The Panama Canal and American regard of treaties and a countries sovereignty.

[kiwitt]

I've been reading a book on the History of the world.

From here it says the Senate approved a treaty to the building of the Canal. After much lobbying by "Philippe Bunau-Varilla".

The Columbian Senate rejected the treaty because "... it was harmful to the sovereignty of Great Colombia". and "This situation motivated the United States to promote and support the separation of Panama from Colombia."

"Impatient to build the canal, Roosevelt supported Panama’s independence movement." and according to Factbites a Panamanian uprising was engineered by Philippe Bunau-Varilla (a representative of the New Panama Canal Company), other canal supporters, and some local residents.

"On November 3, 1903, the Isthmus of Panama declared its independence. Fifteen days later, the government of the newly established Republic of Panama and the United States signed the Hay-Bunau Varilla treaty which was based on the same conditions that had the previously rejected by Colombia Herrán-Hay treaty."

While the building of the "Panama Canal" is one of the worlds great wonders and a great economic resource, this piece of history is quite telling in how the US thought of Sovereignity.

i.e. The country with the resource rejects the treaty, create a new country with the resource and negotiate with that one.

[ichi]

As far as I can tell, the facts you stated are true.

But this all happened 100 years ago . . .

yes, things were a little different then, but it could happen today. But a lot of people in the US today would oppose such tactics (of course others would support it).

What's the question again?

ichi

[Pindar]

I don't understand the point of the thread. Is it Panama had no right to rebel? The U.S. shouldn't have supported that rebellion? The U.S. shouldn't have built the Canal? The U.S. is an evil Empire?

[bmolsson]

I don't understand the point of the thread. Is it Panama had no right to rebel? The U.S. shouldn't have supported that rebellion? The U.S. shouldn't have built the Canal? The U.S. is an evil Empire?

The point would be to answer ALL your questions, I believe....

[kiwitt]

I don't understand the point of the thread. Is it Panama had no right to rebel? The U.S. shouldn't have supported that rebellion? The U.S. shouldn't have built the Canal? The U.S. is an evil Empire?

Panama did not rebel on it's own it rebelled because of a US company representative (supported by the US Government), starting it,

I will be reading more of the 20th Century history and looking for other events. I have only got to 1903.

[doc_bean]

I will be reading more of the 20th Century history and looking for other events. I have only got to 1903.

Boy, will you be surprised when you hit 1914

[Beirut]

I read a biography on Teddy Roosevelt and it said the reason he supported Panamanian independence was because the Columbians had agreed to a deal for the Canal but then kept asking for more and more money on the side. Ten to twenty million I think. Roosevelt got pissed off, refused, and did it his way.

[Franconicus]

Did you know that the Americans (maybe Trueman or Eisenhower) even thought to built that channel in the USA? Just to bomb it with nuke through Texas and New Mexico?

[Redleg]

Here is a slightly different verision - of the history of the starting of the Canal.

In 1878 Ferdinand de Lesseps, the French engineer who built the Suez Canal, began to dig a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, which was then part of Colombia. Tropical disease and engineering problems halted construction on the canal, but a French business (the New Panama Canal Company) still held the rights to the project. Roosevelt agreed to pay $40 million for the rights, and he began to negotiate with Colombia for control of the land. He offered $10 million for a fifty-mile strip across the isthmus. Colombia refused.
"We were dealing with a government of irresponsible bandits," Roosevelt stormed. "I was prepared to . . . at once occupy the Isthmus anyhow, and proceed to dig the canal. But I deemed it likely that there would be a revolution in Panama soon."
Biographical info about Osmund Osmundsen, a Norwegian immigrant who worked as a ship rigger during the building of the canal. Includes historical photos Teddy was right. The chief engineer of the New Panama Canal Company organized a local revolt. Roosevelt immediately sent the battleship Nashville and a detachment of marines to Panama to support the new government. The rebels gladly accepted Roosevelt's $10 million offer, and they gave the United States complete control of a ten-mile wide canal zone.
Roosevelt ordered army engineers to start digging. Thousands of workers sweated in the malarial heat. They tore up jungles and cut down mountains. Insects thrived in muddy, stagnant pools. "Mosquitoes get so thick you get a mouthful with every breath," a worker complained. The mosquitoes also carried yellow fever, and many fell victim to the deadly disease before Dr. William Gorgas found a way to stop it.

Steam shovels digging the Panama Canal

Smithsonian Institution's "Make the Dirt Fly" Panama Canal exhibition
Some Americans did not approve of Roosevelt's behavior. "There was much accusation about my having acted in an 'unconstitutional' manner," Teddy shrugged. "I took the isthmus, started the canal, and then left Congress -- not to debate the canal, but to debate me. . . . While the debate goes on, the canal does too; and they are welcome to debate me as long as they wish, provided that we can go on with the canal."

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/joining.html

And then another even more colorful explanation of events - I like this one

When the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Interocéanique failed in December,1888, thousands of French investors lost their money. The word Panama quickly became synonymous with scandal and fraud. About $287,000,000 had been spent. 50,000,000 cubic meters of earth and rock had been moved. 11 miles of canal had been dug. 20,000 men had died. The canal remained unfinished, but the dream had not yet ended. Theodore Roosevelt would soon take up the cause.

