AHC: Chicago the First City Between 1860 and 2000

Founded as a small trade outpost and becoming incorporated as a small municipality in the 1830s, the population of the city of Chicago exploded making it the second largest in the United States by 1890, fifth largest in the world and largest (by far) in terms of cities that did not exist at the turn of the 18th Century.
Thanks in large part to its central location in the country connecting the East to the West through the Great Planes and the North to the South via the Great Lakes and the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the Mississippi River, the city's economy thrived as well. Chicago became the United States' domestic shipping and railroad hub.
In 1871, the city burned to the ground in the Great Chicago Fire. Although tragic, this clearing of ground allowed for Chicago to become one of America's first planned cities, following Daniel H Burnham's plan to make the city highly dense, but livable, efficient and replete with lake shore park space. Additionally, the massive construction that took place made Chicago one of the major centers of modern architecture, taking off in Beaux-Arts and Neoclassical splendor and being home to several of the earliest skyscrapers. The plan and it's new architecture made it reminiscent of 19th Century Paris and won it the nickname "Paris on the Prairie."
Chicago's population reached its peak of 3.6 million in the 1950s, and thereafter it was hit hard by "White Flight" and migration to the suburbs. After being the nation's second city for around a century, its population was surpassed by Los Angeles at some point in the 1980s. Despite this, it still remains the U.S.'s #2 influential economy and "Chicagoland," Chicago's greater metropolitan area, is one of the fastest growing metro-areas for metro-areas with over 5 million people and an enormous center of commerce (GMP $5.2 M).

The challenge: with an earliest POD of 1860 (although I recommend not butterflying away the Great Fire), make Chicago (currently OTL 2.8 M people, GDP 5.2 M) have an equal or greater size and economy of modern day OTL New York City (8.2 M people, GDP 1.2 T) that is regarded as the cultural and financial capital of the United States and by extension one of the foremost cities in the world by the year 2000.

What do you think?

Possibilities include:
  • Special role during a war with Britain where coastal cities were bombarded or blockaded
  • A greater role for the U.S. train system
  • A more exact realization of Burnham's plan
  • Greater appeal of the 1920s gangs to immigrants
  • Lessened effects of great depression
  • Special role during World War II (beside center for Manhattan Project)
  • Less incentive to move to suburbs post-War than in other cities
  • ???
 
Having the US move the capital there would be a big boost; and in its favor it's centrally located and not on a coast. If the US gets in a war with Britain again and Washington is torched (again), they might consider moving the capital there. This would increase Chicago's population and importance.
 
Having most/all of the Burnham plan implemented would certainly have positive effects in terms of infrastrucutre, living standards, economic development, etc. (For instance you would see regional highways, a more developed southern loop, etc)

Preventing white flight and the decline of the U.S rail system would also help.
 
Having the US move the capital there would be a big boost; and in its favor it's centrally located and not on a coast. If the US gets in a war with Britain again and Washington is torched (again), they might consider moving the capital there. This would increase Chicago's population and importance.

Hobelhouse

That might depend on the details of the war. If America lost heavily then it might be decided that Washington was too vulnerable. However if so Canada is presumably still in British hands so if relations continue to be bad a capital on the Great Lakes may not seem that much safer.

True Lake Michigan is the safest of the Great lakes for the US but, especially if say Britain had gained upper Michigan it might be vulnerable. Still very likely safer than Washington but it might be that say somewhere on the Ohio or upper Mississippi might be thought better. Hence that [a defeat at British hands] might be a reason for Chicago to be considered as an alternative capital.

Steve
 
If we have a prolonged Civil War in which the British are attacking the coast and the CSA is constantly threatening Washington, it would probably be the only practical place to have the capital. New York Harbor could be destroyed or occupied for the Brits by a short period of time, which could give Chicago a leg up, causing many important businesses and people to relocate there.

Given the circumstances of that kind of war, I doubt it the Union or the British would be in a position to send any troops to the US-Canada border. It would be mainly USA fighting CSA on land at British at Sea.

