Why did Chicago become the railroad hub of america instead of cities such as Kansas City, St Louis or Memphis?
No one planned it that way, it just “happened to happen.” Look at Chicago’s geographic location, especially it’s proximity to the Great Lakes, and that’ll probably provide a clue. Remember, people traveled by the lakes before the railroads came. First came the city, and the rails came to the city.
And, it’s not called Americas “Second City” for nothing
Blame the French. The area that is now Chicago was once a popular portage between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. French trappers and traders wore many paths between Canada and New Orleans, and Chicago was among the more popular. Because of this, infrastructure grew at this location.
It reached a point that since “everybody” was already there, that’s where you had to go to do business with them.
As means of travel gradually moved to land (wagons, rail, and then later highways) another factor keyed in.
Draw a straight line between New York and San Francisco. Notice that Chicago sits at the western most point on the Great Lakes that this line passes through.
If you were building a major east-west railroad, you could hardly afford not to go there. And since most everybody else felt the same way, it was easier to make connections there with a greater number of connecting lines.
Location, location, location!!
Further, In the 1800’s New England was pretty much the straw that stirred the drink in terms of the economy in this country. And all the major trunks that served New England , built into Chicago. So if you were a western RR that wanted to ship Grain, or beef, or minerals from the west to New England, you pretty much needed to link up with them there, or plan on going the long way around the Appalachians. Plus, I’m sure the western lines didn’t want to short-haul themselves, if they could avoid it.
Recall, too, that the industrial center of the country was in the northeast, making Chicago a natural gateway.
It might be interesting to consider what might have happened if the Great Lakes hadn’t forced the railroads into that area.
What really made Chicago the center for the railways was when Meat production became centered in the Slaughterhouses of Chicago. Chicago offered a central hub for all points east for the most part for fresh meat to be shipped after processing. It also offered a central point for all cattle and hogs to be shipped to.
The best treatment of this subject that I know of is Nature’s Metropolis - Chicago and the Great West by William Cronon.
A very short version of his story is traffic. Michigan lumber from across Lake Michigan, and grain from the West to Chicago. Lumber to build towns was initially the head haul, with grain the back haul.
Another factor commonly cited is Lincoln locating the east end of the Union Pacific in what is now Council Bluffs, which advantaged Chicago vs. St. Louis as compared with a more southern point like St. Joseph.
Another factor that I do not recall much discussion about is that the Chicago lines were all on the ground making interchange relatively easy, and the Chicago lines were able to bridge the Mississippi upstream of St. Louis where the river was not as wide as at St. Louis and downstream points. At St. Louis, bridging the Mississippi was acomplished significantly later, so interchange involved ferrying cars across the river, a slow, capacity constrained, and expensive process. The map of Illinois Railroads in 1861 on page 69 of Metropolis shows the greater river distances at St. Louis clearly, and if I am reading the map correctly, both the Rock Island and the Burlington had bridges over the big river by that date.
You might also read Lincoln’s Greatest Case: http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-books-lincolns-greatest-case-brian-mcginty-20150220-story.html
Lincoln battled the riverboat interests in favor of the railroads and won.
In addition to being one of the best presidents we’ve ever had Ol’ Abe was a helluva lawyer!
Living proof there can be extraordinary possibilities in very ordinary people.
Don’t underestimate the force of Chicago politics, too.
“A hog doesn’t have to change trains in Chicago, but you do…”
Many points have already been touched upon, but I will relay some more points from the book Where Rails meet the Sea by Michael Krieger. By the time of the first railroad in Chicago in 1848 (a C&NW predecessor) Chicago was already the largest port in the midwest. It was the Great Lakes system’s western lakehead (the Soo Canal was not built until 1855), and another canal had joined Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River system at Chicago.
The 2 railroads building from the east (Michigan Central and Michigan Southern) first started as state funded internal improvements in the early 1840’s, but by the mid 1840s the state sold out to private interests. The private MC and MS soon diverted the lines to head for Chicago, as even then Chicago was recognized as the up-and-coming destination. The 2 ralroads eventually reached east to Buffalo.
Soon all railroads saw the need to get to Chicago. Railroads that missed Chicago, like the Wabash, eventually had to build lines there. Even lines in the far west felt they had to connect there. The Santa Fe by extension, the Hill lines by acquisition of the Burlington, and the UP thru Harriman’s IC.
I’ve often wondered if there is any definitive answer as to why the eastern titans of rail never built out into the west?
You’d think that Minneapolis, or Omaha, or Denver would have had a lot of promise for a PRR, or NYC. But other than PRR’s acqusition of control of the Wabash (Kansas City), I can’t recall any similar attempts.
The best explanation I’ve been able to come up with is that by the time such consideration became practical, the eastern big boys were already tying up too many resources trying to cut each other’s throat to give serious consideration to expanding further west. (Buying up or leasing under performing parallel lines to prevent them from falling into the hands of their adversary, etc)
After delving into the MC and MS board of director’s meeting minutes and the MC Treasurer’s outbound correspondence file along with other documents, I’m leaning to the theory that going to Chicago just happened as one reply said. Originally, both the MC and MS were chartered to end at a port on the west side of Michigan on Lake Michigan. The MC minutes contain page after page of analysis comparing one port to another - they ultimately picked Benton Harbor. Although Benton Harbor was the poorer harbor and they had to build a long pier to make it work, their analysis showed that boats could get to Chicago quicker and make more round trips from there. After reading the minutes, I have to ask the question, why not just build the railroad to Chicago? The MC’s conservative board was opposed to going any further and they even bypassed a deal to buy up the Buffalo&Mississippi/Northern Indiana charter at a cheap price that would have got them across Indiana. Building to Benton Harbor, because of charter restrictions, also blocked out their arch rival, MS, from getting to a Lake Michigan port in Michigan. In turn, MS bought the B&M/NI charter and started towards Chicago. The MC, prompted by James Joy, finally also started towards Chicago, but had to spend more money to buy the New Albany & Salem charter to build a branch line anywhere in the state of Indiana. The NA&S (Monon predecessor) used that money to finish building their line to the other port on Lake Michigan, Michigan City. The NA&S intent was to pay off the MC and reclaim the line from MC but that never happened. The significant thing there is that the NA&S was more interested in Michigan City than Chicago.
The MC and MS in early 1851 were jointly involved with negotiations with the Galena & Chicago Union to make a joint connection it. These negotiations were dropped (with no explanation in the minutes). MC conne
this one is for Firelock- Regarding Abe Lincoln, in the film about him from 1939 directed by John Ford, “Young Abe Lincoln” with Henry Fonda as young Abe, he is referred to as a “jackleg country lawyer.” What does that mean? Also, the term “shirt-tail relative.” is used in the film. I have no clue!
Looking “jackleg” up, I saw several descriptions, none of which was complimentary; they generally indicated someone who was hopelessly incompetent.
I am not sure that the opprobious term really fitted him in his early practice, but it certainly did not fit him in his later life.
Of course, some people will apply scurrilous terms to someone else who does better that the one who applies such terms.
Just remember, in all cases the ‘opposition’ will always use the most discrediting terms possible.
Just witness what our country is wading through at present.
Gould built into the west. He acquired the Mo Pac and built the line to Pueblo to connect with his D&RGW. And then he built the WP to give him a transcontinental system to the Pacific.
Harriman controlled the UP, SP, IC, and was trying to gain control of eastern lines to form his own transcontinental system.
The Feds stepped in to brake up the systems to keep any system from becoming too powerful and monopolistic.