How Come Cairo, IL Never Became a Major City?

[guidoLaMoto]

Flooding..fer sure...but also under the same pressures of The Civil War which kept Cincinnati, the logical choice over Chicago, from becoming the main transportation center of the country as we transitioned from reliance on rivers to rails...

...and positioned too far south to be a major depot for the ag products of the MidWest...As a guy on an ag forum I attend describes his location-- "Too far north for cotton and too far south for corn." You gotta get your grain to the river first, so St Louis is a better choice, or your cotton in The South-- Cairo & the Ohio R is too far away.

[ShampooBanana]

Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto

Flooding..fer sure...but also under the same pressures of The Civil War which kept Cincinnati, the logical choice over Chicago, from becoming the main transportation center of the country as we transitioned from reliance on rivers to rails...

...and positioned too far south to be a major depot for the ag products of the MidWest...As a guy on an ag forum I attend describes his location-- "Too far north for cotton and too far south for corn." You gotta get your grain to the river first, so St Louis is a better choice, or your cotton in The South-- Cairo & the Ohio R is too far away.

Cincinnati? Over Chicago? No.

For one, too far east and south. Chicago was always in a far better strategic place once the I & M Canal was completed (in 1848) which connected the Great Lakes (and thus the Atlantic) to the Mississippi River (and eventually the Gulf of Mexico).

Once the railroads took off, you're right, Chicago was the perfect location to become the transport hub of the country serving as a logical distribution center and hub for the whole, growing midwest, and staging point for all commerce from east to the growing west and vice versa.

Also, Cincy is limited geographically given it's steep terrain and bluffs. It could never grow the way Chicago did with endless miles of mostly treeless flat plains and fertile soil on which to more easily build roads and rail.

Agree on Cairo.

[Stitches]

Cairo was an important city when people still traveled by steamboat on the river and ferries were needed to move railcars across the river. The town was an important base for the Union Army during the Civil War. As railroad bridges over the rivers and interstate highways were built, the city was bypassed. Flooding is a big problem in the spring. Other than a couple grain storage facilities that load barges in the general area, there is not much industry. It is hard to live somewhere where there is no employment.

[Bitey]

1) Cairo is super flood-prone; 2) St. Louis became an administrative outpost of the Louisiana territory, and government largesse is almost always good for development; 3) Minneapolis had a falls for a power source while Cairo didn't; 4) Minneapolis and Pittsburgh got their start as forts (government largesse again); 5) Railroads, and then highways, took over much of the regional river shipping before Cairo could really get off the ground.

[Doughboy1918]

Originally Posted by ShampooBanana

Cincinnati? Over Chicago? No.

For one, too far east and south. Chicago was always in a far better strategic place once the I & M Canal was completed (in 1848) which connected the Great Lakes (and thus the Atlantic) to the Mississippi River (and eventually the Gulf of Mexico).

Once the railroads took off, you're right, Chicago was the perfect location to become the transport hub of the country serving as a logical distribution center and hub for the whole, growing midwest, and staging point for all commerce from east to the growing west and vice versa.

Also, Cincy is limited geographically given it's steep terrain and bluffs. It could never grow the way Chicago did with endless miles of mostly treeless flat plains and fertile soil on which to more easily build roads and rail.

Agree on Cairo.

If anything I’d have thought Cincinnati was still a better distribution center. Why? It’s closer to more Americans than Chicago is. Cincy is less 12 hours (700 miles) from New York City, Charleston, Washington DC and Boston. But for Chicago, it takes at least a day to reach many of these cities, where the majority of Americans have always lived. In other words, if you were start a journey from one of these places beginning in Chicago in the morning, you’d be there by evening for many of them.

[UniversalTraveler]

I'd bet that 20 years from now there will essentially be NO Cairo. it will be nothing more than destroyed old buildings and homes overgrown with weeds which most are now. There isn't really much hope for the place sadly and no interest in changing anything last I checked.

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by UniversalTraveler

I'd bet that 20 years from now there will essentially be NO Cairo. it will be nothing more than destroyed old buildings and homes overgrown with weeds which most are now. There isn't really much hope for the place sadly and no interest in changing anything last I checked.

There already is "essentially" no Cairo. It's currently 90% off its population peak, there is no grocery store, no police department, no hospital, minimal government services, etc., and it already consist almost entirely of "destroyed old buildings and homes overgrown with weeds." The only thing keeping the place on life support is government presence:, namely government-funded housing and the fact it's the Alexander County seat.

[James Bond 007]

Originally Posted by Hudlander

OK the point is, why didn't any major city develop in this critical area, if not Cairo?

Both St Louis and Memphis aren't all that far away. Both those cities can serve the same function Cairo could have.