I doubt Chicago would have stayed the capital after the war (assuming Union victorious eventually). Maybe a similar Chicago-Fire like event post-war plus political pressure would prompt the politicians to pack up and leave. A fire is really necessary to clear out all of the shoddy wooden buildings at start to build a real city. But even if it was just there for a decade, a lot of money, people and improvements would rush into the city, and with New York crippled by the war, this could put Chicago on the right track.

Interesting thoughts.
 
If we have a prolonged Civil War in which the British are attacking the coast and the CSA is constantly threatening Washington, it would probably be the only practical place to have the capital. New York Harbor could be destroyed or occupied for the Brits by a short period of time, which could give Chicago a leg up, causing many important businesses and people to relocate there.

Given the circumstances of that kind of war, I doubt it the Union or the British would be in a position to send any troops to the US-Canada border. It would be mainly USA fighting CSA on land at British at Sea.

I doubt Chicago would have stayed the capital after the war (assuming Union victorious eventually). Maybe a similar Chicago-Fire like event post-war plus political pressure would prompt the politicians to pack up and leave. A fire is really necessary to clear out all of the shoddy wooden buildings at start to build a real city. But even if it was just there for a decade, a lot of money, people and improvements would rush into the city, and with New York crippled by the war, this could put Chicago on the right track.

Interesting thoughts.

Holmes21B

Ah I see. As a temporary capital under those sort of conditions yes and it would give a good degree of stability. Then you could have a significant boost to it's population both from heading the government and possibly from resettled population and industry during and after the war.

If the conflict was fairly short and the burning more like the 1812, i.e. government buildings and the like, rather than a wanton destruction the effects on relations may be less damaging and tensions might gradually improve afterwards, in which case Chicago might keep the position as capital.

Steve
 

loughery111

Banned
Holmes21B

Ah I see. As a temporary capital under those sort of conditions yes and it would give a good degree of stability. Then you could have a significant boost to it's population both from heading the government and possibly from resettled population and industry during and after the war.

If the conflict was fairly short and the burning more like the 1812, i.e. government buildings and the like, rather than a wanton destruction the effects on relations may be less damaging and tensions might gradually improve afterwards, in which case Chicago might keep the position as capital.

Steve
Or, alternatively... (listens for someone to come into the room howling about naval superiority and economic power)... the US wins the war and annexes some or all of Canada, thus removing that worry from their plates.

To above-mentioned someone: I'm not saying it's likely, just that it's possible and presents another way out of the dilemma. It also means that the US certainly beat the CSA and therefore that boil on the ass of humanity is removed from play, which if nothing else warms my heart a little bit after reading the latest installment of CalBear's TL.
 
A quick easy painless New York nerf would be to keep NYC and Brooklyn separate cities. This would shave several million off of New York's population, dilute its infleunce over the metro area, and make it somewhat harder for the city to engage in architectural and infrastructural mega projects.
 
A quick easy painless New York nerf would be to keep NYC and Brooklyn separate cities. This would shave several million off of New York's population, dilute its infleunce over the metro area, and make it somewhat harder for the city to engage in architectural and infrastructural mega projects.

1890s: New York (Manhattan, Bronx and Staten) and Brooklyn (Brooklyn and Queens) could ultimately end up as separate twin cities, yes, with a large Brooklyn-New York City bridge (inevitable) being built much later (1930s?). With all else the same this would give New York a population of about 3.5 M. There was always a conservative element opposing the consolidation of the 5 boroughs, but something big would have to happen for the consolidation plans to be scrapped. Regardless, the twin cities' economies would have become inevitably tied and the cities would be regarded as the de facto cultural, population and economic center of the US and sometimes the world.

The Twin City solution in New York would definitely help the cause, but we would need more events to do the trick.

Although I agree there is probably a simpler, less extreme solution to the challenge than making Chicago capital at some point.
 
We're building it, bit by bit. Maybe a bit of handwavium, but...

Shorter Civil War, but Union still victorious ("Union Forever" TL, maybe?)

18-20 year old from Chicago area - call him Allen Henderson (AH :)) who would have died OTL befirneds Edison, becomes influential in Edison's desire to move to Illinois, not New Jersey, to continue work, lets Edison live with him for a while and work in his basement.

butterflies lead conservative element to win out, New York not consolidated.