Shortly after ascending to the presidency, Roosevelt spoke of the Panama Canal in a speech to Congress. "No single great material work which remains to be undertaken on this continent, "Roosevelt said, "is as of such consequence to the American people."

Roosevelt acted quickly. In 1902, the United States reached an agreement to buy rights to the French canal property and equipment for a sum not to exceed $40 million. The U.S. then began negotiating a Panama treaty with Colombia. The U.S Department of War would direct excavation. Many, both in the press and in the public, sensed a scandal, or, worse yet, good money thrown after bad.


In the New York Journal, William Randolph Hearst opined that "the only way we could secure a satisfactory concession from Colombia would be to go down there, take the contending statesmen by the necks, and hold a batch of them in office long enough to get a contract in mind." Hearst's statement proved prophetic.
When Colombia grew reticent in its negotiations, Roosevelt and Panamanian business interests collaborated on a revolution. The battle for Panama lasted only a few hours. Colombian soldiers in Colón were bribed $50 each to lay down their arms; the U.S.S. Nashville cruised off the Panamanian coast in a show of support. On November 3, 1903, the nation of Panama was born.

The U.S quickly assumed parental interest. Americans had written the Panamanian Constitution in advance; the wife of pro-canal lobbyist Phillipe Bunau-Varilla had sewn the country's first flag. A payment of $10,000,000 secured a canal zone and rights to build. Bunau-Varilla, installed as Panamanian minister to the U.S., signed a treaty favorable to American interests. The $40,000,000 given to J.P Morgan for distribution to French stockholders disappeared amid rumors of larcenous speculation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/tr/panama.html

One must be careful of reading about old history written by modern writers - things get lost in time and are forgotten. Its normally best to read many sources before jumping to any one conclusion.

[Redleg]

Did you know that the Americans (maybe Trueman or Eisenhower) even thought to built that channel in the USA? Just to bomb it with nuke through Texas and New Mexico?

Now that is funny care to provide a source for that rumor.

[Pindar]

Panama did not rebel on it's own it rebelled because of a US company representative (supported by the US Government), starting it,

I will be reading more of the 20th Century history and looking for other events. I have only got to 1903.

I think Redleg's advise is good to consider.

[Redleg]

I think Redleg's advise is good to consider.

How did you like old Teddy's comment of

. "There was much accusation about my having acted in an 'unconstitutional' manner," Teddy shrugged. "I took the isthmus, started the canal, and then left Congress -- not to debate the canal, but to debate me. . . . While the debate goes on, the canal does too; and they are welcome to debate me as long as they wish, provided that we can go on with the canal.

Now that is a classic line.

[discovery1]

Now that is funny care to provide a source for that rumor.

Not in Texas, but in Nicaragua.

http://wais.stanford.edu/ztopics/wee...ocaribbean.htm

Actually, the concept of a nuclear-dug canal in Nicaragua was discussed by the United States in the 60s. I recall studying the matter in high school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A685109

n the 1960s, a sea-level canal between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans was studied. Over 25 routes were examined, with five of them in closer detail:

* Tehuantapec (Mexico) - 125miles
* From Greytown to Salinas Bay (along the border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica) - 140miles
* San Blas (Panama) - 37miles
* From Atrato to Truando (Colombia, close to the Panama border) - 102miles
* Sasardi Morti (Panama) - 46miles

The shortest of these routes would have required more than 100 nuclear explosions. Others would have needed 250 and more bombs with a total yield of around 120Megatons.

[Redleg]

Not in Texas, but in Nicaragua.

http://wais.stanford.edu/ztopics/wee...ocaribbean.htm

Interesting the second paragraph of the first link shows this statement

On the Nicaragua canal specifically, there was never any talk of cutting a new canal through Nicaragua "using the nuclear digging method" for the very simple reason that a Nicaragua canal can be built without any major excavations at all

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A685109

Now this one is better - its about a project that was thought of - tested and then scraped.

[Pindar]

How did you like old Teddy's comment of

Good stuff, very much of the "Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!" tradition.

Such a contrast with the fellow (cursed be his name) who gave the Canal away.

[kiwitt]

One must be careful of reading about old history written by modern writers - things get lost in time and are forgotten. Its normally best to read many sources before jumping to any one conclusion.

... So true ...

Two kids walking past a WW1 WW2 memorial ... says "That must be an earlier version of the WWW"

All I read was.

1) US Senate approved Panama Canal Construction Treaty with Columbia
2) Columbia Rejects Treaty
3) US Supports "Panama Rebels" for independence from Columbia
4) Panama Declares Independence
5) US Signs Panama Treaty with Panama only 15 days later.

You can understand how this series of events can be interpreted. It's a bit too coincidental to be ignored.

I decided to research a bit more on the web on this. I watched a documentary on the "Panama Canal" and could not remember the "Rebels"