Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860?

[ElectionsGuy]

I realize that up to the 1930's or so, population in the south was spread, people lived rural, and concentrations of population were rare. Everything was based on plantations, agriculture, and farmland. But I for the life of me can't find any "big" cities besides New Orleans. Here's a list of southern cities, particularly cities from former-Confederate states, that now have 100,000+ (with the exception of just very big cities in TX), and their population in 1860:

New Orleans, LA - 168,675
Charleston, SC - 40,522
Richmond, VA - 37,910
Mobile, AL - 29,258
Memphis, TN - 22,623
Savannah, GA - 22,292
Nashville, TN - 16,988
Norfolk, VA - 14,620
Alexandria, VA -  12,652
Augusta, GA - 12,493
Columbus, GA - 9,621
Atlanta, GA - 9,554
Wilmington, NC - 9,552
Montgomery, AL - 8,843
San Antonio, TX - 8,235
Columbia, SC - 8,052
Virginia Beach, VA - 7,669*
Baton Rouge, LA - 5,428
Houston, TX - 4,845
Fayetteville, NC - 4,790
Raleigh, NC - 4,780
Athens, GA - 3,848
Little Rock, AR - 3,727
Huntsville, AL - 3,634
Austin, TX - 3,494
Jackson, MS - 3,191
Charlotte, NC - 2,265
Shreveport, LA - 2,190
Jacksonville, FL - 2,118
Knoxville, TN - 2,076*
Hampton, VA - 1,848
Dallas, TX - 698
Tallahassee, FL - 201

In the North, we had these two cities:

NYC: 1,174,779
Philadelphia: 565,529

*Populations took from 1850 census as there's no record for 1860.

All the big cities seem to be near water for trade and ports. There's no big inland cities in the deep south. Were there any cities bigger than the cities mentioned above?

Its very interesting otherwise. We can still kind of see the same thing today, with the surprisingly lots of population in areas with little incorporated cities/towns/villages around Atlanta and Birmingham, for example. That's something we definitely don't see in the Midwest and other areas. I'm actually very surprised how big New Orleans was back then, about 1/4 of the population in Louisiana lived in that city!