The Nicaraguan Canal Instead of The Panama Canal

[Bill Cameron]

I think we're at cross-purposes, here.

PH,

Perhaps we are.

I was presuming the river portions (& no dredging, which I didn't know Y/N on) governed the proposal as stated.

Not exactly. I think part of the problem is that we look focus too narrowly on only one of the size limitation issues; i.e. lock size with Panama and draft with Nicaragua. In all actuality, both lock size and draft are issues in both canals. Panama has draft limitations and the Nicaragua locks would have constrained beams.

... (unless you intend to constantly dredge every point that shallow, which IMO is lunatic).

Lunatic? Hardly. Remember, the Panama canal dredged it's transit rivers from a depth of zero feet to the depth they have now. What would entail less digging? Building a river from scratch or deepening a river that already exists?

(Excavating still goes on at the Panama Canal too. In several areas the "angle of repose" for the surrounding hills has yet to be reached so landslides must be cleared from the transit routes. Silt build up in all areas must also be handled.)

Given less digging, tho, I confess I'm surprised Nicaragua didn't get built, instead. It would've been a great deal easier...

The political "digging" a Nicaraguan canal would require was seen as more of a problem. Among many other things, the Nicaraguan project would have entailed dealing with a pre-existing country while the Panama project "only" required the creation of country. Nicaragua could cause troubles immediately while Panama - which was created solely for the purpose of building the canal - would presumably know better.

It was also believed that portions of the failed French attempts could be as part of the US' project. That didn't work however.


Bill

 

[pacifichistorian]

both lock size and draft are issues in both canals. Panama has draft limitations and the Nicaragua locks would have constrained beams.

No argument, except in a river system it's inbuilt, where the locks could've been any size at the design stage.

Lunatic? Hardly. Remember, the Panama canal dredged it's transit rivers from a depth of zero feet to the depth they have now. What would entail less digging? Building a river from scratch or deepening a river that already exists?

No, continuing to dredge the entire length of a river that isn't of a given depth for the lifetime of the canal (liable to be over a century) is lunatic. Cleaning out silt or landslides's minor by comparison.

The political "digging" a Nicaraguan canal would require was seen as more of a problem. Among many other things, the Nicaraguan project would have entailed dealing with a pre-existing country while the Panama project "only" required the creation of country. Nicaragua could cause troubles immediately while Panama - which was created solely for the purpose of building the canal - would presumably know better.

Noted. I do wonder, tho, if Nicaragua couldn't have been made a state to overcome some of that. IIRC, every nation in CAm tried to join the U.S. at some time in the 19hC...

 

[Bill Cameron]

No, continuing to dredge the entire length of a river that isn't of a given depth for the lifetime of the canal (liable to be over a century) is lunatic. Cleaning out silt or landslides's minor by comparison.

PH,

Lunatic? Hardly. After all, most of the Panama Canal is dredged continually because most of the Panama Canal is not lined with concrete. The landslides only add to the amount of dredging already required. Without the additional worked created by the landslides, the Canal is dredged just as often as any other river that handles ship traffic, which is to say continually.

I've been through the Canal three times. Aside from the locks and their approaches, the Canal resembles a tropical river - a river complete with earthen banks and an earthen bottom. The Canal isn't some giant concrete trough. It's not just some huge version of the Los Angeles "river" or the various aqueducts that feed southern California. The Canal is primarily a man-made river and lake with a series of locks to the north and south(1).

You really should google up some construction information about the Canal so that you can have a firmer grasp of what the Canal actually is and not just what you believe it to be.

I do wonder, tho, if Nicaragua couldn't have been made a state to overcome some of that. IIRC, every nation in CAm tried to join the U.S. at some time in the 19hC...

Not a plausible chance in hell of that happening and for pretty much the same reason Quebec(2) and the Phillipines were never seriously considered for statehood and why more of Mexico wasn't grabbed after the MexAm war: In the racial/ethnic climate of the times, no one wanted to add that many "non-white" Catholics to the US.


Bill

1 - Yes, the Panama Canal runs "north to south" or, more accurately, "northwest-ish to southeast-ish" and not "east to west" like too many presume.

2 - Historians have lately gone back to primary sources to examine the thinking behind the US' invasions of Canada in the Revoluation and War of 1812. This work has revealed a more nuanced view than the usual mindless "ZOMG!!! Amerikkkans wan Canucks for states!!! LULZ!!!" claims that get endlessly repeated. More often, Canada was seen a bargaining chip to use with Britain and not as the "fourteenth colony" or "more states".