Odd to think, isn't it, that more time has elapsed beween the making of Meet Me in St. Louis(1944) and now, than between the year in which the it was filmed and the year in which it was set(1904).
Here's kind of a neat trivial aside: Margaret O'Brien won her 'special Oscar' for that film, only to have it stolen by a member of the household staff a few years later. It was reported to the police, of course, the proper paperwork was filed, but nothing came of it. DECADES later it was found by a memorabilia collector in a flea market (ca 1990) who spied a potential goldmine since it was an Oscar awarded before the recipients were forbidden to sell their statues to anyone except for the Academy and therefore could be resold. However, the paperwork filed by Margaret o'Brien's parents back in the 1940s was still in existence and established, flawlessly, the provenance of the statue as being a stolen object, so after 50+ years she finally got it back.
Another aside- Judy Garland, according to coworkers and what friends she may have had, did not particularly care for Meet Me In St. Louis. She thought the script was weak.
And finally- there is a lame Meet Me In St. Louis clone, Centennial Summer, which you might want to watch ONCE just to see how bad a big budget "feel good" film can make one feel. It was set during the summer of 1876 and the 1876 Phildelphia Exposition and was pretty much the same film- only with a weaker cast, unmemorable songs, and considerably less charm. It may also ahv been done by MGM.