Were there any other parts of North America that used to be malarial swamps?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,806
SoCal
#1
I've heard that the reason that Florida was so underpopulated before the 20th century is because it was a bunch of malarial swamps back then. In turn, this raises this question--were there any other parts of North America that used to be malarial swamps but that ended up being heavily populated later on?
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,570
Iowa USA
#5
Not sure if this is a general physical science or social studies question here? Anyhow, draining low lying areas is a pre-steam power knowledge that didn't require immigrants from a particularly mechanically inclined culture (such as the Dutch or other Low Germans) to implement.

In a state of nature there was a lot of marsh land in Southern Illinois, also in up to a third of today's Iowa. Fortunately relative to mosquito population the long winters in Iowa made diseases carried by mosquito less of risk than it was for the lower Ohio River valley and of course the entire Mississippi valley below Cairo, IL/Paducah, KY.
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,570
Iowa USA
#6
Florida was sparsely populated, IMO, since South Georgia and South Alabama were also low density areas! The civil war of course was a large negative for economic growth in rural GA and rural AL.

Even St. Augustine and Jacksonville were fairly remote locations, relative to the railroad networks of, say, 1890.
 
Likes: Futurist
Mar 2019
524
Kansas
#9
Yep - definitely D.C. It also seemed to be the favorite spawning ground of flies, in numbers that could only be described as plague-like. :winktongue:
One of my favorite moment from the Simpsons. Lisa had to write an essay. She chose the history of Washington DC. The opening line of the essay was

Some 200 years ago out nations capitol was built on a swamp. Not much has changed