The chain of rocks is (i believe) the only major rapids on the mississippi river between minneapolis and new orleans. it was always an impediment to the navigation of larger vessels, and the river borne commerce between st. louis and new orleans far exceeded any fur traders on the missouri. later on, the large victorian riverboats had to unload at st. louis and transfer people/things into the smaller boats that traversed the mississippi up to st. paul and the missouri river. alton (and chicago backed grafton) was established intially as a rival to st. louis just upriver of the confluence, however further downn the illinois side right at the site of the confluence was/is low lying and a bit swampy, and is now the location of a massive oil refinery. (downtown) st. louis sits on a gentle bluff above the reach of spring floodwaters, not too high up but not too low. this was the closest, best spot south of the chain of rocks to establish a mercantile outpost of new orleans.aknowledgeableperson wrote: BTW, I would think St. Louis would have developed at the confluence of the rivers instead of its present site. Any idea why?
there are probably entire books devoted to why cairo didn't become a st. louis, or even an evansville. my mother grew up right across the mississippi river from cairo, and she said that the town still was fairly prosperous and had one of the only sizable jewish populations in the mid-south. today, it's nearly a ghost town. it's sort of like east st. louis without a metropolitan area. the surrounding country is lays very low, and what someone might call "unhealthful" in the 19th century, and certainly very vulnerable to flooding. i imagine that there wasn't that perfect slight rise on the river like cincinnati and st. louis near the confluence of the mississippi and ohio, and it's sort of a (literally) backwater area. it's completely surrounded by levees or floodwalls.pash wrote: The more surprising one to me is why there isn't a major city at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.