Edison begins making movies in Chicago - while warmer weather leads what would eventually be Hollywood to be formed out West, Chicago becomes a center for Vaudeville, later radio networks.

Because of the popularity of Chicago for enterainment, and foreseeing a day when radio will be profitable (he was a visionary), with hendersons' help, Edison pushes for Standard Time in 1919 to allow the Chicago area to be included int ehe Eastern Time Zone, a must for keeping the more poulous East Coast happy. (Note - I think this is a must, but doable, considering they are somewhat close to the Eastern Time Zone.)

Henderson outbids Charles Comiskey in efforts to put a Chicago American league team in the American League in 1901. Comiskey will purchase the New York Highlanders after they move from Baltimore in 1903. He doesn't win the 1906 pennant, but does win in 1917 in an all New York World Series. However, Comiskey's Highlanders will throw the World Series in 1919 to the Reds.

Chicago and the Twin Cities (New York/Brooklyn) vie for American leadership in the first 2 decades. However, Comiskey's cheapness means Babe Ruth is sold to the White Sox in 1920.

Chicago's White Sox win 5 pennants in 8 years in the 1920s, Babe Ruth is the nations' media darling, and radio is growing by leaps and bounds. The fact KDKA in Pittsburgh (Note: OTL) got the first commecial radio station, and not New York, is seen here as antoher blow to the Twin Cities' pride.

Okay, right now I think, even with radio (and, thus, eventually at least some TV) in Chicago, it's pretty much even with New York. Fashion, business, etc. still needs a reason to pick Chicago, but at leas the enterainment industry, plus sports (if Henderson can keep the team doing really well), together with what others have posted, allow Chicago to be the First City into the 1920s without it being a new capital.

But, can we get it to be the #1 city for certain?
 
Last edited:
Those are all good things, and most seem relatively plausible.

I think Chicago was chosen to be in the central time zone because of its importance to the railroads. As far as Wikipedia can tell me, the big railroad tycoons got together in 1883 and decided on the time zones they would all use. Before then, most railroads used the time at their headquarters or main hub for all stations (the plurality of which would be Chicago). William F. Allen's plan was to divide the country into 4 time zones. This is what happened and eventually prompted the U.S. Congress to adopt this system in 1919.

But what if there was another element who proposed that all railroads use Chicago time? This would simplify things and be the most fair unified time for all the parts of the country (considering population density).

From then on, all places would have clocks that read "local time" and "railroad time," (already a common practice) with railroad time eventually becoming much more popular as communications progressed. Railroad time would become Radio Time and people in New York would get used to dining at 7 PM Radio Standard Time and people in California at 4 PM RST. (the same thing has happened in the PRC, where the whole country, even far western Urumqi, is set to Beijing time. People simply go to work at 12AM Beijing time which would be 9AM local time and don't think twice about it, unless making a political statement). Eventually Congress would adopt Chicago time as national standard time (NST) and a huge Neo-classical clock tower would be erected over Chicago Union Station as the National Timepiece.
 
And why don't we have the NY Twin Cities (sorry Minneapolis and St. Paul :( ) competing to be business friendly (race to the bottom) so much that they completely abuse their laborers-- much more so than OTL.

During or after World War I, this can lead to massive leftist labor riots, the burning of all bridges between the cities and even a possible Manhattan Commune for a short but bloody few weeks.

The damage will only take a few years to recover from, but people will not forget the incident in the midst of a red scare.

The view that New York has become a communist slum, promoted by prominent Chicago radio personalities, will drive business, fashion and industry to Chicago.
 
Or, alternatively... (listens for someone to come into the room howling about naval superiority and economic power)... the US wins the war and annexes some or all of Canada, thus removing that worry from their plates.

To above-mentioned someone: I'm not saying it's likely, just that it's possible and presents another way out of the dilemma. It also means that the US certainly beat the CSA and therefore that boil on the ass of humanity is removed from play, which if nothing else warms my heart a little bit after reading the latest installment of CalBear's TL.

loughery111

As you say it's highly unlikely but another problem with this is it would negate any movement of the capital or weakening the east coast.

