Was a city destined to be located where yours sits?

[mobyhead]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Wasn't Cairo, Illinois (at the jct of Mississippi and Ohio Rivers) thought to be thus situated for future greatness?

That big Earthquake in 1812 and the New Madrid fault have anything to do with that?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

^
Little trade value, lots of drinking value. There are only so many places in Colorado where there was enough fresh water 150 years ago to support permanent settlements.

The Front Range really only had three good options (on the east side), two where the major rivers flowed out.

Cheyenne made sense because it was the only easy gap through the mountains through the Great Divide Basin. Look at the current path of I-80 and many railroads and you still see that. But it lacked a major river and is too far from the mountains to really benefit from their bounty.

Pueblo was the next best choice - Arkansas River, somewhat milder climate, and a gap thru east-to-west that the railroads could follow. But I think it suffered from being too far south (everything that anybody wanted to connect to - Chicago, San Fran, St Louis - connected farther north). But most importantly, Pueblo is also pretty far from the good stuff that came out of Colorado's central mountains. It's a long haul to mountains of any significance at that point along the Front Range. Incidentally, that's also why Pueblo doesn't capture (or benefit from) many of the quality-of-life migrants moving to Colorado today.

Denver had the Platte River and Cherry Creek, which provide more than enough water. Denver was immediately east of the mountains that were actually producing ore (and produce recreational opportunities today). And once investors ponied up to build the Moffat Tunnel, giving Denver a much-needed east-west railroad connection, it was all over.

Something else about the Platte... not only does it provide reliable drinking water (the Arkansas did that for Pueblo too), it provides a natural highway that folks could follow all the way to the Missouri River and beyond (I-76/I-80 today). If you were in your covered wagon leaving Independence, MO, heading west and you had to slog your way all across Nebraska (it's bad enough today at 80 mph!), the Platte gave you two easy paths to follow - North, into middle-of-nowhere Wyoming and onward along the Oregon Trail, and the other, South, directly to Denver.

(The old Santa Fe Trail was another option out of Missouri, and it came close to Pueblo, but you'd still have had to detour a bit to get there).

[iheartthed]

New York was destined to be a big city, but it won out over Boston and Philly to become the big city due to the construction of the Erie Canal.

My hometown of Detroit has also been an important settlement since European settlers inhabited the Americas. It was once the capital of the territory that eventually became the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. So it's not too far-fetched that once the Erie Canal connected the interior with the coast and Europe, it grew into a large population center along with the east coast metropolises.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It was once the capital of the territory that eventually became the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.

Are you sure you aren't confusing Detroit with Chillicothe, and Vincennes? Unless you're talking about Wayne County's original territory which was basically Toledo, Fort Wayne, and I believe some of Chicago (?).

[LMich]

He got a little mixed up, but he can be forgiven. Yeah, Detroit was only ever capital of Wayne County (which at the time was Michigan's Lower Peninsula, a huge chunk of northwestern Ohio, all of Northern Indiana and where Chicago currently is), Michigan Territory, and then the State of Michigan.

BTW, kind of off topic, but Michigan and Indiana are still mapping out their shared border since it was never formally resurveyed from my understanding.

[dktshb]

It seems to me Cheyenne with its easier access to San Francisco in the 19th century should have been the historical place for a city of Denver's size to develop in that front range region. I think it was more to do with Denver citizens at that time being a very political savvy wealthy group that ensured Denver would be the city that became the regional powerhouse despite its geographic disadvantage to Cheyenne.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by mobyhead

That big Earthquake in 1812 and the New Madrid fault have anything to do with that?

That is a good question but I think that happened too early to impact the future of Cairo. IMO it was the threat of constant floods and improper levees that doomed Cairo. Add on top of that the local support of the Confederate states during the Civil war from southern Illinois did not endear its self on the State level that was from everything north of Springfield were pro Union. The place was left to fend for itself during the Reconstruction and well never received enough state level support to claim it’s self as a proper port. Just because it was at the confluence of two of the major rivers in the day did not nessialry make it a great port city. Quite frankly it was built on too low of ground, built in flood plains and politics that doomed it to be a minor player in the 19th Century and a total failure in the 20th. That and racial imbalance totally screwed the now town to total irrelevance in this day and age. Cairo will only get worse and in not the distant future we will use it as an example of a modern day ghost town. I hope not to offend any Cairo folks when I talk about such things but Cairo in modern America has no future and to put any monies into it would be throwing good money after bad... Sorry for my bleak outlook and I am happen I can be proven wrong some day... But Cairo has been in a downward spiral for more than three generations and that is a hard thing to turn around, esp. due to their subpar geography and like you said living in the New Madrid fault zone makes no sense to rebuild it back to its past glory....Cairo is a candidate IMO to be one of the largest ghost towns in the North American Continent, comparable to the large native establishment at Cahokia.... Ok I might be exaggerating a bit here but Cairo...

