WI Erie Canal never built?

[Evan]

What if the New York state legislature never builds the Erie Canal? Suppose DeWitt Clinton, the canal's major promoter, loses his 1817 run for Governor, and thus the canal fails politically. How does that impact the economic development of the Midwest and of New York City?

Does New York lose its OTL singular prominence among American cities? New York will remain the most level route to connect the Midwest and upper East Coast, but if trade's funneled along railways instead of a canal, other ports like Boston and New Haven can compete on more equal terms. Alternatively, the Mississippi trade might become more prominent, which would have very interesting effects on the Civil War. Either way, Chicago would very likely not become as significant a transshipment point.

We've had two threads in the past, but let's discuss it again!

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Western Upstate New York would be far, far different. The underlying evolution and development of the region was heavily influenced by the Erie Canal, and it is still pivotal to regional identity (based on historical identity) today. The Great Lakes still exist, so Buffalo could still develop well. It became the Silicon Valley of the Industrial Evolution; more millionaires per square mile than anywhere in the nation in the latter 19th century; regional water for hydroelectric and steam power and so forth. But it will have a huge and detrimental impact on the other cities and towns, which may well not exist or be much smaller than they are today. Every small town in Western New York would be more likely what the really small towns there are: a town center of a handful of buildings (a church, a fire hall, and maybe one small business, if even a police station) surrounded by vast tracks of farmland. That is what lies in between the canal towns and said towns are only a 10 minute drive from them. In this scenario, that would be the towns, period. That lack of development around Buffalo and Rochester is also going to be detrimental to both cities. There will be a far more limited regional economy and workforce. So you've screwed Western New York worse than winter.

So you've screwed Buffalo, Rochester, Lockport, Spencerport, Brockport (notice all the ports), Palmyra, Syracuse, Albion, Medina, and so on. You've screwed the counties. You've screwed the Rochester and Buffalo Metropolitan Areas. For comparison, Albion and Medina have a population of about 6,000 each. Brockport has a population of over 8,000. Lockport has a population of about 20,000. Barre is a town without a town (all widespread farmland over a wide area, and a small town center) with a population of 2,000. But it is a 5 minute drive from Albion, a 15 minute drive perhaps from Brockport, which are both decently sized. Eagle Harbor is so small it does not even have a population listed for me to reference. The towns in Western New York are going to be Barre without a bigger town nearby at best, or Eagle Harbor at worst, and I lean towards the latter. And to underscore how small these two really small towns are is the fact that you cannot find a photo of them on the internet which shows an overall view of the town, if any photo at all. Which means I cannot even show an example visually to make this point. My comparison from experience is that Western New York would look like Western Pennsylvania today.

I will @Zacoftheaxes as he is from Lockport, but sadly he vanished long ago and I doubt he will reply, but he would have good first hand insight himself.

 

[Md139115]

Which means I cannot even show an example visually to make this point. My comparison from experience is that Western New York would look like Western Pennsylvania today.

And frankly, assuming that some version of the Main Line Canals or the Pennsylvania RR is built ITTL, Western Pennsylvania is going to resemble Western New York today.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

And frankly, assuming that some version of the Main Line Canals or the Pennsylvania RR is built ITTL, Western Pennsylvania is going to resemble Western New York today.

I have my biases against that region from first hand experience. Not the Erie PA metropolitan area. I have not been there. But I have frequented the rural and small town areas between the Atlantic coast and Erie PA in that area south of Western New York. So I shudder at the thought. I will, however, hold off on my hurtful, accurate statements about that area.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I have my biases against that region from first hand experience. Not the Erie PA metropolitan area. I have not been there. But I have frequented the rural and small town areas between the Atlantic coast and Erie PA in that area south of Western New York. So I shudder at the thought. I will, however, hold off on my hurtful, accurate statements about that area.

would love to know your take. I've spent a lot of time in western NY and some in central PA. very little time in western PA. I haven't seen anything that would make one cringe at the region. a rural vs urban difference of preference, perhaps (ie- I dislike cities, and like rural, but that's a personal preference). a lot of the towns are way past their prime (at 57, I'm past my prime, too!), but that's no reason to hate them. I'm curious as to what you have against the region.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I think the effects would be pretty far reaching. The Erie canal proved that a large scale canal project could be achieved and benefit a whole area. Without this template in mind, I think you'll see a lot of push back from states who simply don't want to spend the money and would rather keep taxes low.

 

[Meshakhad]

Suppose DeWitt Clinton, the canal's major promoter, loses his 1817 run for Governor

insert "BUT HER E-MAILS" joke here

 

[Beausoleil]

New Orleans and Montreal would benefit immensely, and wealth would be concentrated even more in Chicago, St Louis, and New Orleans than OTL. This would happen at the expense of New York City. The interior waterways of the US would be even more important than they are today and significant amounts of banking and industry would likely be concentrated in New Orleans and Chicago in an amount that, I think, would dwarf New York.

