first plans for a town in that location. So they get the credit.
If London was founded by the Romans, then forgive my ignorance, I shouldn’t be talking about things that I don’t know, since I had the idea that the place was inhabited since the Neolithic. I even had the idea that there is archaeological data, if so it wouldn’t be a question of probability. But that is out of my league. Not my department.

If the mission (that is usually a settlement) means nothing, and the presidio means nothing, for you, so be it.

Having read a bit more about Richardson, I do acknowledge he was a Mexican citizen at the time he laid the plans down, so maybe in fairness it should count for the OPs NOT American or British in origin.

But that still means 38/50 major cities are...
I didn’t mention the origin of Richardson, or the 38/50, just the origins of the mentioned settlement previous to Richardson.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
#42
Yes. A Mexican man and an Englishman founded the city that became San Fransisco.
That does not mean it was a “British” city.
But it does mean it does not fit the OPs premise of “most cities were not originally US or British”.

From the list of the top 50 cities, that I wrote it was clear that almost all of them were US/American. And since nowhere on this thread have I mentioned “the British” without also adding “Americans” .... because the op classes them together.

So to repeat...
OP - Most Major cities are not US or British in origin.
ME- actually MOST major cities are US or British in origin. Look. 39/50 were originally one of those.
Your position is untenable... don´t make trick in your own Patience card game.... San Francisco was stablished by Spaniards....

Don Gaspar de Portolá, arrived on November 2, 1769, the first documented European visit to San Francisco Bay. Seven years later, on March 28, 1776, the Spanish established the Presidio of San Francisco, followed by a mission, Mission San Francisco de Asís (Mission Dolores), established by the Spanish explorer Juan Bautista de Anza.

And before spaniards.. area was inhabited from 3.000 years ago... as Manhattan etc... not double standar.... Spaniards stablished the Presidio de San Francisco and the Mission of San Francisco de Asis.. and the first houses... First Englishman didn´t arrive till 1835... 14 years later Spain yielded the territory to Mexico.

According with your theory... Dutch didn´t stablish Nieuw Amsterdam and French didn´t New Orleans... because New Orleans was only a trade post built by Mississippi Company to make business with indians ..

Again...your position is untenable....and your pretention to continue with the Cronwell´s phrase in the English Parlament.....is wrong....

San Francisco was stablished by Spaniards... not mexican and british..... they were Spaniards was built San Joaquín´s Castle in San Francisco´s bay... December 8th, 1794 under the command of ensigner Don José Fernández Pérez. And they built a fortified battery in Punta San José in 1795 (Today Fort Mason).
First non-Spanish to arrive to San Francisco were Russians! (Not British). And it was a Spanish-Russian incident in those years....


Sorry but not..... San Francisco was stablished by Spaniards.
 
Feb 2016
4,426
Japan
#43
No trick.
And my position is fairly solid.

The exploration and ownership of California is not relevant. Yes. Spanish. But since we are talking about major cities... the fact that Spanish explored the area doesn’t matter.

The presidio of San Fransisco was NOT the foundation of the city, neither was the mission. Which lay to the north and south of it.
The city was established and built by Richardson and De Haro who built the town, and called it Yerba Buena after a previous worker camp.
Richardson had arrived in 1822... not 1835.

So sorry no. The town that became SF was established and built by a Mexican and Englishman (who as I stated was a Mexican citizen at the time).

Did the Spanish have a mission and presidio in the area. Yes. Definitely but since they were not the foundation of the city... so what. The name was changed in 1847 (by a US Navy Officer).

That’s my understanding.

And I stress I have ON EVERY POST said that a Mexican was the co-founder and that I counted it for both the None US/GB origin and the US/GB origin.

So I fancy your position is untenable, you can prove the Spanish set up a Fort that wasn’t the city that became San Fransisco, and a mission station that also wasnt the city that became San Fransisco.... you’ve claimed no English people were in California pre 1835, but Richardson who landed and stayed in Mexico in 1822 and De Hoya established the actual town that would become SF...

Also. Your attempt to parody my argument fails...
the Dutch established a trade post that actually became New York.
So by my logic... it would count as Dutch.
The presidio and mission of SF are not the places that became the city of SF.

Your position though is more easy to highlight.
By your logic... The presidio was not Spanish in origin. Native Americans lived several miles away in a different location, so actually they should get credit. I’m simply going by who built the actual place that became city, not who walked through the area first, who had a different Fort/settlement/farm nearby.

Doesn’t make sense but it’s the logic your using.

But you know what? If I’m wrong, and someone might be able to prove the Yerba Buena was actually built by someone else... if that’s true my main argument is still true... Americans and British still established the vast majority of major cities in the US.
 
Last edited:

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,283
#44
Gloria Dei (Old Swedes') Church - Wikipedia The oldest church in Pennsylvania was a Swedish church in Philadelphia. So Philadelphia was originally Swedish.

Pittsburgh and St. Louis, along with New Orleans are clearly French. All the major cities in California have Spanish names.

Maybe it isn't a majority, but a large portion of major cities were not originally British or US.
 
Likes: martin76
Feb 2016
4,426
Japan
#45
I disagree. The city of Philadelphia was not established by the Swedish community, who may have lived nearby and built a church there after it was founded. City built by the English 1681. Swedish church built 1697-1701.. by English builders with supplies bought from English Tradesmen. So sorry, because some Swedes contracted the English colonists to build them a church... doesn’t mean they founded the city.

But I agree with you that a large portion of major US cities (about 30%) are of non American/British origin, and if the op had made that argument it would have been correct.
But they didn’t.
They said “most major cities are not American or British”. This is not just wrong. It is the exact opposite of the case.
38/50 were either American or British founders (about 32 US/6 British).
 
Last edited:

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,283
#46
I disagree. The city of Philadelphia was not established by the Swedish community, who may have lived nearby and built a church there after it was founded. City built by the English 1681. Swedish church built 1697-1701.. by English builders with supplies bought from English Tradesmen. So sorry, because some Swedes contracted the English colonists to build them a church... doesn’t mean they founded the city.
OK, well the first church in Pennsylvania just happens to be in the biggest city in Pennsylvania and just happens to be Swedish.
 
Feb 2016
4,426
Japan
#48
Yeah? The oldest church in Nagasaki was built by French jesuits. Nagasaki is French?

Old Swedes church.
Built by John Smart and John Buett, with materials supplied by Richard Cantril.
Built in the English style.
I’d guess the Swedes commissioned the locals to build it for them.