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by LMich

BTW, kind of off topic, but Michigan and Indiana are still mapping out their shared border since it was never formally resurveyed from my understanding.

I've always wondered why Indiana's northern border is a good 10 miles further north than Ohio/Michigan border. I'm presuming it has to do with the whole "Toledo Strip." I'm sure it's on Wikipedia somewhere but it's still interesting (locally) to see on a map.

[hudkina]

Imagine if Michigan's southern border was as it was originally intended: the southern tip of Lake Michigan to the Maumee River. That would mean Michigan City, South Bend, Elkhart, and Toledo would all be cities in Michigan. I think there's over a million people in that strip.

[rockyi]

The Quad Cities is where the Rock River empties into the Mississippi and is also the site of the largest island in the Mississippi, perfect for a weapons arsenal (now, largest in the world). Like Cairo, in the early days of Illinois, speculators didn't know where to invest their money, Chicago or Rock Island since both seemed destined for greatness......errr, looks like we lost. Even though this was also the site of the first railroad bridge across the river to open the west, we only had slow, steady growth, not counting that HUGE exodus in the 1980's when our economy tanked. Plus the fact that we're a metro of 400,000 people with no "main" city, just a cluster of smaller cities and equally divided between two states, we get almost no recognition. Even with early citizens like John Deere (Moline) and Fredrick Weyerhaeuser.....nothing much happened in the way of major growth.
Before Rock Island was founded, this was the site of the Sauk city of Saukenuk, with a population that topped 10,000 in the mid 1700's it was one of the largest native cities in the U.S. This is the city the great warrior Black Hawk called home.
Like Cairo, Rock Island itself is limited in where it can grow since we're surrounded on three sides by water plus Moline covers our eastern border.

Map

Even though Moline and East Moline are two seperate cities, they are shown under the same color here.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by LMich

He got a little mixed up, but he can be forgiven. Yeah, Detroit was only ever capital of Wayne County (which at the time was Michigan's Lower Peninsula, a huge chunk of northwestern Ohio, all of Northern Indiana and where Chicago currently is), Michigan Territory, and then the State of Michigan.

BTW, kind of off topic, but Michigan and Indiana are still mapping out their shared border since it was never formally resurveyed from my understanding.

Yeah, I did get it a little mixed up. I believe that Wayne County was originally contiguous with the Michigan Territory though, right? Also, I believe the territory did include Wisconsin and Minnesota as well. (I'm referencing wiki on this right now so it might not be completely accurate.)

[LMich]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, I did get it a little mixed up. I believe that Wayne County was originally contiguous with the Michigan Territory though, right? Also, I believe the territory did include Wisconsin and Minnesota as well. (I'm referencing wiki on this right now so it might not be completely accurate.)

Yeah, the Michigan Territory underwent quite a few expansions and contractions before it gained statehood. Originally, in 1805 -- when the US gained control of it -- the territory was basically the current Lower Peninsula, with its western border being a line drawn through the middle of the Lake Michigan, which would mean that the eastern half of the UP was also included. It was lated expanded to include Wisconsin and part of Minnesota, and then after that all of the rest of the Northwest Territory that had remained unincorporated (Iowa, the rest of Minnesota, and parts of N. and S. Dakota), and was finally shrank back, again, for statehood to what we see today minus the Toledo Strip, plus the western half of the UP.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

Major rivers that curiously lack major cities at their mouths:

Connecticut
Susquehanna
Ohio

Any others?

There's a reason for the Connecticut River not a having a sizeable city at its mouth.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

[*]Hartford - fall line of the biggest river in New England

The funny thing about the Connecticut River is that the central portion is navigable, but due to falls and silt, the mouth is unnavigable. Incidentally, the fall line which represents the farthest down stream section of navigable river is at Portland, not Hartford. Hartford is located where it is because of the junction of the Park River and the Connecticut River. The Park River has been nearly completely decked over by highways as it goes through Hartford now.

Another funny thing is that New Haven is located in an excellent harbor, but there is no obvious large river that formed it. When I was more naive, I used to assume that the Connecticut River ended in New Haven because, as others have noted, there's usually a big city at the terminus of a river.

Throwing a couple more New England Cities into the mix:

Providence:Excellent harbor.

Worcester:Headwaters of the Blackstone River.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Are people really surprised that Portland is a port?

Is it on the fall line?

portland, oregon is named after portland, maine. had a coin toss gone the other way then it would have been named boston.

[Cirrus]

New York was destined to be a big city, but it won out over Boston and Philly to become the big city due to the construction of the Erie Canal.

I don't know if that really had much to do with it. By the time the Erie Canal opened New York had already soundly beaten Philly and Boston. The only contender was Baltimore, which from about then until the mid 1850s was the second largest city. New York passed Philly as largest city shortly after the Revolution. I'd be interested to know why.