The frontier West might then be settled sooner, and Southern Europeans might travel to New Orleans earlier than they did to the East Coast IOTL as well, perhaps too in greater numbers given a cultural affinity for their pace of life in the Crescent City.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

... wealth would be concentrated even more in Chicago, St Louis, and New Orleans than OT.

Not Chicago; its early development was driven by lake-borne trade, and the eastern anchor of that trade was Buffalo, because of the Erie Canal.

 

[Evan]

Not Chicago; its early development was driven by lake-borne trade, and the eastern anchor of that trade was Buffalo, because of the Erie Canal.

Yep. Without the Erie Canal, there'd still be something around Chicago; it's the start of a good portage route between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. But, it'd never become anywhere near as prominent as OTL.

 

[Sevarics]

So NOLA and St Louis are the big winners? Does that mean that all the trade and investment on the Mississippi leads to better developed states in the lower TransMississippi ?

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

If the canal is not built, Baltimore and Philadelphia (and maybe Boston?) do not build rail lines, so the relative balance between them remains roughly the same. Everybody's hinterland will be much more limited though. By the 1840's (certainly 1850's), railroads are coming, period. If Maryland or Pennsylvania decide to steal a march on New York (as opposed to just react), the easier route followed by OTL's canal, and (eventually) railroads will allow NY to keep up without trouble.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

would love to know your take. I've spent a lot of time in western NY and some in central PA. very little time in western PA. I haven't seen anything that would make one cringe at the region. a rural vs urban difference of preference, perhaps (ie- I dislike cities, and like rural, but that's a personal preference). a lot of the towns are way past their prime (at 57, I'm past my prime, too!), but that's no reason to hate them. I'm curious as to what you have against the region.

After many years of experience, I find the (limited) area rude in a severe and unique way, so overwhelming and culturally ingrained that I never experienced anything like it anywhere else in my life. And I will leave it at that for Coventry's sake or that of a kicky boot.

 

[Corjomc]

Was there an alternate canal plan for a waterway to New York that wasn't Erie? A canal to somewhere other than New York?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

insert "BUT HER E-MAILS" joke here

He had an unsecured mailbox. It raised a lot of red flags. Not suspicion. I'm talking about the flag on the mailbox.

 

[Beausoleil]

Not Chicago; its early development was driven by lake-borne trade, and the eastern anchor of that trade was Buffalo, because of the Erie Canal.

Fair enough. My thought was that lake-borne trade might still be economical due to its reduction in the distance one would need for road travel to bring goods to port, but I suppose it would just be easier to move goods down the river.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Fair enough. My thought was that lake-borne trade might still be economical due to its reduction in the distance one would need for road travel to bring goods to port, but I suppose it would just be easier to move goods down the river.

The Great Lakes are the better route if the Erie Canal exists. If it doesn't, then shipping them down river is just as cheap for getting them to market.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Was there an alternate canal plan for a waterway to New York that wasn't Erie? A canal to somewhere other than New York?

Not in the US. The Mohawk and Hudson valleys gave easy access to the interior of the continent through the Appalachians/Adirondacks. Lockage was pretty simple, just to keep the water levels in the canals flat while the rivers ran slowly downhill.

Pennsylvania did have a plan that involved canals and all weather roads, but which went over mountains, and would never have been as useful as the Erie was.
Of course, a decade after the canal was built, rail came in, and the same route is prime for a rail road, too. What's called the 'Water Level Route'.

A slightly different history could have the Brits/Canadians building a proto-Seaway on the Great Lakes. The Erie only ever took barges, and the Welland Canal always was able to handle ships. The bit problem was coordinating the canals between Lake Ontario and Montreal with the Welland. A little extra political push and you can have ocean going ships (OK, small ones at first) going all the way to Chicago and Duluth on the same time frame as OTL's Erie, which might end up making the latter uneconomical.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

A little extra political push and you can have ocean going ships (OK, small ones at first) going all the way to Chicago and Duluth on the same time frame as OTL's Erie, which might end up making the latter uneconomical.

The St.Lawrence freezes up for three months every year. I can't find anything on when the Erie Canal froze up, but it would be for a shorter time, being further south.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

2017 Navigation Season

• May 19 to October 11: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

COMMERCIAL SHIPPING
Seaway Opening and Closing Information
The St. Lawrence Seaway's navigation season generally extends from late March to late December.

So, your hypothesis, while it sounds reasonable, is false.

Please note that the canal is, pretty much by definition, still water (not flowing), and is much shallower than the Seaway, and also shallower than earlier versions of e.g. the Welland. That makes the Erie Canal ice up faster than it would otherwise.