Steve
 
Chicago would never be #1 city. New York will always beat it becaue of immigrants landing there, national monuments, and access to the sea :rolleyes:
 
Chicago would never be #1 city. New York will always beat it becaue of immigrants landing there, national monuments, and access to the sea :rolleyes:

These are valid challenges, yes, but none of these things is so important that it cements New York into its #1 status as early as 1860.

Re: Immigrants-- if you were a Polish, Italian, German, or Swedish immigrant (including many others), your best case scenario would be finding away to Chicago. Only the most prosperous immigrants could make it to Chicago where they formed really great communities that were the precursors to the mafia. If there was even a little more incentive/means for immigrants to go to Chicago, vast numbers would pack up and leave without hesitation.

Re: national monuments... I'm pretty sure that DC, Philadelphia and Boston all have more national monuments than New York, and Chicago has kept up with New York in terms of architecture in OTL anyway, with 8 of the country's tallest buildings in Chicago and 7 in New York.

Re: During this era, being the center of the railroad and providing access between east and west was MUCH more important that oceanic trade. It comprised some ridiculous portion of GDP.
 
You're ignoring geography. NYC is a deep water port; Chicago can't be. NYC is icefree; Chicago can't be. IMO, your best option is to have a recognition in the canal-building craze of a need for the *St Lawrence Seaway to be built. That opens the Lakes & puts Chicago on a more even footing with NYC. (How you overcome the banking going to NYC, IDK. This might help.) More canals in the vicinity wouldn't hurt, either. (IIRC, it was Erie Canal that moved NYC to #1, ahead of Philadelphia.)

"White flight" needs to have race issues addressed, & that's even harder. A change to the G.I. Bill is a start. (That also has big, very beneficial butterflies on urban sprawl.) Change the Bill so it offers lo-interest loans for renovations of existing homes in downtowns, rather than just for buying new: the new houses were all built in 'burbs, which suck city centers dry.:eek:

Much of the black pop came North as a result of both the Depression & WW2. If the Depression doesn't happen, that is affected. (It also lessens the cultural importance of Chicago, IMO: a lot of black musicians came north.)

There's another thing you might consider: changing where the movie industry finds its home. Can Chicago offer a break to the very early studio bosses? IDK enough about it, but I've heard California wasn't the first choice. (Good weather yr round was a big help, but...) Moreover, the film biz depends on NYC $$$; if Chicago has $$$, it might be "banker to the stars", if not home of actual filming (tho it can do both; there's a lot of film projects made in Chicago & a strong film community).
 
Chicago was an early capital of film (Along with New York), but I think California pretty much has both beat on climate and diverse terrain for exotic film locations. (It's hard to find something that looks even vaguely like Egypt or the Himalayas in Illinois).

I've got two possibilities:
- Assuming NYC got to its status through an early head start, followed by a positive feedback loop (let's open a bank in New York City because that's where all of the banks are). What if all of the things which makes New York "important" were split up and scattered among other east coast cities: New York might keep it's financial sector, but the fashion and art moves to Boston, east coast Entertainment and Communications moves to Philadelphia, Cargo and Shipping and probably Immigration with them move to Hampton Roads or Baltimore (maybe through some sort of post-Civil War economic reforms in Virginia/Maryland). Later, as Chicago grows larger, and position near shipping lanes becomes less important to some of those industries, it can start to take over almost all of these functions, except for the ocean shipping (which stays in Virginia and leads to Norfolk/Virginia Beach merging and becoming one of the top 10 largest cities -- possibly also butterflying a more prosperous Appalachians as lying on the routes between there and Chicago).
- A very simple scenario: An alt WWII which has east coast cities severely destroyed by firebombing (or even nuked), making it "unsafe" to live in New York, followed by an alternate economic situation which keeps manufacturing and industry in the Great Lakes area going strong and competitive against foreign markets and avoids the development of the Rust Belt. (Heck, while we're at it, have Henry Ford decide to start his factories in Chicago instead of Detroit)
 
Last edited:
Top