It seems to me Cheyenne with its easier access to San Francisco in the 19th century should have been the historical place for a city of Denver's size to develop

The railroad was the means, but I think it would have happened anyway. Colorado has more resources for urban development than Wyoming and has always had more cities. I think that means Colorado was always destined to have the regional "capital". If history had happened differently Cheyenne might have grown larger faster, but I think by now Denver would have caught up anyway.

I've always wondered why Indiana's northern border is a good 10 miles further north than Ohio/Michigan border.

I remember reading about that in How The States Got Their Shapes, which is a fascinating book. Don't recall the actual answer, though.

portland, oregon is named after portland, maine. had a coin toss gone the other way then it would have been named boston.

Uh huh. And Portland, ME was named after an island off the coast of England. Big deal. I doubt it would have been proposed as a name in the first place if it wasn't a good place for a port. The fact that they also considered some other names is immaterial.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't know if that really had much to do with it. By the time the Erie Canal opened New York had already soundly beaten Philly and Boston. The only contender was Baltimore, which from about then until the mid 1850s was the second largest city. New York passed Philly as largest city shortly after the Revolution. I'd be interested to know why.

New York was the largest city by the early 19th century, but it didn't really start pulling away from the other major cities (as in becoming orders of magnitude larger) until the Erie Canal.

Plus, it was only by technicality that NYC was the largest city for it's first several decades of holding the title. Philadelphia was splintered into several large cities at the time that each ranked in the top 10 of the country. If you add up the populations of those 3 cities, which are all part of present day Philadelphia, Philadelphia remained the largest city in the U.S. until the 1810 census, when it was just barely eclipsed by NYC. But after the Erie Canal opened, NYC's population rate explodes by comparison to other cities on the East Coast, whereas until that point there wasn't much delta between the growth rates of the large population centers in the region.

[hudkina]

If you include the surrounding "suburbs" of each of the cities, the populations weren't that far off until after the Erie Canal. In 1820, Philadelphia was 75% of New York, while 20 years later it was only 45% the size of NY.

1790
Philadelphia - 44,096 (133% of NY)
New York - 33,131
Boston - 18,320
Baltimore - 13,503

1800
Philadelphia - 61,559 (102% of NY)
New York - 60,515
Baltimore - 26,514
Boston - 24,937

1810
New York - 100,775
Philadelphia - 87,303 (87% of NY)
Baltimore - 46,555
Boston - 38,746

1820
New York - 130,881
Philadelphia - 98,193 (75% of NY)
Baltimore - 62,738
Boston - 49,889

--==ERIE CANAL OPENS==--

1830
New York - 214,975
Philadelphia - 129,915 (60% of NY)
Boston - 85,568
Baltimore - 80,620

1840
New York - 348,943
Philadelphia - 155,687 (45% of NY)
Boston - 127,240
Baltimore - 102,313

[KVNBKLYN]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't know if that really had much to do with it. By the time the Erie Canal opened New York had already soundly beaten Philly and Boston. The only contender was Baltimore, which from about then until the mid 1850s was the second largest city. New York passed Philly as largest city shortly after the Revolution. I'd be interested to know why.

I think it's safe to say the Erie Canal greatly enhanced New York's already excellent natural attributes, namely: 1. one of the best natural harbors in the world; 2. its main river, the Hudson, is navigable by ocean-going vessels for about 150 miles inland; 3. since the Hudson is really a tidal estuary, it flows both ways, a distinct advantage before steam-powered ships; and 4. the Hudson is the only navigable river in the Northeast that crosses the Appalachians (around Westpoint) and thus connects the coast (and Europe) with the interior. The Erie Canal built on those advantages and made the Hudson the preeminent conduit of trade between European markets and the natural resources of the American Midwest.

Later un-natural improvements further built on the natural advantages, namely the New York Central's water-level route between NY and Chicago which allowed trains to go so fast because they followed the flat path along the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers before following the flat path along the rim of Lakes Erie and Michigan. (This is in contrast to the Pennsylvania Railroad's route across the mountains of Pennsylvania, whose ridges are perpendicular to the path of travel, requiring extensive civil engineering to achieve similar speeds.)

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't know if that really had much to do with it. By the time the Erie Canal opened New York had already soundly beaten Philly and Boston. The only contender was Baltimore, which from about then until the mid 1850s was the second largest city. New York passed Philly as largest city shortly after the Revolution. I'd be interested to know why.

The Erie had a lot to do with it. That's something my transport geography professor drilled into our heads... The canal cut shipping times by days, so it was gonna be an obvious hit. Those big boats had to transfer their goods to smaller boats somewhere, and that's where New York found its gold.

[View2saintmartin]

Paris is where it is because of the fall lines of several rivers, the safety it provided so far inland and the agricultural richness. However it is Tours on the Loire which may have easily become the major city of France were it not for Clovis.

The Loire, which empties into the Atlantic was equally important to the Seine, which empties into the Channel in forming the Frankish alliances which eventually led to a unified kingdom. But it was Clovis I who focused his efforts on the NE and thus solidified Paris region and the Seine as the royal powerbase.

The rest of France is another matter entirely.