Chicago, Boosterism, and Competing Theories of 19th-Century Urban Growth

1893 Columbian Exposition: Turner unveils his “frontier thesis” ➔ becomes dominant interpretive model for $\approx 50$ years.
Sequential frontier “stages” (a social-evolutionary palimpsest):
- Indian & hunter phase.
- Trader (fur post) as “pathfinder of civilization.”
- Pastoral ranch life.
- Subsistence farmers on unrotated corn & wheat.
- Intensive agriculture in dense farm settlements.
- Manufacturing city & factory system.
Chicago portrayed by Turner as end product—the industrial apex & antithesis of the frontier.
Mechanism of stage-to-stage change left unexplained; assumed “natural,” Darwinian progression that fit 19th-century social-evolution ideas.

Fur trade & treaties of $1833$ contradict “natural” evolution:
- Potawatomi removal = political decision ⁄ organized violence, not spontaneous social progression.
- Chicago leaps directly to urban speculation—no clear pastoral or subsistence-farming interval.
Land craze after $1833$ → sudden population boom; growth premised on future city, not present agriculture.

Context: Easy (yet shaky) credit after Andrew Jackson dismantles Second Bank of the U.S.; economy in expansion phase.
Speculators remap Old Northwest into nearly continuous chains of “suppositious villages & cities” (Joseph Balestier).
- Paper lots in paper towns sell at premium vs. farm acreage.
Chicago River townsite at start of decade ≈ typical “swampy” speculation target.
- River = short, shallow, sluggish; yet best harbor on 250-mile south-Lake-Michigan stretch & adjacent to Great-Lakes/Mississippi divide.
1814 Niles’ Weekly Register envisions canal → “immense commerce” route linking New York & New Orleans.
- 1827 Congress grants land for Illinois & Michigan Canal; 1830 first platting of Chicago lots.

Charles Butler (NY): Aug 1833 buys $\$100{,}000$ worth—≈150 acres ⁄ 1,000 lots—north of river.
William B. Ogden (brother-in-law): arrives $1835$ , calls prices “crazy & visionary,” later converts, becomes Chicago’s first mayor + major railroad investor.
“Diffusive point” rhetoric: Chicago at “head of navigation,” with “back country” to Mississippi “rich beyond calculation.”
Booster enthusiasm conventional; similar claims for many sites (Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo)—most failed.

“Boosters” = speculators, editors, merchants, chambers of commerce crafting coherent theory of urban ⁄ regional growth.
Central idea: City ↔ countryside symbiosis drives western development—opposite of Turner’s frontier-first, city-last order.
Vision becomes self-fulfilling: promotion attracts capital & migrants, materializing prophecy.

Fertile soils, timber, minerals, water-power sites become potential “tributaries” to the city.
Jesup W. Scott: God “properly distributed” minerals & landscapes for trade; Great Lakes designed for maximal commerce reach.

“Nature” picks harbor & corridor locations; maps = persuasive talisman.
William Bross (1880): map proves Chicago’s inevitability.
Chicago claims: lake harbor + canal corridor (not rivers) outweigh rival waterway systems.
- Rival St. Louis boosters (Logan U. Reavis) stress Mississippi/Missouri confluence as divinely ordained trade artery.

Inspired by Alexander von Humboldt; popularized by William Gilpin (ex-CO governor).
- Great civilizations possible only near mean annual $52^\circ\text{F}$ isotherm.
- “Axis of intensity” condenses population → next world city “Centropolis” (near modern Kansas City).
Racialized premise: white “civilized” races thrive only in temperate zones; tropics held to doom progress of “darker” peoples.
Chicago boosters largely ignore climatic mysticism; St. Louis & others invoke when convenient.

S. H. Goodin (“Cincinnati—Its Destiny”): applies Newtonian metaphor $F = G \dfrac{m<em>1 m</em>2}{r^2}$ to migration & trade.
- “Serial law” circles:
1. Small village attracts neighborhood.
2. Larger town draws surrounding villages.
3. City emerges at center of second circle.
4. Forthcoming central metropolis to command existing cities (Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis…) as satellites.
Urbanization = cumulative attraction; civilizing frontier = integrating settlements into this hierarchy.

Belief: marketplace function + population center determine urban destiny; geography channels, doesn’t create it.
Internal commerce > $10\times$ foreign trade; therefore domestic flows build “permanent capital city” of continent.
Doubling-time calculations (c. 1840s):
- Eastern cities: New York, Boston, Philadelphia $\approx 12$ yrs.
- Cincinnati, Toledo $\approx 6$ yrs.
- St. Louis $\approx 4$ yrs.
- Chicago $\approx 3.5$ yrs.
- (Scott omits small-base arithmetic caveat.)
Predicts metropolis near demographic center, on Great Lakes (not rivers) ➔ narrows candidates to Chicago & Toledo; ultimately favors hometown Toledo yet analysis implicitly tilts to Chicago.

Forced Potawatomi migration exposes violence & choice behind “progress,” challenging natural-evolution narratives.
Racial climate theory demonstrates 19th-century scientific racism used to justify territorial expansion & urban supremacy.
Booster rhetoric shows how economic self-interest shapes “destiny” arguments; predictions serve land values & capital recruitment.
Speculative bubbles (1830s crash) reveal systemic risks when urban visions outpace material foundations.

$1833$ treaties expel Potawatomis; Chicago lots surge in value.
Charles Butler: $\$100{,}000$ for 150 acres ➔ 1,000 lots (north side).
Great-Lakes/Mississippi divide canal projected since $1814$ ; federal land grant $1827$ ; platting $1830$ .
Isotherm criterion: $52^\circ\text{F}$ mean annual temperature band.
Internal vs. foreign commerce ratio: >10:1 (Scott).
City doubling times summarized above.

Contrasting Turner vs. boosters foreshadows modern debates in economic geography: path-dependency, agglomeration, & self-fulfilling expectations.
Early speculative mapping prefigures today’s venture-capital narratives around tech hubs.
Canal & railroad lobbying parallels contemporary infrastructure politics and regional competition for logistics corridors.
Demographic-gravity concepts anticipate 20th-century Central-Place Theory & quantitative spatial economics.

Frontier Thesis (Turner)
Boosterism; “natural advantages”
Chicago River harbor; Illinois & Michigan Canal
Charles Butler & William B. Ogden
Jesup W. Scott (Toledo), William Gilpin (Isothermal Zodiac), William Bross (Chicago), Logan U. Reavis (St. Louis), S. H. Goodin (Cincinnati)
“Centropolis,” “serial law,” “axis of intensity”